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 50.234.188.27 (talk) at 13:58, 12 August 2023 (→‎Dronebogus doesn't like IP editing: Reply). 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

    Civility and possible WP:CAMP issues

    There's been a back and forth about the nature of the Panspermia article on Fringe Theory Noticeboard and the way that it's being presented. Just as some background, since this is pertinent:

    • There are two conceptions of Panspermia. One is undeniably a fringe theory, the other is not and is frequently cited in the scientific literture. I am not a fringe theorist, nor do I hold any beliefs on panspermia outside of the scientific mainstream. I am not someone here upset that my favourite fringe theory is being treated as such. Note that the Pseudo-Panspermia distinction used on Wikipedia is not even close to universally used when publishing, meteoriticists and astrobiologists refer to what Wikipedia calls Pseudo-Panspermia as "Panspermia" regularly, which I provided references for.

    There's a discussion about how the article should present Panspermia as fringe. I've been trying to porvide scientific sources that reference the form of Panspermia which is not fringe as Panspermia instead of Pseudo-Panspermia. Essentially my issue is with the statement "Panspermia is a fringe theory" is it isn't in all forms, just some versions of it are. User User:Hob Gadling responded

    "Took me a while to understand what you were trying to say here. You made it unnecessarily difficult by, for no apparent reason, nowiki-ing the legal term bright line, which I had never heard before, and by using lots of multiple negatives.
    But the brunt seems to be just a repetition of the statement that one obscure science branch you bloat to "the sciences" - uses the word "panspermia" with a different meaning than the rest of the world."

    When they simply rejected any counterevidence, I called out WP:CAMP behaviour not as an explicitly calling out the behaviour of the poster in question, but a sort of unintentional situation that has been created by FTN enforcing a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the scientific understanding. The response I got was hostile:

    "This is so boring, I regret reading it. Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not. This will not lead anywhere."

    Please note that I proposed multiple soltuions and even generally agreed with one of Hob Gadling's proposals. I want to improve this article, I have a pile of sources to do so but it seems that the current state of people's burnout on the FTN is creating ownership issues. If people can't disagree with the FTN's edits, with credible sources, then there's a WP:CAMP issue in my opinion. I don't think this is a real Wikipedia:Tag team issue since I think that the FTN's general tag teaming is probably necessasry to avoid fringe and I dont't think any editors (except the one in question, at this point) are attempting to engage in bad faith. However, a hallmark of tag team behaviour includes:

    Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".

    Which feels pretty much like exactly what's happening here. Either way, feels like a pretty heft civility/bad faith issue. This seems to be a pattern:

    "I don't care for your opinion though, and I do not need it here."

    Warrenmck (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Warrenmck, despite your invocation of WP:CAMP (which is merely an essay), the discussion on FTN looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I see that Hob Gadling ran out of patience, but I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part and I don't think his comments to you are at the level of WP:Incivility. My advice would be to first read through the talk pages (and their archives, if there are any) for Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, as well as discussions of 'panspermia' in the FTN archives, to familiarize yourself with the history on the articles on wikipedia. (Notice how the subject heading at FTN ends with "(again)"?) After catching up on all that's gone before, you'll be better equipped to perhaps propose a solution that addresses your concerns as well as the other editors'. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part"
    Friend:
    :"This is so boring, I regret reading it." Warrenmck (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warrenmck, What good/bad faith means on wikipedia: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. An accusation of bad faith means that you're saying the other person is deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. I don't see evidence of that in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors."
    I don't think this is an active, explicit interest in harming wikipedia. I think this is behaviour which unintentionally does which requires a willful abandonment of civility and critical evaluation of sources. I've been editing for 16 years and would frankly expect to get ANI'd if I acted this way. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not trying to bludgeon the process. Warrenmck (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenmck, there are two topics that bring out the worst in editors who patrol the fringe topics, extraterrestrials (including UFOs), and panspermia. It’s been this way since the Internet was invented. Part of the problem is that the claims themselves are considered extraordinary (I don’t believe general panspermia is extraordinary, but the idea that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere is impossible to prove at this time). The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated. The best advice I can give you is to find a quiet area to work in; perhaps create articles related to the subject with good sources and develop the topic area as best you can. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated.
    Incivility becoming normalized does not make it acceptable. I stand by my decision to post this here, particularly in light of other uncivil behaviour from the poster in question. If WP:FTN regulars can’t avoid burnout and incivility then that’s what either WP:WB or this page are for, but neither I nor anyone attempting to edit in good faith and within the guidelines should be greeted with that kind of response.
    Don’t get me wrong, I would completely understand the distinction in this kind of response if I was trying to push a fringe POV, but that’s not what’s happening here. Warrenmck (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn’t communicate well? I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse? Let me explain by way of a somewhat tortured analogy. If I, a progressive liberal, traveled to the most conservative part of the US wearing a Joe Biden shirt and waving a rainbow flag, do you think that maybe, just maybe, I might be treated a bit harshly, albeit undeservedly? All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening. And there’s nothing you can do about it, just as there’s nothing I can do about being treated unfairly in a red state. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse?"
    No, actually! My exposure to panspermia is entirely professional and I'm essentially unfamiliar with its reputation online. If you checked my profile I'm sure you saw I'm a meteoriticist, a.k.a. the field that's actually publishing on this besides astrobiology. I don't get to claim my expertise as a justification to ignore Wikipedia's rules, I need to play by the same playbook as everyone else, provide the same sources, work to build the same consensus, and treat people with respect.
    If users of WP:FTN cannot engage on a topic in a civil tone, they need to stop engaging on that topic. Plain and simple. I can understand their frustration, I can recognize it, and I can still be here saying I have no interest in accepting it. Incivility is incivility and there's not a huge carveout in the rules around cilility for WP:FTN regulars. I've seen more than a few well intentioned new people (making terrible edits, to be fair) eaten alive by the FTN and this continues to be an issue. There seems to be an attitude that verbally berating people is acceptable for posting fringe content, and that's apparently spilled over to simple content disputes from people who are ostensibly on the same anti-fringe mission.
    "All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening."
    You're potentially describing WP:OWN. They don't have to like Panspermia or discussion around it. If an edit improves the article, is factually accurate, and meets all guidelines for inclusion for a given source then they're free to try to build consensus for why something shouldn't be includeed. I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain this, and I definitely understand their frustration. However, I do not think that being frustrated to the point of incivility because you're puppy-guarding a specific version of an article should be considered acceptable. Warrenmck (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's acceptable because it's house style (bias). Wikipedia has it's own house bias, just like other websites. Is this the first time you're encountering this phenomenon? Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely fail to grasp how that is in any way different from just saying “power users are allowed to act like jerks when frustrated.” Warrenmck (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took panspermia off my watchlist years ago when they did the same to me. I suggest you do the same. You could be the leading researcher in your field and they still won't accept what you have to say. There are various, long-term reasons for this, but it's outside the scope of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, since this is ANI, perhaps we could get the issue addressed at an admin level if this has been going on that long? Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, nothing you can do. The bias was here when Wikipedia first went online. As I said previously, it's a carryover from pre-Wikipedia. This has been going on for a very long time. What I recommend doing is publishing a paper in your field describing the bias and then waiting until it is used as a source in the article. This will be my last comment on this. Pick your battles. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of people from the Indian subcontinent who engage in undisclosed paid editing, but the mind boggles trying to imagine someone being treated with prejudice by a new page patroller due to their nationality, and then being told at a noticeboard that they deserved to be given a hard time because of how many people from there write bad articles. Like, I understand that there are a lot of POV-pushers and grifters who try to use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate deranged views, but there's got to be some limit to how hostile people are allowed to be on the basis of "oh, sorry, you mentioned outer space, so I figured you must be a Scientologist". jp×g 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did this accidentally get posted to the wrong thread? I feel like this reply was intented for the Nazi Flag section above. Warrenmck (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to indent it properly, and probably failed. It was meant for this. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On one hand, this would seem to be a content issue, but looking at the noticeboard discussion, the situation becomes more and more baffling. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my reading, but it looks like Warrenmck (the OP)'s claim is something like this:
    "Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"
    This seems to me like a reasonable enough question. But reading through the thread, the responses are perplexing; basically, the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet, so the Wikipedia article about the word he uses to describe it takes precedence over any other use in scientific publications. Again, let me know if I am missing anything. jp×g 03:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty much essentially correct. Just to be clear about this though:
    "Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"
    Panspermia (bonkers crackpot theory) would undeniably hit WP:NOTABILITY, and the use of pseudo-panspermia is noted in the literature, particularly in astrobiology, but it's far from universally used. "Panspermia" is frequently used in scientific publications without qualification to refer to what wikipedia is calling pseudo-panspermia.
    "the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet"
    Unfortunately he's actually a serious academic, just also someone who said in a paper:
    "The presence of complex organic molecules including the building blocks of life in comets is now amply confirmed; so it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is fully fledged microbial life in comets"
    Which I hope doesn't require a specialist education to see the problem with. It's like saying we found metal in a meteorite so naturally Rodin's The Thinker can be found on chondritic bodies in the Solar System. His notion of panspermia is undeniably fringe, but that fringe definition isn't the one widely used in the field and as someone who is in the metoeritics field myself Wikipedia's elevation of a mathematician's contributions to astrobiology were literally my first exposure to it. I think the conversation above with someone else who gave up on this exact situation years ago makes me think there's a serious WP:OWN issue at play which is manifesting as incivility. Warrenmck (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still do not understand why anyone would write "[[bright line]]" instead of "bright line" or "bright line". It's more work for them as well as for the readers. If you annoy people like that, you can expect them to get annoyed. When I point out that they are making communication difficult, and also point out that the tiny branch of science that looks at life in space is not "the sciences", they start talking about civility, instead of justifying what they did or acknowledging that it could have been done better. Such behaviour is counterproductive for problem solution. Also, boring. They continued in the same vein, making accusations while saying they were not making accusations, which I subsequently pointed out. But, again, pointing out suboptimal communication methods is viewed by the bad communicator as incivil. I have experience with such people - usually, they are not scientists but pseudoscience fans, or maybe lawyers of pseudoscience fans - and I try to avoid them because they want to talk about all sorts of tedious stuff except the actual subject.
    Fred Hoyle is a big name in astronomy, and some people say that if it were not for his panspermia ideas and his silly attacks on biology, including the junkyard tornado misconception and his allegations that Archaeopteryx was fake, he would have been a candidate for the Nobel. The Hoyle meaning of the word, however stupid, has been much more notable over the last decades than whatever astrobiologists do, in my opinion. Biologists still have to fight against that nonsense. A discussion about the exact names of the disambiguation pages would take that into account as well as Warrenmck's quotations from astrobiology. But I cannot see any attempt on their side to find an acceptable solution. Instead of discussing the page names, which could have been interesting, they talk at length about concerted, explicit efforts and then drag me here, both of which is too far down on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to be not boring. I will now avoid this person more actively than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under any reasonable assumption of good faith, a misplaced nowiki tag is almost certainly a typo (the buttons are right next to the edit box), making it rather confusing why you have responded to it with a pointed accusation of deliberate malfeasance on two separate noticeboards. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so there is a button that does that? I do not use those. They are for clickers, I am a typer.
    I really do not know where you got the deliberate malfeasance from.
    When I make a mistake, and someone points it out, I say it was a mistake. I find it extremely weird not to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hob Gadling: I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced and likely not particularly familiar with the myriad aspects of wiki formatting. There is a very good chance Warrenmck had no idea what you were talking about when you said what you said. There's a good chance they still don't know. If they carefully reread and looked at the formatting of their reply, maybe they will figure it out. But I really see no reason why they need to and can easily understand them partly ignoring that part of your reply as something they didn't understand but which didn't seem important (since frankly it wasn't).

    This is a minor mistake which shouldn't matter to anyone, it's trivial for an experienced editor to visit the bright line page. And frankly most editors are likely familiar with the concept to some extent since the bright line aspect of 3RR is something that comes up a lot. Still if for some reason this mistake matters so much to you, you should approach Warrenmck on their talk page and properly explain what you're talking and preferably also why it matters so much to you and they will hopefully take a bit more care in the future.

    Hob Gadling and jp×g. As for how this mistake happened, I think the more likely scenario here is the editor used the 'visual' mode of the reply tool whether by accident, or on purpose without understanding the implications. If you use the visual mode, and type the two square brackers to make a wikilink, it will open a menu for you to make a link. If you ignore this and click back onto the editing field, or x out or probably even in some cases if something goes wrong with your browser and the menu doesn't show, it will keep the two square brackets like so [[ and you can then proceed to make what you may think is wikilink. When you save it will put nowikis around this wikilink attempt.

    See here for an example where I intentionally did that [1] This makes sense since the visual editor isn't intended to be used by typing out wiki code. If you type something that it thinks will be interpreted as wiki code, it may first try to help you by providing a tool for you to add formatting which will appear as formatting in the visual editor. But if you ignore this help and proceed to just put wiki code, it will put nowikis around it.

    It's assuming this is what you want as it's intended to be a just what it says, a visual editor. WYSIWYG, so when you have [[Bright line]] it's what you will get when you save, just that as I manually did it here. The visual editor for editing pages tags edits as being made with the visual editor but the reply tool visual editor apparently does not as my example showed, so I expect there might be no way to know precisely what happened without Warrenmck remembering.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, the only time I ever typed out nowiki was when I made the above reply. I didn't do so in my own talk page I just typed two square brackets then clicked away from the menu that popped up. While I don't use the visual editor myself, adding nowiki tags is a well known feature/bug partly for the reasons I explained but also in the past I think it did so even when it was unneeded. So when the issue of stray nowiki tags came up, I had an aha moment, checked the edit but found no tags but then tested the reply-tool and confirmed that it doesn't seem to tag replies as any different, whatever mode/s you used when composing your reply. And as I expected I was easily able to replicate the nowiki issue by just closing the menu for adding a wikilink and then typing out the rest of my wikilink as normal. Oh and it just occurred to me if you paste a reply into the visual mode of the reply tool with a formatted wikilink, it will likely do this as well. (I'm lazy to check.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You hit the mail on the head, I minimally edit with the visual editor and every now and then just sort of use it because it loads, and have had some slight issues with it, particularly on mobile.
    I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced
    Just to be clear this is a Wikipedia:Clean start mainly to edit under a real name account, I doubt the pipeline for new user to RfCing with twinkle consistently is quite as quick. But experienced users can make mistakes, too. :)
    I mostly ignored the comments on the bright line thing, in addition to some other particular comments made, since civility seemed to be faltering and I’d rather drop something than try and drag it out into some spat. Warrenmck (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find an image for you hit the mail on the head so I had to settle for "mail hit you on the head": [2]. EEng 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation.
    It does not "matter that much" to me. I just intended to mention it once, but, having been dragged here, had to do it again here to explain the situation. I was not aware that this is such an inexperienced user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature comic relief

    • Just to point out that the FTN discussion linked [3] at the top of this thread contains the unfortunate choice of words trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. And for those who don't believe in lightning striking twice in one discussion, above we've got conceptions of Panspermia. Oy vey. EEng 08:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was pinged here. My quick impression is that there is nothing going on that requires admin action. EEng, does this have something to do with sperm? (Don't answer that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's organize a seminar on the subject. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be showing proper spunk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Normal discussion resumes

    • Wouldn't the easiest way to resolve this be having two separate articles using disambiguation. The disagreement seems to come down to the naming of the Pseudo-panspermia, and Panspermia articles. Opening a move discussion on renaming the articles, with disambiguation to separate the two articles. As the most common usage is the pseudoscience nonsense, but the common scientific usage is the hypothesis this would seem to be the way to resolve the issue. I don't believe everyone's behaviour has been perfect in the discussion, but it doesn't seem to meet the standard of incivility that would require any form of sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This seems like the most reasonable way forward, but would likely require an RfC. And honestly, given the sheer glut of pseudoscience around panspermia, it would be an ugly one.
      Probably what we need is to swap the two articles: Psuedo-panspermia becomes the Panspermia article, while the current Panspermia article is moved to Panspermia (fringe theory) or something similar. But I expect any RfC around that to be a bit of a fight, as people have PTSD from literal decades of dealing with the pseudoscience variant being pushed both here & on various other sites. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage, so either the main article should be about the conspiracy theory or both articles should have disambiguation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      “ The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage”
      I don’t think this is blanket true, and we should all be cautious of extrapolating how often we hear a specific term and what our bubbles are. I unfortunately think the reality is that WP:COMMONNAME applies to both, and the article needs to either reflect that or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory), because there is not an easy case that Pseudo-Panspermia is the common name of that idea. This is why I thought the disambiguation page was a decent idea, despite accusations I wasn’t willing to engage in discussions about solutions. Warrenmck (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)", or similar. The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When that is being pushed to IDHT levels. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble"
      Undeniably, but I think that there's no easy way of evaluating whose bubble is more or less valid. My bigger concern comes over using Pseudo-Panspermia to refer to what the literature often calls Panspermia, but we're really getting into the content discussion here and I don't have any strong disagreements with any proposals, we just never even got to the point of evaluating the facts since things were shut down pretty hard.
      "You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"
      I think this is what I said? I may be misunderstanding you, sorry:
      "or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)" Warrenmck (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well you definitely appear to be misunderstanding. I might agree pseudo-panspemia is wrong, but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic. Ignoring that many editors have said the same thing is not a content issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic"
      Sorry, I think I'm clear on what you're saying now. As I said, I didn't get too far into the content discussion of how to approach it considering the brick wall. I obviously disagree vehemently with the quoted line above considering the huge number of scientific publications that refer to Panspermia without the pseudo- qualifier, but I don't really have a verifiable way of demonstrating which common use term is more accepted. I think the real answer is there isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME in the way we'd both like, as most people have simply never heard of Panspermia at all. The common name depends entirely on which bubble you've approached Panspermia from, as far as I can tell (see: the "surely you're familiar with how Panspermia is percieved online" comments). Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry I think I missed the distinction you were drawing between
      "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"
      and what I suggested
      "Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)"
      I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear. Warrenmck (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference is that there isn't a clear primary topic, so both articles require disambiguation. This was, again, my whole point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No argument from me on that, sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Warrenmck (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Another possibility (which I am virtually certain would be roundly rejected because of the history here, but which I think might actually be the one that makes the most sense under policy) would be to merge the two articles. The two theories have a conjoined history, equal claim to the term as a matter of historical usage, and shared physical mechanics--and neither is anywhere near large enough to trigger a forced SUMMARYSTYLE spin-off. I think ti probably makes the most sense to discuss the evolution and relative levels of acceptance of both concepts together. But again, for practical reasons involving the history of the dispute, it's probably a non-starter of an idea. SnowRise let's rap 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That being the case, and following the model proposed above, how about a DAB at Panspermia, with a robust 2-4 sentence description, and then the daughter articles being Panspermia (organic compounds) and Panspermia (microbial); an awfully clunky and atypical (if not outright confusing) way to label these concepts (the first in particular), which is why I lean towards the combined article, but if we're going to use this three-part organizational scheme, I don't know what other terms could be more appropriate or precise. SnowRise let's rap 01:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To get very nerdy with it, I think in advance that specific delineation would result in multiple years of edit warring over Allan Hills 84001. Warrenmck (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories. That's a plausible claim, and consistent with my own perception of FTN. Really, I question whether in 2023 we still need it. Anti-fringe thinking has been thoroughly integrated into the communal ethos, much more than it was in 2007, and FTN procures a lopsided sampling of people who favor the most maximal interpretations of related policies, sometimes (perhaps as here) to a fault. (True of all single-issue noticeboards, but we collectively do a much better job handling fringe issues than we do with NPOV, BLP, etc.) But that's another issue for another day. No one did anything sanctionable here IMO. If Warren wants to merge the articles, he should propose a merger. The closer of that request should be wary of any arguments, from either side, of "that's how I always hear this term used", instead looking to empirical evidence of how sources treat the topic(s). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ”So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories.”
      This, and that greeting counter-evidence with “this is boring, I regret reading it” is not civil and that attitude has no place on a noticeboard. How can I improve an article if those puppy guarding it refuse to evaluate evidence (which meets all standards for inclusion) because it counters their crystallized notion of a term? If my sources are dismissed out of hand by those who would instantly revert any changes I make, then my incentive to improve the article is pretty low, which is why I referenced WP:GANG. Like I’ve said, I can recognize the burnout, but above in this ANI thread is someone who unfollowed the same article in question years ago due to this behaviour and I already bowed out of trying to actually revise this because I think it’s going to be a huge cluster given the history and, frankly, the lack of concern from admins at some of the behaviour displayed.
      I’m not trying to bludgeon the process, and I’m sorry if I come across as doing so here, I just can’t imagine wanting to spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia in a field I am familiar with if there’s essentially going to be a cadre of power users are simply going to shut down discussion.
      I maintain that if FTN users can’t engage with civility due to burnout the solution is a wikibreak, not tolerating burnout manifesting poorly, and there does seem to be a lot of that explicitly going on. In all my time editing on Wikipedia I don’t think I’ve every just said “This is boring and I regret reading your contribution.” Sometimes I may not reply, but I don’t try to Molotov a discussion. For the same reason I never fear WP:BOOMERANG, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and Wikipedia is better without it, even if it’s from me. Warrenmck (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin and others here: over the last couple of years, I've started to become concerned that FTN has developed into the Lupus of en.Wikipedia--based in mechanisms that serve an important function in protecting our content from certain kinds of infection and thereby maintaining the health of the project, but increasingly this methodology for applying those mechanics is becoming unrestrained by necessary limiters, and as a consequence is starting to become an issue in its own right.
      It's gotten to the point where I won't recommend it to newer editors in conflicts over edge case fringe content, but only for instances where I am absolutely certain policy does not allow the disputed content, because it is a terrible place for discussion or dispute resolution, but a reliable place to get extra !votes to keep fringe content out. But that's the exact nature of the problem that has developed there: it has essentially become a place for editors working in content areas with inordinately high levels of psuedoscience, crank concepts, products, or treatments, and fringe social theories to gather together and call on one-another for support.
      Now, that might sound to some like not such a bad thing, but the issue is that it has essentially allowed a semi-tight cadre of editors to be at one-another's call without running afoul of WP:CANVAS. Further, it encourages a certain degree of group think; even when non-regulars bring matters there, it's extremely rare to see a high degree of disagreement: the ostensibly non-mainstream view is always going to get piled on. This sense of belonging on the right side of the battle against misinformation while enjoying reliable support has also lead to some tonal issues, from what I have seen: the dismissiveness bordering on hostility that has been alluded to above is something I have seen myself in other cases and has bothered me even though I tend to align strongly with the consensus when I have followed discussions there.
      About the only part I disagree with Tamzin about is whether we should necessarily wait until another day to start addressing the issues that have taken root at FTN and, indeed, the question of whether it has outlived it's usefulness-to-issues threshold. SnowRise let's rap 23:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not a regular at FTN, but I would disagree that is has outlived it's usefulness because anti-fringe thinking has become part of communal etjos. In fact the last few years appear to show the exact opposite, with fringe becoming more normalised in certain communities and counties. The discussion of canvasing is also the same as concerns over projects that have been rejected elsewhere. If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Etjos isn't a word, but it really should be. Not sure for what. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it."
    Maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time we closed down a process or space because the manner of resolving issues had gotten unruly and impractical. And we can't just conjure newer, fresher volunteers from thin air. The thing is, FTN has always been the odd duck out when it comes to our noticeboards: it's the only one which is content subject-specific; every other one of our dozens of boards is focused on a particular type of issue, behaviour, or process. Only FTN is concerned with a certain (albeit quite broad) area of content. So it's the only one set up to accrue a cohort of specific contributors with similar outlooks who can routinely form ranks together to push a specific POV. Even considering that the subject matter in question is an expansive and somewhat unique one like fringe theories, I question whether it is really an appropriate function for a notice board.
    I don't think Tamzin was suggesting that fringe concepts (or their impacts on our work) have gotten any less prevalent, but rather that our policies surrounding it have tightened considerably since the mid 2000s, and we have pretty robust means for dealing with these kinds of issues without forwarding them to a subject-specific board where the received wisdom on (and willingness to entertain new thoughts and approaches, or even truly open discussion for) certain topics gets stagnate or even stigmatized. Almost every issue that gets taken to FTN could probably as (or more) easily be addressed through an RfC, which would bring in just as much outside perspective, and a higher percentage of it would be from editors without possibly already entrenched perspectives. Truly repetitive or tendentious issues surrounding POV pushing in fringe areas could still be brought here, and broad changes to reading or interpretation to relevant guidelines to the village pump, same as how it works for every other subject area. And really, those issues often have to be passed here from FTN as it stands anyway.
    I think it's worth considering: FTN's reputation for generating heat versus solutions has been growing for a while, and I don't think I'm the only editor/community member that happens to consider themselves strongly philosophically aligned with the concept of empirical skepticism who nevertheless finds the attitudes and behaviours there become increasingly walled garden and even territorial, for at least some subjects. SnowRise let's rap 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

    For months now, WMrapids has repeatedly casted asperstions against me and other editors:

    To provide some context: editorial dispute with the user started after I proposed a move discussion at the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. After the discussion was closed with an outcome they opposed, they started similar move proposals in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and Operation Gideon (2020) articles on 24 May, two hours after the first move was closed. The discussions turned quite long and sour, in good part due to the controversial nature of the topics. In the latter discussion, I cited several Venezuelan media outlets and the WikiProject essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources (WP:VENRS). WMrapids would later proceed to describe said outlets as "pro-opposition" in both the essay and the outlets articles, and my opposition to the changes has been the main reason for the accusations.

    In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of WP:OWN at least 6 times ([4][5][6][7][8][9]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([10][11][12][13]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([28][29]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [30], and whatever this is: "You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...", which seems to be an accusation of meatpuppetry. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([31]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics (Xtools), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

    In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically User:ReyHahn and User:Kingsif. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([32][33]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([34]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([35][36]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([37]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS), which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received.

    Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [38][39][40] [41], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([42]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([43]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

    I've tried withdrawing from some of the articles hoping that the situation could improve, but I can see with the opening of the last RfC this is not the case. Since two days have passed since I requested the editor to strike the latest aspersions and they have continued to edit, I assume this was also ignored, which is why I'm opening this thread. I think it's important to address these issues before there's further escalation and attacks against me continue. As I have mentioned before, if there are any issues regarding my own behavior, they should be addressed through direct discussion or in a noticeboard in the worst case scenario, not as the opening statement for a new request for comment. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([44][45]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([46]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which can then be used to slant reliability discussions (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline: (I declare myself to be friends with anyone who offers me an arepa).

    I’ve been watching this trainwreck, including the frequent personalization by WMrapids listed above (and including one aimed at me) unfold via the proliferation of poorly presented RFCs.

    The best I can tell, WMrapids had never edited Venezuelan content until they had a disagreement with NoonIcarus and began engaging in what looks like pointy editing.

    • "including one aimed at me"
      • Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
    • "oddly does not ping WP:PERU"
      • The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
    • "Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"
    • "WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"
      • Again, the projects should be notified via template.
    • "7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"
      • After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.
    WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Case study

    (Aside: the WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So, this is one example of what NoonIcarus has been dealing with to address WMrapid's biased editing. I stopped at that point.

    I know ANI can’t resolve content disputes, but we should be able to recognize disruption and tendentious editing when it comes in the form of bias combined with frequent personalization of issues. And WMrapids' focus on labeling people or outlets as "pro-opposition" demonstrates another kind of bias; I can't imagine labeling Democrats "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Trump administration, or Republicans "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Biden administration. Or saying that someone "opposes the US government" when they oppose one administration's policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been La Patilla, Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela), as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP, as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got.
    But according to The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and just about everyone else (sample 1, sample 2 but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term "opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government. So do WP:GREL sources, including BBC (see WP:RSP), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using WP:RS to place verifiable content on the project is one of the most basic processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a false equivalence of the Venezuelan opposition and political opposition in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as WP:GREL sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the political polarization that exists in Venezuela, but as International Media Support writes, "Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution." WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"
      • It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable WP:NOTABILITY. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
    • "7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"
      • The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is WP:PUFF.
    • "WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."
    • 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
    • "18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"
      • Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
    • "And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"
      • This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.
    Some of these accusations against me seem to be WP:POT. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Nelson Bocaranda--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is even more fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). Even if you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist.
    Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how you want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use ad hominems against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is very unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The Nelson Bocaranda article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and expanding it greatly recently, there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; all of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were cherrypicking, attempting to illustrate a point, libel or to canvass, etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "colleagues" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is WP:PUFF, plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ad hominem. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. Even with access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with Nelson Bocaranda when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted.
    Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", BLP policy applies to all living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs).
    Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; removing a national prize for journalism from the article, while sticking your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead, and expanding the article based on a blog source to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP vios continue

    See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

    I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at WP:AN and at WP:RSN,[50] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I pointed out the first BLP issue, and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down (ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs), WMrapids returned to Nelson Bocaranda to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see points 3 and 6 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For concerns about my edits regarding WP:BLP, please see that I successfully advocated for the page protection of an article about a child who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. WMrapids (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. Kingsif (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", Lil Tay is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    NoonIcarus has been been performing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits for years and this will be properly outlined in an extensive ANI report that I will subsequently begin myself. Though we have had issues with edits, I have attempted to work with them to determine a consensus across a multitude of articles throughout the project. Both of our actions have perhaps been unhelpful at times and I will admit that I fell for WP:BAIT on occasion. This can be seen when NoonIcarus first attempted to bring me to an administrator noticeboard over alleged edit warring on July 19 in which @Bbb23: said we both needed to improve our behavior. After this, I attempted to extend an olive branch on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) the same day, saying "Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon", hoping that we could collaborate on finding a better article title for Operation Gideon (2020) (its title is almost universally opposed). Before I could make my proposal, NoonIcarus made their own proposal (which had already been rejected before) while I was drafting my own (which I had already told them I was doing).

    Observing this behavior, it seemed that NoonIcarus was intentionally attempting to block my edits and proposals before they had even occurred, showing WP:HOUNDING. So I continued editing as I had in the past. The main concern I had with Venezuela-related articles was that though government sources were described as unreliable and partisan (as it should be), opposition sources were not described the same way despite reliable sources describing the two parties in the same manner. This was obvious in WP:VENRS, so I opened a discussion about the issues on WP:RSN in order to establish a more broad consensus. In the replies @ActivelyDisinterested: suggested that if I had issues with NoonIcarus, that I open an ANI myself. I replied, saying "Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project." Upon seeing this, NoonIcarus opened their own ANI in a similar manner to what occurred with the Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) move proposal (mentioned above), apparently trying to jump the gun with an ANI, though I had no intention on opening one. Seeing this behavior from NoonIcarus was truly disheartening as I showed before, I was attempting to bury the hatchet with them, though they seem to have taken things too personal.--WMrapids (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Also, I would like to specify that none of my descriptions of NoonIcarus' behavior were in any attempt to personally attack the user, it was to describe editing behavior plainly and call it how it was. Maybe I could have been more WP:CIVIL, but it seems like the user would have taken my edits personal either way. Ultimately other users can interpret my behavior however they like, though it should be known that my edits were to protect the integrity of the project, not to attack a single user who I had attempted to make peace with.--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I'll be clear on this, hoping the comment won't be long: I opened this thread because you casted aspersions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS RfC, cut and dried. This has been a persistent issue that I have warned you about and before coming here and I specifically asked you to strike the accusations, which you have not done. If I have attempted to avoid further content disputes for the time being (Operation Gideon and outlets articles), but the aspersions have continued in the form of yet another request for comment, it begs the question: when will it stop? Addressing the issue here is a first step, and withdrawing your accusations for the RfC is still pretty much an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking that I will open an ANI. There is no need for it as previous users have said that we are both responsible for these disputes, so I won't add on to the fire. My interest in Venezuela-related articles was limited to the reliability of sources after there were concerns related to Peruvian topics. I seek to distance myself from both topics in the future as they were not why I initially began my editing.--WMrapids (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

    I was going to try and ignore this discussion, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. WMrapids has an issue with WP:VENRS, as can been seen from the many discussions on its talk page, and that's fine. Editors are allowed to disagree with each other, but project do as a normal activity maintain such lists. As I said at VENRS (in an RFC that isnyet to be closed), and reiterated at RSN, the lists are fine as long as the project does try to maintain them against a higher level of consenus. So if you have a problem with the way a source is discribed bring it to RSN, this is what happened with La Patilla (the close of which is currently at AN). There seems to be two problems, first is that WMrapids is raising questions and multiple RFC without waiting for the final consenus. This has left a confusing trails of discussions without any clear consenuses, I feel WMrapids needs to slow down and allow the processes to finish before starting a new discussion. The second problem is the one under discussion here, my comment at RSN (mentioned by WMrapids above) over aspersions of WP:OWN could have been stronger but I was hoping to softly direct rather than bludgeon. I suggest that WMrapids strike all such comments that NoonIcarus has objected to at VENRS and RSN, simply as neither is an appropriate forum for such discussions and as a sign of good faith. If they then won't to bring those accusations here, with diffs showing prove, they should do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. WMrapids (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see here and here). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. WMrapids (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that before you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who Nelson Bocaranda is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest WP:BLUDGEON, and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick comment

    Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:

    • We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
    • The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is Kingsif (talk · contribs). However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

    Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.
    "the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did.
    Based on what I've seen at Nelson Bocaranda in only three days of engagement, essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research, so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

    As suggested earlier, the VENRS page is largely owned by one editor. At times, their view about NPOV with respect to Venezuela has conflicted with that of other editors. On VENRS, there is often no attempt to justify the categorisation of the listed sources. The problem would be solved if Noonicarus hosted the VENRS content on their own talk page so that they would not be bothered by other editors with different views changing the content of the page. It would also stop them using their essay as a justification for "Removing unreliable source per WP:VENRS".

    Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article Juan Andrés Mejía containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[51] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[52]

    You may also be interested in Noonicarus’ use of Caracas Chronicles as a source. Here is the list:

    Poverty in South America [53], Economy of Venezuela [54], Cine Mestizo [55], Greg Abbott [56] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D. C.. Rafael Osío Cabrices in Caracas Chronicles compared his tactics to Aleksander Lukashenko's, who provoked a migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border as a reprisal to criticism, and Fidel Castro's, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 Mariel boatlift and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [57], 2021 Apure clashes [58] [59], Special Action Forces [60], Crisis in Venezuela [61] [62], Venezuelan presidential crisis [63]

    Btw, I am not saying either you or Noonicarus did anything specially egregious by using CC. I only mentioned it because you introduced the subject with respect to WMRapids. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Burrobert: Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain WP:CIVILITY and if we have disagreements, seek WP:CONSENSUS before plowing ahead. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.
    • Juan Andrés Mejía has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
    • In this diff, where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems we're now talking about two issues, so let's try to tease them apart and see what we can say about each. With regard to WMrapids' conduct that lead to this discussion, they seem to have made a substantial (if somewhat protracted) mea culpa above: they have struck some content, made apologies for others, indicated an intent to take feedback on board and revise their approach to certain issues, and said they have no particular attachment to the topic area where the issues giving rise to this report arose and that they are looking to exit involvement there. It does seem to me, based on a reading of the above and a superficial follow up on the diffs, that their conduct did cross the line and was moving towards tendentious. But at the moment I'm not sure what more is to be done in light of their responses: they've done more than enough to justify an extension of WP:ROPE in my opinion. Does anyone substantially disagree with that, or can we say that part of the discussion is resolved with, if not exactly complete satisfaction to those who were on the receiving end of the aspersions, at least enough to let the matter go with the hope of real change from WMr?
    The second issue is VENRS. This is nuanced. VENRS is undeniably an WP:Advice page and an WP:essay, as I am happy to see it has been correctly labelled (which does not always happen with WikiProject issue-specific recommendations). Policy is very clear on this and came out of major community discussions and ArbCom cases where the WikiProject cohorts attempted to apply their idiosyncratic, non-community-vetted 'guidelines' to every article they perceived to be in their purview: it is not permissible or helpful to cite such advice page guidance like policy, and can often be viewed as WP:disruptive if pushed in certain ways. Anyone who has so much as cited VENRS in an edit summary in order to justify a possibly controversial addition or removal of content probably will want to rethink that perspective and habit, since (again, per the relevant policy) this 'guidance' has no more effect than the opinion of a single editor. Anyone who has gone further to try to leverage VENRS to justify an edit in an edit war or to try to shut down discussion on a talk page or bootstrap their personal opinion with the "consensus" of VENRS (and I don't know if that has in fact happened) has definitely stepped into problematic territory.
    Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? SnowRise let's rap 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is still not understanding days in to this discussion. At the NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source for a BLP described by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate WP:BRD on the article itself and attempt to shift WP:ONUS in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. SnowRise let's rap 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it takes me ten posts to make one. :)
    It doesn't help that I have to digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability in relation to BLPs.
    The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at #Case study and #BLP vios continue date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Ed instructor not engaging with community concerns

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

    As is clear from this EDUN discussion (Permalink), despite having taught 23 Wiki Ed courses, Berrgmanucsd's students have consistently produced subpar output, demonstrating clear failures to understand basic principles of article writing like the need for independent sources. Concerns were raised in 2019 and Wiki Ed staffers assured the community that measures would be taken to ensure that the problems stopped. Evidently, they haven't, and Bergmanucsd's sole contributions since concerns were re-raised in July 2023 have been to delete a chunk of the initial complaint, and to continue moving problematic student work into mainspace.

    For the prior reasons, and as I previously stated in the EDUN thread, I am proposing that the community ban Bergmanucsd from teaching further Wiki Ed courses. Alternatively, if an uninvolved admin wants to step in and indefinitely block on WP:ENGAGE grounds, I think that would be a much lower-bureaucracy resolution at this time, and any question of teaching courses can come after a successful unblock request. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message at their talk. Further action might occur if there is no response within a short period. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as I have been now for 6 years. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) in a discussion about your perceived engagement, an acknowledgement that doesn't acknowledge anything is pretty... brave. SN54129 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m afraid that we’re past “brainstorming” here. You need to demonstrate that you understand the problems with both your past courses’ contributions and your own failure to communicate about them when concerns were raised. signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I, like you, am not in control of other wikipedians contributions. I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. WikiEdu's training is something that they have control over. I assign my students ALL the lessons available. If students do not complete the lessons, they do not receive full points for the assignment in my course. As it relates to their actual contributions, if they rely to heavily on a single course, the grade they receive will not be full credit. In my capacaity as an instructor, my role is to model best practicies, ensure they are aware of the policies of Wikipedia (through the WikiEdu portal and trainings), and then assess them. I'm not sure what else you'd like for me to do. The WikiEdu portal would need to be changed for this to happen. All of this has been documented in my communications with WikiEdu. If you require furhter information, then I would suggest you ask for greater access to their records and actions they take to improve the program. On my end, I can only access what I see as well. As always, thank you for your multiple messages while I was on vacation. Now that I am back, I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. Actually, you do have the power to edit these pages. In fact you have a responsibility to do so as the person in charge of these student editors. That you don't understand this is the root of the problem here. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a conflict here, with the same page trying to serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a piece of coursework? If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability. It's hard for one page to do both jobs simultaneously, and the encyclopedia has to take priority. Certes (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my personal opinion, this is a problem with using Wikipedia in teaching in general. There are ways to use Wikipedia as part of a course that don't result in this dilemma (for an instructor, the course/students really ought to take priority! so your assignments should avoid putting the two aims in conflict). -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should surely to navigate ways around this, such as establishing that coursework should be conducted purely in the sandbox and only be migrated/copied to mainspace upon the nod and approval of the instructor? And then be checked again in mainspace? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Certes "If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability." But if you correct it on Wikipedia, it's still there as a record of your (lack of) abilityl - that's why we have the history and contributions publicly visible. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a former educator though not with WikiEdu, while Bergmanucsd certainly has the editorial power to edit those pages, same as any other editor, it would be inappropriate to do so directly as a teacher. While you can certainly provide feedback on a student's work and even suggestions for how to approach or solve a particular problem, typically at any point up to the final submission, it is wholly inappropriate for a teacher to directly edit a student's piece of work. As a teacher your goal is to impart knowledge so that the student can do the work, not to do the work of the student for them.
    What I can't see on wiki though is Bergmanucsd giving any feedback to his students. Perhaps that is something that is happening off wiki, whether in the classroom or through the WikiEdu portal. Going forward it might be helpful to editors who are active on pages that WikiEdu use as part of their courses to be able to at least see the feedback being given to the student, as that might make it easier to identify whether this is a student cohort problem, or a class/course provider problem. Right now as a non WikiEdu editor, I don't see any obvious or easy way to tell if a student is being given wrong or misleading advice or information as part of what should be an ongoing course feedback loop between the teacher and student. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A Wikipedia article isn't the student's work. The edits are the student's work. No one can edit the edits -- the diffs remain -- but if a teacher edits an article to fix a mistake their student made, that is not changing the student's piece of work, it's changing a Wikipedia article. There's nothing inappropriate about it. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit stunned by this response given that you are quite obviously aware of your ability to edit other wikipedia editors' contributions - you removed a part of the initial post on WP:EDUN that you found objectionable. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This also doesn't explain why you chose to move patently unready articles like Draft:Iraq and the World Bank or Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund to main space. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This behavior I will refrain from in the future. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to interpret this as "I don't have any control over anyone else's edits", which is true; everyone can make whatever edits they want. But when you went on to say you couldn't edit anyone else's contributions, you kind of lost me. @Bergmanucsd, are you aware that all of us here, not only everyone in this discussion but everyone in the world, can edit anyone else's contributions? Literally everyone in this discussion can edit anything that isn't fully protected from editing, which is a minuscule portion of pages, and hundreds can edit even those. You can edit anything that isn't fully protected, too.
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to get at? Valereee (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am aware that everyone in the world can edit any page. What I meant to say is that I can't put my name on the edits or specific contributions of my students, only after they have been posted. Maybe I was misinterpreting some of the comments, but it seemed as if editors were asking me to make changes to what students post. As I mentioned above, the course structure does require students to acknowledge that several aspects of their contribution conform to wikipedia standards. If they claim it does and publish it, that's on them. And edits should be made on their contributions and discussions on their talk pages to remind them of the wikipedia standards. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's very much also on you, since you are the reason they are editing wikipedia in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd:, you wrote: I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes... Co-signing what other have told you that yes, you do and you have a responsibility to keep an eye on them and minimize or reverse the damage they do. Instructors and students who turn up once or twice a year to dump these inferior drafts, and often edit-war over them, are harming the project. I think we need to treat them the same way we do any other user who disrupts. As some of them have done this repeatedly, they should know better than a new disruptive user. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm kinda concerned about the seeming lack of communication. That said, after looking through various things for Wiki ed (including Wikipedia:Assignments_for_student_editors#Advice_for_instructors), I think maybe having a set guideline might be nice to give everyone more of a sense about where they stand in regards to accountability. I don't think it necessarily needs to be anything as strict as WP:ADMINACCT, but at least the same thing we ask of discussion closers - that they at least should respond to an initial request for clarification when asked. This shouldn't require an AN/I post every time. - jc37 06:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging Brianda, and Ian for their thoughts. - jc37 06:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging User:Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Education), Frank Schulenburg, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Liannadavis - jc37 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37 In the area I edit, WikiEd has provided ample materials, which apparently the instructors don't access or teach. I agree that perhaps more on instructor accountability might help (particularly in a case like this one where the instructor is coming off as blaming WikiEd and being combative).
    But anyone concerned about WikiEd's materials or lack thereof should know some history. While the WMF was quite happy to promote, advertise, and piggy back on the very limited successes in 2008 of Jbmurray and Awadewit with generating student-edited FAs with considerable use of resources (meaning time from numerous FA regulars to get the articles promoted), WMF has since provide insufficient funding for WikiEd, which even resulted in layoffs some years back. WMF will not devote the necessary resources to addressing these issues, and that is the direction anyone who is concerned about student editing might focus. We can't ask more of WikiEd if WMF is unwilling to give them enough resources to make encounters with student editing less tiresome for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this would be helpful.
    As I have mentioned to the WikiEd staff through my collaboration with them for 6 years, I am available to brainstorm ways of how to improve their training and overall programming. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we are available to respond to non-copy pasted comments, if you'll give us that courtesy Bergmanucsd. You have been asked to engage; I recommend doing that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be patient. My read on things is that the instructors may not be as wiki-fluent in the back-project processes as you or I might be. Please let's give everyone some time to work this out. - jc37 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd can you explain why you chose to remove part of Rosguill's complaint as your opening action in the discussions? I would also like both Bergmanucsd and Brianda/Ian to lay out what actual concrete steps got taken in 2018 and 2019 to resolve these issues. As a more general point, while instructors obviously don't need to be back-end savvy in the way that we are, I do expect them to be more responsive to concerns than the average editor because of the nature of their role. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed my non-Wikipedia name Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd, FWIW, your full name is publicly displayed at Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/IPE_Money_and_Finance_IMF_WB_2023_(Summer_2023). If you are concerned for your privacy, and want to edit outside of your courses, you may wish to open a second account for your own editing. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that googling "Bergman UCSD" gets us immediately to your non-wikipedia name. If you're worried about your name being on Wikipedia I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, since anything I can come up with is a real "closing the barn door after the horses escaped" kind of solution. At any rate, I would warn you against following Valereee's suggestion and starting a new account until this ANI discussion is resolved, so that you don't look like you're trying to evade some kind of consequence or to create a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe this explanation. You also unnecessarily removed a full paragraph the entire sentence along with it, and you seem to have no problem linking to 23 pages which prominently list your name on your user page. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill, I only see the removal of a single sentence, am I missing something? Here's the diff I'm looking at: [64] -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, I misremembered the length of the text in question and have corrected my comment. Thanks for the ping. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do actually find it believable from someone who may not realize everything onwiki is public and even if removed is visible in history unless oversighted. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're correct, that's very worrying. Either this prof has misunderstood something in WikiEdu's materials or WikiEdu isn't sufficiently clear on this. Because this is a major issue for student privacy, I hope one of the WikiEdu staff tagged into this discussion can clarify which it is. This would cause serious privacy concerns under various FIPPA rules and, I presume, American legislation as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The students are private, except for those who use their names for their user accounts, or those who edit with IPs (which I'm not sure I've actually seen). Valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their work, however, is not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think grades are public, if that's what you're getting at? This is probably getting to be a tangent. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if after 6 years they are not "wiki-fluent", then that appears to be a competency issue. ValarianB (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd: Voicing concern about another user's competence isn't necessarily a violation of those policies/guidelines. If someone's ability to edit this site is far below where it should be based on the amount of time they've spent on here, editors are expected to call that out. CityOfSilver 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it". Valereee (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think something ADMINACCTesque would actually be that strict a bar to meet. As ArbCom recently reaffirmed, admins don't have to give a good answer, just a reasonably prompt and generally coherent one. (My gloss; some might leave it at "any answer".) It seems reasonable to hold course instructors to a similar standard—a trade-off for the exemption courses get from WP: MEAT. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin WP:MEAT allows students to operate within what would typically be considered meatpuppery for other users, but should it disallow admins from blocking problematic courses? The many and long-documented probably with student editing can be addressed in some cases by stopping the bad courses from editing. Disallowing them from working with WikiEd, as Rosguill suggested, does nothing to stop the bad course-- just allows them to continue without someone watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Well, there isn't any explicit exception to MEAT for courses. (There's an explicit exception to SOCK for the students themselves, but that's separate.) We generally don't consider courses meatpuppetry because, at least where the master isn't blocked and there isn't intentional deception, there must be disruption for something to count as meatpuppetry. (Otherwise it would be meatpuppetry for me to email you a suggestion for an article.) Usually there isn't an issue with that when it comes to courses, because disruption doesn't exceed the standard levels for new users, and we don't hold the occasional student's misunderstanding of policy against the instructor. Or it does happen and someone chews the instructor out and they learn their lesson. If there's persistent issues with students making inappropriate edits under an instructor's direction, though, yes, I would say MEAT could apply. I have not looked closely enough at this case to say whether it does here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just linking the instructor orientation, which includes fixing bad articles: How to clean up major problems in articles that your students worked on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this tutorial Bergmanucsd (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiEd

    Does WikiEd actually bring any real benefit to the encyclopedia, a benefit that exceeds the downsides of their activities? For example, do a non-trivial number of the students stick around to become long-term editors? BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As troublesome as WikiEd can be, when instructors run courses completely on their own the results are on average more disruptive than when WikiEd is involved. Unless we're prepared to ban edits-for-grades entirely (and police that somehow) we are better off with WikiEd. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, my concerns here are with this specific instructors’ courses (and noting as well that part of the reason for the WB/IMF problem’s persistence appears to be the changing of the guard of Wiki Ed liaisons since concerns were first raised). signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that there's already a strong basis in policy for banning edits-for-grades: WP:NOTHERE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a sandbox for editing practice. However, we need to tolerate good-faith mistakes by newcomers, especially if misguided by an inexperienced teacher, because they may go on to become regular editors or at least make enough good edits to be a net positive during their course. One way forward might be to have some way of finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject, who may be able to provide a volunteer with adequate subject knowledge and long experience of article creation to work alongside the teacher. Certes (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject I think there have been efforts to do this in the past. Certainly with medical courses this became routine practice after the issues Sandy is referring to (I don't know if it still is). This could probably be automated in some way, but do bear in mind there are hundreds of these courses every semester, which means lots and lots of notices on pages like WikiProject Sociology and other not-very-active WikiProjects. I think the main reason this doesn't already happen is because WikiProject activity is so uneven that professors/students can't rely on help there, and not wanting to overload volunteer projects (similar to why professors are discouraged from requiring students to go through DYK, GAN, PR, or other parts of the project where community time is already spread thin). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I agree, neither teachers nor students are really WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia; one is here for money (it's their job) and the other is here for a grade (also their "job"). Neither is volunteering. If the teacher keeps the job and the student gets an A, neither will care about WP policies (and why would they?). I don't see what benefit it brings to require people to edit as part of a class -- I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia or to the student. Editing only works if it's something you want to do. So I'd support just removing that exception from WP:SOCK policy and saying teachers can't assign editing to students, but that's a discussion for another page. (Not to be confused with a class on editing, which should of course still be allowed, but that's different from editing as part of a class about something else, as is the case here.) Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bizarre take; teachers' job is "teaching", not "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia"; they aren't "here for the money", they're here because they think that it will serve a purpose for their students and the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing), and the students are paying to attend the class (part of which involves Wikipedia editing). The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money and the student, who paid the money, is doing it for the grade. Neither are volunteering to build an encyclopedia, they're using the encyclopedia for something else (their teaching job, or their class grade). Levivich (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." Yes. The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing) Maybe. The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money Certainly not. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overwhelmingly the edits made by WikiEd students are productive and end up sticking. The issues are created by a small percentage of classes/students - I'd estimate in the 5-10% range based on when I did a fairly comprehensive look of the edits from 15 wikied classes last year. Issues are particularly vexing for the community both because when a class goes off the rails it's not 1 editor doing so but 5, 10, 15 editors and also because the community has a harder time sanctioning editors when they're mission aligned (even if some students are quite clearly only doing it for the grade). This is how you get the fair idea of "seems like we spend a lot of time dealing with wiki ed classes" to square with "overwhelmingly productive editing happens by wiki ed". It's also not clear to me how much WikiEd causes classes to be taught that wouldn't otherwise be taught and how much WikiEd serves as an additional layer to help us make edits that would be happening anyway more productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the bigger problem is that some instructors won't communicate and don't bother to educate themselves on what they're teaching. I removed a lot of cruft sourced to sales sites at Scrunchie a couple months ago, apparently just before the work was graded because the instructor quickly came in and reverted, which is how I discovered it was a wikied project. I posted to the talk and pinged the instructor, who never responded. Out of sympathy for the student being graded, I left it for a few weeks before removing it again, but it's pretty frustrating when an instructor with 228 edits over her entire career and who is teaching "Public Writing" every semester at an esteemed university hasn't bothered to learn anything about what she's apparently teaching and doesn't respond to pings. Her immediate previous edit was a similar reversion in March to removals of promo by someone else. Valereee (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be worth imposing some requirements on who can run courses on enwiki? I like the idea of imposing something similar to WP:ADMINACCT to require that the coordinators communicate, and considering your comment here and above (Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it".) perhaps a minimum-contribution count requirement as well? Perhaps at least 1000 edits, including at least 500 to article space and 300 to talk space? BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be satisfied with requiring engaging by responding to pings. I don't mind someone well-intentioned not knowing what they don't yet know. I do very much mind someone not bothering to take advantage of a ping to a concern, which in the case of WikiEd should be seen as an invitation to learn something. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I learned about (lower-case r, not the WP version) reliable sources in middle school writing classes. The fact that a writing professor apparently can't handle it is appalling, and raises many questions partially separate to the issues in this thread. casualdejekyll 23:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the support for a ban of Bergman so far, it looks like there might be a ban in this public writing instructor's future as well. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 is there data to back that student edits are overwhelming productive? That has never been my experience in the medical realm, although it may be so in areas less difficult to edit. Colin did some analysis years ago: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013.
    BilledMammal, a fine line has to be walked with course instructors to convince them to work with WikiEd, as they aren't required to, and having them work with knowledgeable Wikipedians gives us at least some small chance of stemming the bad edits. If we impose anything else on their ability to get free unpaid tutors (Wikipedians), they can just run their courses outside of WikiEd, and then we (the unpaid volunteers) end up in a worse place in terms of the amount of cleanup we are forced to (which in my case has caused me to unwatch huge numbers of medical articles, because once students descend, the cleanup takes over my editing time). It has long been argued at the noticeboard that a better way to deal with bad courses is if admins would start blocking them after repeat offenses. I believe Tryptofish might have more on this discussion-- I stopped following the Education Noticeboard years ago as the problems with student editing in the medical realm became too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't impose these requirements solely on educators working with WikiEd; I would impose it on all educators, although I don't know how difficult it is to identify those operating outside of WikiEd? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least in the medical realm, there are few things easier to identify than student editing. The issues are so common and repeated course after course that they are inescapable: frequent plagiarism, very very sub-standard writing, adding off-topic content to main articles rather than using summary style for content already written elsewhere, essay-like original research, almost absent knowledge of WP:MEDRS in spite of training materials, use of substandard sourcing, "peer reviews" from fellow students that have nothing to do with WP:P&G clogging talk pages, edit warring as course end approaches and they need to get their content to stick for a grade, over-segmentation of articles to make their own portions stick out, usually with faulty section headings ala WP:MSH, failure to engage on user or article talk, and disappearance from the article after the course ends. I could probably think of a dozen more (and will as soon as I hit send). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We see the disappearance after the course ends regularly at DYK. It seems some instructors give extra credit for a DYK nom, and neither the instructor nor the student will respond to pings. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, thanks for the ping. I don't have a whole lot to add in regard to what you asked about, beyond what others here have already said. I'm fine with student editing in general, and it's a fact of life here. But I feel strongly that we have to treat student editors, and class instructors, the same as we treat other editors, not better, not worse. As to whether student editing is a net positive or a net negative, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sandy for raising this important point. I did not check courses where I knew my knowledge would be completely inadequate to judge the edits. So I did not check any medical writing in my sample. It is entirely possible that the failure rate for medical articles is much higher (the same it would be for articles within the scope of contentious topics). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I'm curious how often you still see issues with medical content from students? There used to be a lot, especially before WikiEd and in its early days, but since then there are specialized trainings, requirements that apply just to medical/psychology classes/articles, special flags on the staff end to monitor those courses, and other interventions based in no small part on your feedback. Back when I was involved with WikiEd, it seemed like it had improved dramatically from 2014-->2019. Are you still seeing a lot of those problems (or a recent uptick)? Just curious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see them often now simply because I gave up almost entirely, and unwatched almost all popular articles (which are those typically targeted by students). I do recall there being dramatic improvement in those cases where WikiEd was successful in reaching out to the professors and making them aware of the problems, but I can't say whether those were few or most courses (only that I came to really appreciate those times when WikiEd was able to successfully intervene). After Nikkimaria posted at WT:MED recently, I looked into this class (which historically is not as bad as others). Gratification disorder has a SYNTH list of primary cases, some which were from journals that HeadBomb's script redlinks. You can look at my edits at Premenstrual water retention; as WAID said, perhaps not as bad as most new editors, but the use of primary sources and other issues is less than what I would hope for in a course with a long history and theoretically knowledgeable profs. Similarly, the commercial sources used at operative vaginal delivery surprised me, as I had the idea this course did a better job than most at explaining optimal sourcing, but I agree no worse than a typical new editor. Asynclitic birth had very bad sourcing, again, perhaps typical for a new user, but surprising relative to what I thought (formerly) of this course. The take-home message, as usual, is that with what limited time I had, I didn't look further and I barely scratched the surface in briefly glancing at those few articles, and we don't have enough active editors to keep up with the issues. It's surprising those students still aren't all fully understanding medical sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into that particular class with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal I would always encourage student editors to start fresh with a new account if they intend to do other editing on Wikipedia, since their previous work in a listed course is an obvious doxxing angle. I think it's also very likely that many student editors get interested in Wikipedia through their course, get busy with their normal life, and come back to the encyclopedia later, having forgotten their password or account and just making a new one. So I'm not sure there's any data we can really use here. I will say that in the history and biography topics I edit, I have seen some awful contributions by students, but more often I see useful ones. The problems I see more often are a) creating articles on non-notable topics and b) translating articles without checking any of the sources. The first is easily dealt with (though really traumatic for the students), and the second is hardly a WikiEdu-alone problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WikiEd is not more beneficial than it is harmful to Wikipedia. I think introducing students in research-heavy courses to Wikipedia can encourage them to edit it, but having done a deep-dive of the training materials and how instructors engage when issues have repeatedly come up before, it is clear that students are not guided through policies before being asked to introduce large edits to articles. Some are requested to create articles in sandboxes that they are led to believe is their untouchable work, and this is then moved into mainspace by some. Students are encouraged to check each others' edits conform to policy, rather than engaging with experienced editors - this also leads to students not even knowing other editors can engage with them and their work. Instructors generally have no idea what they're doing, and do not engage.
    Any new editor can be a benefit, especially students with specialist knowledge, but I will always believe that WikiEd is a piece of crap (offense intended and maintained), and that the best way to get these students to start editing would be through edit-athons in collaboration with universities. They will be introduced to Wikipedia not through this seminar and coursework style format that is at major fault for the many editing issues. If WikiEd is kept, instructors at least need to have good standing on Wikipedia before they start teaching, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The original proposal -- wrote this before the subheading was added, and it partly addresses that so leaving it here -- not because I want to defend edits made in this course, but because I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction. We can block, topic ban, etc., but we can't make their pedagogical decisions and can't preemptively block people who have never edited before just because of who their professor is.
      This situation is not ideal for anyone: the community, the students, the professor, or WikiEd. Fun fact: there are thousands of students editing Wikipedia in hundreds of courses every single term. The ones that wind up here aren't the ones where students make lots of mistakes. They're newbies after all, and enhanced newbies at that because they have a support system in place. Someone sees a problem with a student edit and flags it to the student, professor, or Wiki Ed staff. Between them, they fix the problem, get the professor to work with students to avoid it happening again, and/or assign additional training modules. Professors don't want students to have a bad experience, professors don't want to be dragged to ANI, WikiEd doesn't want courses to go to ANI, students don't want to get blocked/reverted -- none of this is good for anyone, so in general, professors and students are super receptive of feedback/training, fixing problems and what not. You never hear about those. If the problems are course-wide, WikiEd can set boundaries for the class like "only work in userspace". Again, people are generally content to abide by this because nobody wants to have a bad experience and working in userspace takes the pressure off. The most common reason a course winds up here at ANI isn't that new editors made mistakes -- it's that they made mistakes and the professor doesn't understand the problem, doesn't agree that there's a problem, doesn't listen to WikiEd, or is simply too overcommitted to address problems properly. (Every once in a while problems come because a few students simply defy the professor, but that usually winds up being simpler, because the professor understands the need to block them).
      WikiEd can't force the professor to do anything, though. They can just say "abide by these best practices and listen to our advice or we won't support your classes in the future". From the thread at WP:ENB, it sounds like that support might've been withdrawn, but the course was accepted again accidentally (apologies if I've misread that).
      So that brings us back to "what to do". We can't tell a professor what to do in their class, but we can be crystal clear that if WikiEd withdraws its support for any of the reasons they might do that, your courses will have a heightened degree of scrutiny form the community and, if it has problems it's extremely likely your students (and maybe your account) will just be blocked. No professor wants to go into an assignment knowing they'll be subjecting their students to so much stress and scrutiny and no professor wants their assignment to fail, so that should be clear enough. In other words: no need to "you can't teach with Wikipedia" -- just "for the sake of public knowledge on Wikipedia and for the sake of your students, please don't run this assignment again" and keep the block button handy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction I'm not yet convinced such a sanction is called for in this case, though I am leaning towards it, but I disagree that we cannot impose such a sanction. The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwiki; we are not required to permit educators to use our platform as part of their course, and if we believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia we can topic ban individual educators from doing so.
      If they chose to ignore the topic ban then we can block them, and we can contact WMF Legal who can get in contact with their institution to make them put a stop to it; I'm sure there will be some sort of TOS violation that WMF Legal can use. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwik - We can sanction someone's on-wiki activity. The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. How else would enforcement of this sanction work? No, WMF Legal is not going to be sending a message to a university because a professor runs an assignment (this is frankly bananas). Especially not when we can so easily deal with it on-wiki. We can certainly encourage WikiEd not to support this course (if they haven't already made that decision), and we can certainly discourage him by making clear students that make the same mistakes will just be blocked. We can even block the professor's account... but we shouldn't be creating sanctions that try to reach off-wiki or which can only be enforced by preemptive sanctions against otherwise good faith contributors. Simply "if students keep making mistakes, they'll get blocked" followed by blocks. What's wrong with that? Also, I should say that I'm opposing the sanction and articulating alternatives not because of anything to do with this professor or their students, but because of the sanction. I'd need to actually look into it more before supporting these alternatives, but having seen the thread at ENB it sounds like enough experienced users have identified long-term problems that probably call for some action. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. Telling people what to do off-wiki, when it is very closely related to on-wiki activity, is implicitly part of most bans we issue because of WP:MEAT; when we issue those bans we are saying "we are banning you for being disruptive, and if you recruit others to continue your disruption we will ban them too". We also wouldn't be preemptively sanctioning anyone; we would be sanctioning them after they make their first edit as meatpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My intent in proposing the topic ban is to prevent them from performing instructor roles on Wikipedia, based on a track record of failing to engage with criticisms of their and their students' work. It is in no way telling them what to do off-wiki, although it does preclude the possibility of continuing to teach courses centered on editing Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Support (TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed... not sure of the exact verbiage... but a TBAN such that they can no longer invoke the WP:ASSIGN exception to WP:MEAT), on WP:CIR grounds. Clearly, this person does not have enough competence to direct others to make edits, or to instruct student editing. There are the bad edits themselves, the fact that this has been going on for 4 or more years, the lack of meaningful communication (including the initial 4 verbatim copy-pasted responses about "brainstorming"), and then the whopper: "I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc." That last bit shows they not only don't understand their "power," but they don't understand their responsibilities under WP:ASSIGN. This is wasting a huge amount of editor time, we should just put a stop to it. Let WikiEd worry about WikiEd, let the prof's university worry about the classes and the prof, but Wikipedia should just bar this particular prof from "teaching" Wikipedia editing due to lack of competence. If the ban is imposed and violated (if another class is taught post-ban), then the prof and students can be blocked by any admin. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose tban now that Bergmanucsd has come in to address concerns. I am willing to give this editor another chance now that they've started listening and responding. Support a tban from using Wikipedia as an instructional tool unless Bergmanucsd comes in here and makes at least an attempt to address the concerns. Bergmanuscd, are you aware that the community does actually have the power to do this? That is, we can actually prevent you from using the Wikipedia portion of your current syllabus? WikiEd staff do not have the power to overrule the community. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to give another day or so for the folks at WikiEd to try to communicate with the instructor, before moving ahead with sanctions. And I want to say that WikiEd deserves the support and appreciation of the community, because they really do try very hard to help the community, and they don't have many resources to work with. But when I start from the perspective of what I would expect from anyone working in education, in terms of being able to communicate with other people, I'm pretty disappointed with what the instructor has been doing here. It's not like this should be difficult for anyone to understand. If things can be worked out, then OK. But based on what I've seen so far, I think I'm quite likely to support a topic ban against being able to instruct others to edit or using Wikipedia as an instructional tool. Yes, we have the ability to do that. (Can't tell instructors what to do in their classes, but absolutely can determine what they and their students do as edits here.) And the community needs to get comfortable with making these kinds of decisions, because they are going to come up more and more frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm now ready to support TBAN. I don't see any reason to continue waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Tryptofish, I am willing to wait a day for a complete and fully responsive reply from this editor as opposed to copy and paste comments that tell us nothing. If engagement is not forthcoming, I will support the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all Wikipedia editing related to educational courses, after waiting a day and seeing this infuriating non-answer on their user talk page: My conduct in future courses as it relates to the content that my students post? I will reiterate the trainings provided by WikiEdu and the policies contained therein, reiterate the course grading requires them to conform to Wikipedia policies, and show them some flagged pages as examples for the type of contribution that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. This person is clearly not taking our concerns seriously, and is either unwilling or incapable of engaging seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed. I would also like a serious re-evaluation of Wiki-ed. My experience is that the students and instructors usually do more harm than good. I can recall one OK experience and many horrible ones, including personal attacks and edit-warring. As others have said, the priority is the 'pedia, not anyone's grades. The ones I've seen don't stick around, nor do their edits. They almost always waste the time, energy and patience of good editors. So much cleanup of bad, copyvio term papers. Per WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it possible to get a list of all editors who participated in Wiki-ed? I will be able to get some statistics on how many stuck around, revert percentage, etc, but only if I can get that underlying information. BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @BilledMammal The dashboard seems to record all campaigns since Spring 2015. Possibly there's a bulk data download somewhere. Shells-shells (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I notice you were already aware of this (and of Category:Wiki Education student editors). In that case I don't know if there's a collection of data on WikiEd more extensive than these. Shells-shells (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN as above. The talk page non-answer Cullen328 cited is altogether too prevalent in the education field, where dressing oft-simple concepts in torrents of polysyllabic, passive voice pretentiousness is both a standard dodge to cover up a lack of content and a badge of faux erudition. Happily, while that nonsense is the norm in academia, it is not on Wikipedia. If Bergmanucsd cannot bring himself to communicate in plain, active voice English, then he surely is not capable of teaching students how to edit Wikipedia effectively. Ravenswing 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TB, per Valereee, and also per Bergmanucsd's being available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as he has been now for 6 years. And six later, nothing has changed. This dismissive, non-answer of the decade—now repeated several times—attempts to place culpability and responsibility with WikiEd rather than accepting it himself. SN54129 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - TBAN; Bergmanucsd has shown that it is necessary. Their non-answer that tries to shift responsibility shows that the issues will continue, and the response gives a strong impression that they didn't read or understand what the concerns here actually are. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update from Wiki Education

    First off, let me apologize for Wiki Education's slowness to respond. I was on vacation last week, and I'm catching up with this situation now.

    • I had an email exchange with Bergmanucsd in July of 2020 where he assured me that he was taking steps so that his students would no longer use primary sources, including the involvement of a librarian who could help his students navigate sourcing, as we promised to do following incidents with his previous course.
    • Bergmanucsd didn't teach with us again until the summer of 2022, and due to staffing changes we incurred in the intervening years, we did not accurately assess that course. We apologize for that, and are working on updating our internal procedures so staffing changes don't result in similar issues .
    • I will reach out to Bergmanucsd to discuss under what conditions Wiki Education would support future courses he'd like to teach.
    • Again, we are profoundly sorry for any disruptions this has caused, and (as always) respect the community processes playing out here and on WP:ENB.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Helaine (Wiki Ed), thanks. Maybe also explain to the instructor that this is actually quite serious, that his ability to use Wikipedia for instructional purposes actually is in jeopardy, and that his continued interaction at ANI is necessary if he wants to keep teaching that syllabus? Valereee (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I definitely plan on discussing the severity of the situation and the importance of interacting with the community. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Helaine (Wiki Ed): I put this on hold for a day to give y'all time to confer. Any progress? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be speaking with Bergmanucsd this Thursday and will update here following our conversation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Helaine (Wiki Ed), please convey to Bergmanucsd the gravity of the situation and the necessity of engaging fully and frankly here at ANI. Further evasive non-answer answers are unlikely to be received well. This editor has been given far more time to respond than usual, and their comments are bafflingly unresponsive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thursday. Others here see this as enough of a priority to respond more promptly. Just saying. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just talked with Bergmanucsd, and we had a very productive conversation. We cleared up a lot of misunderstandings and discussed how things went awry. Bergmanucsd is going to be posting a response here shortly based on our conversation. Again, we respect any community procedures taking place here and are having internal discussions to ensure issues like this are avoided in the future.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That ping probably won't go through, because it was added in a subsequent edit, so I'll re-ping Bergmanucsd. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, "shortly" appears to have been either overly optimistic or a misunderstanding. One thing that might be worth discussing in those internal discussions is how to make it clear to instructors that, while many discussion areas on Wikipedia move slowly, if an admin is demanding an explanation for your conduct, they really do want one very soon, ideally now. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Helaine (Wiki Ed), we are getting cheery, chipper, upbeat assurances from you and we are getting surly non-answers and failure to substantively engage with the Wikipedia community from Bergmanucsd. You promised a reply "shortly" and nearly seven hours has passed with no further response. I do not know how you define "shortly" but it is difficult to avoid the perception that Bergmanucsd really wants to blow us off and ignore our concerns. Very disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Bergmanucsd response

    I apologize for my delay in writing out a formal response. I had a meeting with Helaine (Wiki Ed) who helped clarify the concerns posted by Wikipedians on this page as well as some others

    First, I want to take responsibility for my delay in responding. There were numerous pages where discussions were going on and it was difficult for me to keep track. There were several days where I was overwhelmed by the activity and mentions that I was receiving. I am also currently not in a similar timezone as many Wikipedians so I was losing a day during the conversations. Now that I have identified this page as where the conversation is being held, I will be sure to be responsive (noting the time zone differences) in a more reasonable amount of time when I am mentioned.

    There are two conducts that I ought to directly address. The first was editing someone else’s comment with my mention in it. My edit was to remove my name from the discussion. I am aware that this information is available for those searching as part of the WikiEdu project. For the discussions of behavior of Wikipedia, the standard is to use Wikipedia handles and not given names. I was trying to keep the discussion in that vein.

    The second is moving the page of someone else. Sometimes in the process of creating pages, students generate pages that begin with “userID:” or “draft:”. When I notify them that they are not posted, students send me the link and think that they are. In that regard, after several back-and-forths, I then move them. In this future, I will not partake in this process. If student editors are unable to move their own pages, it is a signal that their work might not be ready for publishing. In the cited cases last week, I had reach out to students individually to identify the issues with some of their pages and how they are not conforming to standards (for example, if a student contribution relies to heavily on primary sources). I had also instructed them that it is crucial to the mission of Wikipedia that they engage in constructive discussions regarding comments made on their pages. I had mentioned in previous messages, perhaps too flippantly, that students ignoring such comments are their own decisions. Should I continue on Wikipedia, I will be sure to make this more clear to students that it is not just their grade that is affected, but the whole Wikipedia project that is at stake.

    I have been with Wikipedia for 6 years now. I believe in the mission of Wikipedia and I share it with my students as well as other instructors in my academic discipline. I believe that the weight of these contributions tends towards the constructive rather than the destructive. That said after these most recent contributions, I think that future iterations of this summer course are not appropriate for the Wikipedia project. To better conform with Wikipedia standards, I think that it is crucial that student contributors do (at least) the following: (1) examine existing high quality pages; (2) receive feedback on their own draft contributions from peers, Wiki Education staff, and instructor; (3) present a revision for review before permanently posting. The summer session format (of only 5 weeks) does not provide enough time for this process, and as such, might be setting up Wikipedia for subpar contributions. Should I be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, I will work more closely with Wiki Education staff and be more engaged with contributions before posts become published.

    As mentioned above, I am available to clarify any of the further concerns that you may have here on this page. I have mentions automatically sent to my e-mail, so I should be able to respond to them in a timely manner (noting the time zone differences).Bergmanucsd (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)BergmanUcsd[reply]

    For those reading who haven't taught or taken a summer course like this before: I think the resolution not to use wikipedia in summer courses is a very good one. These five- or six-week courses are an absolute whirlwind. Everything goes very fast, students are stressed, and it's really difficult to properly scaffold assignments. They're pretty awful, unless you're doing a mostly-lectures course with a huge exam at the end. fwiw (non-admin comment), I find this response heartening, though there are still some parts to iron out (eg, "permanently posting" and "published" worries me a bit, since everything on wiki is "permanent" and "published" to some extent, so I'm not sure what the intent is here). -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bergmanucsd, there is a process available for draft review at WP:AFC. Like almost everything else on WP, it doesn't allow for deadlines (such as assignment due dates). One alternative to consider is not requiring new articles but instead improving existing ones. For instance, here is a list of high-importance stub-class finance articles. Upgrading those to start-class would be a very positive contribution. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm satisfied that Bergmanucsd intends to engage with Wikipedia in good faith at this time, I still think that the tban from teaching courses is appropriate. The (well-intentioned) misconceptions regarding editing processes included in this response, the lack of acknowledgement relating to the sourcing concerns that precipitated this whole situation, and the fact that this is not the first time that Bergmanucsd has made assurances that their instruction would improve, leave me unable to trust that future courses will be unproblematic. I am happy to have Bergmanucsd edit Wikipedia; I am not comfortable with them teaching courses full of students to edit Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 13:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd: I suggest that you also read WP:ASSIGN, as that will help you get a better understanding of community expectations here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a great listing of expectations for students and instructors alike Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, thank you for sharing. I will link to this page for my students as well. Bergmanucsd (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Input request for a proposal to address related concerns

    (Please do not vote, this is just one of preliminary brain storming (earlier one at Wikipedia talk:Student assignments, to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page)

    Proposal  : A) Allow only limited number of student drafts - only the number which community can monitor effectively. B) Let those be topic wise common drafts and not student wise draft. C) Student's drafts be tagged as 'Student's draft' in draft namespace D) extend draft life for student drafts up to four years from present six months. - The idea is multiple number of students from multiple batches for four years will work on single draft to be improved. E) Accept content through usual WP:AFC evaluation process only.

    Bookku (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mm. If you're looking for a general proposal regarding how WikiEd does its thing, this isn't really the place for it; that ought to be a RfC, perhaps at the Village Pump. Ravenswing 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether we do this here, or elsewhere, Yes, you have some good ideas here. I especially support E: the requirement to go through the usual AFC process. If this is moved, please ping me. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like a good idea; pls ping me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's why this is a really bad idea:
    1. Projects where multiple people are paid to look after them (professors indirectly and Wiki Ed staff directly) should utilize backlogged volunteer processes as little as possible.
    2. AfC is not compatible with a class project, which needs to be on a clear schedule. What's the point of allowing four years? Students typically have a lot of time to devote to writing an article for part of a term. Once in a while they stick around, but it's not part of the course. If for some reason Wikipedians think it's worthwhile to devote a ton more volunteer time to AfC to get students feedback/evaluations on drafts promptly, then great, but otherwise you're just creating a pointless black hole. "You must ask for an evaluation" + "an evaluation might come this week or well after the evaluation does any good" isn't useful process unless the purpose is ensure the classes never stand a chance.
    3. Students have a support system. They have a professor, paid staff, training modules, etc. They need AfC less than the typical autoconfirmed user (for whom AfC is not mandatory, after all).
    4. This would effectively kill the education program (or rather, support for classes). I don't know what Wiki Ed's finances are like these days, but I cannot imagine a nonprofit with a big central program having its capacity to run that program cut to a fraction and still retaining its funders.
    5. This is 100% based on a handful of anecdotes rather than actual data. There were 6,000 student editors in 350 courses in the spring. How many made it to a noticeboard? How many had problems but were easily addressed by Wiki Ed staff or a professor? These proposals always come when one professor and one class cause problems, and instead of just blocking the bad class it becomes about the dastardly scourge of student editors and inept professors, supported by a smattering of anecdotes that span years.
    6. There's still an easy fix: if a class causes more trouble than it's worth, block them all. No need to ask special permission. Like, yeah, ideally you're seeing if they prof can get it under control, but if they can't or won't, just block. Problem solved. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for so clearly stating nearly everything that horrified me about this idea. I will add, as something like a 2b), that I presume the value of using Wikipedia in teaching, for many instructors, is that it gives students a concrete, "real-world" thing to do with the knowledge and skills they've learned in classes. Multiple batches of students working on a draft for who knows how long that might get published at some point, maybe, very clearly does not fit this aim.
    Furthermore, this would do real harm to the idea that wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". A class assignment might be the first time it has ever occurred to a student to think about wikipedia and the people who make it. Writing a draft that disappears into a multiple-year black hole is not teaching them that anyone really can edit. I'm not sure what it would teach them, but it certainly wouldn't teach them that. Meanwhile, the current WikiEd experience seems to be quite good, aside from the few courses that go really off the rails. A friend of mine who just taught with WikiEd tells me students found it accessible and clear. Their students found wikipedia a "welcoming environment", two words I have, frankly, never heard about wikipedia anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors behavior at Potter's House Christian Fellowship

    Editors involved:

    Long story short: A content dispute over including a short summary of prominent controversies in the lead of article (diff). Brief edit war. Discussion opened on talk page (diff). I questioned user's status as a potential WP:SPA + potential WP:COI since roughly 84% of their mainspace edits have been to this one article (diff). Another editor, JohnnyBflat, questioned if the user had a WP:COI, the user said they were indeed a member of the church, and they were editing the article as a subject matter expert (diff). Now the user is casting aspersions about my sexual orientation (LGBTQ bias) (diff) + (diff). I don't appreciate these unfounded allegations about my sexual orientation in relation to my editing at this article/talk page and am asking for administrator intervention. I am assuming their quotes in the aforementioned diff is from this article (from 2023), which is an in-depth analysis of the organization. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Truth be told, none of my comments have been "casting aspersions" or formed "unfounded allegations". Isaidnoway has clearly self-identified their orientations on their user homepage.
    User JohnnyBflat represents 5.42% of the total edits made to the page in question and most of his edits are adding negative allegations or reverting other's edits. Requests for clarrification of his potential COI and bias have gone unanswered to date.
    I strive for a better quality Wikipedia and follow the spirit and letter of all rules and guidelines. Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not provided any evidence in the form of diffs that demonstrate a LGBTQ bias in my editing in relation to the article in question or the article's talk page. And you have not provided any evidence that shows my research from reliable sources into this organization would certainly latch on to claims that "Same-sex relationships are classed as “sexual sin” and “perverted behaviour”; nor have you provided any evidence to support this assertion about me — an organisation you in principle oppose, or this assertion about me — your perspective on these issues is strongly contrasted with the conservative Christian values portrayed in the media for the Potter's House. Do you have any evidence at all to support your unfounded claims that I have a LGBTQ bias, or that I latched onto specific claims about this organization, or that I oppose in principle this organization, or about my perspective on these issues?
    Making an ad hominem attack on an editor's sexual orientation as a means of dismissing or trying to discredit their arguments in a discussion is forbidden. Not a single editor in that discussion related to the disputed content has brought up the subject of the organization's stance on homosexuality, nor is it relevant to that discussion, and it is not relevant to me. Furthermore, those type of comments you made can have a chilling effect on an LGBT editor's ability to participate in discussions and/or edit articles that you deem are out of scope for LGBT editors, see this diff, where you asked — Why be here at all?— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The last week of discussion at Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship casts Wcwarren's behavior in a very poor light -- I see what looks like a lot of personalization, failures of WP:AGF, and obvious WP:RGW/POV-pushing activity. That's been accompanied by repeated edit-warring on the article itself. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wcwarren failed to assume good faith with me straight out of the starting block on my talk page at User talk:Willondon#Potters House Edits. Further battleground mentality led me to post two cautions on their talk page regarding rearranging the order of the article's talk page discussion to their liking (User talk:Wcwarren#Please stop rearranging talk page sections). After reaching what I feel is consensus achieved on the talk page, I restored the status quo, and they immediately reasserted their edit [65], with the edit summary "This issue is far from resolved and the edit should not have been reversed". They seem to interpret WP:BRD as meaning their edit cannot be reverted without discussion (which was initiated on the talk page by another editor), and that "consensus" means lengthy debate until everybody agrees that they are correct. I still have not received an answer as to whether their initial post on my talk page [66] was a mistake or not. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:This isn’t the first time Wcwarren has used homophobia and racism. He removed reliably sourced information from Rick Ross on the basis that he was Jewish and a homosexual and therefore unreliable [67] [68] and called Ross’ material “Christian hate speech and propaganda” [69]. He also failed to assume good faith with me on my talk page simultaneously with Willondon [70]. When I tried to engage in discussion with him, he accused me of being “oppositional to this organisation and its correct representation on Wiki” and not making correct and useful changes [71]. He noted that I had acknowledged something in a discussion I lodged, then immediately stated no discussion had been made [72]. He has accused others of creating a hostile environment, when all editors appear to get along fine, with the exception of wcwarren [73]. He has accused me of deleting reliably sourced information that he has provided, yet will not show what the RS’s are [74]. He is attempting to remove criticisms of the organisation from the lead and hand-waving them away as insignificant [75] [76] [77] while at the same time claiming the organisation does “tremendous good” without providing RS to support his claims [78]. Historically, he has edited disruptively on this page [79] and others [80] [81]. He has deleted reliably sourced information that criticised the organisation [82] [83] [84] [85] [86], added personal opinion [87] [88], and attacked editors who opposed him [89] [90] [91] [92].𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮 03:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this account done anything in the past 12 years other than promote this organization? Shocked they made it this far. Blocked indefinitely—part for tendentious editing, part because hate is disruptive. Editors are welcome to have whatever personal views they have, including homophobia, but once they start accusing others of things based on their sexual orientation, that creates an unhealthy environment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, those comments about Rick Ross explains a lot. I wondered why he brought up my sexual orientation all of a sudden, when none of us hadn't mentioned the churches stance on homosexuality, and the disputed content in the lead didn't mention it either. Those comments are over a decade old, but some things just never change. Now I get it, he did the same thing to me he did to Ross, trying to discredit me and my editing because I'm gay. Thanks for digging those comments up. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems. I'm very sorry that you had to go through that. Have a great rest of the day. :) 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮 04:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely uncouth and rude behavior by User :84.71.180.129

    Special:Contributions/84.71.180.129 made disruptive edits and unprofessional remarks in 2023 Nigerien crisis. See User talk:84.71.180.129 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Nigerien_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1169311713

    Borgenland (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    H 84.71.180.129 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Borgenland, I have blocked the IP for edit warring and warned another editor likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I’d like to clarify though that User:Clyde H. Mapping was the one who first spotted the other user’s shenanigans and corrected them based on what was the consensus. As such I believe warning them was a misunderstanding Borgenland (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also like to warn everyone of a possible sockpuppet User:Thiswaybd. Made the same edits as the same time with the blocked IP. See: User talk:Thiswaybd. Borgenland (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1169313669 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1166648691 Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious persistent vandalism by User:Thiswaybd

    This is to urgently notify revered Adminatrators that obvious persistent vandalism has been going on the following article pages: 2023 Nigerien crisis, Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra by User:Thiswaybd. I have previously warned them on their talk page to stop but they insisted with recent vandalism on Biafra article page which l reverted and it's occurs to me that they will continue to remove contents from other Wikipedia pages without clarifications or reasons as they did to 2023 Nigerien crisis only if they are not appropriately and adequately sanctioned.

    Thanks for your swift actions. 1st Contributor (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There's clearly sock/meatpuppetry going on right now with these articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to compile a SPI report, but a CU does need to have a look to see if these accounts are connected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, @RickinBaltimore, you closely right. That may be a sock. I can't do them anything. 1st Contributor (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1st Contributor, you're required to notify the other party as soon as you make a report here. See the red-boxed notice at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}} (talk) to do this.
    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done, I also filed a separate complaint Borgenland (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borgenland Thanks for helping out. It was a mistake on my part for not notifying them. @A. B. It's done already! 1st Contributor (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly, 1st Contributor turned out to be a sock themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's weird, they had been reverting bad edits over the past few days in Biafra made by the accounts they reported. Borgenland (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read his case and it doesn't seem to make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UniBrill/Archive Borgenland (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gorrrillla5 repeatedly violating WP:SD40

    Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:SD40 since mid June ([93], [94], [95], [96], [97]). I might think that they weren't seeing the multiple messages I've left for them at their Talk page, but they've blanked their Talk page since I've left notices for them without otherwise interacting with my (or any other editor's) notifications[98], and recently blanked their page after I left them a final warning.[99]

    While I acknowledge that it can be argued whether violating SD40 is a "big deal", simply disregarding multiple requests to adhere to it without any engagement on the matter doesn't seem especially appropriate. As such, I'm forced to ask that this user be blocked until they exhibit awareness that their behavior of not engaging with notifications while repeatedly engaging in the behavior that prompted the notifications is disruptive. Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned on Doniago (talk · contribs) talk page, I have been doing these types of edits for a very long while and I've never had any complaints before and have even been thanked for a couple of the edits. So I didn't really read these recent complaints as I didn't even realise what the problem was or how it was considered disruptive as it's the same thing I had been doing since the function to edit article descriptions was introduced. I will add that I NEVER make any contribution without a reliable source and only really add minor information, fix grammatical errors and add dates, I realise that these edits have only been deemed as "disruptive" only recently and so I won't do it anymore and I apologise that it had to come to this in the first place. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gorrrillla5, can you please explain the connection between short descriptions and things like reliable sources, grammatical errors and dates? Do you understand the function of short descriptions? Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just mentioning my general editing contributions, and I thought the changes I was making to article descriptions was not disruptive at the time. In my understanding article descriptions are meant to be a very brief summary of the article's contents, I have seen many lengthy descriptions on various articles that in comparison mine are just adding very minor information, so I didn't really see what I was doing wrong. However I reiterate that I won't do it again, and again I apologise that it has come to this situation. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 06:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gorrrillla5, please fix the typo in your signature that means your talk page is not accessible. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it now. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gorrrillla5: Just to be clear, the content issue is not a big deal at all, we don't punish good faith mistakes. However, communication is required, and those warnings are designed to escalate to a block if they are ignored. Also in general, users who appear unable or unwilling to engage in communication are blocked indefinitely even if they have not received warnings. I see you haven't been particularly talkative during your time here, but any time there is an issue, you need to communicate to resolve it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Swarm (talk · contribs) I completely understand and I'll communicate properly from now on, I wont let any situation come to this anymore. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for the other parties in this chat, but as you seem to have indicated that you'll be more mindful of SD40 (and there is room to debate it if you feel strongly that your edit is an improvement; it's not a bright-line rule) and that you'll be more communicative when editors express concerns to you, I think that sufficiently addresses my concerns. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly promise that I will be properly communicative from now on, I didn't mean for any misunderstanding or to cause any problems. I'm genuinely glad that this situation has been sorted, thank you very much. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion nomination

    Hello,

    I request from the administrators to block the account Queenofboston because according to my analysis and an RCU, this user violated Wikipedia policies and has been requested to delete their content by other users. However, action on this user is not done yet. Kindly check and take action on this user.

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas098 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nicolas098: That looks like a boring, procedural speedy deletion nomination, which was actioned by Liz in June. Speedy deletion nominations do not necessarily mean a user did anything wrong. I've had one or two pages speedy-deleted over the years, for similar boring and procedural reasons. What user conduct policy do you feel has been violated? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicolas098, creating "Category: Polish journalist" does not look like any sort of major offense to me. Can you please clarify? You are obligated to notify the other editor of this discussion. Since you have not done so, I have informed them myself. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm in the neighborhood, Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention) for:
    See Special:PageHistory/Abu Dhabi Secrets and obvious article-type overlaps in contribs. Guessing neither is the first account, but I'm rusty on the Gulf state sockfarms. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Inconclusive. There is no IP overlap, but they are bouncing around on a ton of IPs, many of which are Spur-flagged (i.e. they could be proxies). Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my account respects all Wikipedia policies. I take time to read and implement policies, especially if flagged to me. The user who suggested a speedy deletion did not indicate which policy my account would have infringed. Proposing pages or categories for speedy deletion is not an offense. I have proposed page(s) for speedy deletion myself. I made over 800 edits and explain every edit in the comment. I take time to improve pages if they lack citations or need updates. I believe I am a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and I act in full respect of Wikipedia policies. Queenofboston (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I was a bit confused by Nicolas098's motive here, until I found [100] and [101], which explained why they would target Queenofboston. There is a history of stealth paid editing by Gulf states, including Qatar, and Nicolas and Shanghaisun's behavior is consistent with that. I've blocked both for UPE. If another admin or SPI clerk recognizes the farm, feel free to tag. Something should probably also be done about Abu Dhabi Secrets and Ahmad Al-Sayed. They were essentially created in violation of a block (any of many against various Qatar state actors), but don't meet the letter of CSD G5 unless a master is identified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Zionism, race and genetics

    At Zionism, race and genetics, discussion seems to have bogged down to the point that administrative assistance and advice is now necessary as to how to proceed.

    The article was created by Onceinawhile on 8 July. It was immediately tagged for NPOV issues by Tombah (permabanned a week later from I/P articles) and. Drsmoo added a synth, followed by another factual accuracy tag two days later, and finally as an attack article and one that claimed it was essay-like. On 11 July jps proposed the article be deleted. After a week, this was closed as ‘no consensus’. Within a day, QuickQuokka opened a second AfD, which was immediately closed by Rosguill as a ‘blatantly disruptive’ re-nomination.

    To address these issues, after the 18 bulleted objections raised by Drsmoo on 11 July had been answered (drsmoo admitted it had been significantly improved on 15 July), I asked the page permission to thoroughly rewrite, and expand the(in my view) stub, in order to make it conform to the strongest criteria for a wp article. Permission was conceded. Both I and the originator, Onceinawhile, have a record of writing GA/FA articles up from articles that had a long history of edit-warring and claims of POV-pushing. The title, which appears to upset many, remained as it was. It is based on an article written by the foremost Israeli historian of genetics, a geneticist himself, the late Raphael Falk Zionism, race and eugenics 2006 137–162

    All tags were removed, as the rewrite progressed, save one regarding NPOV. On 7 August, the review had been completed. Onceinawhile removed the last remaining tag, and was immediately reverted by Drsmoo for what he called a tendentious removal. Selfstudier in turn reverted Drsmoo, removing the tag on the basis there was no longer any evidence of NPOV problems. Later Bobfrombrockley restored the tag, claiming that the talk page shows that several editors dispute the neutrality of the article. To avoid further edit-warring, both Drsmoo and Bobfrom Brockley were asked to list with bulleted examples the issues regarding NPOV which they still consider outstanding, individually here and . here. Drsmoo also made a threat of AE action unless the tags remained, twice accused (see also here) Onceinawhile of a WP:COI problem, an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work, and asserted editors were engaged in bludgeoning behaviour for insisting (in the context of that thread) that remaining issues be listed so that the article might be finished. .

    Though I personally consider much of this a serious case of stonewalling and much of the thread negotiations an example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, I am not interested in sanctions here. I simply ask that the two editors, Drsmoo and BobfromBrockley, who insist on the tag remaining, do editors the courtesy of providing a bulleted list of issues regarding NPOV they consider unaddressed, even after a month's intensive reworking to fix such issues. The talk page is stalled on this, no requests are answered, and administrative guidance is the only remaining option. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nishidani: Is there a reason you linked to me for this discussion? I'm not sure there is much I can add. I still think that the article title and proposed scope is problematic and stand by my evaluation that AfD was an appropriate response to an article that should have been (and, in my quick glance judgement right now, still should be) workshopped in draft space. While I am a little disappointed that more hasn't been done to address that concern, this does not seem to be the focus of this complaint. jps (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No. I mentioned you en passant to help admins with an overview of how this issue came about, mentioning key points. I'm only interested in resolving the impasse as it exists now.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Right off the bat, no I did not make an “insidiously obscure allusion to private interests”. I called out Onceinawhile for removing a tag from an article he created, and cited the relevant essay that said those with conflicts of interest should not remove tags. As he created the article, I considered him to have a conflict of interest. This was clarified for Nishidani on the article’s talk page, and was also clarified to not be an issue by an admin on my talk page. That Nishidani persists in calling my edit “insidious”, imo, is highly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. Incidentally, my restoration of the tag was reverted by a different editor within seconds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169175788) Which I consider highly questionable and indicative of the pointy sticks environment in this talk page.

    Another recent example where Nishidani has personally attacked editors who disagree with him on the talk page is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169058818, where Nishidani writes “It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote.”

    Elsewhere Nishidani has bludgeoned the talk page with constant WP:Forum non sequiturs, (including meta comments on his own comments) which have bloated the talk page and made coalescing information and moving forward on resolving issues almost impossible. For an example from yesterday: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169352168 “ Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion. Just a banausic summary of an infra-Jewish controversy the broader public might be interested in.” Drsmoo (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think my work consistently reeks of personal attacks and other varieties of abuse, AE is the place. Here, input is required on a technical problem: the inability of constructive editors to ascertain why the article is an NPOV violation. I won't allow my desire for a solution to be distracted by bickering to personalise this problem.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not all that written there, it is the stonewalling, repeated requests by multiple editors that the supposed neutrality issues be spelled out and a failure to do so. Nor is this just a recent thing, I first raised this behavior on your talk page a month ago here.
    When pressed, a couple of days ago, Here your response was You were specifically asked to show how multiple sources indicate that genetic studies on Jews inherit from race science which is just nonsense since no such assertion has been made and As was stated before, there is no subject here is a ridiculous restatement of a failed AfD argument, given the sourcing.
    I get that you don't like the article but the need is to translate that dislike into something concrete, either by editing the article or else simply list out the concerns that justify maintaining a POV tag so that they can be dealt with, that's it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been having the mostly unpleasant experience of watching what's going on at the page, and trying to help where I can. There's a lot that I could say here, but I'll focus on the issue of resolving what Nishidani expresses concern about. I think that, especially in light of how fraught the topic area is, most of the editors there are actually trying very hard to act in good faith. Most of the conflict is coming from, on the one hand, Drsmoo being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page, and not really answering questions in a way that other editors can be sure of what his concerns are, and, on the other hand, Nishidani taking everything personally and responding to any criticism of the page with personalized criticisms of the critic, and objections to any effort by other good-faith editors to brainstorm about things like renaming the page. At the same time, it's Nishidani who is doing most of the work in actually improving the page itself.
    Nishidani asked recently, and quite reasonably, to have some time to work on fixing up the page, and it's been coming along nicely. I'm not sure, but it looks to me like the revisions are still ongoing. It seems to me to be reasonable to allow that editing to play out, with a healthy respect for WP:There is no deadline, before making decisions about things like a possible page rename. That being the case, I think that should be a two-way street. If it's too soon to evaluate a page move, then it's too soon to demand that the POV tag be removed from the page. (On the other hand, if it's time to remove the tag, then it's time to start a rename discussion. But I don't think that's where we are, right now.) Let the tag stay for a while longer. As a Contentious Topic where there's 1RR, take anyone who edit wars over the tag to AE. And at some point, Nishidani needs to say that the revisions are mostly done, and then allow other editors to evaluate where things are at without getting all WP:OWN about it. In the mean time, if Drsmoo or anyone else can articulate unaddressed concerns over POV, then editors should try to address them, and if no one understands what the concerns currently are, then just don't act on them now and don't argue about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take things personally. I took a personal responsibility before all other editors to fix the page by a comprehensive rewrite. I announced my rewrite and review would end by Saturday 6th.August, four days ago. I keep tweaking, but the article is done. Save for the continuing insistence that a POV problem remains. That is why I think those who consider this is the case, should allow me and other editors to sight the putative issues, and fix them. These requests have been met with a refusal to collaborate. The tag must remain, who knows how long, regardless. Ergo this. The 'topic area is not fraught'. It hasn't been for some years, and this is not strictly I/P but an article surveying an infra-Jewish/Israeli debate, using overwhelmingly sources from that world. I don't own the article. Wikipedia does.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you choose to open an ANI thread, you also open yourself up to editors looking at your conduct. I sincerely do appreciate the content work that you are doing on that page. I'll say to uninvolved editors reading here, that this response is very typical of the responses that I see on the article talk page: it's everyone else's fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'It's everyone else's fault'. Diffs please.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I'm flummoxed. I can't see any evidence there that I think everyone else is at fault, that I have a blame mentality. Perhaps arbs can. I leave it to them. You did mention Drsmoo 'being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page'. Perhaps you could, as a reflection of neutrality, illustrate what you consider to be examples of that with an equivalent set of diffs.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Nishidani thinks that I'm unfairly criticizing Drsmoo, which I doubt because Nishidani started this thread in part to object to Drsmoo's conduct, I'm not going to do an in-depth diff hunt, but I will show these two diffs to illustrate what I was thinking of in the specific context of heavy-handedness: [114], [115]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not examples of heavyhandedness. They are legitimate edits by Drsmoo to the article, which others disagreed with. This is absolutely normal, and any disagreements arising from them are sorted out by discussion on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's an awful article. What are these Zionists that they talk of? Introductory stuff seems to start half way down. There probably is need for an article on race and genetics in Israeli identity, or something. This is a long way from anything decent though. Secretlondon (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Secretlondon: whilst harsh, your comment feels fresh and constructive. Is your main point that it is written in a technical way with a lot of assumed knowledge? If so, that is probably because - given the sensitivity here around such a topic - we have tried to keep very close to how the sources talk about it, and most of the sources are academics whose works are mostly read by other academics. We can start the process of making it more user-friendly, perhaps by following the style of something like Tanny, Jarrod (20 May 2013). "What 'Jews a Race' Debate Means for Israel". The Forward., an article by an academic writing for a popular audience, and in this case from a practical and pro-Israel stance. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is laid under three impossible conditions, all of which reveal a catch-22 logic.
    • (1)The cry went up. 'This is all synth!' So for a gruelling month, every single phrase or sentence was anchored rigorously in wording taken from nearly 90 academic sources that deal with Zionism, race and genetics in various combinations, with source notes for most statements provided to allow the reader ready access to immediate verifiability (WP:V). Result? It's awful(ly) hard to read. Well all technical articles are difficult from DNA, to Particle physics. Wikipedia doesn't dumb down. It provides comprehensive articles even on difficult topics which paraphrase the conversation in the academic world in the simplest terms the topic allows. Many general readers will find them hard-going. The point is, would an academic familiar with the article find faults in it. I was emailed by an Israeli academic and told that it was a 'very impressive' summary of the state of the art. That's just one viewpoint, of course. The catch-22 is, if you write it to cover fully the complexities of a very contentious academic controversy, many readers may find it hard to follow. But if you make it easy to grasp (Tanny's article) you would have to gut the article of 90% of its content, and therefore leave the reader with a very superficial impression, and relatively uninformed (the technicalities of the difference in statistical models -Cavilli-Sfroza vs the Israeli school).
    • (2)At the end, a tag remained. It can't be removed, we are told, because the article is still being tweaked, and therefore labile - the focus and scope in so far as it is being touched here and there, are not stable. That means every article on wiki should wear a POV tag, because, apart from FAs, article are always under revision for updating and improvements. It also means that the very act of editing further renders it POV. This means improving the article is a barrier to removing the tag. Go figure.
    • (3) Since two editors insisted it has POV problems of synth, they were asked to provide concrete examples, so the problems could be addressed. Until they are addressed, the suspicion remains that it has synth problems, ergo the tag. But then the two editors have refused to come forth with the evidence asked of them. So their silence ensures that the 'issues' cannot be fixed. That, again, places wikipedian editors who are striving to fix the article in an impossible position. Ergo this request. We should not be creating extraordinary conditions each creating impossible dilemmas, for what is just an article that gives an overview of a little known but intensely analysed (in academia) infra-Jewish historical controversy. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to the accusation of stonewalling against me. I see this is defined as repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. "The community" does not clearly disagree with the viewpoint that the article is not neutral; three or four very active editors clearly disagree (while around 9, mostly less active, editors agree). It is true that I took hours to reply to the personal request to me Nishidani mentioned to me; I was not online, rather than stonewalling. I think the editors who have authored most of the article and are therefore understandably highly invested in it need to step back a bit from flooding the talk page, and actually listen to the concerns raised, namely that the article is not framed as a Wikipedia article but as an original essay with a thesis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The concerns raised are essentially the same as those raised at the AfD, synth, blah blah. If it were an original essay with a thesis (polite way of saying synth/OR) it would have been deleted at AfD. The AfD did not yield the desired outcome, either get over it or file another AfD if that is what y'all actually believe. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: the AfD closed with no consensus, not with a consensus to keep. If the concerns raised are indeed essentially the same as those raised at the AfD, then those concerns have not been put to bed by a no consensus close. Roughly half the participants made points you're deriding as "blah, blah". (I myself didn't come out definitively for delete, as I remain hopeful there could be a viable version of the article, but in its current form I believe it is an original essay with a thesis, i.e. not NPOV.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the courtesy of replying, Bob. Essentially you are saying the entire article is flawed, therefore you are under no obligation to point out problems, because the article itself is the problem. Had you said that earlier, I wouldn't have listed you here. Could you at least tell me and others what the 'thesis' is? Because if there is a thesis, - as opposed to my aim to sum up the history and various positions within it of the concept of race as they are studied by, mainly Israeli and diaspora scholarship on the intertwined issues of 'Zionism, race and genetics' - and if I am driven by one, I am utterly unaware of it, and it must have slipped under my guard, i.e. the kind of self-monitoring one uses in writing on wikipedia to avoid pushing a POV. Thank you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of issues has emerged. Bonne chance to progress! Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Bluthmark

    Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[116] The disruptive behavior continues.[117]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[118]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still[119] doing[120] it.[121] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On 5 August 2023, you changed
    That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[125] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. And you are still edit warring. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shells-shelss, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as NebY pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding writers and producers to an infobox. Ferret, care to chime in? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Soetermans, I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly what they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even asked you directly for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated WP:3RR on that page as well (also, what's up with this unexplained revert?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. Shells-shells (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the editor who made the most effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @Bluthmark per the two threads above.
    TL;DR:
    The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @Bluthmark to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @Bluthmark in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @Bluthmark has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. UnironicEditor (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders (WP: VG/MOS, wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. Bluthmark (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)[reply]
    Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh Bluthmark (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you strike that. user:Soetermans has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. Meters (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."
    Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.
    The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."
    And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.
    Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.
    Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~ UnironicEditor (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some human guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging me. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x Bluthmark (talk) Bluthmark (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP editor

    104.226.30.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:104.226.30.18#August_2023

    As you can see from the Contribs page, this IP has a history of "revert and run" w/o engaging other editors or seeking consensus. Comments left in edit summaries suggest a working knowledge of policy, which leads me to believe this may be a sockpuppet. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be the same person from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126#Revenge Edits by an IP, who was already blocked once for harassing/stalking you. Same topic, same articles, same behaviour. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's just made a last minute vote in an RfC in which I'm involved. I wonder how it found me there. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sunilroy24, IP address and problematic editing

    As per below. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We have Sunilroy24 and what would have to say is an associated IP address undertaking problematic editing that looks to be paid editing, though could just be excessive conflict of interest. The editor's commentary at User talk:Sunilroy24 seems to indicate that they are part of a nest of domains and editors. The user is blocked as we simply don't need that level of engagement when reasonable means of resolution are attempted.

    I have blacklisted the domain thebengalichronicles.com as part of the prevention process. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    New RGW Ukrainian user

    (non-admin closure) Belcher.Jr has been indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 as clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and WP:RGW. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Belcher.Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    One more user who, while trying to convince us to write that Kazimir Malevich was Ukrainian artist, starts teaching me Wikipedia policies: "You have a political bias and a clear conflict of interest. therefore, discussing this topic with you is not interesting to me and is contradictory from the point of view of Wikipedia's rules" [126]. ALL edits of this user are on the same page, Talk:Kazimir Malevich, and all but one are at the bottom on the page. Could somebody please have a look whether the continued participation of this user in the English Wikipedia is beneficial for the project. Thank you. (For the record, I am now less active in Wikipedia user space, and I spend more time on purely technical work and on articles, but I still get attacked like this almost daily, which is tbh tiring). Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Expressing one's viewpoint on a talk page is not a violation of any Wikipedia rules that I know of. Having an unpopular viewpoint, and even saying things that are objectively wrong are not violations of any rules I know of. Have they edit warred in the article space? Have they personally attacked other users? If not, let them be. If they have, please provide diffs as evidence. --Jayron32 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting aspersions that I am biased (and have COI) because my mothertongue is Russian is a violation though. Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They sound very combatative. Secretlondon (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I have looked at the matter in a little more depth. Using someones race, ethnicity, language, or other personal traits as an insult or means to discount their contributions is a clear personal attack. That being said, Ymblanter, before they did so, you obliquely referred to people with his POV as "Ukrainian trolls", painting your interlocutor with that brush before he ever called out your Russian language heritage. If they are casting aspersions, perhaps they thought it was normal to do so because they learned it from you. I'm just saying, pots should not make commentary on the color of kettles... --Jayron32 12:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, they started with a personal attack (referring to me as a "Russian administrator", in a clearly negative context). I agree though the "Ukrainian trolls" was too much, even though most of these users were blocked as socks or just as trolls. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I do think that the nationalist rhetoric can be tuned way the f down on that article talk page. Honestly, if I had my druthers, we'd make a new Wikipedia rule that nationality adjectives were eliminated from Wikipedia entirely; it would stop all this stupid shit right away. But that's probably not realistic. In the meantime, I think that this discussion should serve as a formal warning towards Belcher.Jr is warranted here, (and a mild trouting to Ymblanter for a milder example of same) and if Belcher.Jr continues to use nationality/ethnicity/language/etc. of others as a weapon in discussions, a WP:NPA block would be in order. --Jayron32 12:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly support such policy on nationalistic rhetoric if ever proposed. Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed -- to an extent. It's not okay to refer to your other editor as a "Russian bot" in the collaborative discourse that goes into making an article. However, a blanket rule would be problematic much in the same way that making something like WP:NOCONFED or WP:NORACISTS a policy would be, which is that it's partially redundant but could also be abused to "win" an argument against an editor you don't like. Most of the time, if an editor is continually misbehaving in such a manner in a way that is evidently uncivil, it's generally a WP:NOTHERE matter. But you both already know this, I'm sure! Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only asserted a conflict of interest and did not assess it subjectively in any way. Although really sometimes too sharp. However, he offended me, pay attention to that Belcher.Jr (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, better to say, you casted a COI aspersion, because it is pretty clear that WP:COI does not describe anything related to my activities on Wikipedia (with a couple of exceptions where I declared COI and which are unrelated to Malevich). Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my assumption to which I have the right. I did not accuse or insult, unlike you. Belcher.Jr (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. These "assumptions" are exactly the reason I believe your account should not be allowed to edit here. Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you continue to provoke me. You wrote a complaint against me and expressed your opinion, I did not comment on you. You immediately came to my position on the situation and continue to prove something. You have very destructive behavior as an administrator. Belcher.Jr (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your combative tone is really not helping your case here. NM 14:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Belcher.Jr as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Maha Sainik

    Hi everyone, Please refer to User talk:Maha Sainik#August 2023. Maha Sainik has continuously been making personal comments and attacks. He has aruged the complete day about what he thinks should be added. Though he is not ready to read and understand the rules. He has been citing YouTube videos and small regional news agencies to support his claims. There has been a very long discussion on this between him, me and some comments by another user. I would request the fraternity to do what is right. Because even after warning him he made another personal comment and attack. When I said that I am making last comment on this discussion he said - "You couldn't make any valuable contributions anywhere else because I've seen your contribution. Lakhs of people saved today from reading misinformation. Whenever anybody will read this page He'll see one has lost it infront of bright truth and ran away." These are his exact words. He has also made many other personal attacks in the same discussion earlier too. For a moment Even if I am wrong how correct is it to make personal attacks and pass comments like this? This should not be accepted. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of his comments are:-
    • Don't put a piece of clothe on your eyes just to show something that you want.
    • Only due to you, Maharashtra is reading wrong information day by day.
    • You have added BJP on your page just to do all these (anti) activities.
    • You also know it in your mind that your ego is stopping you from doing the corrections.
    • Your common sense should have sensed you that whenever one visits a marathi article, the first option he or she sees is that translate it to ENGLISH. Your common sense should sense you that English people can't ever know Maharashtra politics than regional marathi newspapers.
    • You couldn't make any valuable contributions anywhere else because I've seen your contribution. Lakhs of people saved today from reading misinformation. Whenever anybody will read this page He'll see one has lost it infront of bright truth and ran away. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      After every comment made by him I initially advised him not to make and after repeated connected I warned him too but in no vain. I don't think that just reporting a account for sock investigation makes someone mentally ill. Wikipedia rules say that investigation can be done, it is not wrong. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello everyone, I am a genuine user and this guy @Shaan Sengupta is constantly accusing me for being a sockpuppet. He has attacked me personally & mentally by calling me a sockpuppet a lot of times. Please chech my account details & my IP Address. @Shaan Sengupta is constantly sharing false information on Maharashtra legislative assembly page & other related pages . I provided dozens of references for the true information but he don't want the page to be corrected. I request the admins to look in to this and check my details too . Thank you Maha Sainik (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shaan Sengupta is spreading misinformation on very important Maharashtra government pages . I provided him more than 12 references . @Shaan Sengupta doesn't have a single reference to prove the information he wants to showcase. He attacked me personally by asking about my common sense. His words were. "Don't you have a common sense. Your common sense is so low" .. He has allegedly edited & deleted the words used by him to attack me mentally. I request admins to look into this, @Shaan Sengupta quoted me as a guy with low common sense and it is mentally disturbing for a genuine user like me Maha Sainik (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow!
    Now he has stooped so low just to prove himself innocent that he has started misquoting me and spreading misinformation? What does he think people here are mad? They won't get his manipulating tactics. My exact words are -
    • Please apply some common sense before saying something
    • Have some common sense
    He says that I have allegedly deleted my comment. Here he has used the word "allegedly" very smartly. I just want to tell you @Maha Sainik that there is a thing called edit history. Please show me where have I written or deleted the words you said. If you show me I shall myself retire from Wikipedia. If not then accept that you are the one spreading misinformation and misquoting. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @Shaan Sengupta I am a sensitive guy & I am mentally disturbed due to @Shaan Sengupta for showcasing that I don't have any common sense. You don't need to get retire, I shall retire from wikipedia If you provide me a single source for the MLAs you are claiming. Dear admins, this guy @Shaan Sengupta is constantly spreading misinformation on very important government pages and whenever some genuine guy tries to correct it, @Shaan Sengupta files sockpuppetry & then he warns the users for reporting them. There must be some regulations for these important pages or people like @Shaan Sengupta will keep spreading the misinformation and will keep pushing back true people having true and genuine information. I request admins to check the activities by him and how he pushes genuine people back smartly Maha Sainik (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep making baseless allegations. By the way, just to get the facts right. You are the first one I reported for sock investigation. I never said you don't have common sense. I don't want to change what's already there in the article. It's you who want to change. So you have to provide reliable source not me. Had I wanted to make a change I would have given a reliable source. I just want it to be as it is until a change is supported by established reliable source. My edits have been reviewed and many editors have also thanked me for my edits. This is not a place of dumb people that someone can easily bypass by vandalising. And every reader can see who is trying to push back whom. You just are not able to admit that you can't provide what's needed. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't keep making baseless allegations on me as your words are mentally disturbing for a genuine user like me. You showcased that I don't have common sense. I would request admins to look into this. Many people have tried to correct the misinformation on these Maharashtra government pages but @Shaan Sengupta reverts the information . @Shaan Sengupta seems always in a hurry to promote a political party by showcasing their numbers high. Using words like common sense & dumb, disturbs a genuine user personally. I request Admins to stop @Shaan Sengupta from spreading the misinformation on Government pages. Maha Sainik (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy is master at misquoting. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good evening, so I saw this on mobile and basically @Maha Sainik added more than five citations, some which required translation from Marathi which took long because the shortcut to translate somehow broke requiring to go to Google Translate. Otherwise, the user also added a citation on the very top of the lead for some reason, just to state. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit Thank you for adding. I have all the references for the correct information but I didn't know how to site them yesterday. I learned to site them today by watching videos still @Shaan Sengupta is reverting my edits without adding any references. He don't have proper references still he wants to showcase the information he want to. @ToadetteEdit I could see the translate to english option on marathi websites thats why I cited them Maha Sainik (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to get into so deep. Let me clarify how this guy is a habitual/regular offender. He has also engaged in edit war. He first edited Maharashtra Legislative Assembly at 7 Aug 2023. Since then his edits have been reverted by three users. Me @ToadetteEdit and @Chennai Super Kings Lover. In a span of just two days i.e. 7th and 8th we three users reverted his edits nearly 7 Times.
    • Personal attacks, Adding non-established sources, Not following instructions, Misquoting, Making false allegations, spaming same links, and the list goes on.....
    After all this I am yet not able to understand although I have told this thrice. Why should I add a reference to something that's already there in the article. I am not adding anything new. It's him who want to add/change the content. So he is the one who needs to cite reliable references. Citing any random references doesn't help. Why should I watch a YouTube video. Are YouTube videos reliable source? Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    only this guy @Shaan Sengupta is engaging in edit war as he wants to showcase the wrong information infront of people of our state. He claims to support one political party on his page and shows favourable edits for some political parties. @ToadetteEdit just corrected my citing mistake and I was not engaged in an edit war with @ToadetteEdit . This guy @Shaan Sengupta is lying and @ToadetteEdit can easily see it . Even @Chennai Super Kings Lover and me had a fruitful discussion and in the end He certified my references. Only @Shaan Sengupta is warning me & making mentally disturbing attacks on me just because I have provided a dozen of references against the misinformation spread by him on such an important government page. Maha Sainik (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop pinging too much (one ping for each user, each comment is enough). ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though we had fruitful conversation but your quote [127]-"It is sad that how some people are showing their propaganda here even after giving proper articles with proofs." is against WP:Civility and also hurt my sentiments.
    Thank You✨
    Chennai Super Kings LoverTalk 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chennai Super Kings Lover Is this comment for me? When you and me were engaged in similar dispute we too solved this in just a day without an issue. You were the only one who was against increasing seat tally for AP. Now the user want to do the same by citing small regional news agencies and YouTube videos which aren't considered reliable and you want me to accept that and do what he says? Putting my personal political will aside I have always done what's right. And he you are accusing me of propaganda. Please explain this what propaganda have I run? And please don't play safe by not naming users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not you Mr.Sengupta, I'm talking about Maha Sainik, who used (propoganda) word against me here[128] which is totally uncivilized and against WP:Civility!
    Chennai Super Kings LoverTalk Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. This is why I said to take names. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    your comments on their talk page suggest that you believe that you are who dictates how and what edits are made to the page in question. that's not how Wikipedia works. A type of cabinet (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chennai Super Kings Lover It is not in our one to one conversation. I don't or didn't want to comment it for you. I didn't tagged you so you don't have to worry about it. Maha Sainik (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roxane Thais

    A new account (<7 days, <20 edits) Roxane Thais moved a draft (Draft:Stefan Ytterborn) past AfC into the main space. I moved it back, because there was no evidence of notability, and subsequently its SPA creator Samwalker22 turned out to be UPE. Now Roxane Thais has done the same with Draft:Markus H.-P. Müller, again non-notable, and again created by a SPA account Drmirror. Something doesn't quite stack up – why does such a new account move drafts to the main space (in both cases with a comment "Article reviewed", as if they're an article reviewer), and how do they even find these drafts? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not quite understand the issue, as well as why the article got declined. I renewed almost all sources to reliable sources and tried to source almost every sentence. There are articles published which have more content but a fraction of the sources. Can you help me or tell me where to get assistance on the issue? Drmirror (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmirror, if you look at the message at the top of Draft:Markus H.-P. Müller, it has a link to the Articles for Creation Help desk where you can ask for advice. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Drmirror (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's concerning that Roxane Thais's only response to DoubleGrazing's polite messages on their talk was "He is notable, he must be on Wikipedia". Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing on regional power

    Long-term disruptive editor, Collebud88 (check their talk page) keeps listing its own country, Colombia, into the regional power article. Looking at the user's contributions it is clear that they are a single-purpose account with a long history of disruptive editing due to their nationalistic bias. The user has already made three reverts on the page ([129], [130], [131]) and isn't being responsive in the talk page. Collebud88 is also removing sourced content ([132]), behaviour which has occurred in another recent incident ([133], [134]) on the very same article. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they should be given an opportunity to respond but I note they have accumulated a lot of messages and outright warnings on their talk over a long period of time, without ever responding to any of them. That's not a good sign. And they have been blocked three times for edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already pinged Collebud88 in the talk page of the article before his last revert, the user made a choice to ignore the message. Furthermore, 99,7% of their edits are in main, the user will most certainly not engage in a discussion. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 08:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a tool to fix that. Partially blocked from main space until they engage in discussion. Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, I think that is a reasonable measure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent WP:BLP violations at Mamoudou Athie and other articles

    Page protected at RfPP. Wait and watch. Lourdes 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mostly adding unsourced birthdays, over and over, despite reversions by multiple editors. Looks to be one user, changing IPs over a period of weeks, if not longer. I've also asked for increased page protection and posted to AIV, but blocking one IP won't be sufficient. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Promotional editing

    Shirt58 has given the user personalized advice, especially on, uh, kissing statues. It's premature to take any administrative action against the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I am new to adding to your website.

    I am puzzled at the issues are with….

    • The additions I made to the Girona Spain Article concerned the legend of kissing the lion. Please feel free to look at the numerous sites which refer to this subject.

    • I also added one museum in Tarragona Spain to visit. Again, just like Girona mentioned in several travel websites, and even travel shows. I found the addition totally appropriate based upon the first entry from the Tarragona Article. Especially so since the article names privately held (for profit) restaurants in the second example.

    1. Tarragona is one of the World Heritage Journeys in the European Union.[24] Tourism is focused on the key sites of Mercat Central de Tarragona (Central Market of Tarragona), La Rambla Nova (the main shopping street), El Serrallo fishing village, the surrounding beaches of the golden coast, the key plazas (Plaça de la Font, Plaça del Fòrum, Plaça del Rei), Balcó del Mediterrani, Praetorium and Roman Circus, Roman Amphitheatre, Model of Roman Tarraco, and the cathedral.[25

    2. 2.Tarragona is home to two Michelin Guide recommended restaurants: El Terrat and Barquet.[30] In addition, El Terrat and AQ were awarded one "Sol" each in the 2022 Guía Repsol.[31]

    I received this nice message from Joyous: and the other from Tommi. I appreciate Joyouis’ thoughts. Tommi, however, is way off base.

    ‪Joyous!‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪August 2023‬". Hello, I'm Joyous!. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Girona, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelABlank1 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Newby welcomed and advice given. Surely I can't be the only person who thought, "El Cul de la Lleona", does that mean what I think it does? - oops, yes it does. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent copyright issues at Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, involving multiple accounts

    My last report of the evening.

    Registered account appears to be using the IPs to edit war, so there may be cause for user sanctions, as well as more rev/deletion cleanup. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayup, seems like it, as they're removing the copyright violation template and re-adding the copyright content. The revisions will need to be updated accordingly, but I'm going to have to refrain from reverting further. Also, I've reported the third IP to AIV but that's getting increasingly moot at this point. Tails Wx (they/them) 05:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You must notify all the involved users, including IPs, because they might not be related. I've done for the two IPs involved here. I've also reverted copyvio template removal and re-additions. The edit summary on this diff Data taken from Gazette of India is not copyrighted and can be used for non commercial pupose (emphasis mine) shows it's not compatible with Wikipedia as it must allow unlimited commercial use. --Stylez995 (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (Edit: autocorrect fix --Stylez995 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    Another note that I'd like to add is that one of the IPs listed above is following my edits and reverting a copyright violation tag I placed on a different article here. Tails Wx (they/them) 06:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and also just disruptive. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thewikizoomer, can you confirm that you have read our policy on copyright violations and that you will take this into consideration for all your edits? Can you also confirm that you have read BRD and would follow this as far as possible? Thank you, Lourdes 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate behavior and removal of AfD by User:Cool90630

    User:Cool90630 has been on a rapid disruptive and inappropriate rampage recently. They created List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines, which I then nominated for PROD. They removed the PROD. Ok, fine. However, I received this nasty combination of messages on my talk page, with things like how embarrassing are you, You better to stop trolling my page, and What is wrong with you?. Clearly, they don't assume good faith in other people, as per WP:AGF asks. I then proceeded to nominate the above article for deletion, which they responded to by removing the AfD template from the article. I reverted their edit, because they can't do that. They then proceeded to remove the discussion on my talk page in which I also contributed to (so it's not like they were removing their AGF edits), leaving the edit summary I am done with you. Farewell and join the rest of your life.. I reverted that, of course, and they then proceeded to blank their article. They then again removed content from my talk page without authorization, which I had to revert again.
    I think that just for this behavior alone, something should be done administratively. I'm not sure how to warn them as they will most likely just ignore it and delete the message, as they seem to do with discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If by the time you see this message List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines is no longer an article, it's because I tagged it with {{Db-blanked}} on behalf on Cool90630. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Paul Vaurie

    Hello everyone, I already give up as for now tell him don't suspended of my Wikipedia page and I do accept as his own opinions. I am no longer to created the former public transportation that are discontinued anymore. I do understand what he is asked for it. Message to Paul Vaurie, I do apologize for misunderstanding and inappropriate behavior of AFD. Trust me, I won't do anymore to create former public transit on this page as leave of the behalf reasons. Is not too late and don't get me wrong so I am not sure he will accept with my apology or not but I am not tried to be rude on Paul Vaurie. Do not suspended with my Wikipedia page account. Thank you! Cool90630 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've merged this into the previous section - we don't need two separate sections. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said I have just here to make apologies on Paul Vaurie for wrongdoing. Cool90630 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cool90630: Creating an article is not inherently wrong-doing, Cool90630. There is nothing wrong with creating an article. However, a non-notable article will be usually taken to AfD and deleted there. What is a problem is that you deleted the AfD template from the page and that you left a disrespectful comment on my talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure totally agreed, you ask for it don't get me wrong and I don't have a time to complain. I have to ask your permission just delete disrespectful comment of your talk page by me then nothing happens ever again. Cool90630 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paul, are you okay with the apology provided by Cool and if so, might we close this section? You can come back if there is further disruption. Let us know. Thanks, Lourdes 13:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spj345

    (non-admin closure) Spj345 blocked indef by Courcelles as WP:NOTHERE. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 13:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have been concerned about this user's edits for some time. Initially I had thought WP:CIR was relevant, but their disruptive editing (including removal of sourced content and introducing factual errors) has persisted after numerous warnings. Some examples: [135] [136] [137] [138].

    They have received nine warnings, eight over the last month. In response, Spj345 has claimed to not understand or not remember their edits, or of making mistakes. They have implied their "rights" have been infringed. They claim Wikipedia is full of errors, and they "won't stop". Their combative response to each warning suggests they are not interested in learning from their mistakes.

    Spj345 has now taken to making personal attacks ([139] [140] [141] [142]) and vandalising user pages ([143]) in response to receiving warnings.

    Unfortunately it seems this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Manticore 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified on their talk page. — Manticore 11:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even as a CIR issue they've received enough warnings that action would be warranted, but with the newfound wave of PAs on top, an indef is the appropriate option. Even pre-PA, their behaviour was not just "not getting it". Variations of blaming the other side for it, or demanding apologies everytime anyone pointed out an issue. Support indef (I'm open to it being specified as not a ban (which I encourage for CIR cases), but the PAs would suggest agains that). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A CBAN would be bureaucratic overkill for a 199 edit account. I’ve given a standard NOTHERE block given the laundry list of issues. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruption at Witchfynde

    Help, please. WP:COI accounts appear to be warring over the band's status and members, and of course none of it is sourced. I've wasted enough time just fixing the infobox format, which is broken again. Requesting user sanctions, page protection, and copy editing and paring of unsourced content. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So basically the article has long been needing additional sources to verify the statements. but as I can expect, @Wfynde is a new account created on August 6, with all edits from mobile, and all of them are directed to the article. Another account, @Iansmiler, begin almost exclusively editing in this article. Should Wfynde edit warring in this, it is obvious that the username is focused on the article. Futhermore, the new user doesn't use edit summary. Pinging the two users to pay their attention. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correcting my mistakes:
    • Account was created Aug. 5, not 6
    Also, Iansmiler seems obviously a sleeper as the account was inactive for three years. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already notified both accounts. And while their edit histories are focused on the article, there are several IPs that have also dedicated their attentions there, so it's not unreasonable to think that one or both registered accounts have been involved while signed out. This didn't just start. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello - I am iansmiler :) I am a NWOBHM enthusiast. I edited the site following an announcement on the original bands FB page. Many NWOBHM bands on Wikipedia are not up to date with regards to information on their current status, but I do not know enough about them to commit my knowledge to a wiki. With regard to Witchfynde - I have followed the band for 40 years and know EVERYTHING about them! Including the direction each member has taken. I therefore chose to lend my pen and update the wiki. Recently I was alerted to somebody else editing the wiki, and was looking forward to see what additions had been made... alas - somebody had removed band information, this was not even band info that I had added. Two particular names that were removed were Tracey Abbott and Ian Hamilton. I know that in the NWOBHM scene there is a current 'difference of opinion' between these two former members and one of the earlier band members (It is all over social media) - I believe that the culprit that is editing this wiki is acting on behalf, or is the earlier band member based on this information. Iansmiler (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Iansmiler. Notwithstanding the likelihood that Wikipedia is filled with experts on each subject, we can not publish unsourced content or WP:OR. Any content that is not WP:RELIABLEy sourced may be removed. If you can support edits with acceptable sources, please do. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When the article is barely unverifiable as one source says they are formed in Nottinghamshire but it says derbyshire. Source no 2 is just a wikipedia citation. Futhermore, the IP before the COI account was made can clearly be a sock. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you add to Wikipedia must be verifiable, you're now personal knowledge isn't enough. I suggest reading WP:REFB, which is a simple explanation of how to add references for your additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Civil POV pushing on "Gender-related topics"

    I have been editing since 2006 and in January 2023 I stumbled upon the MOS entry for MOS:GENDERID. I was shocked to find it clearly violating NPOV and NOTCENSORED and got involved in recent RfCs where I perceived POV-pushing by activists trying to expand privacy protections to deceased individuals in the MOS, beyond even the scope of BLP. I initially brought up concerns on the talkpage 5 January 2023 (see 2023 archive) and recognized that the situation fits exactly with the article on WP:CPUSH, and I found myself struggling for months against a bunch of very civil activists trying to crush even the most basic policy-based improvements on any gender-related page (e.g. Irreversible Damage). One of the first comments I got was, You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade.

    I followed closely two RfCs closed 7 June 2023 and 20 July 2023. They were started either in part or wholly by Sideswipe9th with a fairly biased setup that was leading the discussion toward another expansion of MOS-based restrictions. They both failed. I was labeled as part of "the opposition". My oppose !vote in the second RfC brought several activists arguing to dismiss my !vote. Numerous comments from the RfCs lamented the "MOS activists" repeatedly running RfCs and wasting people's time, gaining local consensus on the MOS page and failing at VPP with a wider audience. People are fatigued on this topic. In discussions with Sideswipe9th over many months, I've found they often respond to my comments within 10 minutes, regardless of time of day, and the comments tend to be very long and always oppositional and dismissive. The result, maybe intentionally, is that others find it hard to keep up with the enormous amount of discussion and they check out, leaving the few highly committed activists to dominate discussion. Consensus is impossible, creating repeated RfCs.

    I started proposing a revision to MOS:GENDERID at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on 26 June 2023 and was clear since January that I wanted to work toward a new RfC that aligns the MOS with policy, which would inevitably be opposed to the nth degree by the activists trying to go the opposite direction. I went through about 5 different revisions over at least 5 weeks trying to get feedback, trying to parse the useful feedback from the fluff of specious complaints in the face of CPUSH. I'm not providing diffs because of the volume involved. When I finally got to the point of a reasonable proposal at Village Pump, I posted it today and within 15 minutes Sideswipe9th, Firefangledfeathers, and LokiTheLiar asked for a procedural close of the RfC, basically saying that because they previously opposed it, I didn't have consensus for the RfC and failed WP:RFCBEFORE. At a surface level their complaints may look reasonable, but they're not.

    CPUSH seems to be the most difficult thing for Wikipedia to deal with, even ArbCom has effectively said that they can't fix the problem. I'm not sure what can be done, but the current VPP pole response seems actionable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified users involved here, here, and here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a bunch of exhausted people trying their best to improve policies and guidelines, mostly collaborating well. We also have Cuñado posting a complex RfC over universal objection and then posting this series of allegations with not a single diff of evidence. I am truly shocked to see this here, and I need some processing time. Please ping me if you have a question I can answer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m beginning to get the impression a boomerang GENSEX top8c ban is in order given this type of language, Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that if the consensus at ANI is that my perception of CPUSH is wrong, and that my attempt at RfC was inappropriate, you won't be seeing much of me on this topic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, I won’t, because I’m going to need a VERY good reason not to use the CTOPS protocols and topic ban you. My post was hoping someone can provide one. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my warning, and their response to the rfc they opened where they said, The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. I am ready to topic ban now. Asking after clearly ignoring the warning is not the correct order of operations, and demonstrate that they understood that they were casting aspersions yet again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the feedback that my perception was wrong and acknowledge my failure to stay civil. I'll propose a one-year topic ban on myself (never been topic-banned, so not sure if a self-ban is relevant), with right to coment civilly in future RfCs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday, admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish posted this on your talk page - "Comments like several extremely active editors on this page are WP:NOTHERE and your frequent referring to other editors as activists needs to stop." and posted an AE logged warning to that effect ([144]). What have you just done above? Yeah, referred to other editors as activists. I'd say that wasn't the brightest idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given ScottishFinnishRadish's comment "If you believe that other editors are editing in bad faith or are NOTHERE WP:AE and WP:ANI are the venues to discuss that"[145], I thought this was the appropriate place to describe the problem that I perceive. If not, my apologies and I learned something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno what Cuñado thinks is happening, but to me it looks like they proposed an RFC wording, nobody liked it, and then they disruptively tried to start it anyway.
    This is actually something they've done before in discussions on that page: they proposed a wording for a section on the page, and over multiple drafts people repeatedly had the same objections that Cuñado refused to answer, enough so that I eventually made a draft incorporating those concerns over Cuñado's objections.
    Like it or not Cuñado, you do not actually have consensus for the majority of the changes you want to make to this guideline. It's a pretty common pattern in this topic area, IMO, for someone to try to make a change to a trans-related page or guideline against consensus and then when nobody is for it they start calling all their opponents activists and accusing them of wanting to WP:RGW. But WP:RGW is not a synonym for "woke", and in fact it applies better to the pattern of behavior I've just described than it does to any consensus among editors. Loki (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, @Courcelles I think I'd oppose a topic ban because, while Cuñado's repeated refusal to listen to feedback from other editors has been frustrating, I do think that his efforts on the talk page of MOS:GENDERID have been more helpful than harmful overall. (Maybe I wouldn't think this if he had been this accusatory the whole time, though.) Loki (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As my last comment of today, is there any changes or it is the same so it will require closure? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit I think you want the discussion above us. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm seeing from Cuñardo is repeated failures to listen to other editors - repeatedly at the MOS discussion and then exacerbated by the failure to listen to the logged warning yesterday. Courcelles asks for good reasons not to topic ban, I am unable to provide one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking more on this, I'm not sure that a simple topic ban from GENSEX isn't too blunt an instrument but I'm not sure what would be better. Advice and warnings haven't worked, so we need to try something else. Blocks for personalising disputes and for casting aspersions maybe, but they're subjective and can sometimes cause more drama than they avoid and they also don't address the failures to listen. A topic ban from making new proposals in the GENSEX topic area, but not from commenting on others' proposals, would help somewhat but this feels too specific and comes with definition difficulties (e.g. is a comment like "I suggest point 2 would be better phrased as ..." a "proposal"?). When they engage constructively and without casting aspersions, commenting on motivations, etc. their contributions are valuable and it would be a shame to lose them, but if there isn't a way to retain the good without also getting the bad then a topic ban may be the best way forwards for the community. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think it's civil POV pushing? Shells-shells (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sideswipe9th and I have rarely agreed on topic related questions. However, I do think they are a good faith editor and I'm always concerned when the civil POV essay is brought out. Sometimes people do work to support their POV. So long as that effort is done civilly (and I don't recall a time where Sideswipe9th wasn't) and without edit warring, I think we should give a lot of leeway when it comes to taking people to ANI for, what amounts to, trying to make their point. I can understand frustration in topics like this but I think we should really err on the side of not intervening so long as things are civil. For what it's worth I wouldn't support any action against Cunado either as I have been in their position and understand their frustration. When you have a clear vision of a problem and others aren't understanding the issue it's easy to become frustrated. They should be careful in the future to distinguish between how something can appear and the likely intent behind things. I strongly believe Sideswipe9th's intent is good faith even in cases where I disagreed with them. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is far from the first time that Cuñado has referred to anyone who disagrees with them as "activists" and they also did so in a similar fashion on the Village Pump MOS:GENDERID discussion two weeks ago, where I called them out on it. Over there they claimed all the previous RfCs on the topic and their outcomes were "driven by trans-activists that made unreasonable proposals". SilverserenC 00:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a lot of discussions since the second of the two recent RfCs closed on next steps, and by and large we are trying to come up with a draft guideline amendment that will fit the consensus established by the first RfC, while also addressing the concerns raised in the second. This isn't an easy process, there are naturally strong opinions from all involved, and we're trying to hit what seems to be a very small target for where the community consensus lies.
    • The problem, at least as I see it and reasonable minds may disagree on this, is that while Cuñado has taken some aspects of feedback onboard (for example in this reply after I pointed out that MOSBIO applies to all biographical content and not just biographical articles), there are some pretty major concerns from multiple editors that have not been addressed. The frustrations that arise from not listening to the feedback that has been given are compounded when those are met with accusations of being NOTHERE, that the two recent RfCs "had a biased activist-y setup", and that the GENDERID guideline is the result of a "local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented". When these are combined, it does not create an environment conductive to collaboration.
      For the most part, I have tried to set the accusations aside when giving feedback on the proposals, though some of my frustrations came out in this reply, where I really should have used softer language in the last sentence. However the accusations Cuñado has been making are making this process far more contentious than it has to be. I had hoped that SFR's AE logged warning yesterday would have put a stop to the accusations, however Cuñado's opening !vote in the now closed RfC, where he said The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. clearly flies against the spirit of that warning, as it is accusing the hundreds of editors who have contributed to the development of the guideline over the last twenty years of being activists by another name. For context, see regulatory capture, and then Google search a term like "transgender regulatory capture" for how this language is typically used off wiki.
      Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would urge Cuñado to rethink his approach to discussions on this topic. There are good aspects to your proposals, but those are massively outweighed when you cast everyone who opposes them because of the bad aspects as activists, and don't take constructive feedback about the bad aspects onboard when it is given. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (comment in non-admin capacity) Back in January, I reverted Cuñado's attempt to unilaterally remove the deadname provisions. For what it's worth, I agree with some of Cuñado's criticism of the guideline as stands, but that removal was obviously inappropriate. Since then, Cuñado has no doubt seen that there's a diversity of opinion on GENDERID, even among those who generally support it. I, EvergreenFir, and Folly Mox all have expressed views (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing either of you) that the current guideline is in some ways too strict. The two aspects of GENDERID that most conflict with the preferences of the trans community—retaining deadnames on some articles and avoiding neopronouns—were both largely supported by editors who broadly support GENDERID. If there is activism afoot, it's not doing a very good job. MoS remains about the middle of the pack on style guides when it comes to trans issues: Don't misgender, don't out, minimize deadnaming, but in some cases put content concerns over the subject's preference.
      Maybe I and Evergreen and Folly and the other pro-GENDERID editors who've expressed varying degrees of heterodox, independent thought don't fall under the "activists" Cuñado is talking about. It's hard to tell, because, other than naming Sideswipe thrice and FFF and Loki once, it's not clear who in particular he's complaining about here, nor has a case been made for why those three should be considered "activists" rather than just people who sometimes disagree with Cuñado. I have my own critique of GENDERID and its ideological underpinnings—specifically that it represents a fairly stereotyped understanding of the trans experience, more the sort perpetrated by cisgender allies than by trans people. But I don't blame anyone in particular for that. If there's a problem with a guideline, that's a communal failing. I've appreciated a lot of Cuñado's critique of various aspects of GENDERID. I wish he could manage to give that critique without personalizing matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Summoned by ping) (in horror to an MOS:GID thread at ANI). I appreciate the characterisation above as a heterodox, independent thinker. I did comment " Works for me" on Cuñado's recent proposed rewrite of the section in dispute— which I'm not prepared to assess as more, less, or equally strict in comparison with the current guidance. I did not find anything in the rewrite that seemed immediately objectionable, and the comment was made – like my first comment at the second VPP RfC – ex exhaustio, in the vain hope that a bold do-over might stem the flood of RfCs. I have also given pushback against proposed changes to the current policy that would make it more thoroughly trans-accommodating at the expense of reader confusion or editor frustration, including use of neopronouns and specific guidance on "complex / complementary gender expression". That second pushback, where my edit followed Tamzin's and preceded EvergreenFir's, may be what Tamzin had in mind above.
      I think User:Slakr did a valiant and adequate job in the close of one recent discussion, seeing that people are arguing from entirely different policy underpinnings, talking past each other because we disagree with or don't understand each other's assumptions. It's natural to start seeing opponents and bad faith where none exist when staring down the maw of 800kb of raw text, unceasing workshopping and bikeshedding, and what might seem to us to be arguments that completely miss the main point.
      I do have a personal connection to this topic, and when I noticed myself having too many feelings to communicate dispassionately I took MOSBIO off my watchlist and moved on. My kind suggestion to anyone who feels themselves finding enemies in their codiscussants is to take a similar step away. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd support action against Cuñado here, but I do think they were being at a minimum at very IDHT with their most recent action. I don't think the "activists" language in itself is sufficiently problematic under policy to justify a sanction in these circumstances. It's not something I would personally use (it's just too likely to inflame and already heated debate), but the fact of the matter is that it's within a reasonable field of perspective on this one: there have been parties (on both sides) who have attacked this issue with some combination of bludgeoning, advocacy, and even borderline gamesmanship; these actions have been consistently well-intentioned, and any outright violation of process unintentional, but I think it is fair to say that at times in the recent discussions and related events, lines have sometimes been crossed by some of the more adamant hardliners on both sides.
      Feeling as they do about the underlying subject, I can understand Cuñado's view that some of the advocates for more stringent GENDERID protections have used aggressive tactics at points, but that doesn't obviate two major counterpoints: a) their wording should have been more selective, and b) they should recognize that they have been more than a little activist themselves in some respects, so glass houses and all that.
      What I am less ambivalent about is my concerns about how Cuñado approached the current nexus of dispute. As of the last few days, everyone on the MoS talk page, including the parties that Cuñado as seemed to identify as "activists", have been, through an effort of will and self-restraint, inching towards an agreed wording for a new proposal. Cuñado is one of about a dozen editors who made significant contributions to that process, but they had a very specific notion for how the final product should be presented to the community and which specific issues should be foregrounded as a part of that initial process.
      In at least one respect (whether to propose moving part of the policy language to BLP and when to propose that move), Cuñado was (I think) completely opposed by every other responding community member. Yet they either lacked the ability to see that counter-consensus or chose to disregard it. Attempting to the jump their version of the proposal on to VPP seems to have been an express effort to short-circuit the 'activists' from (as Cuñado saw it) controlling the narrative with their own proposal and thereby getting an edge in the next wave of discussion. Which is also in my book an understandable view (though not my own). But that being the case, Cuñado's appropriate responses could have come in the form of expressing that opinion on the MoS talk page. Instead they seem to have wanted to get ahead of the WP:GAME, which was not helpful. Cuñado should have read the room (including seeing that editors with more middle of the ground perspectives on GENDERID also opposed Cuñado's proposal as written).
      These issues were then further compounded by the ill-advised filing here, which occurred despite the fact that the VPP proposal was procedurally closed not just because Sideswipe, Loki, and FFF opposed it, but on the basis of a pretty uniform response from other community members at Talk:MoS/Biography and VPP.
      Personally, I would lean towards a trouting here, but I suspect we may be beyond that. CTOP or no, I don't think either a TBAN or a block is warranted, and despite some tenacity and myopathy, Cuñado has made valuable contributions to the discussion and I think the final discussion will be poorer for their absence. But at a minimum, they have to drop this categorization of their strongest rhetorical opposition into a monolithic camp. I'd urge them that this does not really reflect reality, and even if it did, it would not serve process or consensus to frame the matter in the terms they have chosen in recent discussions. SnowRise let's rap 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cuñado, are you okay to voluntarily stay off the topic for one year? If you confirm, we close this discussion and extended scrutiny (for all our benefit). Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I mentioned, I don't plan on being on this topic for a year, except as an RfC commentor. Everything is off my watchlist. I regret that this discussion became about my aspersions (which I also regret). I recognize CPUSH, and the MOS:GENDERID is an open wound on Wikipedia that needs to be aligned with core content policies, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation needs to make another special resolution on this particular issue. Whatever happens, I'm out. Thanks Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Tamzin, BilledMammal, Locke Cole, and many others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry you won't be able to participate in the upcoming discussion which you helped to shape, Cuñado. That said, your response to community concerns here has been admirable and I for one will think well of you for it, going forward. And I'm confident you will be useful wherever you end up contributing as a consequence of not focusing on this issue. SnowRise let's rap 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cuñado, the voluntary nature of topic ban will include prohibiting your comments on any RfC, current or future, or any gender-related topics likewise. Are you okay with that? Thank you, Lourdes 13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sorry20 adding unsupported categories of descent to BLPs

    (non-admin closure) Sorry20 blocked two weeks by Cullen 328. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 12:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sorry20 (talk · contribs)

    Sorry20 caught my attention when I noticed some category edits on my watchlist. I checked their contributions: they've been adding unsourced and unsupported "of X descent" categories to multiple BLPs. Samples: Amber Heard, Stephen Root, Jeremy Renner, Billy Corgan, Tom Hanks.

    They'd been warned previously in Sep 22, Oct 22, and twice in July 23, and I gave two more warnings (including a final) this month. Their responses on their talk have been "sorry" and "sorry again". After the final warning on 3 Aug, they made the same type of edit today to Victoria Moroles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. Sorry20 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry too, but I have blocked Sorry20 for two weeks and advised the editor to improve their understanding of how categorization works. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bgsu98 and the mass removal of information

    Poster is a harassment sock and is now blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm reporting User:Bgsu98 as I have serious concerns as to this account's mass removal of information, and masking clear vandalism as WP:MOS, or WP:FANCRUFT. This user consistently deletes reliably sourced information from all the Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) pages and claims it's per "Manual of Style" but I have read WP:MOS and nowhere does it say these tables should have random symbols placed next to scores, and the removal of average tables that contribute to the shows in question.

    I believe this user is a vandal, and suggest an administrator keeps an eye on them as they're now doing the same to Dancing on Ice and Strictly Come Dancing. Removing information and adding tags but not adding references to support information.

    thank you. 2A00:23EE:12D8:1ACD:A96C:1785:B94B:55CA (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent misuse of talk pages

    A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [146] [147] [148] [149]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ahh, IP on IP reporting: don't see that every day. But the OP is correct: the first of the four diffs is arguably defensible as it is pulled (kinda-sorta) around to a content-relevant inquiry at the end. But the other diffs and various other comments raise a substantial indication of WP:NOTHERE: in addition to the NOTAFORUM issues, there's pretty continuous WP:RGW, WP:POVPUSHING, and WP:SOAPBOXING behaviours. However, not only did the OP not notify the other IP of this discussion (93.72.49.123, please see above about the standard template for notifying someone that you have raised their conduct on this board), but neither they nor anybody else has reached out to raise these issues on their user talk. OP, can you please show us when and where the multiple warnings you are referring to took place? At the moment, I think action to block the IP may be premature if we don't have at least some showing of pro forma discussion. Don't get me wrong, given this apparent SPA's bias, I am dubious much will come of trying to get them to contribute more neutrally in this area, but policy mandates that we typically at least give it a try. SnowRise let's rap 01:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure:

    93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified their most recent IP assignment of this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Euglenos sandara WP:HATEDISRUPT, WP:NOTHERE

    Deleted the page, blocked the user with an unblock advise to confirm they will not repeat this. Lourdes 06:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Courtesy links:

    I noticed this user's user page contained blatantly WP:POLEMIC, racist and genocide denialist content and the user appeared not to be around (last edits were on ltwiki 3 or so months ago AFAIK) I took it to MfD. This user than commented on their talk page calling the MfD participants "likeminded justice warriors" and stating that the MfD was made "purely on personal beliefs" [150]. They also posted more genocide denialist and racist soapboxing and accusing me of "tyranny" and "majority privilege" here [151]. Based on these comments I believe that a WP:NOTHERE indef block for hateful, racist, genocide denialist and disruptive editing may be necessary here. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and even if they were, their virulently and vocally racist perspectives would prevent them from competently engaging for any productive work anywhere on this project. There are maybe forty things on that page that would qualify them for action at ANI, but here is a highlight: "I believe miscegenation should be prevented by federal law." SnowRise let's rap 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    CIR issue with User:Miner Editor

    I recently edited the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for the first time on August 7th to add a paragraph about campaign financing. Since then, the content I added has been reverted or changed by Miner Editor (talk · contribs) 12 times. Here is an outline of their edits to the page:

    1. [152] Adding incorrect donation timeline with no edit summary.
    2. [153] Removing a sentence supported by multiple reliable sources by trying to claim it is somehow undue.
    3. [154] Restoring incorrect donation timeline, this time with a misleading edit summary.
    4. [155] Adding factually incorrect content that lead to this talk page discussion which was bludgeoned by Miner Editor and lead to their change being reverted by an admin.
    5. [156] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    6. [157] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    7. [158] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    8. [159] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    9. [160] Removes a part of the lede that is supported by multiple reliable sources in the body, claiming "unsourced", as a result of this talk page discussion in which they claim they read the sources but completely missed the multiple occasions where it is verified.

    Warning provided: User talk:Miner Editor#August 2023

    So as you can see, Miner Editor has been haggling me over a single paragraph from this article for days now, and not one of their twelve edits was productive. When an editor can't figure out how to find a citation and read the source to verify a claim, they clearly do not have the competency to edit in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a tad bewildering, and I'm not sure how FormalDude things this is a case for incompetence, but they're on the warpath, so here we are. Every cited edit has a context which is easily obtainable and obvious and which I stand by. If anyone has any specific questions about an edit I've made, I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not going to provide a narrative for every cited edit when I'm not seeing the necessity. Miner Editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanting to be able to contribute without being hindered by disruptive editing ≠ "on the warpath". ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I'll be glad to address every one of FormalDude's points tomorrow. Just not now. I'm in too good a mood. Miner Editor (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the CIR issue here. I am seeing you making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC, and acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you, including a claim of harassment and an insinuation—repeated in this posting—that this is "a single paragraph" and thus, apparently, not worth getting correct? I'm not saying ME's conduct here is perfect—consensus seems against him on the "frequent donor to progressive candidates" bit—but I'm seeing you causing more trouble than him.
    Also, a passing {{plip}} to Zaathras for the strange claim that a source's reliability can only be assessed at RSN. An experienced editor should surely know that the suitability of a given source for a given claim is determined on the article talk page, and that reliability is never guaranteed just because a publication is considered "generally reliable". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC – I made that error once. The second time I did not attribute the superPAC donations to the entire campaign.
    acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you – Indignant? All I said to them was "In that case your version is not correct either."
    I say it's a "single paragraph" in order to provide context to the number of edits and talk page discussions that have been started about it. Seems a lack of good faith from you to take that as meaning it's not worth getting corrected, especially since I have accepted corrections to the paragraph and would welcome more.
    How do you not see a CIR issue when they've made so made so many unproductive edits? And how exactly am I causing more trouble? If I hadn't challenged Miner Editor, they would've introduced multiple factual errors and removed two instances of reliably sourced due content. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Miner Editor, may I request you to provide clarifications for each of the diffs posted by FormalDude above? I am interested in seeing your response to the claim that you have repeated added unsourced material on a BLP, interpreted reliable sources to your benefit, attempted to misrepresent words (such as "long-term" versus "long-time"). Would appreciate your response on each of the diffs. Thanks, Lourdes 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, at first opportunity. Miner Editor (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyovuu

    For the past 3 months, Nyovuu has been trying to add or restore a "Controversies" section with various allegations of misdeeds to the article on Indian politician Arvind Kejriwal. More than half the text of Talk:Arvind Kejriwal is discussion about this proposed section; everyone there has disagreed with Nyovuu (and their IP) and opposed adding or restoring the section for one reason or another. Much of Nyovuu's disagreements have been with another editor, Kridha.

    Because they got no traction on the article talk page, Nyovuu has forum-shopped the issue (and their complaints about Kridha) to

    • DRN, where it was closed as no response, with the note that Nyovuu should use the Talk page, edit boldly but not edit-war, and try an RFC.
    • NPOVN (the first time), Noticeboard for India-related topics, and ANI, where each time the thread was auto-archived without a response.
    • NPOVN (the second time), where I gave my opinion that all of Kridha's edits appeared to be justified, and User:Bookku gave some general thoughts but ultimately didn't have the time to devote to it.
    • BLPN, which I closed as redundant to the above NPOVN discussion.

    Nyovuu has now escalated to edit warring the "Controversies" section and allegations into the article. I've explained that they need to gain consensus for their addition and attempted to direct them back to Talk:Arvind Kejriwal, going so far as to create a new topic for them. Their edit summaries display a great deal of WP:IDHT, like "There was no outcome in consesus & user also didn't participate in...neutral point of view noticeboard" and "no proper reason given". There's also this subpage that suggests they have a COI with the article subject.

    At this point, I think that Nyovuu should to be page-blocked from Arvind Kejriwal, along with a restriction on forum-shopping issues to multiple venues at the same time or in quick succession. I'm hopeful that their suggestions at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal might lead to some of their content getting added, as long as there's a consensus to do so. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely pageblocked Nyovuu from Arvind Kejriwal, and given them an additional warning to refrain from any more disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I observed @Nyovuu have been receptive to some advice and missing on some and making usual mistakes new users make in first couple of years on Wikipedia. On their talk page I have noted to take Woodroar's advice seriously and work accordingly.
    On side note: As far as Nyovuu's moving from forum to forum was not for canvassing but seem to have resulted from failure of experienced Wikipedians to read into genuine part of issue raised by them and help out new user who may not know how to raise issue, how to differentiate reliable sources and get concurrence at WP:RSN how to write neutral WP:RFC. I know users get these things eventually after initial faltering, but experienced users too can do more and better to help out uninitiated users. Bookku (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do about the socks spamming SOCIALDEMÓCRATA DE HONDURAS?

    (non-admin closure) User blocked indef by L235 as per LTA. In addition, the user is globally locked. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Got it. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these accounts should also be reported to WP:SRG. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dronebogus doesn't like IP editing

    • Dronebogus doesn't seem to think I should be editing here and is continually reverting me. Do they do this to anyone who disagrees with them on an AFD?
    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trams in popular culture for the worst of it, but this spans a few AFDs and some minor article changes, and they're doing it across all of it.
    See User_talk:Dronebogus#IP_editing_now_banned_on_WP? 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've blanked the post on your talk page, but Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (and the reverts of it) are still necessary here. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recently I reverted pretty much all the edits by 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743; most of them were harassing me across related AfDs I started, though one was casting aspersions against piortus and two others were probably good faith but were still not constructive (adding unreliable sources an unexplained “see also” links). The user then hopped to a different IP (this one) and began edit-warring all their old edits back. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you announce that you're going to use AFD as a harassment tactic in a talk: page argument on an unrelated article [161], then you go right ahead and do that, then it's not "harassment" if someone then calls you on it. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck that comment, thanks. Stop waving it around like it’s a smoking gun. Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You might have struck that comment (long afterwards), but you still went right ahead with the bunch of AFDs on topics that you agree you've no knowledge of. Then when someone disagrees on those AFDs, you bulk blank all of their edits. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye&diff=prev&oldid=1169848187 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbenheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1169635566 Dronebogus (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dronebogus, whilst I understand you don't like the IPs comments about you at those AfDs, you should not be deleting them, it's not a good look to be removing "Keep" comments on AfDs that you started. Especially as it's possible the IP has a point - IMO some of those AfDs were poor ideas which seem to have been done with little attempt at WP:BEFORE. MY advice would be to restore the IPs AfD comments - though you could reasonbly NPA the jab at Piotrus in the one you mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m concerned they’re somebody’s bad hand account or a block evader re:Piortrus attacks Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Plus I’m not going to put up with systematic harassment and edit warring irregardless of context. Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps they are someone's sock, in which case it would be fine to remove the comments. But you don't know that. I note you didn't remove the comment that Rhododentrites made on one AfD [162], which basically says the same thing as the IP editor. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Rhondodendrites isn’t cruising from AfD to AfD hounding me. Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the IP commented at your AfDs, you then followed them to Alternator (automotive) and Dunball; at the first one starting an edit war in which you are still both involved, and at the second one blindly reverting the IPs removal of a terrible user-generated review of a pub (though you reverted yourself there when you realised how terrible it was). So I don't think that you're exactly standing on the higher moral ground here. Now, unless you have evidence of them being a bad actor, the AfD comments need to be restored. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, there's also nothing wrong with this edit, which you've reverted three times now. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      How does Ecky Thump relate to the Cloggies? Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just as an uninvolved party, they both deal with supposed Lancashire traditions played for laughs. Quite similar in concept. Cloggies is organized around a fictional 'Lancashire clog-dancing' troupe, Ecky deals with a fictional Lancashire martial art, Ecky Thump. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for explaining Dronebogus (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m slightly dubious about the see also link being included but it at least makes sense now Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record I have zero opinions on if the see also link should be there, but since I understand the argument someone would make as to why, thought it best to arm the less aware of British media with that knowledge so they can evaluate. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • [edit conflict] While I'm happy the material has been restored, now Dronebogus has relisted a discussion in which they have already made an outcome assertion. Dronebogus has an unfortunate habit of clerking various discussions in which they've already participated. They were cautioned about this in a recent ANI discussion which removed their MfD editing privileges. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to relist a discussion. I thought I wasn’t allowed to close discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you shouldn't be relisting your own discussions, but more to the point it was relisted only two days ago! I have reverted. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That was simple ignorance. I have never relisted anything before and was worried I was out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The main issue here is that a relist is functionally a closing action, in that you're prolonging a discussion in the hope that it reaches one outcome or another. That involves assessing whether consensus has been reached, or could be reached. It's not appropriate for anyone who's been involved in the discussion to make that call. Furthermore, I believe you're topic-banned from closing XFD discussions. If you can't close a discussion, you shouldn't relist one either, and definitely not one that you're involved in. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. Dronebogus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User spamming attack subpages

    (non-admin closure) User blocked indef by Cabayi. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 12:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Urgent adming action required Um cant think of username doh (talk · contribs) is mass creating attack pages for users who have reverted his vandalism or csd tagged the attack pages. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1169975676"