Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
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 are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
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) |
Did I do the right thing here?
Timeline
Sanctions considered and enacted below (indefinite GENSEX topic ban). (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Update. Indef. Details on Square's talk page. Lourdes 04:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Update. Unblocked per lack of actual disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm lost Sandi0000 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reopened per unblock. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get it Sandi0000 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Update. Unblocked per lack of actual disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Reopened)
..OP's queries answered significantly; Squared.Circle.Boxing advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. Lourdes 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}
Main discussion
I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [1]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—
statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities
. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)- Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says
In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.
Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)- English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- *cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise let's rap 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get it Sandi0000 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after
. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status
. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – 2.O.Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- These comments [3] [4] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – 2.O.Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [5] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.
The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.
The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)
Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.
Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.
If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.
Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get it Sandi0000 (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – 2.O.Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page. While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious. Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias. Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise let's rap 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision. For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas. Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not. At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria. Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise let's rap 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns
- Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[6][7] is a serious thing. I hear this user has received a final warning about something from Black Kite. Will look for the diff.
I also feel this is an illustrative example of what happens when threads are closed too quickly and participants are not given enough time to air things out. This led to Clovermoss creating a T:CENT RFC, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC (WP:UPNOT), about this issue, when the core issue is probably one user's behavior, not necessarily a problem with policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Novem, I think much more is required here. While I'm not sure the original posting needed to be closed as quickly as it was (actually, I wasn't going to say anything, because I am a big believer in respect for administrative discretion, but Lourdes kind of had a little streak last week of being quick on the draw with the closes here at AN), you'll need to be much more clear about what you think the ongoing disruption here is if re-opening the issue is to accomplish anything.The original thread was opened by Clovermoss not to bring SCB's conduct under scrutiny but rather to confirm that she (CM) had done the right thing in unilaterally editing another contributor's user space. While there was some variability in the feedback she received, the consensus seemed to be that she probably should not have done it, but it was going to be regarded as a kind of case of 'harmless error' in this instance.CM then took the issue to VPP. She says this is because she wanted the policy to accurately tell other users in the future what they should and should not do in these instances going forward, but I'll be honest that I think it's pretty clear that this is slightly disingenuous and that she was fishing to see if she could find enough community support to challenge the notion that comments antagonistic to a blief in trans gender identity cannot be treated as per se "extremely offensive" such that any other user can feel free to edit them off the project. But while I think it is very clear that this is the outcome she is actually seeking, the inquiry was still in good faith.However, it clear from the feedback in that discussion that the community does not have an interest in declaring all non-trans rights supportive expressions of opinion as per se "offensive". This outcome (which I personally have mixed feelings about) is consistent with what I tried to tell her I had perceived in other recent community discussions touching upon the same subject. At this time, there is no consensus to support (and indeed, some substantial animosity towards) a standard which would turn any unpopular opinion on gender identity into a WP:PA by default, on this project.Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon.So, in light of all of that, what do you see being accomplish by reopening this thread here at ANI? Do you have any extra diffs to provide showing ongoing disruption by this SBC, who, it must be noted, actually did not object to and accepted the editing of their user space even though they could have objected to it? The one diff you provided other than adding the infobox also falls into the same grey area and is quite stale besides. I think you need to do more to substantiate the need to review this user's conduct or else this thread should be closed again, since CM's inquiry is now being discussed much more thoroughly in the more appropriate forum to which they next took it. At a minimum, can you link to the "final warning" this user supposedly got from Black Kite and explain the context? Was it related to the same issue, or concerning something else entirely? Saying "you heard something" about a final warning is not the usual level of diligence we expect in this space for implications of violations of behavioural policies, which is the kind of important pro forma issue I'd expect an admin to be on top of in these circumstances before bringing another editor here for review of their supposedly poor conduct. SnowRise let's rap 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- One thing that might be worthwhile to bring up is the other userboxes, at least one of which is quite likely just as divisive. The big "ANTI: This user opposes religion as a whole." I'm not really used to being in a position to defend the interests of organized religion, I'm an atheist who will happily tell you, if asked, that religious beliefs aren't really any different from beliefs in other magical practices or cultural superstitions. I'm of an age where I read Hitchens and Dawkins. But having the statement that this user opposes a concept personal and integral to large swathes of both the population writ large and editors here on the project seems... not the most collegial to have front and center and outside of a context where it matters for some discussion rather divisive. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have a similar outlook to you (that is, a lifelong atheistic outlook, but not particularly fond of the modern strain of militant, uncontextualized animosity towards all religiosity), but I don't think that I can regard that infobox as particularly hostile to any individuals. It's a statement about their views on a social institution, not the people who subscribe to it. Let me reiterate what I had to say on the subject in the earlier discussion: I would quite happily see all infoboxes which make statements about the user's personal views and values along social, political, religious, and ideological dimensions found to be too incompatible with WP:WWIN. Afterall, although they have long been tolerated, there are broad reasons to support the position that they violate any one or all of the following sections of that policy: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. So if we did away with these kinds of userboxes en masse, my main sentiment would be "Well, it's about time."
- But unless and until we come to such a consensus as a community, I can't see making a case for disruption out of that particular infobox: we just should not be picking which such infoboxes likely to give offense to someone are causing offense for "justifiable" reasons, while leaving hundreds upon hundreds of others which also are likely to give offense to other users that are sensitive along other criteria. That way lays chaos, justified accusations of bias, and general community anarchy. We need a more general and equitable approach to such issues. Either cull the personal ideology bumper sticker culture of infoboxes collectively, or allow them generally. We can't afford to get in a habit of enforcing our own personal views through selective censorship of particular perspectives. SnowRise let's rap 07:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- I commented at the RfC about the reopening of the ANI thread since I'm a bit wary about how you accessed the current consensus. It's entirely possible I'm wrong and that's how multiple people would access the situation.
- As for my actions being a "harmless error", I really do think that if advice in a guideline page can be considered erroneous, that advice should be changed to reflect that. I appreciate that you say my intentions there were made in good faith, even if you consider it to also be disingenuous. Maybe I am fishing... I guess I just expected more from the enwiki community. I really didn't think my perspective was at all that odds with community norms since I see people blocked all the time for saying that "transwomen are men" or other commentary along those lines. The only reason I even am aware this editor exists is because he edited Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. [8] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't been actively editing here for years, but keep up on the goings on, and I just had to sign in and address this:
Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon.
Contrary to what you say here, editors are regularly, rightly blocked for transphobic statements such as atranswoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man.
Hell, fairly recently an admin was emergency desysopped and quickly CBANned by the community for doing so. Both here, and at the RFC, I'm seeing a lot a bizarre equivocating that transphobia is akin to a "political stance." While it's true that transphobia is mainly championed by specific political entities, so is racism and anti-Semitism (usually by the same entities), and those bigotries are not afforded some "well, it's a political view" consideration when espoused by an editor. More specific to this thread, What is a Woman? is a virulently un-factual, transphobic propaganda film. Having a userbox saying you enjoyed it is on par with saying you enjoyed the Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf. It's equally unscientific, hateful nonsense that any editor who happens to fall into the category that that hate is directed towards should not have to be forced to share space with. Capeo (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)@Capeo: this is old but since this thread is still somewhat active I felt it okay to reply. I hate to dig at old wound, but I think we need to be clear about the history. About the desysop and cban, I'm assuming you're referring to [9]/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Site ban for Athaenara.
If so, I have to disagree with your characterisation of that case. It involved the editor interjecting their belief while opposing an RfA. This is not an "abstract belief" but instead is a targeted WP:PA since the editor was specifically saying the victim of their attack is not a woman. Note SCB's interjections in this case are on area of concern although even they acknowledged that what was done was wrong. (As an aside, per the consensus it wasn't quite a cban but instead one of those weird cases where it's not a cban but also not a case where an admin can unilaterally unblock.)
Express an abstract belief would be e.g. an editor adding a user box without mentioning anyone and not in the midst of some conflict with others. I'm sure some people have been blocked or banned solely for the abstract belief but I think it's actually a lot less common than you suggest. I don't think this is a bad thing, I've said before I'm very uncomfortable with site banning someone solely for being a Nazi as well so this isn't me tolerating transphobia as simply a political belief or more minor than other forms of bigotry.
However I think it's entirely reasonable to have a very low tolerance for misbehaviour from such editors, especially misbehaviour related to their horrific beliefs. Even more so if the editor comes anywhere close to targeting some specific editor. Likewise for anything which touches on harming living persons.
Also I disagree with SnowRise that expressing that belief on en.wikipedia is fine. IMO even if it's simply an abstract belief, it's still generally too disruptive and harmful to the community, although I wouldn't necessarily lean to a site ban or even topic ban straight away depending on what was said (an only warning with very low tolerance for anything further, sure). OTOH, I'm uncomfortable taking action over expressing that belief off-site even when the editor has linked that offsite identity here, unless they didn't simply link to their off-site identity but are linking to their off-site comments. But again I'm fine with taking action if there's any indication that this believe is affecting their actions here, even if that comes from off-site comments.
- One thing that might be worthwhile to bring up is the other userboxes, at least one of which is quite likely just as divisive. The big "ANTI: This user opposes religion as a whole." I'm not really used to being in a position to defend the interests of organized religion, I'm an atheist who will happily tell you, if asked, that religious beliefs aren't really any different from beliefs in other magical practices or cultural superstitions. I'm of an age where I read Hitchens and Dawkins. But having the statement that this user opposes a concept personal and integral to large swathes of both the population writ large and editors here on the project seems... not the most collegial to have front and center and outside of a context where it matters for some discussion rather divisive. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Diff. Here's the diff I mentioned and what is essentially a third transphobia diff. Sorry for the delay in finding it. Thoughts? Is there a pattern of behavior here that needs more addressing than just the user removing the offending userbox from their user page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps. It's noteworthy that this diff is also quite stale. On the other hand, unlike the ones that were previously raised above, this is a case of the editor's views clearly having a direct impact upon their mainspace contributions, which does raise the question of whether a GENSEX TBAN is in order. However, I am also sensitive to the points raised by Lourdes below: this is not a case of a user who has fought tooth and nail to reject any criticism of their behaviour in this area, but one with a user who seems to have accepted the verdict of the community and demonstrated a willingness to adapt. Do I think it would be a loss to the project to have them restrained from making edits that touch upon GENSEX topics? No, probably not. But the standard for a CBAN is supposed to be higher: specifically that it is necessary to restrain ongoing disruption. I don't know that we can currently make a case for that in this instance. SnowRise let's rap 07:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like they're not even accepting that they're formally WP:AWARE of GENSEX as a contentious topic. That alone is cause for concern given their history in the area. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps. It's noteworthy that this diff is also quite stale. On the other hand, unlike the ones that were previously raised above, this is a case of the editor's views clearly having a direct impact upon their mainspace contributions, which does raise the question of whether a GENSEX TBAN is in order. However, I am also sensitive to the points raised by Lourdes below: this is not a case of a user who has fought tooth and nail to reject any criticism of their behaviour in this area, but one with a user who seems to have accepted the verdict of the community and demonstrated a willingness to adapt. Do I think it would be a loss to the project to have them restrained from making edits that touch upon GENSEX topics? No, probably not. But the standard for a CBAN is supposed to be higher: specifically that it is necessary to restrain ongoing disruption. I don't know that we can currently make a case for that in this instance. SnowRise let's rap 07:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- I also think this was closed too early. I would like to see Nil Einne's questions from above answered. It is surprising that SCB has not yet been topic banned from GENSEX. To me, their comments here thus far appear to be aimed at avoiding sanctions rather than showing an actual understanding of the problems with their actions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae, as discussed directly with you, perfectly okay to re-open this discussion, given your points. My apologies in advance for the early closure (no mal-intentions, just an attempt to reduce the open load on ANI). Will take care on this going forward. Warmly, Lourdes 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- With Novem Linguae's third diff (linked directly here), I say an indefinite ban is in order for SCB. We got rid of Athaenara for her blatant transphobia, and we can keep doing that for other users until there are no more overt transphobes on the platform. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- We might consider that this is an editor who seems to have apologised for their 5-month old mistakes, deleted the offending portions and blanked their user page itself to delete any offending material, participated at this ANI discussion, accepted that their edits were "bad form", accepted that the deletion of the userbox was okay. The question Novem asks is important: Whether a continuing pattern is evident to the community here? While it is not evident to me (the editor's most recent block is from me; so I am saying this with no love lost for them), I might be missing the elephant in the room... Thanks, Lourdes 07:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- To me, an editor who, in an edit summary, says
nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway
in reference to a trans woman, should not be allowed to edit. Honestly, I don't get how older editors get a free pass. We've indeffed new editors for way less. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) bad form
andThe sentence I added is regretted
are a step in the right direction, but not what I would characterize as a full apology. The fact that this has happened 3 times is not encouraging either. I think an indefinite block is probably too much, but I think doing nothing is probably too little. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)- I don't think an indef proposal would have a snowball's chance in these circumstances, to be honest. I think the question here is whether we are at a TBAN threshold yet. That is a close question, given we have a user who made at least a couple of clearly questionable choices, but who is not actively engaged in such edits and has made acknowledgments of a need for a change. Even so... Let's just say if the behaviour in question were just a tad more recent, or there had been one more incident, or they had pushed back against efforts at community restraint, I'd probably have already supported (if not proposed) a TBAN. But it's quite the definition of an edge case, really. Mind you, I find their personal attitudes towards trans self-identification to be cretinous, not to put too fine a point on it. But looking at their recent conduct and not engaging with the beliefs which I find ignorant directly, I am forced to admit that it is hard to make a case for ongoing disruption. It's not an easy distinction to make, but an important one, I feel. SnowRise let's rap 08:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- To me, an editor who, in an edit summary, says
Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. TBAN would be kind of pointless seeing as I barely edit the topic area, but pounds of flesh and all that, so go for it. Unless there's a specific question somebody has, I'll leave you folks to the hunt. Cheers. – 2.O.Boxing 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have some specific questions:
- Did you forget that you were alerted of WP:CT/GENSEX in 2021? Are you claiming to be unaware that GENSEX is an area that has special rules which require your best behavior?
- If you were aware, are the edits to your user page an example of your best behavior? If they're not, what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I forgot I was given a DS alert in 2021. And yes, I'm unaware of the rules around DS alerts, because the templates are wholly uninformative, as is the random link you provided above that tells me much about nothing. – 2.O.Boxing 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Squared.Circle.Boxing: You're right that the rules on alert can be confusing and were even more so in the past. But let's put aside the rules, for clarity, are you saying you not only forgot you'd been given the alert, but you forgot that "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" is a discretionary sanctions area, or now a contentious topic one? In any case, you are aware now that it is a contentious topic and so does require you to be on your best behaviour in those areas going forward. Is there anything about the contentious topic designation that still confuses you? I'm hoping you understand what's expected so can can count on you to avoid the stuff editors have raised concerns about going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- As you said, I'm now aware, so what I did or did not know back when isn't important. From reading Wikipedia:Contentious topics, I'm assuming there isn't actually a seperate
special set of rules
, but that the standard policies are applied in a zero tolerance fashion? Or is there an actual page that lists thisspecial set of rules
? – 2.O.Boxing 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)- Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. If you're not being intentionally obtuse, and still truly don't understand contentious topics, you should refrain from editing in any contentious topic area going forward. We've exhausted trying to explain it to you. I've never seen an editor with a tenure like yours struggle this much to understand the basics of CT. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page.
I haven't said otherwise.Let me clarify the sequence of events: you gave me my very first CT alert; I read the notice and made my way over to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, for the very first time; I expressed my new-found (because it was my first time reading it) understanding of the basics of CT, along with a request for clarification (note the use of ?s); you replied with a very odd interpretation of things, but still confirmed that my initial assumption--based on my very first read of CT--was indeed correct.Your comment is baffling and so ridiculously far off the mark, that coupled with your mischaracterisation of events in your initial comment, I think you should take a step back and let others deal with this. And I am, of course, assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse. Regardless, you've gave me enough cause to let me know that engaging with you is not a good idea, so I shan't be responding to your future comments. Cheers.I believe I've addressed the relevant points so shan't be paying attention to this thread. Pings will be required if there's any further issues I need to address. – 2.O.Boxing 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. If you're not being intentionally obtuse, and still truly don't understand contentious topics, you should refrain from editing in any contentious topic area going forward. We've exhausted trying to explain it to you. I've never seen an editor with a tenure like yours struggle this much to understand the basics of CT. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- As you said, I'm now aware, so what I did or did not know back when isn't important. From reading Wikipedia:Contentious topics, I'm assuming there isn't actually a seperate
- @Squared.Circle.Boxing: You're right that the rules on alert can be confusing and were even more so in the past. But let's put aside the rules, for clarity, are you saying you not only forgot you'd been given the alert, but you forgot that "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" is a discretionary sanctions area, or now a contentious topic one? In any case, you are aware now that it is a contentious topic and so does require you to be on your best behaviour in those areas going forward. Is there anything about the contentious topic designation that still confuses you? I'm hoping you understand what's expected so can can count on you to avoid the stuff editors have raised concerns about going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I forgot I was given a DS alert in 2021. And yes, I'm unaware of the rules around DS alerts, because the templates are wholly uninformative, as is the random link you provided above that tells me much about nothing. – 2.O.Boxing 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway.
(Link)
I'm rather unclear on why the editor wasn't topic banned back in April after this edit summary was made. I feel like far too much rope was given when the editor was being quite clear on their inappropriate actions being purposeful. SilverserenC 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that this is the more problematic of the edits. But note that the disruption can, in that instance, be tied to more than just people taking offense at SCB's beliefs: the edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring. Still, even if it had been caught and brought to ANI or AE at the time, I'm not sure I share your confidence that it would have led to a TBAN. Mind you, I don't think anyone would have lost sleep over the matter if that had been the result--I certainly wouldn't. But typically the community doesn't TBAN an editor for one instance of ideologically-driven editing, even if it is coupled with a pair of user space edits suggesting bias in the same area. SnowRise let's rap 03:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's more than just the one instance though, there's several linked above. And while the current instance being discussed at the very top of this thread wouldn't be a reason for TBAN in and of itself, it combined with these multiple past instances shows a pattern that seems like more than enough to enact such a ban. SilverserenC 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I want to make sure I'm not missing relevant diffs here. Are you saying that there are additional mainspace edits in the same vein? Aside from the KSI article edit, I see the edit introducing the userbox (which per the discussion above and the RfC, is not a PA or per se disruptive, even if you and I and any number of other editors agree it casts his views as ill-informed and regressive), and a user talk comment, which I don't know how to classify, if I am honest, except to say that it too may fall under the umbrella of retrograde comments that we may just have to accept when working on a project that is built upon open discourse and pluralistic involvement of people with differing social beliefs. And honestly, this is not a rhetorical inquiry: per my previous comments, I'm pretty on the fence here, and even a single additional problematic edit could make the difference to me, so by all means, let me know if I've missed one. SnowRise let's rap 04:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's more than just the one instance though, there's several linked above. And while the current instance being discussed at the very top of this thread wouldn't be a reason for TBAN in and of itself, it combined with these multiple past instances shows a pattern that seems like more than enough to enact such a ban. SilverserenC 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Their continued doubling down below makes me wonder why they're still welcome edit in that area, if at all. Star Mississippi 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can't say I'm impressed by this kind of comment on Talk:Transgender genocide either. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
And so it continues. The edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring.
..a single revert doesn't constitute an edit war. But sure, pick up where Formal left off. And what do you suppose has been missed about that diff, Clovermoss? Removing nonsense that has nothing to do with improving an article is a very common application of policy.
This is looking more and more like a desperate scramble to find something, anything, that can be used to enact people's desired punishment. I'll reiterate...Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated
. Unless the behaviour has continued, then... – 2.O.Boxing 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am surprised that a full apology has not been given here. Instead, it is being re-framed as a witch hunt. As if it's a problem for editors to be offended at transphobia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you expect an apology for behaviour that was dealt with by way of a final warning...in April. Behaviour that hasn't been repeated. – 2.O.Boxing 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- The most recent diff from the article talk page was about a week ago. You truly don't see why I would take issue with you removing that comment and having a userbox that stated you enjoyed watching What is a Woman? You haven't even apologized, you just describe their concern as nonsense. Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like that I try to reach out and explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and also just show compassion and say stuff like you deserve to exist on their talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (
Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence
; can't see where that's happened) that had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. That is what I described as nonsense, as I've more than likely done multiple times when removing other WP:NOTFORUM posts in unrelated areas. There was clearly an existing NOTFORUM issue as a prior discussion in the same thread was already shut down per NOTFORUM. Removal was appropriate and your interpretation of my use of the word nonsense is incorrect. – 2.O.Boxing 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)- I've not looked for the diff for this, but if
I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened)
is accurate, can I please ask you to not remove the comments of others on talk pages? If a comment is particularly egregious, it will be removed by someone not involved or easily rebutted or refuted. A comment that doesn't name a particular editor – indeed, appears to go out of its way to not name any particular editor – isn't grounds for someone to feel offended enough to redact it even if they think it means them and are concerned if it is accurate. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC) "But sure, pick up where Formal left off."
Huh, I guess you missed the part where I've been literally the only person involved in this thread who hasn't readily endorsed a TBAN for you, and has in fact spent paragraphs above hilighting that your expression of your beliefs does not in itself constitute sanctionable behaviour under our current community guidelines? Not out of any love for your backwards beliefs or your need to broadcast them here--let me assure you I find them as tedious and meritless as anyone here--but out of a desire for our policies to be applied equitably and out of a concern for the longterm implications for the project if we attempt to ideologically purge certain topic areas of contributors based solely on their beliefs as expressed in user and talk space, and not their editorial conduct in articles themselves. All of that said, the most recent action brought to my attention is by far the most concerning to me, as is your laissez-faire response to others sharing their concerns about. Per WP:TPG, you are absolutely not allowed to remove another user's comments from a talk page, except under certain extremely narrow circumstances elaborated upon in that policy, none of which even remotely apply in these circumstances. Not only is raising concerns about editorial conduct not a WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but even if it were, the right thing to do in those circumstances would be to hat the comments, not delete them.It's true that if the user whose comments you deleted had behavioural concerns, the talk page was not the place to have them (they should have brought here, AE, or to an admin directly), but that does not grant you the authority to remove them on your own onus. The fact that you say you have been making a habit of deleting comments in similar circumstances raises serious questions about your understanding of how discourse is meant to proceed here--concerns that go well beyond this one topic area, but which are exacerbated by the picture of your POV pushing in this area that is starting to come into focus here.Because likewise, your latest IDHT response on the issue of deleting the content in the KSI article raises concerns for me: four years in here, no one should have to tell you that you do not have the right to unilaterally remove sourced content from an article merely because you happen to believe the underlying controversy that the content describes is ridiculous and should never have happened. That is high grade POV/RGW/CENSOR behaviour and if you don't get why it is not acceptable, I'm starting to get WP:CIR concerns here, regardless of whether you should be topic banned for your expressions of your trans identity skepticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)- Did you not mischaracterise a single revert as an edit war? I believe you did. The google definition of controversy is,
prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion
. My take on events is that KSI used a slur and an incorrect pronoun; fans pointed this out; KSI issued an immediate apology. I saw no fallout to suggest there was anyprolonged public disagreement or heated discussion
. The edit summary was unacceptable, for which a final warning was issued. The removal of sourced content is normal editing practice.PAGs absolutely permit removal of other people's comments for the reason of havingabsolutely nothing to do with improving the article.
Per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (TPG)It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
The same sentiment is echoed at WP:NOTFORUM,Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article
, andMaterial unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
. – 2.O.Boxing 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)- None of which remotely applies to this situation, as has been already pointed out above. I don't know how you think making us repeat ourselves is going to improve your position here, but here we go. First off, you've very tactically cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:TPG, leaving out all the language which proscribes what you did. But just dealing with the language you are trying to utilize for support of your actions here: this was not gibberish; it was not a test edit; it was not harmful or prohibited material; it was not comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself. It was an accusation of editorial malfeasance, impacting the content of the article. Now you may very well strongly disagree with that user's assessment in that instance, and you may think the specific accusations were either misconceptions or bald-faced lies. But those are not circumstances in which policy allows you redact another community member's contributions in a talk space. Every bit of feedback you have gotten on here on this issue is consistent: your interpretation of how policy allows you to remove comments you find objectionable, and your rationale that these comments constitute NOTAFORUM violations, is flatly wrong. And the fact that you are telling us you have made a habit of deleting other talk page violations on this justification, combined with your ongoing WP:IDHT here, is indication of a real problem that is looking increasingly intractable. Likewise on the KSI edit: the fact that you, in your own idiosyncratic view of the social value of such things, thought that the controversy was a tempest in a teapot, is not a valid editorial justification for removing content. Yes, the removal of sourced content is a matter of routine activity on this project. When you can justify it with policy and make a good faith effort to present those arguments and seek consensus on contentious issues. Not when it just happens to not look like a big enough deal to you for Wikipedia to bother mentioning.I have spent a lot of time debating with others above about whether a TBAN was appropriate here (as the only skeptic), and where all of their arguments failed to completely win me over, you've done it for them yourself, by refusing to take any feedback on this issue onboard, and instead framing yourself as the victim of mob mentality. You may think that a TBAN is a fair price to pay in order to refuse to concede any of these points and voice your feeling that you are being mistreated here, but frankly, at this point you are raising broader issues about your ability to contribute non-disruptively in general. And if the person who just spent the last week acting as the closest thing you have to an advocate here is telling you this now, what do you think the dispositions of the other community members above look like at this moment? SnowRise let's rap 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, seeing the new edits raised below, it's pretty damn ballsy that you would try to (inaccurately) cite NOTAFORUM as a reason you are allowed to delete another user's commentary critical of conduct, knowing that when you wanted post a completely inappropriate screed about your views on a trans topic, your stated justification was literally "Fuck NOTAFORUM". Yeah, I'm well off the fence now. SnowRise let's rap 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per TALKOFFTOPIC,
harmful
includes personal attacks. Aspersions are personal attacks, making it subject to removal. The (however vague) PAs was not the driving factor,bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles
; if a comment has nothing to do with the sole purpose of a talk page and also contains PAs, itmay be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
.Every bit of feedback
on removing talk page comments has come from you and one other, and neither have provided contradictory policy that says the removal per NOTFORUM was inappropriate. The only relevant issue with the KSI edit is the already-dealt-with edit summary. Replaced with 'disagree this quickly resolved incident is worth mentioning with the others', where's the issue? Your disagreement of my rationale is irrelevant, and the edit summary was dealt with. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. These particular discussions are pointless and I'll refrain from engaging further. – 2.O.Boxing 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- None of which remotely applies to this situation, as has been already pointed out above. I don't know how you think making us repeat ourselves is going to improve your position here, but here we go. First off, you've very tactically cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:TPG, leaving out all the language which proscribes what you did. But just dealing with the language you are trying to utilize for support of your actions here: this was not gibberish; it was not a test edit; it was not harmful or prohibited material; it was not comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself. It was an accusation of editorial malfeasance, impacting the content of the article. Now you may very well strongly disagree with that user's assessment in that instance, and you may think the specific accusations were either misconceptions or bald-faced lies. But those are not circumstances in which policy allows you redact another community member's contributions in a talk space. Every bit of feedback you have gotten on here on this issue is consistent: your interpretation of how policy allows you to remove comments you find objectionable, and your rationale that these comments constitute NOTAFORUM violations, is flatly wrong. And the fact that you are telling us you have made a habit of deleting other talk page violations on this justification, combined with your ongoing WP:IDHT here, is indication of a real problem that is looking increasingly intractable. Likewise on the KSI edit: the fact that you, in your own idiosyncratic view of the social value of such things, thought that the controversy was a tempest in a teapot, is not a valid editorial justification for removing content. Yes, the removal of sourced content is a matter of routine activity on this project. When you can justify it with policy and make a good faith effort to present those arguments and seek consensus on contentious issues. Not when it just happens to not look like a big enough deal to you for Wikipedia to bother mentioning.I have spent a lot of time debating with others above about whether a TBAN was appropriate here (as the only skeptic), and where all of their arguments failed to completely win me over, you've done it for them yourself, by refusing to take any feedback on this issue onboard, and instead framing yourself as the victim of mob mentality. You may think that a TBAN is a fair price to pay in order to refuse to concede any of these points and voice your feeling that you are being mistreated here, but frankly, at this point you are raising broader issues about your ability to contribute non-disruptively in general. And if the person who just spent the last week acting as the closest thing you have to an advocate here is telling you this now, what do you think the dispositions of the other community members above look like at this moment? SnowRise let's rap 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Did you not mischaracterise a single revert as an edit war? I believe you did. The google definition of controversy is,
- I've not looked for the diff for this, but if
- I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (
- The most recent diff from the article talk page was about a week ago. You truly don't see why I would take issue with you removing that comment and having a userbox that stated you enjoyed watching What is a Woman? You haven't even apologized, you just describe their concern as nonsense. Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like that I try to reach out and explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and also just show compassion and say stuff like you deserve to exist on their talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you expect an apology for behaviour that was dealt with by way of a final warning...in April. Behaviour that hasn't been repeated. – 2.O.Boxing 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not an RfA guys..... Lourdes 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes can you clarify what you mean by this please? Thanks! Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Star... We are moving to sanction an editor based on somewhat old diffs and despite multiple apologies. I see that happen in some failed RfAs, so made the comment. Should the community project some standard pattern in our responses at ANI to apologising editors? I'm not a judge of that. A CBAN is the community's right to deliberate and implement; I would just suggest to my friends that the deliberation may take into account the editor's commitments made here, and decide likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
despite multiple apologies
. Thank you for mentioning this. Do you happen to have a quote or a link to one of the apologies? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any high quality apologies. An apology that doesn't double down, takes full responsibility, shows they take this issue seriously, shows they take civility seriously, and shows self-reflection would go a long way with me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)- Thanks @Lourdes. I see it slightly differently, the editor is pointing out that they said the right thing when called out-I don't see that as an apology. Old diffs would be different if they were pre a prior sanction and therefore handled. That doesn't appear to be the case here. They just repeatedly toe the line to see what they can get away with. IMO as one editor, it's time for that to be addressed just as it would be if they were up for RFA. Star Mississippi 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Star... We are moving to sanction an editor based on somewhat old diffs and despite multiple apologies. I see that happen in some failed RfAs, so made the comment. Should the community project some standard pattern in our responses at ANI to apologising editors? I'm not a judge of that. A CBAN is the community's right to deliberate and implement; I would just suggest to my friends that the deliberation may take into account the editor's commitments made here, and decide likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes can you clarify what you mean by this please? Thanks! Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Summary of all relevant diffs presented thus far, for those getting in the weeds and/or who need a refresher:
- Dec 1, 2021 — SCB receives a CTOP alert for GENSEX.
- July 20, 2022 — At Talk:Transgender genocide, SCB posts a section titled
lol
, with the content...at this article and the world. Sad times. Fuck NOTFORUM.
- Oct 11, 2022 — On the talk page for a user who made a transphobic comment during an RfA, SCB responds to someone voicing their dismay with
Behave. Biology isn't hateful. The end.
- Oct 11, 2022 — SCB is blocked for 2 weeks due to this post, with the block summary Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: inflammatory conduct (diff); a long term problem
- Oct 11, 2022 — In response to the block notice, SCB posts
I share a similar belief (but disagree with the comment made in the RFA), which is firmly rooted in biology. To see a comment suggesting somebody is a hateful person for holding said belief is utterly ridiculous, and ironically rather hateful.
andI categorically disagree with the personal attack; that was hateful. But the idea fuelling it--biology vs gender identity, the belief I share--is not hateful.
- Mar 6, 2023 — On their userpage, SCB replaces a userbox that states
This user thinks that RuPaul's Drag Race is a hideous TV series.
with one that statesThis user enjoys watching What Is a Woman?
(as discussed, What Is a Woman? is an anti-trans film)
- Mar 9, 2023 — Next to the previous userbox, SCB adds one that reads
"The thing about fantasy - there are certain things you just don't do in fantasy." – J. K. Rowling
(Rowling is, of course, well known for her anti-trans advocacy)
- Apr 7, 2023 — At KSI, SCB removes the entire "Use of transgender slur" section, with the edit summary
Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway.
- Apr 8, 2023 — Again on their userpage, SCB adds the text
I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously.
- Apr 9, 2023 — SCB is warned on their talk page over the above edit summary on KSI, and is told Any repeat of transphobic nonsense like that and you may be joining them in being blocked. Don't do it, please. SCB sees and acknowledges this warning by reverting it an hour and a half later.
- Aug 18, 2023 — At Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator), SCB removes a post from an editor expressing concern about what they perceive as ideologically driven editing, with the edit summary
This nonsense doesn't belong any where near an article talk page
- Aug 19, 2023 — The What Is a Woman? userbox is removed from SCB's page. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Found a couple more diffs that nobody has posted or mentioned yet.
- Dec 1, 2021 — On an RfC over how to mention Rowling's anti-trans views, SCB posts
We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans).
(There's nothing wrong with voting for the option SCB voted for; I include this only for the dismissive attitude towards transphobia.) - Jan 5, 2022 — On the actual page for J.K. Rowling, SCB removes a paragraph from the section regarding her anti-trans views. (The paragraph was restored and, in edited form, remains on the page that section was eventually spun off into.)
- Jan 24, 2022 — On the page for Julian Assange, SCB adds the deadname of Chelsea Manning, citing MOS:DEADNAME despite it saying no such thing.
- Nov 5, 2022 — SCB removes the phrase "identifies as being" on the page for Kali Reis, with the edit summary
Less of that. We're not talking about some made up fantasy gender.
2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)- Ok, wow. I wish more effort had been put in to compiling these diffs earlier in the discussion, but I thank the IP for doing so now. This is clearly more than enough conduct (over a prolonged period and despite warnings) to illustrate their profound POV in this issue and demonstrate their inability to contribute therein without disruption. That is to say, more than enough to justify the TBAN I have previously had mixed feelings about, especially when all this behaviour is combined with the user's responses to others above.I still want to emphasize that not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community. For example, the third Oct 11, 2022 diff contains opinions which I feel are small-minded and ignorant, but which I think do not constitute PAs or disruption under our current policies. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is obvious, and much broader than the limited subset of diffs previously presented here demonstrated. I think it's time for an !vote on the proposed sanction SnowRise let's rap 22:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, past behaviour was highly inappropriate. But sanctions are preventative, not punitive. I'm not seeing behaviour--since my final warning in April--that demonstrates the warning was insufficient and additional preventative measures are required. The calls for sanctions are therefore being reasonably viewed as punitive. I'm not interested in QAs or correcting people's mischaracterisations, so will refrain from engaging in such pointless back-and-forths. – 2.O.Boxing 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- You’ve already made a ton of edits to GENSEX that are far, far beyond the pale. It doesn’t matter if you’re remorseful about it— nobody’s ever going to trust you to edit in this area ever again. A known cheater isn’t going to suddenly get let back into a casino by saying “sorry, I haven’t cheated in months and swear not to do it again”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
TBAN proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed sanction: Squared.Circle.Boxing is indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:GENSEX topic area, broadly construed.
- Support. Their past behavior clearly indicates a pattern of being unable to edit neutrally in the GENSEX topic area. A warning is not going to fix their fringe POV, it's just going to let them wise up to being so rash about it and will almost certainly lead to civil-POV pushing down the line. At the end of the day, someone who says the types of things that SCB says should never be permitted to edit in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely long overdue. The wikilawyering above is basically "I know what I have to say to get away with saying what I want to say". No indication they can edit collaboratively in this area. I wouldn't be against a broader ban either. Star Mississippi 23:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I want to make it abundantly clear that my support comes by virtue of the conduct as a whole: its scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project. I continue to feel that merely expressing that one has TERF-adjacent views on gender is not presently a violation of any policy. And I think we have to think seriously as a community about the knock-on effects that establishing such a standard would have on open discourse and other pragmatic concerns for the project, longterm, before we settle on such a rule. However, in this instance, the user's conduct goes far beyond simple statements of belief into many behaviours that have been outright disruptive, touched upon POV and RGW motivations, and violated multiple content and behavioural policies. Further, SCB's assertion that he ceased these activities and that a sanction is not necessary as a preventative matter at this point is unconvincing to me, given that his participation here has been almost exclusively devoted towards WP:IDHT rejections of the feedback he has received, rationalizing most of the particular actions discussed as completely valid in the circumstances, and framing the uniformly negative response to his conduct here as an ideological witch hunt. Under these circumstances, with such a broad refusal to accept the feedback he has been given, combined with SCB's strong and aggressive views on the subject matter, I feel we are unfortunately put in the position of of having to assume this conduct is likely to repeat itself in some form--and therefor the TBAN is very much preventative. SnowRise let's rap 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- my broader concern is how trans editors may feel when facing SCB's "not quite breaking policy but 100% offensive" edits. Losing them and their TERF-adjacent views appears to be no great loss to the project Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do understand that your argument moves from simply protecting a minority group to trying to discriminate against what is currently a majority (and by Wikipedia standards probably a consensus) view on gender [10]. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead a social change, rather Wikipedia should be on the trailing end of a social change. I understand and support not allowing a number of the things 2OB has said. However, we should always use the shoe is on the other foot test when dealing with an issue that is so widely disputed. If your statement above was "losing them and their trans-supporting views..." it wouldn't be acceptable. Editors who don't agree on major social issues should be allowed and for neutrality reasons encouraged. Springee (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- They're allowed to hold those opinions, editors are allowed mot to have to deal with their anti-trans rhetoric. Which is what the diffs above are entirely. They have shown themselves in capable of editing collegially around gender and sex, therefore they should not be allowed to. You'll note that while I think they should be more broadly banned, I didn't propose it as I know it's not based in policy and would rightfully not succeed. Star Mississippi 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see that you are drawing a clear distinction between holding what is a majority view in the public and "dealing with anti-trans rhetoric". I appreciate that SnowRise does draw that distinction, "scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project." as well as providing a justification why they feel the TBAN isn't punitive. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Homophobia is still a majority view in most of the world. We don’t tolerate homophobia. Wikipedia isn’t a free speech platform, and trans editors shouldn’t be expected to deal with someone going out of their way to belittle their existence for “fun”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- But we aren't talking about homophobia are we. We are talking about something that the population of the US is clearly divided about and one of the places where the US (where the Pew polling was conducted) generally leads much of the world. I also agree that editors shouldn't be belittled or feel they are unwelcome here. That should apply to regardless of which foot the shoe is placed. Springee (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Transphobia is absolutely equivalent to homophobia, racism or misogyny, regardless of what Americans think. We deal with editors who persistently espouse those values in exactly the same way. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect Springee is being a little misunderstood here: I didn't interpret what they said to mean that trans-hatred should be assumed to be less onerous for those coping with it than those who have struggle against homophobia, but rather that, despite the fact that we have, as a purely cultural matter, chosen to use the affix -phobia for both phenomena, they actually operate very differently. As much so as homophobia differs in the particulars from the other social ills you mention, misogyny and racism.For example, most people who hate gay people (I mean truly irrationally, powerfully hate gay people) don't try to convince gay people that they aren't gay. I mean, there's a strain of homophobia that incorporates that, such as conversion therapy advocates, but it's not the main mode for homophobia--and the people who advocate for it are most likely to be loved ones of the gay person who think they are helping them and are simply backwards in their understanding of the nativistic element of homsexuality.Meanwhile, most people who hate or are ambivalent towards trans people will deny their transness, or at least the authenticity of their identified gendered. And yet, conversely many other people who also do not feel a transwoman is a woman/transman a man will also tell you that this is their abstract belief but they have no hate for trans individuals themselves. And as regards that abstract belief, since we are talking about something that is largely a social construct, the difference in opinion is more a matter of perspective than it is an empirical question (with some neurophysiological caveats mind you).This is where I think we get to crux of what Springee was meaning to express, if I guess correctly: throwing all views about gender that are unpopular with us, the Wikipedia administrative space regulars, into the grab-bag of the traits we've decided to somewhat artificially label as all varieties of "transphobia" comes with significant costs. Are we really prepared to pre-deny two thirds of the people we might otherwise recruit on to this project from the countries that contribute almost all of our editors, at a time when retention and uptake are already flagging? Does the project even realistically have a future if we do that? Or, put the pragmatics to the side. As a philosophical/values matter, do we want to become a community that is that ideologically homogenized and slavish to such ever refined purity tests? The thing is, most trans people in my experience don't expect or necessarily even care if every person on the face of planet earth accepts the gender a given trans person feels in their bones. Just like most people with depth are not that dependent on outside validation. Trans people just want basic respect and to be able to get through the day without every damn little thing having to be about challenging (or even celebrating!) their gender. It's the "allies" who most often have to go the extra mile towards pushing the goalposts from "Maybe don't go out of your way to make things awkward" to "believe as I do, or I'll show you the door". And there's another dimension to the reality check here: I'm quite certain we couldn't enforce such standards even if we were certain we wanted to. The longer I've watched the cycle/permutations of this debate come up, the more I've come to suspect that there is a silent majority here who are growing equally exasperated with the anti-trans identity provocateurs and the pro-trans identity proscriptivists, who can easily override those of us who inhabit positions further towards the extremes. So we can spin our wheels philosophizing where the line that defines disrespect lays and debating what the rules should be, but if we don't take them into account, it's all so much wasted air/bits of data. Incidentally, I do have my own idea of where that respect/disrespect line lays, and if I had to give it a name, I'd call it the 'Athaenara rule", but I think maybe we've extenuated this discussion further than ANI is suited for already for the moment. SnowRise let's rap 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's not unreasonable. In the end, though, if an editor is behaving in a way that is likely to make others uncomfortable engaging with them because of who they are rather than what they write, that is something that needs dealing with - it's simple WP:5P stuff. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, anyone who has chosen (consciously or just by virtue of their tendentiousness) to leverage our work spaces into a culture war pulpit needs to be prepared for us to snatch away the microphone (or bullhorn as it sometimes feels). And on that topic, let us not forget that we actually TBANned a couple of overzealous pro-trans advocates on account of disruption earlier this year. It would be a very perverse outcome indeed if we didn't do at least as much to shut down issues coming from the other direction. SnowRise let's rap 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you SnowRise, you are getting to the core of my concern and I really appreciate that you took the effort to help articulate them. Springee (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure, Springee: I'm glad my presumptions weren't off the mark. I appreciate the value of your contributions here. :) SnowRise let's rap 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- ~yawn~ Well, I've been up for 31 hours my friends, and I've another long day tomorrow, so forgive me if there's a bit of a gap in my next responses: it's not from a lack of interest or appreciation--engaging and valuable conversation! SnowRise let's rap 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure, Springee: I'm glad my presumptions weren't off the mark. I appreciate the value of your contributions here. :) SnowRise let's rap 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's not unreasonable. In the end, though, if an editor is behaving in a way that is likely to make others uncomfortable engaging with them because of who they are rather than what they write, that is something that needs dealing with - it's simple WP:5P stuff. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect Springee is being a little misunderstood here: I didn't interpret what they said to mean that trans-hatred should be assumed to be less onerous for those coping with it than those who have struggle against homophobia, but rather that, despite the fact that we have, as a purely cultural matter, chosen to use the affix -phobia for both phenomena, they actually operate very differently. As much so as homophobia differs in the particulars from the other social ills you mention, misogyny and racism.For example, most people who hate gay people (I mean truly irrationally, powerfully hate gay people) don't try to convince gay people that they aren't gay. I mean, there's a strain of homophobia that incorporates that, such as conversion therapy advocates, but it's not the main mode for homophobia--and the people who advocate for it are most likely to be loved ones of the gay person who think they are helping them and are simply backwards in their understanding of the nativistic element of homsexuality.Meanwhile, most people who hate or are ambivalent towards trans people will deny their transness, or at least the authenticity of their identified gendered. And yet, conversely many other people who also do not feel a transwoman is a woman/transman a man will also tell you that this is their abstract belief but they have no hate for trans individuals themselves. And as regards that abstract belief, since we are talking about something that is largely a social construct, the difference in opinion is more a matter of perspective than it is an empirical question (with some neurophysiological caveats mind you).This is where I think we get to crux of what Springee was meaning to express, if I guess correctly: throwing all views about gender that are unpopular with us, the Wikipedia administrative space regulars, into the grab-bag of the traits we've decided to somewhat artificially label as all varieties of "transphobia" comes with significant costs. Are we really prepared to pre-deny two thirds of the people we might otherwise recruit on to this project from the countries that contribute almost all of our editors, at a time when retention and uptake are already flagging? Does the project even realistically have a future if we do that? Or, put the pragmatics to the side. As a philosophical/values matter, do we want to become a community that is that ideologically homogenized and slavish to such ever refined purity tests? The thing is, most trans people in my experience don't expect or necessarily even care if every person on the face of planet earth accepts the gender a given trans person feels in their bones. Just like most people with depth are not that dependent on outside validation. Trans people just want basic respect and to be able to get through the day without every damn little thing having to be about challenging (or even celebrating!) their gender. It's the "allies" who most often have to go the extra mile towards pushing the goalposts from "Maybe don't go out of your way to make things awkward" to "believe as I do, or I'll show you the door". And there's another dimension to the reality check here: I'm quite certain we couldn't enforce such standards even if we were certain we wanted to. The longer I've watched the cycle/permutations of this debate come up, the more I've come to suspect that there is a silent majority here who are growing equally exasperated with the anti-trans identity provocateurs and the pro-trans identity proscriptivists, who can easily override those of us who inhabit positions further towards the extremes. So we can spin our wheels philosophizing where the line that defines disrespect lays and debating what the rules should be, but if we don't take them into account, it's all so much wasted air/bits of data. Incidentally, I do have my own idea of where that respect/disrespect line lays, and if I had to give it a name, I'd call it the 'Athaenara rule", but I think maybe we've extenuated this discussion further than ANI is suited for already for the moment. SnowRise let's rap 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Transphobia is absolutely equivalent to homophobia, racism or misogyny, regardless of what Americans think. We deal with editors who persistently espouse those values in exactly the same way. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- But we aren't talking about homophobia are we. We are talking about something that the population of the US is clearly divided about and one of the places where the US (where the Pew polling was conducted) generally leads much of the world. I also agree that editors shouldn't be belittled or feel they are unwelcome here. That should apply to regardless of which foot the shoe is placed. Springee (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think we're going to agree to disagree @Springee and some other folks have responded in depth while I was offline. But really curious how you see
SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously.
as anything but anti trans. There are ways of phrasing that, SCB opted for fully inflammatory and anti trans. Star Mississippi 23:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Homophobia is still a majority view in most of the world. We don’t tolerate homophobia. Wikipedia isn’t a free speech platform, and trans editors shouldn’t be expected to deal with someone going out of their way to belittle their existence for “fun”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see that you are drawing a clear distinction between holding what is a majority view in the public and "dealing with anti-trans rhetoric". I appreciate that SnowRise does draw that distinction, "scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project." as well as providing a justification why they feel the TBAN isn't punitive. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- They're allowed to hold those opinions, editors are allowed mot to have to deal with their anti-trans rhetoric. Which is what the diffs above are entirely. They have shown themselves in capable of editing collegially around gender and sex, therefore they should not be allowed to. You'll note that while I think they should be more broadly banned, I didn't propose it as I know it's not based in policy and would rightfully not succeed. Star Mississippi 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do understand that your argument moves from simply protecting a minority group to trying to discriminate against what is currently a majority (and by Wikipedia standards probably a consensus) view on gender [10]. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead a social change, rather Wikipedia should be on the trailing end of a social change. I understand and support not allowing a number of the things 2OB has said. However, we should always use the shoe is on the other foot test when dealing with an issue that is so widely disputed. If your statement above was "losing them and their trans-supporting views..." it wouldn't be acceptable. Editors who don't agree on major social issues should be allowed and for neutrality reasons encouraged. Springee (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- my broader concern is how trans editors may feel when facing SCB's "not quite breaking policy but 100% offensive" edits. Losing them and their TERF-adjacent views appears to be no great loss to the project Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors, and this is a particularly sensitive topic, culturally and politically, requiring a nuanced approach they seem to lack too often. Also, very much per Star Mississippi. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support at minimum. Transphobia is treated as the “least of all evils” in regards to prejudice, and established users get away with everything. these both need to stop. If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews, or were a new editor (relatively speaking) they would be Cbanned without a second thought. Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Not because of the editor's beliefs but because of their misbehavior. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Not because of the editor's beliefs"? Cullen328, believing trans women are men is not just any belief, it's transphobia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- You might have misinterpreted Cullen328's comment. The words as written merely assert that regardless of the editor's beliefs, there was misbehavior which warrants a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Liliana's point is that hateful beliefs should not be disregarded. Holding hateful views is not compatible with being an editor here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Basically this, yes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- LilianaUwU, if editor A believes that the Hebrew Bible is literally true including its various murderous and genocidal passages, but limits themself entirely to productive editing about butterfly species, should they be indefinitely blocked? And if editor B believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed by the CIA, the KGB, and various Mafia families, but confines themself entirely to productive edits about asteroids, should they be blocked? And if editor C believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by explosives pre-positioned in the basements of the buildings, but restricts themself entirely to productive edits related to Renaissance Flemish painters, should that editor be blocked? I do not have access to a mind reading machine, and I doubt that you do. Editors should not be topic banned for their beliefs, but only, as in this case, for repeatedly engaging in behavior to advance those beliefs which can be reasonably be construed as intimidating to other editors. That's how I see the matter, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, in this case, SCB was openly sharing the hateful views. I got bad takes I keep to myself, and I'm pretty sure everyone does. The problem is with those that don't keep the bad takes to themselves. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- And that is exactly why I supported the topic ban, because of their conduct which can be objectively analyzed, as opposed to their inferred beliefs, which are subjective and uncertain. When discussing sanctions, we always need to focus on editor behavior, not on hints to their unacceptable ideologies. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- If I can quote my own essay in agreement:
[B]igoted editors are not sanctioned for their ideologies; they are sanctioned for their behavior. ... Focusing on ideology, in justifying sanctions, raises many difficult-to-answer questions [and] needlessly complicates things ... The real answer is simple: Hate is disruptive. We sanction people for disruption. We sanction people who say and do and align with hateful things.
(I've noticed a lot of the people who agree with that sentiment are Jewish, like you and me. Perhaps not a coincidence: Judaism judges people by what they do, not what they believe. And most diaspora Jews live surrounded by people who believe we're going to Hell, but are still kind and neighborly, which provides a good lesson in the application of that principle.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- If I can quote my own essay in agreement:
- LilianaUwU, if editor A believes that the Hebrew Bible is literally true including its various murderous and genocidal passages, but limits themself entirely to productive editing about butterfly species, should they be indefinitely blocked? And if editor B believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed by the CIA, the KGB, and various Mafia families, but confines themself entirely to productive edits about asteroids, should they be blocked? And if editor C believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by explosives pre-positioned in the basements of the buildings, but restricts themself entirely to productive edits related to Renaissance Flemish painters, should that editor be blocked? I do not have access to a mind reading machine, and I doubt that you do. Editors should not be topic banned for their beliefs, but only, as in this case, for repeatedly engaging in behavior to advance those beliefs which can be reasonably be construed as intimidating to other editors. That's how I see the matter, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Basically this, yes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Liliana's point is that hateful beliefs should not be disregarded. Holding hateful views is not compatible with being an editor here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- You might have misinterpreted Cullen328's comment. The words as written merely assert that regardless of the editor's beliefs, there was misbehavior which warrants a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Not because of the editor's beliefs"? Cullen328, believing trans women are men is not just any belief, it's transphobia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Insufficient remorse and self-reflection for an issue this serious. Folks keep mentioning apologies and remorse, but I am not getting that vibe at all from what I have seen in this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing any "intractable" "TERF" misconduct here. I agree this user should be warned about removing other user's talk page messages, but otherwise I find this entire thread lacking. All I'm seeing is someone noticing a thing they didn't like on a user page and dragging it to a high-drama board where – unsurprisingly – drama ensues, and a clearly experienced IP (with their seemingly very first edit on the project) going through 2 years worth of contributions to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in. If anything, the more serious question here is in regard to who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area, and/or why they're posting as an IP. I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this. Whataboutisms and arguments saying "If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews" ring hollow. They did not. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't find the IP to be all that suspicious. They're on a dynamic IP and their /64 shows they've been editing since at least January of this year.
- What I am curious about is that the last time you were at this noticeboard was over eight months ago to vehemently suggest sanctions against me, and now your first time back is to be the sole opposer of a sanction I proposed against a user who it appears you've never even interacted with. And I know you're not over the old ANI because just last month you made it your main reason to oppose a candidate at RfA. So, how did you come across this thread? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- As evidenced in your response, you are in no position to refute my suspicions. I frequently browse this page, and fully read and carefully examined this entire thread. You did not create it, and this is not about you or any grievance you continue to have with me. Your persistent hounding and personalization is disruptive. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Persistent hounding? Disruptive? Lay off the personal attacks please, it was an honest inquiry. If you can be dubious of the IP editor, I can be dubious of you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize. I appreciate you informing me of the /64 edits. I didn't think to check. Still, I don't think it was necessary of you to be "dubious" of my intention in contributing here. But I'm happy to drop it now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Persistent hounding? Disruptive? Lay off the personal attacks please, it was an honest inquiry. If you can be dubious of the IP editor, I can be dubious of you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- As evidenced in your response, you are in no position to refute my suspicions. I frequently browse this page, and fully read and carefully examined this entire thread. You did not create it, and this is not about you or any grievance you continue to have with me. Your persistent hounding and personalization is disruptive. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just dealt with another person casting aspersions on the sole basis of me being an IP editor, so I'll stick to the cliff notes this time.
- Editors on an IPv6 do indeed tend to bounce around their subnet, as you can see from my apartment unit's /64 graciously linked above.
- IP editors are people too, and do not inherently warrant suspicion about
why they're posting as an IP
. (Since you've asked-via-accusation, I simply haven't taken the time to settle on a username I won't easily tire of.) going through 2 years worth of contributions
— my first post merely listed the diffs that had already been linked to thus far, and my second consisted of searching a few key phrases in their contributions to see if anything had been missed.to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in
— er, are we reading the same thread? You're the first oppose after 7 supports, and absolutely nobody is "poking holes" in the dispassionate list of diffs I provided. Unless you mean not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community? I'm not sure what you're possibly on about.who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area
— I have not been topic-banned from anywhere. I've only ever had one actual account on here, which I made in 2006 at the age of 9 and haven't touched since 2009.I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this
— it's not exactly a massive undertaking to spend half an hour collating all the scattered diffs into one place. I saw people starting to get sidetracked and bogged down in the weeds, so I did the grunt work to help move things along. Is there a reason this troubles you so?
- I wish I could say it's surprising to see someone who's made nearly 15,000 edits over the course of 16 years making unfounded accusations of misconduct, but being on the receiving end of random bad-faith hostility is to be expected as an IP editor. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F1E5:E9AD:EE75:5F7 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think they may be referring to this RFC when they were talking about the community. Also, for what it's worth, I've always been supportive of IP editors. I've never really understood the bad faith hostility towards IPs or new editors who "know too much" but haven't done anything wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see that User:DriveByUser and User:DriveByIP are available, if you wish to poke fun at such comments. casualdejekyll 23:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support - After reading through this, I think what we have here is a fine example of how hate is disruptive. The timeline presented by the IP editor in the section above demonstrates how SCB has been expressing their views on both talk pages and in the main article space for several years now, leading to disruptions in BLPs (see the edits to J.K. Rowling, and Julian Assange). This alone is TBAN worthy, however we also have in this discussion a degree of wikilawyering that leads me to believe that the disruption will continue, just in a different and less obvious form. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and based on what I've seen, this TBAN will prevent further disruption regardless of the future form. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per my above reasonings. For note, I am the last admin who blocked Squared... Lourdes 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question This editor was warned in April. What behavior since April is at issue? The IP editor provided two diffs after April are there any others? Otherwise are editors saying the behaviors since April are sufficient to warrant a Tban given an earlier warning? Springee (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I explained to SCB above my reasoning: they behaved so appallingly that they should never edit in this area again. Keeping a transphobic userbox on their page and editing a transphobic political commentator’s talk page in a non-neutral way are minor infractions, but coming from someone who previously vandalized a talk page to say the idea of transgender genocide was stupid they’re incredibly damning. They should have been Tbanned to begin with. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support Diffs above are pretty egregious. Loki (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, or even siteban. The wall of diffs the IP provided really makes me believe experienced editors get free passes. Why should they? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. The long term pattern of behaviour exhibited is clearly incompatible with productive editing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support – long-term pattern of disruption in a CT. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The IP editor did present diffs that I think are not acceptable, however, they all date to before the editor was warned. If those edits were sufficient to justify the tban then it should have been implemented at that time. Since the warning only two things are presented as evidence of continued disruption. The first is the removal of a talk page comment that was already viewed as unacceptable. As Dronebogus noted below, the removal itself wasn't unreasonable. The other issue was a user box that supports What is a Woman on the editor's home page. If this were presented on any talk page again, I wouldn't view it the same way. However, I think this crosses over into thought crime. The only people who are going to see that are really looking for it. While the view is not aligned with Wiki editor consensus, Pew's data says it's (presumably) aligned with the majority view in the USA. At this point I'm afraid it gets back into the issues of what user boxes are OK or not OK. How should people who's families were victims of communism or the activities of Che Guevara supposed to feel when users have supportive user boxes? Basically I don't see this as a significant continuation of the previous problematic behavior. If a user box that expresses the view that trans-woman != women isn't OK (I assume that is what the video tries to say) then we should state and offer a grace period to remove all such user boxes. I do appreciate that some of the supporters above are careful to note the difference between thoughts and actions. I agree with that position and in this case I don't think the actions post warning rise to a tban level. Springee (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Springee and Homeostasis. IP has demonstrated a clear pattern of concerning behaviour, but based on the dates, I don't think that there has been any disruptive editing in the mainspace recently to warrant a tban. Maybe if there was disruptive behaviour in the past few weeks and this clearly demonstrated and ignorance of warnings, then there should be a tban. There's no issue over the use of the userbox. It's common practice for editors to express political views on their userpage and I don't see how this is any different. Willbb234 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support: I have recently interacted with the user on the Mike Tyson article due to a WP:3O request regarding their reverts. While I respect that the user does appear receptive to dispute resolutions not in their favor, there are two particular edits that have me supporting the TBAN. The user in 2021 said
"Fuck NOTFORUM"
, yet when a WP:NOTFORUM concern was raised about an IP user's statement, the user in question removed the IP user's entry entirely. If there is one thing I don't like, it is a double standard, so I support this TBAN not only for the benefit of the community, but for the user themself so they may have some time for reflection.--WMrapids (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC) - Support per Snow Rise, Cullen328, and WMrapids. There is a history of SCB unable to maintain their best behavior around GENSEX topics, as shown with the diffs above. I have not seen "multiple apologies" being made, and the disruptive KSI edit was dismissed as
already-dealt-with
above even though the user talk page warning was simply acknowledged by reverting said warning. SCB had many opportunities to express some self-introspection, but they did not do so. Not when a concern was raised over the KSI edit, and not in this thread. They even thought this kind of thing was "pointless" half an hour after they have written genuine thoughts about their personal attack block. In the case of the removal of comments at Matt Walsh's talk page, I remain unconvinced that SCB's actions were entirely appropriate. Contentious topics require editors to err on the side of caution, and collapsing or leaving the comments as-is clearly would have been more appropriate in this case. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) - Support I earlier asked why they hadn't received such a tban, hoping some admin would see enough to impose one under contentious topics restrictions. I can understand why no one was willing though given the circumstances, I mean I myself took 2 days or something to clearly support. So now it's come to us including me. The behaviour is concerning, although in terms of the user page think frankly I have more concerns about the cock and balls thing than what started this thread. More significantly, the responses from SCB here don't give me confidence that they he has any hope of understanding the behaviour we require from editors when editing in this area and we've already given them that chance. While their recent problematic edits in main space in the area appear to be minimal, that isn't much of a positive. I mean yes it's better they aren't already causing significant problems but OTOH that the editor still couldn't resist their transphobic edits here and there on Wikipedia despite being repeatedly asked to stop isn't a good thing. Better we just get them to stay out completely if that's the case. The one positive thing about SCB's behaviours has been that they've avoided targetting in particular editor, hence why we're only discussing a topic ban and not a site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Apparently SCB has already been sanctioned for the most serious misbehaviour he's had in the past and I'd invoke double jeopardy in that regard. I've never watched What Is a Woman?, so I don't really know what it is about, but I find it questionable that someone would be held responsible for a userbox on a lawfully released film; the same applies to quoting with appreciation a controversial but legit public figure like J. K. Rowling. Sorry, this whole thread raises concerns about the strictness of the ideological scrutiny Wikipedia editors have to undergo. There may be something offensive about SCB's approach to transgender rights, but I feel that this community discussion full of trifles such as What Is a Woman? and J. K. Rowling has failed to clarify the point in a convincing way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not double jeopardy, it's a lack of leniency due to his past record. SCB has made a number of poor choices since that block. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Poor choice(s) with respect to deleting the userbox when reminded? Poor choice with respect to any other diffs? I don't see that. Reading the above, it seems to be boiling down to the perception that the editor's acquiescing apologies are not enough and we need to see complete remorse about their four-month-old actions. But I guess both of you are right. Is it okay for us to re-sanction any editor after four months of their last infraction, after four months of their last warning by an administrator, and after four months of their showing no further infraction, because what the editor is saying after these four months sounds half-hearted? Well, yes, we have that right. We also have the right to haul up this editor again after four months of today and ask the editor to apologise properly again (even if the editor has not committed any further infraction); and if the editor fails to show a proper apology again, we have the right to indefinitely ban the editor. Is it double jeopardy? Seems to be. But it's fair game; ANI is not a court. Lourdes 06:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agree and this is why I oppose a Tban at this time. I think a Tban when they were previously warned would have been reasonable but that time has past and I don't see the new evidence as evidence that they didn't take the previous warning to heart. Springee (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Poor choice(s) with respect to deleting the userbox when reminded? Poor choice with respect to any other diffs? I don't see that. Reading the above, it seems to be boiling down to the perception that the editor's acquiescing apologies are not enough and we need to see complete remorse about their four-month-old actions. But I guess both of you are right. Is it okay for us to re-sanction any editor after four months of their last infraction, after four months of their last warning by an administrator, and after four months of their showing no further infraction, because what the editor is saying after these four months sounds half-hearted? Well, yes, we have that right. We also have the right to haul up this editor again after four months of today and ask the editor to apologise properly again (even if the editor has not committed any further infraction); and if the editor fails to show a proper apology again, we have the right to indefinitely ban the editor. Is it double jeopardy? Seems to be. But it's fair game; ANI is not a court. Lourdes 06:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not double jeopardy, it's a lack of leniency due to his past record. SCB has made a number of poor choices since that block. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm involved (!voted support above) but this has been open coming up a week and I'm not seeing a clear consensus for or against imposing a topic ban at the moment. However it looks like at least most of those in opposition would be support if there was any more disruption in the topic area going forwards? If so, that sounds like final warning territory. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved, and I see a clear (though obviously not unanimous) consensus for a topic ban (raw votecount is 15-5 if I counted correctly, and I see no good reason to discount any votes on either side or to give policy precedence to one side or the other). Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am involved (voted oppose) and I see a clear consensus for a topic ban. We should close this section as consensus is clear. Lourdes 02:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved, and I see a clear (though obviously not unanimous) consensus for a topic ban (raw votecount is 15-5 if I counted correctly, and I see no good reason to discount any votes on either side or to give policy precedence to one side or the other). Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a no brainer to at least topic ban them. Let's not wait until further disruption to then take action against them. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support – based on the long and rather frequent history of the problematic behaviour shown here, I don't really have much faith/confidence that this will actually come to a stop. They were notified about the CTOPS and warned about their behaviour before (such as here). Let's not waste free time waiting and seeing how things are in the next few months or whatever, I support a topic ban straight away. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for what I expect is going to be a rather lengthy comment - anyone who's good with templates should feel free to collapse the wordy bits and reduce it to the !vote at the end. I'm British, from a fairly middle-class, left-leaning background. Almost all of the people in my circle of real-life friends are degree-educated professionals, and about half have PhDs in the humanities (history, English lit, philosophy, that sort of thing). Most of them are straight, some of them are gay, but all of them are cis - I don't know any trans people IRL. My friends are almost universally left-leaning pinkos and wooly liberals like myself, who would never dream of watching GB News, picking up the Telegraph or voting Torie. They are mostly around my own age (I can remember Thatcher, and got into Billy Bragg in the 80s). I've had quite a few discussions about trans rights with people I know, including one with a gay man who used to do DJ sets in drag in the late 80s London scene. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually believes that trans people are, in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as. I'm not saying this to shock or upset anyone (and I hope that neither happens); it's just an honest view of what in my world feels like the 'middle-ground of opinion'. Since I think that most of the people in my circle of friends would make excellent Wikipedia editors (many of them are published authors in their fields of expertise), it follows that I do not think that we should be policing people's thoughts and opinions on that particular matter - there are some views that, for better or worse, are so commonplace that it would be nonsensical to blanket ban anyone who holds them from editing. What I think is vital however (and I am certain that the friends I'm talking would agree with me on this) is that we treat everybody with respect. Someone wants to be called by a particular name, and for you to use certain pronouns when referring to them? Of course, that is the respectful and polite thing to do, regardless of your opinion on their gender identity. And if you want to get involved in discussions about gender identity, whether that be on Wikipedia, or on online forums, or down the pub with some friends, you should do it in a manner that takes account for the potential for your words to offend, and that demonstrates respect and tolerance towards difference on your part. We don't need to TBan SCB because they hold particular views; we should TBan them because they have repeatedly, and after being warned, made inflammatory comments as documented above, in a manner that is teetering on the edge of trolling. So, with all that said: support TBan from GENSEX. Girth Summit (blether) 19:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like to interrogate some of the assumptions you're making here, but I fear if I do so we'd get far into the weeds of WP:NOTFORUM. Therefore, all I have to say is that I don't think the story about your friends' beliefs is relevant here.
- It's obviously not relevant to your eventual !vote, and I don't think it even works as an argument for the position you're offering it for: your particular set of UK friends is not evidence that a belief is widespread in the UK, a belief being widespread in the UK is not evidence that it's widespread globally, and a belief being widespread globally doesn't mean that it's in keeping with Wikipedia policy. A belief in creationism is also widespread globally, but we ban pushers of fringe views here all the time. Loki (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- We ban people for pushing that view in article space; we don't ban people for thinking it. Young Earth Creationists are, as far as I'm aware, welcome to edit here, provided they don't try to push that POV in related articles. If someone is a flat-earther, there's no reason why they couldn't bash out a few FAs about the new-age music scene of the 1970s, provided they don't intersperse that with trolling about globism. Any sanctions we impose here should be based on someone's actions, not on what we think they might believe - hence why I support this proposal. Girth Summit (blether) 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The only views we ban people for having are pro-paedophile advocacy (and related beliefs regarding sex(uality) and people below the legal age of consent) and, inconsistently, beliefs similar to Nazism - if you advocate off-site for legalising child pornography you get banned by the WMF even if all you edit about is pure mathematics. For pretty much any other type of view, as long as you don't go near that topic area on Wikipedia and don't bring it up in discussions then it's regarded as irrelevant. (Note: this is just an observation and is explicitly not expressing an opinion about it, nor is this the place to discuss the rights and/or wrongs of this). Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying someone should be banned for privately believing transphobic things, but I do think that you're closing the book too early on the possibility of banning people for saying transphobic things "politely". Loki (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- We ban people for pushing that view in article space; we don't ban people for thinking it. Young Earth Creationists are, as far as I'm aware, welcome to edit here, provided they don't try to push that POV in related articles. If someone is a flat-earther, there's no reason why they couldn't bash out a few FAs about the new-age music scene of the 1970s, provided they don't intersperse that with trolling about globism. Any sanctions we impose here should be based on someone's actions, not on what we think they might believe - hence why I support this proposal. Girth Summit (blether) 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- That’s a pretty lame argument. At best you’re only arguing for the stereotype that British people are transphobic, not that transphobia/the view that trans people aren’t “real” is normal, socially acceptable and inoffensive. Dronebogus (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Girth Summit did not say that (according to their group of friends and acquaintances, which they see as the middle-ground of opinion in UK) trans people are not "real", but rather that they are not,
in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as
. I understand that this viewpoint may be offensive to many trans people, but also in my experience it is absolutely prevalent: with few exceptions, everyone I know would say that a trans woman is a woman only out of politeness/sense of respect/common decency, and on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender. But since I don't believe that holding that viewpoint is in itself transphobic, I don't understand why Garth thinks that that viewpoint is legitimate only in the internal forum and that we should sanction it once it is expressed publicly, for example by editing the mainspace citing reliable sources that support it. I feel that trying to enforce the notion that that viewpoint and language use are inherently transphobic by sanctioning editors who adopt them in their capacity as editors (i.e., while they are editing, and not just in their intimate beliefs) would not be helpful in creating a good editorial environment - it could be a battleground approach to GENSEX. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)- I have not said that I think people should be sanctioned for expressing such a viewpoint (although one would have to be careful not to fall foul of WP:CPUSH while doing so). I have said that SCB should be sanctioned because his comments were obviously intended to be inflammatory, and were tantamount to trolling. Girth Summit (blether) 11:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I would say that the view that “trans women are men” is pretty garden-variety transphobia and equivalent to “trans people aren’t real” since it states that a trans person isn’t a “real” woman or man and/or that non-binary genders don’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're accusing Girth of making a transphobic remark. Can you explain why their remark was transphobic, if at all, in the first place? I wouldn't equate Girth's statement to saying trans people aren't real because there is a clear distinction between the two statements. Thank you and regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Gitz6666 I have a lot respect for you and think of you as a conscientious editor, but I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. In regard to
on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender
, what exactly are those occasions? Is there a town hall happening every time a group of friends encounters a trans person to examine their gender? Forgive my sarcasms, but I hardly ever hear people contemplating the gender identity of a cis male mostly because, well, it's none of their damn business. Ppt91talk 14:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Girth Summit did not say that (according to their group of friends and acquaintances, which they see as the middle-ground of opinion in UK) trans people are not "real", but rather that they are not,
- Support Since some editors are sharing, I will do the same. As a cis gay male, I am often genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of my trans friends, even within the broadly construed queer community. I am also sick of seeing transphobia being legitimized under the guise of "civil", "scientific", or any other *insert excuse* form of seemingly innocuous discussion. I cannot comprehend, truly, how any person can obsess over another person's gender identity or expression, let alone be so extraordinarily entitled and self-centered to assume it's their place to make any comments about it whatsoever. So yeah, I find these diffs reprehensible. And rather than actual remorse, I see a cavalier attitude and flippant remarks of an experienced editor who appears more concerned with pointing out an alleged "witch hunt" than with recognizing how damaging their rhetoric can be. Ppt91talk 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per above. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Girth Summit's argument. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: Squared.Circle.Boxing is formally warned not to remove the talk page contributions of other editors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to the above TBAN, I think we need at least one other measure here with regard to SCB and a habit he has indicated he has that goes beyond the GENSEX topic area: specifically, he believes he is entitled to remove the edits of other contributors from talk pages, in violation of WP:TPG, if those edits criticize the editorial or behavioural conduct of others users--provided that SCB feels convinced that such comments constitute WP:ASPERSIONS. At other times, SCB suggested that such topics are (for some reason) WP:NOTAFORUM violations. This is clearly not the community-approved process for dealing with aspersions, nor is this a recognized exemption to the rule against deleting other contributor's comments, as enumerated under WP:INTERPOLATE, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, TPG generally, WP:WWIN or any other community guideline or consensus. However, this feedback has thus far been rejected by SCB. I therefore propose that SCB be formally warned that he is not allowed to remove another community member's talk page contributions in these circumstances, and that the next such instance of his doing so is likely to result in a block. SnowRise let's rap 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support. As proposer, and per above. SnowRise let's rap 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support To be honest, I think this would have regardless been a given outcome whenever this discussion thread closes. It is well known that unless an edit on a talk page was vandalism or severely violates WP:Civil, one should not remove those comments. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors and should not be touching their posts. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Support, per above.Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)- Support - there is a fine line when considering removal of talk page comments per policies like WP:NOTFORUM and guidelines like WP:TPO. Based on the diffs provided above, SCB's judgement on this is not the best and not in keeping with those points. As such he should seriously reconsider how he is approaching these situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see any evidence of continuing talk page removal as a basis for a community warning. One diff does not a community warning make, leave alone a block. Lourdes 09:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lourdes except this isn't the only case: SCB has disclosed himself that he has routinely deleted other talk space comments for the same reasons, and his deeply flawed understanding of the relevant policies (see above) and how liberally he believes those policies empower him to delete other user's comments is a very serious problem--especially in light of his refusal to accept the feedback of the community here about same. Nobody is talking about a block at all here, and warning is a very "cheap" community response. And yes, we very commonly warn users here for a single infraction, if the behaviour is problematic enough. All the time, in fact. SnowRise let's rap 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the talk page edit was right, for the wrong reasons. Yes I think it was uncivily done and possibly motivated by anti-trans bias, but the comment was weird and inappropriate and I probably would’ve collapsed it had I come across it first. Sanctioning him from something he did wrong once is punitive, not preventative Dronebogus (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- A collapse is one thing: I doubt we'd be talking about it if he had done so. Deleting is another matter and the community has very purposefully restricted redacting another's user's comments completely to extremely narrow circumstances, none of which remotely apply here. And as I just indicated to Lourdes above, this proposal would not be happening if not for the fact that SCB has indicated very clearly above that he refuses all feedback in this respect and has been making a habit of deleting comments in this context, meaning this behaviour is almost certain to repeat if we don't issue a warning at the least. SnowRise let's rap 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose As Dronebogus said, the removal wasn't totally out of line. I do generally feel that once someone replies to a comment then hatting/archiving or admin suppression are the only correct options but I don't think removal was over the top in this case. If there were a history of issues (or if a history can be shown) then I would say this is a problem. Right now this seems more punitive in result (not saying that is the intent, just the result). Springee (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support There's rarely a valid excuse for this kind of behaviour. Willbb234 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Examining the edit in question, I believe SCB was correct to remove that message. The IP was arguing that the edits and talk page contributions of multiple users should be disregarded because "
... I myself am transgender. Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence. ...
" There was nothing of the sort in that entire discussion. That sort of loaded language is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere in a controversial topic area, and another user – @Pufferfishe: – responded to that IP saying "this is not the place for this type of discussion, per WP:NOTFORUM.
" SCB was correct to remove such an inflammatory comment, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC) - Oppose Removing that comment was wrong - collapsing it would have been OK though, since it was a case of WP:NOTFORUM - but I find Lourdes's argument convincing (no evidence of continuing abuse) and therefore a warning IMHO is not warranted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: The statement in question legitimately raises a concern in regards to the motives of other editors being based on ideology rather than reason. To remove such a valid point ignores a considerable problem in this instance. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Unblock?
In regards to the indef, I think it may have been a bit premature based on this comment. It doesn't seem like Square.Circle.Boxing intends to violate his topic ban, he's just frustrated with how this ANI went. Lourdes suggested another admin take a look at an unblock request but SCB hasn't made one and I think if I tried the template it might not work the way it should? Basically, creating a new subsection here seems like a decent idea. Any uninvolved admin want to take a look? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think the block needs any further attention. SCB knows what to put in an unblock request, there is guidance at WP:GAB is they're not sure how to use the template. Until they make a request, no action is needed. Girth Summit (blether) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose he can likely use the template for himself. I just figured it might be worth mentioning here since Lourdes updated the close to reflect he's been indeffed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Extremely bad block. Unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The block seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding. Since unblock is done, think we can move on unless a topic ban violation occurs. starship.paint (RUN) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it was a bad block at all, as "I'm going to ignore my topic ban" definitely was the most obvious interpretation of what SCB wrote there. That being said, Lourdes asked for confirmation he'd adhere to the topic ban, he agreed and clarified, so that's that. Loki (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I indicated in a couple of venues, I felt that the obvious interpretation was not that they'd ignore the topic ban, but that they felt it wouldn't actually impact where they planned to edit, so they had better things to do than get pestered by people who thought acknowledging-by-deleting wasn't sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- IMO it would have been better for Lourdes to directly ask making it clear they needed clarification of a block would be forthcoming, rather than just relying on the refusal to answer the IP; only blocking if SCB persistently refused to affirm they would abide by the topic. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed I would have just treated it like an editor blowing off steam or having the last word stuff which we get a lot. (You didn't block me, I retired etc.) However I don't see anything wrong with seeking clarification as SCB does need to take the topic ban seriously. It's clear that this does have to affect SCB's editing since it's not plausible that they were really going to abandon their occasional poking of the matter, they never did before despite repeated warnings and despite that also managed to forget that the area was discretionary sanctions, now contentious topics. Noting that SCB didn't say it's not going to affect my editing much or will hardly affect my editing but instead "Won't affect my editing; won't prevent anything" implying it won't affect their editing at all rather than it simply won't have much of an effect. And this is putting aside that it's wide enough that it's quite likely editing areas affected by the topic ban will arise incidentally anyway which SCB needs to pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I trust Sarek's judgement significantly and appreciate and understand the comments above about Square's talk page comments being about his general editing rather than about going back to edit in the TBAN area. Hopefully, Square's issue won't be back here, taking more time of all of us. Thank you, Lourdes 03:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- IMO it would have been better for Lourdes to directly ask making it clear they needed clarification of a block would be forthcoming, rather than just relying on the refusal to answer the IP; only blocking if SCB persistently refused to affirm they would abide by the topic. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed I would have just treated it like an editor blowing off steam or having the last word stuff which we get a lot. (You didn't block me, I retired etc.) However I don't see anything wrong with seeking clarification as SCB does need to take the topic ban seriously. It's clear that this does have to affect SCB's editing since it's not plausible that they were really going to abandon their occasional poking of the matter, they never did before despite repeated warnings and despite that also managed to forget that the area was discretionary sanctions, now contentious topics. Noting that SCB didn't say it's not going to affect my editing much or will hardly affect my editing but instead "Won't affect my editing; won't prevent anything" implying it won't affect their editing at all rather than it simply won't have much of an effect. And this is putting aside that it's wide enough that it's quite likely editing areas affected by the topic ban will arise incidentally anyway which SCB needs to pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I indicated in a couple of venues, I felt that the obvious interpretation was not that they'd ignore the topic ban, but that they felt it wouldn't actually impact where they planned to edit, so they had better things to do than get pestered by people who thought acknowledging-by-deleting wasn't sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Komoro72
Komoro72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [11] [12] [13]
- At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [14]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [15]
Extremely hostile for some reason, making random attacks/rants:
- "Hello dear PanIranist history Please explain the topic and stop threatening users"
- Why you clear kurds from shamaran? Kurds own the myth why persians trying to stealing from kurdish myths? That was not a reply to me, but another user who warned them.
- Hello dear paniranist user please provide sources that this Kurdish dynasty name itself as iranians or Persians! blocking users with racial supremacist intentions are not acceptable on wiki
When I asked them why they were attacking me and whilst logged out a that, this was their reply, another attack:
I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [16]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @HistoryofIran: Another user promoting Kurdish-everything and being uncivil towards you? You seem to find a lot of these...
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I guess my username is not doing me any favours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Request Ban for User:DeFacto
I would like to propose that the User:DeFacto be urgently investigated and banned from at least topics related to politics within the United Kingdom if not globally banned on this site.
The current Issue:
The user in question in the last month or so alone has been involved in a number of disputes relating to political news stories regarding or related to the Conservative Party. While initially these could be overlooked as individual isolated incidents, mostly taking place on talk pages, there is a commonality to these incidents that features a clear pattern of "Wikilawyering" with the aim of POV pushing not by the addition of new content but the repeated blocking of new content and disruption of discussions to include it, in particular through using the BLP policy as a blank cheque justification, and the painting of users who wish to include material as engaging in NPOV violations such editorialisation, cherry-picking of sources without evidence of this.
Examples:
- A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.[17][18]
- A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source) [19][20][21]
- On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[22] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.[23]
- A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323). [24]
- A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article [25], Synth despite it being in the source[26], and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation[27]
-On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion"[28], suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[29], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative[30].
-On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede[31] but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"[32]
Relevant Background Context:
The user DeFacto has prior background of this sort of behaviour, having received multiple bans for their conduct over the years (at times seemingly attempting to systematically avoid these given the 41 confirmed sockpuppets to be them).
Their longest ban was between 2012-2016 when they were globally banned from the English Wikipedia for their conduct on multiple articles[33]. On the discussion at the time for enacting this one user left this description of their behaviour, which I believe is apt:
A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while.
Summary:
Quite simply at this point looking at their recent behaviour it seems clear to me that whatever changes they claimed to have made to remove the ban and associated restrictions to it has since disappeared and are instead back to their old habits and therefore deserving of intervention at this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apache287 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved in the discussion at Huw Edwards where I wasn't so much concerned with POV issues but was completely bemused by their idea that because the story concerned one newspaper, other newspapers couldn't be used as sources because they were "rivals". I'm still bemused by it, to be honest. I'm also slightly confused by edits like this, when the rest of article clearly cites that this thing happened in detail. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved too, and agree with Black Kite's comment. And I've come across DeFacto at various UK-related articles in recent years. I wasn't aware of their background - they certainly haven't kept to their original claim in the unban request to edit motor vehicle articles. Their main interest seems to be modern UK politics articles. I've found them to be slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times. There's an obvious conservative/right wing POV. But I haven't really seen anything sanctionable. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, the problems I had 11+ years ago are well behind me and I have no restrictions on my activity. As for my 'main interest' at this moment, I'd characterise it as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You'll see in my editing history that I've tried to improve one or more of those in articles about politicians from the Tory, Labour, and SNP parties; articles about civil servants, various convicted criminals, people accused of crimes, articles about police investigations, articles about car designers, and many others. I also dabble in a myriad of other automotive, engineering, geographical, and measurement articles, and any article I come across a clear non-NPOV bias in (whether it's political, or something else). I'm disappointed you think there's any political bias in any of these - I have no political affiliation, or political agenda in my editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to a specific party political bias - just a general left/right/centre bias. It's not a big deal - it's apparent for many editors. But I'm confused by your reference to editing "measurement articles". Isn't a condition of your indef unblock that you are TBAN'd from those? DeCausa (talk)
- @DeFacto: could you clarify the position on your editing of measurement articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, any restrictions I had have been lifted years ago. I currently have no restriction on the editing of measurement articles. The log of current restrictions is here - and I'm not in it. Can we let historical troubles rest now please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DeFacto: could you clarify the position on your editing of measurement articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to a specific party political bias - just a general left/right/centre bias. It's not a big deal - it's apparent for many editors. But I'm confused by your reference to editing "measurement articles". Isn't a condition of your indef unblock that you are TBAN'd from those? DeCausa (talk)
- The reason I'm bringing it up here is that it's not simply "they have a bias" but what frankly comes across as being in a very short period of time (5 weeks or so) the using of Wikipedia policies as a blunt instrument to pursue that bias. What was notable with the cases I've exampled is that they state as though they're acting out of concerns over neutrality but never present this other "narrative" (for lack of a better word) that is reliably sourced that they suggest is being suppressed by myself or others by cherry-picking.
- Even if I assumed honourable intentions in the two instances I've had direct or adjacent involvement with (Huw Edwards and Nadine Dorries) it seems to be their insistence that NPOV means that if there's only one notable, reliably-sourced "narrative" and no contrasting one then we don't note anything when that's not the policy. Apache287 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, the problems I had 11+ years ago are well behind me and I have no restrictions on my activity. As for my 'main interest' at this moment, I'd characterise it as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You'll see in my editing history that I've tried to improve one or more of those in articles about politicians from the Tory, Labour, and SNP parties; articles about civil servants, various convicted criminals, people accused of crimes, articles about police investigations, articles about car designers, and many others. I also dabble in a myriad of other automotive, engineering, geographical, and measurement articles, and any article I come across a clear non-NPOV bias in (whether it's political, or something else). I'm disappointed you think there's any political bias in any of these - I have no political affiliation, or political agenda in my editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite,
- Re the Edwards talkpage COI discussion. We had a bizarre situation there where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.
- Re your slight confusion. The article did not support the assertion that there was "mounting public pressure", let alone that it led to the resignation. Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR. Apache restored it. I reverted and warned that as it was a BLP issue so needed consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCT. Apache disregarded that warning and reverted again. As I assumed the BLP situation was serious, I reverted back, exactly as WP:BLPREMOVE commands:
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); ...
, and repeating the warning. What was wrong with doing that?
- -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- You wouldn't call the demands of the councils of two of the largest towns in her constituency to resign, plus multiple members of her own party "mounting public pressure"? I would. I mean, the sentence is not massively important, because the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that such pressure existed, but it just seems a bit odd to remove it. It's clearly not a BLP issue, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances. I'd call it's use here gross exaggeration. And it was the juxtapositioning to imply it was the reason for the resignation too that seemed to be SYNTH to me. But I can't speak for the editor who first reverted it as OR. And I was worried about my responsibility wrt WP:BLPREMOVE, and the restoring in defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances.
- My literal first addition into the lead came at a time when this was already in the main body of the article:
- "Numerous prominent political figures, including Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and several senior Tory MPs, have all stepped forward in August 2023, calling for her resignation following her earlier commitment to step down. Their criticism stems from Dorries' limited presence in parliamentary sessions, her voting record, and the absence of constituency surgeries in the town since 2020."
- So clearly there was national pressure from all three major UK-wide parties including the Prime Minister himself. Can't exactly get more "national" than that. Apache287 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a few political figures and MPs calling for her resignation, and not "mounting public pressure". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Those "few figures" happen to be the heads of three out of four of the UK's largest political parties, and, as @Apache287 already noted, the Prime Minister himself who is also a fellow party member of Dorries. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cortador, yes, three politicians. So 'mounting political criticism', perhaps, noting that two of the three are opposition party leaders, specifically tasked to criticise anything and everything related to the Tories and undoubtedly with their own agendas too? But that was certainly not "mounting public pressure".
- And how does that excuse the repeated defying of WP:BLPRESTORE, which says,
If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first
, rather than taking it to the talkpage where an attempt to achieve consensus could have spared us all this drama. It looks like battle field, rather than collegiate, behaviour to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- You can't genuinely be throwing stones at me when you've just tried to argue that a week of reverting by yourself for several claimed policy infractions (which a number of editors here have now questioned as a rationale) is all because I used "public pressure" rather than "political criticism" and you could've just... changed that at the time.
- Even the most "benefit of the doubt" interpretation of that would still be that it's your behaviour that's causing the problem, if only due to stubbornness/laziness rather than POV-pushing. Apache287 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, yes, your position gradually moved from this original addition to the latest incarnation. But BLP doesn't say that infringements can be tolerated if they're not as bad as they originally were. If BLP content is disputed, it should not be restored, it should be taken to talk, and the onus to do that is on the editor who wants it added. Upholding BLP is very clear about this:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
. Your refusal to accept that policy requirement, and battle field mentality, and dirty tactics, used in trying to force your will on the article were mendacious and extremely disruptive, and you still don't seem to get it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)- It isn't an infringement against policy, you just keep declaring it so and wikilawyering as literally everyone else tells you it's fine.
- You also keep deliberately misrepresenting someone else as "supporting the view it was OR" when they removed it due to changes that had been made by a third party. Apache287 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, the stuff you added to the BLP was contentious, so it was removed. WP:BLPRESTORE says
If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first
. You did not attempt to achieve a consensus, you simply forced your content into the article - that was a contravention of the BLP policy. Had you taken your argument to the talkpage, rather than treating the policy with contempt, you might have convinced us that you were right, who knows, but you were wrong not to try that first, before re-adding content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)- Contentious means something that is controversial, which if that was the case you could actually back up with RS.
- It doesn't mean "@DeFacto doesn't like it and because they alone don't like it then there's no consensus and it's contentious."
- This is precisely why I brought up your prior bans, because even a decade ago people could note that you love to claim "lack of consensus" as a reason to single-handedly stonewall other users. Apache287 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, the stuff you added to the BLP was contentious, so it was removed. WP:BLPRESTORE says
- @Apache287, yes, your position gradually moved from this original addition to the latest incarnation. But BLP doesn't say that infringements can be tolerated if they're not as bad as they originally were. If BLP content is disputed, it should not be restored, it should be taken to talk, and the onus to do that is on the editor who wants it added. Upholding BLP is very clear about this:
- Those "few figures" happen to be the heads of three out of four of the UK's largest political parties, and, as @Apache287 already noted, the Prime Minister himself who is also a fellow party member of Dorries. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a few political figures and MPs calling for her resignation, and not "mounting public pressure". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances. I'd call it's use here gross exaggeration. And it was the juxtapositioning to imply it was the reason for the resignation too that seemed to be SYNTH to me. But I can't speak for the editor who first reverted it as OR. And I was worried about my responsibility wrt WP:BLPREMOVE, and the restoring in defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR.
- Actually no they didn't. What they removed was a line that by then had seen the cited source changed by an intermediate edit: [34]
- So my initial edit with the source I used to justify it was never deemed OR by anyone but yourself. Apache287 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, they made this edit, changing "After mounting public pressure, she formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". and then, after someone else made two unrelated edits, you made this edit, changing "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "Following mounting public pressure she formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". That is a revert, back to what had been removed for avalid, good-faith, reason. And it is the result of that edit of yours that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just continue to ignore the fact that, as I said and showed with the diff above, by then an intermediate editor had replaced the source I'd used to justify the wording with a completely different source. Look at citation 3 following the line in question on first the diff I made, and then the diff immediately prior to them removing the sentence for OR.
- As can clearly be seen, the source used as a citation for that sentence had been changed by someone else, not me. Apache287 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem.
- Because someone had removed the source, so it was unintentionally left unsourced so I replaced it with the source re-applied.
- Massive difference to what you're misrepresenting it as.
- And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP.
- Except it is an incontrovertible fact that there was mounting pressure. The leaders of the three main UK-wide parties put public pressure on her calling for her to resign, a number of MPs in her own party publicly called on her to resign, notable public bodies in her constituency publicly called on her to resign.
- You alone, a week later, are alone in claiming that isn't public pressure.
- Good grief, I really think this alone happily shows to everyone just why I believe this can't be genuine good-faith opposition at this point, because you're still to this day essentially arguing that unless you agree with what Reliable Sources say then it can't be added. Apache287 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, they made this edit, changing "After mounting public pressure, she formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". and then, after someone else made two unrelated edits, you made this edit, changing "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "Following mounting public pressure she formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". That is a revert, back to what had been removed for avalid, good-faith, reason. And it is the result of that edit of yours that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- You wouldn't call the demands of the councils of two of the largest towns in her constituency to resign, plus multiple members of her own party "mounting public pressure"? I would. I mean, the sentence is not massively important, because the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that such pressure existed, but it just seems a bit odd to remove it. It's clearly not a BLP issue, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved too, and agree with Black Kite's comment. And I've come across DeFacto at various UK-related articles in recent years. I wasn't aware of their background - they certainly haven't kept to their original claim in the unban request to edit motor vehicle articles. Their main interest seems to be modern UK politics articles. I've found them to be slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times. There's an obvious conservative/right wing POV. But I haven't really seen anything sanctionable. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Needless to say, I refute all of these bad faith, and malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations. They are mostly misrepresentations and false representations of my actions. Then there's the use of muckraking in an attempt to discredit me. I could go through each of the allegations one-by-one if anyone is interested. Or if there's any one of them that anyone else takes seriously, I can address that one if you like. But whatever, I'm not sure that Apache287 is here to improve Wikipedia, but more to push their POV, and clearly by force if opposed. They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this. I see a very good case here for WP:BOOMERANG. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- "They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this."
- Actually if you look at the time stamps on that discussion I didn't hijack anything. By the time I made my comment there had already been discussion regarding your decision to suggest cherrypicking on the part of @Cortador and I, as I believe I am allowed to do so, make a statement why I believed it was your conduct that was out of line based on my interactions with you, where I provided a number of diffs to support my belief that you showed a pattern of behaviour amounting to Civil POV pushing and that therefore I believed at the time (and still do) that your reporting of them was motivated by that POV pushing and as said towards the end of that submission I was in half a mind to submit my own complaint about your behaviour which then continued.
- You on the other hand put multiple (and frankly unsubstantiated) warnings on my talk page, such as claiming I was making unsourced additions to the Nadine Dorries article and that I was making "personal attacks" for using this forum to report my genuine concerns about your behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand the whole OR/SYNTH conversation above. We're talking about this diff, yes? Apache added the content sourced to this which says:
Tory MP Nadine Dorries has resigned her Commons seat more than two months after promising to step down ... It follows mounting pressure on the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and PM Rishi Sunak after Dorries pledged to step down some 78 days ago.
So how is this OR/SYNTH? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- @ProcrastinatingReader, for my take on this, please see my response to Black Kite above, made at 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, you're arguing that reliable sources do not support the idea that there was mounting pressure for Dorries to resign? Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mackensen, no, that's not what was being disputed. What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted Apache287's addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first
. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it. - My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.
- I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says,
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)...
, and WP:BLPCT, which says,"All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project
. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) - @Mackensen Just want to say what DeFacto is claiming here about a second editor deeming my edits to be OR is in fact completely false. As I've already demonstrated with multiple diffs is that an intermediate editor replaced the RS justifying my edit with a different one, so was technically changed to OR by someone else before being removed at a later point for that reason. Apache287 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, that's something we could have thrashed out, and included them in, on the talkpage, if you'd have followed the requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE, rather than just totally rejecting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it clearly wasn't, because even from the getgo you would just come up with another reason to completely reject even when, as many others have pointed out here, your supposed "it's BLP vio" complaint doesn't hold any water. Now you're at the point of rather badly trying to argue "my problem is that it was political criticism, not public pressure" which would've required all of two words being edited rather than the effort to endlessly revert and throw up walls of authoratative-sounding text on talk pages.
- So maybe instead of hiding behind whatever ALL CAPITAL WORDS POLICY SHORTCUT you like to use maybe actually look at the fact people keep telling you that you're using it wrong. Apache287 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, you talking drivel now. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Literally in the opening paragraph.
- "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity"
- You, alone, are still the only person who has claimed it wasn't supported by the sources I provided to support it. Apache287 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, you talking drivel now. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, that's something we could have thrashed out, and included them in, on the talkpage, if you'd have followed the requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE, rather than just totally rejecting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mackensen, no, that's not what was being disputed. What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted Apache287's addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says
- To be clear, you're arguing that reliable sources do not support the idea that there was mounting pressure for Dorries to resign? Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader, for my take on this, please see my response to Black Kite above, made at 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved at Suella Braverman (though I have largely stepped back while on holiday), and my memory of DeFacto is positive. The big issue there was extreme POV problems from an editor who has now been permanently blocked for edit warring, civility, and sock puppetry, and DeFacto was part of the solution, not part of the problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, looking through that as someone who wasn't involved the editor who was blocked by the end (Aimilios92) was definitely intent on POV-pushing and incapable of showing any level of good faith given the interactions they had (and how every other editor called out their behaviour as inappropriate).
- However, specifically in the section I exampled but also on the wider talk page, it was their interaction with another editor (Iskandar323) that was of relevancy here, in particular:
- - Their use of RS disclaimers for HuffPost (the caution warning on politics only applies to US politics) and The Guardian (despite referencing that "some" users accused it of bias it's still marked as a consensus-agreed RS) and stating that they should "perhaps find some undisputedly reliable sources that name more than one critic, and use those" which reads, in conjunction with the other examples used as part of this submission, as a further example of their habit of establishing arguably unachievable levels of evidential burden, given every source will be disputed by one group or another.
- - The use of "BLP" as a blunt instrument where they'll remove entire RS-backed sections. Even when quite reasonably asked why they don't just remove specific words/phrases or the excess sources they claim is a sign of "overciting" they object to if that's the claimed issue it's dismissed with "I could do a lot of things if I had more hours in a day, though I'm not sure that any of them would be the things you suggest", which is a rather odd justification given the purpose of the site. Apache287 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, and like you, Aimilios92 trawled through my Wiki history and dug out some nuggets that they also used against me, thinking it might, somehow, discredit me. And that was part of the reason they were blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- As a minor detail on a wide-ranging ban a user used a prior block as an argument during a content dispute.
- I've supplied a number of diffs to show what I believe is a serious pattern of behaviour on the appropriate forum to discuss whether that pattern merits sanction, and as part of that used prior history (namely a four year block for tendentious editing) as relevant background.
- Those are blindingly different contexts and if you think that's going to work as some form of "watch yourself" comeback then you need to think harder on your rebuttals, which so far seem to be little more than listing policy as though that's an explanation of your questionable application of them. Apache287 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287. Your diffs are accompanied with false commentaries though, including misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth that were not said. Anyone looking at them will see that. If they can't, as I said in my first statement, I can happily provide more details. The 'background' is mud slinging. The BLP policy applies to us all, and your constant defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE needed attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- And again, you can't help but claim everything is "false" about your actions and yet you take no notice of the fact several people in talk pages and this submission have all made the same comments in that you are blatantly not following the policy you're claiming to be enforcing.
- Frankly this continued "you're lying about me, it's all lies" defensiveness just goes to show why I thought it appropriate to bring it here, because you don't seem capable of listening to anyone but your own pre-built assumptions. Apache287 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, okay, I said I would elaborate if challenged, so have started a new section below to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287. Your diffs are accompanied with false commentaries though, including misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth that were not said. Anyone looking at them will see that. If they can't, as I said in my first statement, I can happily provide more details. The 'background' is mud slinging. The BLP policy applies to us all, and your constant defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE needed attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be careful with pointing fingers at users that got banned for the same behaviour that your are displaying. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Taking action against BLP violations is a duty, not a behaviour issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not relevant as that's not what that person was banned for. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Taking action against BLP violations is a duty, not a behaviour issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, and like you, Aimilios92 trawled through my Wiki history and dug out some nuggets that they also used against me, thinking it might, somehow, discredit me. And that was part of the reason they were blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Requested rebuttal details
This sub-section is in response to Apache287's comments made above at at 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC).
Apache287, I'll go one-by-one though each of your 'examples', giving my reasons for rejecting them as baseless:
- Your example 1
A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns
.- My rejection
- Your premise that I "suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
-
- Here's what I asked in the talkpage discussion:
- After the other editor added a selection of six sources, and a commentary on them, I posted this question, asking them how they had arrived at that selection, an important consideration when evaluating the weight of what they were saying. I never suggested that they were cherry-picked. The other editor then introduced the term 'cherry-picked' in their response. Which I answered, again without any such suggestion.
- Follow the thread and you'll see I never suggested cherry-picking, I tried to get a question about their selection answered, but with no joy, and they then capped my requests as off-topic! This gave rise to me posting this ANI request.
- Here's what I asked in the talkpage discussion:
- Your example 2
A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source)
.On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[81] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy
.- My rejection
- Your premise that I "tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
-
- I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion. In that article we had a bizarre situation where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.
- Your example 3
A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323)
.- My rejection
- Your premise that I "repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
-
- Your accusation that I performed "selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
- I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said.
- Your example 4
A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article, Synth despite it being in the source, and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation
.On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion", suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[88], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative
.On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"
.- My rejection
- Your premise that I "repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
-
- What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted your addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.
- My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.
- I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project".
-- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Point 1:
- Your initial response was: "@Cortador, I haven't read them yet, but I just wondered how you came across them. Did you search specifically for those views, or what?"
- That is literally raising the possibility of them having cherry-picked them when you hadn't even read the sources. The fact you hadn't used the explicit phrase "cherry-picked" doesn't hide the obvious inference you were making.
- Point 2:
- Your claim "I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion" is straight up false. Your diff shows you tagged the main article on 20:00 UTC on 19 July, and then continued editing other pages as shown by your contribution log. The discussion on your COI tags, which can be entirely summed up as many other users expressing complete surprise and disbelief at what you were claiming, was started by a different user the next day.
- Also throughout your entire justification is "may be biased", "might have a conflict of interest". You, alone, deciding there is a problem with their coverage is not evidence there actually is a problem with their coverage. And it's notable how you never presented any other RS to show that their coverage was out of step with wider coverage.
- Point 3:
- "I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said."
- No consensus on reliability for international coverage is not the same as "not considered to be generally reliable for politics", quite simply because the latter is a statement that is suggesting there is consensus that it isn't reliable.
- Point 4:
- As I have stated and evidenced (numerous times at this point), no other editor deemed my changes to be OR. They deemed that subsequent alterations that removed the source to leave it as OR and then (quite understandably) removed it because as a result of that source removal the statement was unsupported. Your continued attempts to claim it was deemed OR by this third party are at this point frankly a lie.
- hat we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.
- But that's the point, I don't regard you as acting in good faith. Your opposition to the changes I made have, over the past week, been whittled down from it being "editorialisation" to "well they used the phrase "public pressure" when I thought it should be "political criticism" and I've still yet to see you explain why you... didn't just make that change.
- Every other editor, when examining my actual additions (and not when they've been further changed and had sources removed by someone else) have all expressed the same viewpoint which is why are you continuing to claim they're policy violations when they're clearly not.[35][36]
- Your entire claimed reasoning behind the repeated reverting is textbook Wikilawyering, in fact I'd almost say you seem almost proud of that description given you're talking about your actions in terms such as "taking action against BLP violations is a duty", as though this was some kind of legal drama.
- Despite the fact you keep calling my reasons for this report as "baseless" the fact is it's clearly anything but. So far the only real debate has been whether what you've done is enough to be formally sanctioned, not that your behaviour hasn't been a problem in general. It's not surprising to me that one of the first replies to this was someone describing you as "slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times." Apache287 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, none of yours points hold water...
- Point 1: mine was a straightforward question, yours was a disingenuous and inflammatory interpretation of it.
- Point 2: 'false'? No, I added the tags at 2023-07-19T20:59:21, a discussion started at 2023-07-20T07:35:04 - it worked as I anticipated.
- Point 3: the first sentence of the entry I cited, and as you quoted it, says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics". Which is exactly what I said. If it was considered to be generally reliable it would have a green background and a green tick in a circle.
- Point 4: they reverted the content you added as OR, and as we never got to discuss it, you do not know what their rationale for that was.
- It seems you are blind to the facts of the situation, and are grasping at straws. I suggest you stop digging. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Point 1: No, disingenuous is even raising the possibility someone "searched specifically" for sources that you haven't read.
- Point 2: "it worked as I anticipated." No, if your intention was to start a talk page discussion then you'd have started the talk page discussion.
- Point 3: Again "no consensus" is not the same as "not considered reliable", no consensus means it's reliability hasn't actually been properly ascertained so can't be immediately written off one way or the other.
- Point 4: Seriously, stop lying. You know you're lying and everyone else can see it. They clearly as per the diffs presented removed an ALTERED statement someone had removed the source from. Apache287 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Apache287, none of yours points hold water...
OMG can the three of you stop sniping at each other? (Don't respond to this, just stop.) --JBL (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if an admin would step in and start proposing sanctions, they'd stop. I'd propose banning all 3 of them from the page and giving DeFacto a topic ban from British politics. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this being the most appropriate resolution. UnironicEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DontKnowWhyIBother and UnironicEditor:, given the evidence shown above, can y'all please elaborate on why not only should sanctions should be levied against DeFacto, but also a WP:TBAN from British Politics? — Knightoftheswords 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- ^^^^^ EEng 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you have to reach back a full decade to an unrelated topic that's already been resolved, you're really just demonstrating how weak your argument is. — Knightoftheswords 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This thread is evidence that the issue has not in fact been resolved. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it's not. You're scrabbling around in ancient history to try and revive a dead duck. There's no evidence of socking after 2015 per their SPI record. The previous socking was known when their indef was lifted in 2016. Dead duck. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- This thread isn't about sockpuppeting specifically. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why did you say
I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban.
then? DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)- Because the unban came with the expectation of better future behaviour, which evidently has not been fulfilled. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The socks are ancient history; nearly a decade old at this point. At its core, this thread is regarding a content dispute, with no direct accusations of incivility. This should be archived. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Because the unban came with the expectation of better future behaviour, which evidently has not been fulfilled. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why did you say
- This thread isn't about sockpuppeting specifically. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- No it's not. You're scrabbling around in ancient history to try and revive a dead duck. There's no evidence of socking after 2015 per their SPI record. The previous socking was known when their indef was lifted in 2016. Dead duck. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- This thread is evidence that the issue has not in fact been resolved. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you have to reach back a full decade to an unrelated topic that's already been resolved, you're really just demonstrating how weak your argument is. — Knightoftheswords 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- ^^^^^ EEng 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @DontKnowWhyIBother and UnironicEditor:, given the evidence shown above, can y'all please elaborate on why not only should sanctions should be levied against DeFacto, but also a WP:TBAN from British Politics? — Knightoftheswords 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this being the most appropriate resolution. UnironicEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like no one but the 2 or 3 (?) protagonists are following this thread anymore. Someone needs to put it out of its misery. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
User:DeCausa
DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user told me on the talk page of the article Muhammad that [1]
Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue.
Is this binding? Can a non-admin make a unilateral statement like this prohibiting another user from editing an article? To the best of my knowledge, the ones disputing my edits are the aforementioned editor; then @Jopharocen who doesn't seem to understand the function of citations and based his arguments on original research [2]. In one of his comments he particularly said [3]:
I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit
@Chxeese who reverted all my edits on some articles, just because according to him I'm Islamophobic
[4][5]
@Iskandar323 whose one of his objections is about me using this source [1]. I believe I have refuted his accusations against the author [6], but he went to another section and started making the same allegations [7]. I have been trying to invite him and @DeCausa to start an RfC to resolve the matter [8]. My most recent invitation has not been answered by him [9].
And @Admiral90, when I asked him if the works that cite the source in question say or at least suggest that the source is fringe [10], he answered it with [11]
I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research.
Kaalakaa (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Any editor is free to ask you to refrain from editing while disputes over your edits are resolved on the talk page. Being from an admin or not is mostly irrelevant. The only thing unique to admins is that if they are not involved they could say they will block you if you continue and directly follow up on that threat. However a non-admin or an involved admin could easily warn you that you may be blocked and report you somewhere appropriate if you continue. And if an uninvolved admin agrees your behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant blocking then they may block you. You do not need to and should not expect to be warned by an uninvolved admin to stop before you can be blocked. That said, this will only apply to further disruptive edits, so if do happen to make an edit which no one disputes, this is fine. (But consider if you have kept making changes which are disputed perhaps your assessment of what will be disputed is questionable.) In certain circumstances an uninvolved admin can unilaterally topic ban meaning you need to stop editing point blank and even an uncontroversial and undisputed edit is not okay, but that needs to be a lot more formal than than this. Note that WP:EW is definitely something which can earn a block, so if you keep making changes which are disputed and reverted you shouldn't be surprised if you're blocked for it. While it takes two to edit war, no editor should want a situation where both sides a blocked so editors should try and avoid it. And perhaps more importantly if it's a WP:1AM situation, the one editor shouldn't be surprised if they're blocked whereas the many editors who revert them are not. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kaalaaka, I can answer your questions: no and yes (although in view of the answer to the first question "prohibiting" isn't the right word). Btw, are you complaining about the other editors mentioned in your first post? If so, you haven't notified them of this thread with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and you would need to. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I came here to say something similar. I went to User talk:Jopharocen to warn them against canvassing but was surprised to find there was no notification and a check of the edit history shows it wasn't deleted. I will disagree DeCausa on one point though, the fact you directly brought up their actions here means you have to notify them regardless of whether you intended your comment to be a complaint. They are entitled to know you are talking about them here. Normally when it's just one or two editors I'll just notify them for you with a stern reminder to do so yourself in the future but I can't be bothered with you mentioning so many different editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
you have to notify them
- I just did that. Thanks for letting me know. I'm new to this. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I came here to say something similar. I went to User talk:Jopharocen to warn them against canvassing but was surprised to find there was no notification and a check of the edit history shows it wasn't deleted. I will disagree DeCausa on one point though, the fact you directly brought up their actions here means you have to notify them regardless of whether you intended your comment to be a complaint. They are entitled to know you are talking about them here. Normally when it's just one or two editors I'll just notify them for you with a stern reminder to do so yourself in the future but I can't be bothered with you mentioning so many different editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kaalaaka, I can answer your questions: no and yes (although in view of the answer to the first question "prohibiting" isn't the right word). Btw, are you complaining about the other editors mentioned in your first post? If so, you haven't notified them of this thread with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and you would need to. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- DeCausa is correct in their suggestion that Kaalakaa would do well to pause their editing on Muhammad amid the numerous active discussions on their recent editing, which have raised significant concerns over their approach to sourcing. The scale of Kaalakaa's recent edits to this GA-class page are such that they now account for roughly 45% of all content on the page, and this as a page with 5,000 historic editors. Given that the page has remained largely the same size, that means that roughly 45% of the page has been replaced in recent months. To be clear, this was not a page littered with tags in need of correction; this was a GA-class article (about a major global religious figure) ... though what the page qualifies as now remains to be assessed and determined. And yet, despite the extraordinary nature of these changes, the queries that have naturally arisen among other editors about the edits and sourcing have been met with what appears to be both a lack of understanding and reluctance to address core elements of policy, e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is a collegiate environment, so editors are expected to be able to answer questions regarding their edits with respect to policy, not least when the edits in question have had a significant impact on an existing high-quality article in an obviously contentious topic space. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, the WP:WEIGHT issue that you (and @DeCausa) have raised in our discussion is mostly that of the following book[1] in which you accused the author of various allegations [1] based on the following Bloomsbury link you provided, which in fact does not correspond to your claims as I explained here [2]. You gave "undue" and "dubious" tags to all the material sourced from the book [3]. When I was in the process of adding other sources to support the material [4], @DeCausa came to tell me to stop editing until there was a consensus that I could edit again [5].
- At the top of the article's talk page it is clearly written:
Muhammad has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do.
- I saw many problems with this article when I first came there such as WP:SYNTH [6]; WP:OR [7] [8]; Source misrepresentation [9] [10], etc. Not to mention that most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. That was why I decided to improve the article with other and more recent sources, according to WP:AGEMATTERS, and include a number of important details about the subject that in the previous version seemed to have been deliberately left out in order to protect his image, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Other editors who took issue with my edits such as @Jopharocen, who particularly said [11]:
generally base their arguments on their understanding of primary sources, which is not allowed for Wikipedia articles. As much as I'd like to refute their arguments it would only turn the talk page into a primary source debate forum, which is against WP:NOTFORUM. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)"I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit..."
- They didn't make any allegation against the author (describing the author's claims as Fringe is perfectly acceptable). Some of the hundreds of edits that you made to a GA article, that is probably no longer so because of the justified tags that ensued, are disputed, so now is the perfect time for you to take a break from editing and start addressing the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think I need to make a clarification here. @Iskandar323, claimed that based on this link, the author of this book[1] "
falls well short of subject-matter expert
" [1], and started to put "undue" and "dubious" tags to every material sourced from the book [2]. However, when I informed him that the content of the link says otherwise [3] Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
- He dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [4]. After I told him that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [5], he said "
the link is worthless
" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background
" [6]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [7]. - The book in question[1] is a publication from the University Press of Florida. Our WP:RS says that
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
...
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.- The book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida,[2] so it is very reliable. WP:RSUW states that:
The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion
- But apparently we couldn't agree, so I invited him to start an RfC on the matter a few times. My latest invitation hasn't been responded to by him yet [37]. I was also in the process of finding and adding other reliable sources that support the material sourced from it [8], but @DeCausa came and told me to cease from editing the article until there is a consensus that I can continue [9]. Kaalakaa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kaalakaa Until this moment you're only claiming that my discussions were based on my understanding of primary sources to avoid the discussion, and I've refuted that unfounded accusation many times and even asked you multiple times to point where exactly I put my own understanding of the sources when I even showed sources that explain parts you - either intentionally or ignorantly - didn't include for the sake of defamation.
- The assassination of Ka'b is a clear example, as despite proving a source for you, you helplessly insisted to deny that his tribe had a pact with Muhammad which he violated it and sided with the enemy which was the main reason for his assassination, a punishment for treason not a murder for a personal matter as you claimed by using your own interpretation of primary sources. It wasn't a personal matter when it involves a threat to the entire community when Ka'b - using your own words in the article, aroused them to retaliate, that is, the Meccan enemies. So I'm not only providing a reference to refute your interpretation, but even used your own words which contradict your interpretation, yet you claim that I'm the one using personal interpretation.
- You have ignored to discuss that for sure and simply replied by:
Which is of course a subjective attitude which I don't think the gentlemen here would approve.we don't give a damn about your theories
- You will happily accept the Satanic verses despite never being narrated with a sound chain of transmission simply because its recorded in the earliest surviving biography, and because some Western scholars also quoted it providing various interpretations. But you will struggle to deny Muhammad's miracles throughout the article, despite them being recorded as well in the very same earliest surviving biography as well as in almost all canonical books of hadith because they don't suit you and are making you losing your defamation campaign.
- And before you come up with the argument that miracles are myths from a secular perspective, don't forget that Satan is also a myth from a secular perspective. Therefore the Satanic verses cannot take place from a secular perspective.
- Also, I'm not opening a new discussion here, but merely pointing out topics that were already discussed in Muhammad:Talk page and clarifying that you didn't respond and either aggressively rebuked me or ignored to respond, so that your accusations be clear that they are unfounded. Jopharocen (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like neither of you are capable of editing neutrally on the article. Your classification of someone trying to elevate the perspectives of actual historians over your own religious dogma as "defamation" tells me that you need to be banned from the article as well, as you are quite obviously incapable of putting aside your religious sensibilities to collaborate. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think I need to make a clarification here. @Iskandar323, claimed that based on this link, the author of this book[1] "
- They didn't make any allegation against the author (describing the author's claims as Fringe is perfectly acceptable). Some of the hundreds of edits that you made to a GA article, that is probably no longer so because of the justified tags that ensued, are disputed, so now is the perfect time for you to take a break from editing and start addressing the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am not accusing you of being an Islamaphobe without any evidence. I have brought up my case [[Talk:Muhammad#Recent_editing]]. The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists. Chxeese (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Once again, that's absolutely incorrect. Efraim Karsh, whom you regard as being pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Yale University Press, is only cited for brief information about Muhammad's attack on the caravan at Nakhla, and this material is supported by numerous other sources, including W. M. Watt. As for David Bukay, another expert you consider pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Routledge, he's cited solely for one statement, which is a direct quote from Muhammad ordering his followers to kill Ka'b ibn Ashraf, and that's supported by Sahih al-Bukhari. Arun Shourie, who according to you is a Hindu nationalist, merely served as a supplementary source for two already existing reliable sources, and he has already been replaced with another reliable source. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists.
References
- ^ a b c d Rodgers, Russ (2017). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-5459-9.
- ^ "University Press of Florida". upf.com. Retrieved 2023-08-30.
It seems like both disputing parties should refrain from inserting their personal commentary in regards to the creditability of a source especially if it's misrepresentation which skips building consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Kaalakaa
This user is making Wikipedia a troll site adding this blunder 1 2 and several other false, dubious information while disregarding due weight. Note this blunder has stand removed now by another person 1. See the editor's edits on the article Muhammad. See also the talk page on article Muhammad where the editor's addition is opposed on several grounds by several editors. Moreover the quality of the article has downgraded to a troll site to an extent. The editor has disregard for truth as evidenced by addition of this blunder. The editor disregard the fact that self contradiction or other blunder or false information contained even in the reliable or so-called reliable sources has to be avoided. Moreover the disputed content in any source whether reliable or the other cannot be taken because of which independent sources are relied on. I wonder whether the editor forgot the password of their earlier account [38] for escaping from the possible ban of this account. So it would be great if the editor is compelled to reveal their earlier account and verify it: anyway chances are that it could be found by a sockpuppetry investigation. This would be helpful to know whether the similar fasion of disruptive edit has been done by that account also. I consider this user's edits unhelpful and useless while also severing less for educative purpose. Hence unencyclopedic. I see discussion with this editor on the talk page is useless since this person has disregard for truth. I believe a debate on blunder is blunder. Gaming of the system or misusing Wikipedia is to be suspected if the editor gets favourable response about the editor's additions or anything conducive for it. I see no option left to solve the problems except a ban on this editor. A ban on this editor is necessary to avoid general sanctions on the topic which is especially true because of misuse by one or few editors.
Because of all of these things I say the edits the editor makes are in the nature of bad faith edits. Also see the recent edits by this editor. With this editor's edits the quality, usefulness, trustworthiness, educative purpose and neutrality of the article has degraded. Having disregard for truth while also making bad faith edits, the editor deserves indefinite block which is especially true since the editor behaves as if not a new commer as evidenced by the editor's citations of Wikipedia, while also admitting to had an account earlier whose password the editor says to have forgot. [39]. An outright block is needed since the user is likely to justify their edits.
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DeCausa where the editor is apparently trying to find all the possibilities to add such bad faith edits. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- The name of the old account is on the new account's user page.
- Old account: Kaalaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- New account: Kaalakaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- This should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way over here.2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have made this discussion a subthread of the other one which is basically on the same issue started by the editor who was named in this thread. We deal with all editors involved in a dispute so there's no reason to have separate threads on the same issue. And frankly neither discussion should have a headline with either editor's name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- All of DeCausa's edits to the page on Muhammad had edit summaries, whereas only 31% of Kaalakaa's edits had an edit summary. That makes it a lot easier for other editors to edit collaboratively with DeCausa than with Kaalakaa - especially given the very large numbers Kaalakaa made over a period of 3 months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have explained above that when I first came to the article I saw many problems within it (which I explained in my edit summaries) such as WP:SYNTH [1]; WP:OR [2] [3]; Source misrepresentation [4] [5], etc. Moreover most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. So I decided to revamp some of the content and also add other and more recent sources, as per WP:AGEMATTERS. For about a month no one disputed my edits, until @Jopharocen came along and based on his understanding of primary sources, said that my edits were wrong, accused me of defamation [6] [7], and stated [3]:
Kaalakaa (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit
- @Kaalakaa At everytime you tag me, I be hoping that you'll address a concern, then I find that you're repeating yourself over and over. I have provided sources to what I said, therefore its not an interpretation of primary sources, I even showed secondary sources and showed with clear evidence that you have used your own personal interpretation many times with no response from you.
- By the way, I started to cite sources for my earlier criticism of your editions in the Wiki manner to be clear to all editors but @DeCausa removed and reverted them as they were, which I understand the reason for doing this. But no problem, I'll gladly make new topics on the talk page and cite new sources in the Wiki manner whenever I'll have time, to stop hearing the unfounded accusation regarding using my own interpretation to avoid discussing my points.
- No need to keep showing the same statement at everytime to tag me as well, when you said "We don't give a damn to your theories" and started to be subjective rather than objective. Jopharocen (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jopharocen, I'm not the only one who says that what you're doing constitutes original research based on primary sources; other editors think so too [1] [2]. The only secondary source you've provided is a book by Martin Lings, an Islamic scholar, which, frankly, I'm uncertain is reliable or unbiased. (If we can use that source, then we should be able to use Zondervan books as well for the Muhammad article, but we don't.) Furthermore, the source you've provided doesn't directly refute the content in the article; instead, it's your interpretation that connects two distinct events to arrive at that conclusion. Please note that at the end of each statement on Wikipedia (which can be as short as one sentence or even a single paragraph), there is typically a [number] which, when clicked, reveals the source for that statement. All my edits are based on cited sources. If you think they're not, provide evidence. Accusing without proof or making false accusations can be considered a personal attack, and you could get banned from Wikipedia for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @KaalakaaYes I'll gladly use more sources in the Wiki manner you mention but they were reverted as replies were already made, that's why I offered to make new topics.
- As for Martin Lings' book, it's recognized widely by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as it's solely based on earliest sources.So your opinion of it doesn't really matter when it comes to a neutral research.
- Others accused me of using my interpretation and I asked for evidence with no response. Other editors accused you of the article being no longer neutral and provided evidences of that.
- I'm still asking, where is my interpretation? I already showed where you added your interpretation but you didn't do the same. Jopharocen (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jopharocen:
I already showed where you added your interpretation
- Where is that? Do you mean in this comment of yours where you said:
But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.
- Have you checked and read the source cited?
- Sells, Michael. Ascension, Encyclopedia of the Quran, vol.1, p.176.
- Which explicitly states:
Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).
- p.177
However, the identity of “the furthest place of prayer” has been disputed, leading to several traditions about the ascension.
- FYI, even before my first edit on the article, this source was already there, but it was misrepresented. So, I removed the misrepresentation and wrote what it actually says. As simple as that. So, your claim that it is my own
personal interpretation of the Quran
is clearly a false accusation which constitutes a personal attack. - Regarding your practice of interpreting primary sources in attempts to falsify statements in the article that are based on reliable secondary sources, there are many examples of this. One of them is this:
Kaalakaa (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67.
- @Jopharocen:
- @Jopharocen, I'm not the only one who says that what you're doing constitutes original research based on primary sources; other editors think so too [1] [2]. The only secondary source you've provided is a book by Martin Lings, an Islamic scholar, which, frankly, I'm uncertain is reliable or unbiased. (If we can use that source, then we should be able to use Zondervan books as well for the Muhammad article, but we don't.) Furthermore, the source you've provided doesn't directly refute the content in the article; instead, it's your interpretation that connects two distinct events to arrive at that conclusion. Please note that at the end of each statement on Wikipedia (which can be as short as one sentence or even a single paragraph), there is typically a [number] which, when clicked, reveals the source for that statement. All my edits are based on cited sources. If you think they're not, provide evidence. Accusing without proof or making false accusations can be considered a personal attack, and you could get banned from Wikipedia for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- All of DeCausa's edits to the page on Muhammad had edit summaries, whereas only 31% of Kaalakaa's edits had an edit summary. That makes it a lot easier for other editors to edit collaboratively with DeCausa than with Kaalakaa - especially given the very large numbers Kaalakaa made over a period of 3 months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Iterresise
This user is showing very inappropriate behaviour. They are doing constant BLUDGEONing and are attacking other editors who disagree with them, as shown here regarding a Template for Discussion request. They are also indirectly attacking other users via their talk page, and putting inappropriate content in said talk page as well. They are not showing the best behaviour. They have previously been blocked, and reported, numerous times in the past. They appear to be a repeat offender of Wikipedia policies, and I suggest an indefinite block due to their actions / behaviour. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Evelyn Harthbrooke, don’t forget to leave a msg on Iterresise’s talk page using the template and instructions at the top of this page. It’s required.
- —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- @A. B. Sorry! Done. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely bludgeoning at that TfD as Evelyn reported.
- This response to previous talk page warnings is not collegial:Special:MobileDiff/1098453210
- –A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Link to previous ANI discussion (also July 2022). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which was removed nor did it target anyone. Iterresise (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @A. B. Sorry! Done. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Iterresise was blocked once in July 2022 for 24 hours for edit warring, and there have been no warnings about editing conduct since then on their talk page. However, their behavior in the TfD does appear to be uncivil and bludgeoning. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- They made 22 edits between August 2022 and August 2023, so the absence of warnings during that period indicates little. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- They spent hours preparing this TfD in their sandbox. They may have been surprised and dismayed by the opposition at the TfD after all that work. I’m not advocating for deletion, just pointing to a possible factor in their behaviour today. (I !voted delete). A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Let's not site ban....a block ok....much easier to follow this account then to find the sock they will make. Moxy-
23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Astounding. User:Moxy says "Chalk this up to new editor (585 edits)" and this isn't a personal attack yet I am accused of a personal attack by WP:BULLYING and WP:TAGTEAMing? He was warned here. I'm shocked Evelyn Harthbrooke didn't get the message. It's rather diseingeionous. And her behavior wasn't WP:CIVIL. This is shocking. And by the way: "astounding" is her word. I'm not sure what bludgeoning even means. Was I not patient? Did I carefully explain the situation? The discussion revealed some new aspects to the issue. How did I bludgeoning anything? "this TFD request is honestly astoundingly ridiculous": that's bludgeoning. "reported, numerous times in the past": completely false. Iterresise (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack to suggest that inexperience may play a role in a TfD nomination meeting with unanimous disagreement. For bludgeoning, see WP: BLUDGEON. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alright: I get it. My intent wasn't to bludgeon: The fact was that I had removed the templates which was met with resistance and in previous discussions of the series of templates, some of the solutions weren't presented. It's as simple as that. Iterresise (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack to suggest that inexperience may play a role in a TfD nomination meeting with unanimous disagreement. For bludgeoning, see WP: BLUDGEON. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Astounding. User:Moxy says "Chalk this up to new editor (585 edits)" and this isn't a personal attack yet I am accused of a personal attack by WP:BULLYING and WP:TAGTEAMing? He was warned here. I'm shocked Evelyn Harthbrooke didn't get the message. It's rather diseingeionous. And her behavior wasn't WP:CIVIL. This is shocking. And by the way: "astounding" is her word. I'm not sure what bludgeoning even means. Was I not patient? Did I carefully explain the situation? The discussion revealed some new aspects to the issue. How did I bludgeoning anything? "this TFD request is honestly astoundingly ridiculous": that's bludgeoning. "reported, numerous times in the past": completely false. Iterresise (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You voted delete? You voted keep actually. Iterresise (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're right. I !voted keep. Typo --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comments like [40] I find to be a waste of my time: "too many templates in the TfD bundle" I already commented on this. "deleting so many would disrupt so many articles": not a valid reason for keeping templates if others get deleted so you need to present a unique reason for keeping the templates: otherwise I find your comment to be disingenuous. Iterresise (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Iterresise, you said you had already commented on "too many templates in the TfD bundle" so you're objecting here(see above) to my !vote where I made that comment. The TfD is not a discussion just with you; it's a community discussion. We share our opinions (!votes) on what should be done. We're expected to give a reasoning for our !vote but it's not required to be unique. The comment I made that you objected to was not a response to you, it was my legitimate !vote in the community discussion that you started.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- What I said was "And how would you propose to bundle the templates?". That's what I meant when I said "I already commented on this.". Iterresise (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Let's not site ban....a block ok....much easier to follow this account then to find the sock they will make. Moxy-
None of the votes addressed any of the new issues I presented. The behavior of the participants is disingenuous. Ironic. Iterresise (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Iterresise. I am listing down a few of your contributions over the past few days:
- This is quite tendentious. Might I advise you to introspect and stop such aggressive attacks on other editors? You may have a reason to get disappointed on your TfD issue, but that has no leeway to address fellow editors as liars, childish, ridiculous... If you don't acknowledge this issue, it will not lead to anywhere good. Thank you, Lourdes 08:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes They're just going to enter defensive mode. They've done that with the entire TfD discusion and they're even doing it here. As you saw they even attacked me by removing the notice I posted and calling me a hypocrite. This is overall just very disappointing behaviour from them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Evelyn Harthbrooke: I reverted myself with a blank edit summary. Iterresise (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iterresise Reverting doesn't mean anything. You still made the comments in the edit summary and still called me a hypocrite. That is still really disrespectful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I went to your link and it didn't take me to this section. I thought it was bogus. Iterresise (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iterresise Reverting doesn't mean anything. You still made the comments in the edit summary and still called me a hypocrite. That is still really disrespectful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Evelyn Harthbrooke: I reverted myself with a blank edit summary. Iterresise (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- More specifically, it will almost certainly lead to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE if your edits continue in this slant and if it cannot be proven that your edits/contributions are a net positive to Wikipedia. As Lourdes suggested, you need to step back and ask yourself if this is how you want your time and tenure (however long that may be) at Wikipedia to be reflected. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- A holiday is in order Iterresise - Revision as of 00:41, September 5, 2023 Moxy-
20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is worth observing that they self-reverted 2 minutes after leaving those comments. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- They still called other editors liars, but the self reversion does say something. Whether it's "oh this is wrong" or "oh this might get me blocked" I don't know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you're following this, @Iterresise, just walk away for a few days for your own sake. Let go for now - go have some fun. This is really just a huge website -- it's not worth all this aggravation for any of us.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's been a miscommunication. The selfreverts were because that was wrong. I would recommend closing this thread. Iterresise (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why was it wrong? Genuinely wanting to know your stance on this. After that, we can consider closing this thread - with a warning at minimum, of course. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It was wrong to make those edits in the first place. It is considerably better simply to not act out in the first place than to think twice about having done so while you're under ANI scrutiny. Ravenswing 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- User:WaltCip + User:Ravenswing: I replied to the posts on the TfD. Then, I saw the ANI discussion so I went to undo myself and explain the situation. Does that make sense? Iterresise (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes sense. However, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of introspection on your part as to why the behavior is wrong and why it's not good form here to call your fellow editors liars, but I leave it up to an admin to determine whether this is actionable. It seems to me that in order to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia, there needs to be a clear understanding as to why civility is important. However, I will at least concur with A. B. in concurring that it's truly in your best interests to voluntarily self-disengage from Wikipedia for some time if you find that you are becoming frustrated. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes civility is important however I did not feel I was treated with civility. The first block was the result of
my lack of reply on the talk page discussion where I made revertsreverts I made before my reply on the talk page discussion. I didn't do this this time around. I was frustrated. Consider that I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for. Iterresise (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Your deletion proposal failed. It's unfortunate that you spent so much time on it, but consensus is clear. The bludgeoning and personal attacks on a proposal that was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK [41] are bad enough, but your comment
I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for.
shows that you still don't get it. That the result was not the one you wanted does not make it invalid. You have been told by several editors to drop this. It's good advice. Meters (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- The valid answer was that data for the national templates are populated by censuses. Is that clear? Iterresise (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your deletion proposal failed. It's unfortunate that you spent so much time on it, but consensus is clear. The bludgeoning and personal attacks on a proposal that was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK [41] are bad enough, but your comment
- Yes civility is important however I did not feel I was treated with civility. The first block was the result of
- Yes, it makes sense. However, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of introspection on your part as to why the behavior is wrong and why it's not good form here to call your fellow editors liars, but I leave it up to an admin to determine whether this is actionable. It seems to me that in order to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia, there needs to be a clear understanding as to why civility is important. However, I will at least concur with A. B. in concurring that it's truly in your best interests to voluntarily self-disengage from Wikipedia for some time if you find that you are becoming frustrated. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- User:WaltCip + User:Ravenswing: I replied to the posts on the TfD. Then, I saw the ANI discussion so I went to undo myself and explain the situation. Does that make sense? Iterresise (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- They still called other editors liars, but the self reversion does say something. Whether it's "oh this is wrong" or "oh this might get me blocked" I don't know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree. The sheer irony of "Liar! You should WP:AGF" is headshaking. I give zero props to a self-revert here when calling other editors "liars" seems SOP with Iterresise. Ravenswing 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is worth observing that they self-reverted 2 minutes after leaving those comments. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- A holiday is in order Iterresise - Revision as of 00:41, September 5, 2023 Moxy-
- @Lourdes They're just going to enter defensive mode. They've done that with the entire TfD discusion and they're even doing it here. As you saw they even attacked me by removing the notice I posted and calling me a hypocrite. This is overall just very disappointing behaviour from them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Dicklyon and semi-automated edits
User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[42]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[43]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[44] and User:Butlerblog[45] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[46], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.
- This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [47] [48] and at AN/I: [49].
- He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [50]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [51]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.
- He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users
are responsible for every edit made
. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.
- ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [52][53][54][55][56]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[57], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[58]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [59] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.
- You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word.
That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.- To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article.
Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.- However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find
That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.- You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is:
You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving
. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear:Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled.
Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.
- What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.
- I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.
- Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.
- Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- ?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate
|date=
parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.Having said that, the aforementioned comment:I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way...
.Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never
agitated against MoS being applicable
either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies. - Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.
- If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general
Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)- Alright, I'll take this to user talk. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please,
undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare...
is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to.
Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)- I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposal : Site ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've just read through the discussion. A few points I've noticed - firstly, I agree with Sideswipe9th that fixing egregious BLP violations, factual inaccuracies or bias in articles is much more important than fixing capitalisations. I also agree that not breaking URLs in articles is more important than minor capitalisation issues. Looking at this, I just get the impression that Dicklyon does not recognise how much of a problem he is, and how much he needs to slow down and take more care editing. So I'm going to propose that For continued bot-like editing, despite previous warnings and resolve to improve, Dicklyon is site banned. Your thoughts, please. (I'm not going to !vote one way or the other as I have a known bias against the perceived value of these sort of edits.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on why a site ban is needed here rather than a topic ban? User has a long block log, but only 2 blocks in the last 5 years. Normally problems with AWB/JWB/semi-automated editing would not get a user a site ban so I am curious if I am missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nah. Usual story: long-time editor inevitably makes enemies—such as me—through having been here a long time, doesn't realise, notice or care that he's slowly putting an awful lot of noses of joint until a critical mass is reached and site bans can be suggested in faux-but-I'm-only-thinking-of-the-project-handwringing impartiality. Step back and await pile-on of aforementioned enemies and the subsequent leverframe bloc vote. Arrivederci, Roma. SN54129 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not going to oppose at this point, although trying a topic ban from automated edits and from the manual of style (but better defined than that) is I think my first preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thinking about your earlier response to my post about an MOS TBAN, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to clearly define what MOS edits are. The issue isn't just automated edits, it's also other disruptive MOS editing as can be seen in previous ANIs. If someone can define MOS edits then TBANs would be preferable. If they can't then maybe it has to be a site ban. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes definitions are tricky. My first thoughts (which probably need to be refined) would be stopping
- Edits that only change capitalisation
- Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links
- For both only in the article (and draft?) namespaces I think, with an exception for their own contributions when they are the most recent edit (no benefit in preventing them from fixing a typo they made). I would allow them to request such changes on article talk pages, as long as this is kept to a reasonable number but I don't know how to define "reasonable number". Additional points may be required but I think these are the basic two.
- Given past issues that brought them to ANI it needs to be explicitly stated whether commenting on and/or initiating requested moves, RfCs, and similar regarding MoS issues should be included in the topic ban, and I'm not going to express an opinion either way beyond saying it needs to be actively considered.
- Any MoS-related topic ban should be separate from any automation-related topic ban both for clarity now and to allow them to be appealed separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, a piping restriction should not apply to links they add to articles while they are the most recent person to edit a page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes definitions are tricky. My first thoughts (which probably need to be refined) would be stopping
- Thinking about your earlier response to my post about an MOS TBAN, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to clearly define what MOS edits are. The issue isn't just automated edits, it's also other disruptive MOS editing as can be seen in previous ANIs. If someone can define MOS edits then TBANs would be preferable. If they can't then maybe it has to be a site ban. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose siteban - too much too quick. This isn't a decade ago. We have more options available before jumping to full siteban. - jc37 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Prefer the below suggestion. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose See support proposal below. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - When the objective is to remove a bent nail from the wall, one does not use a sledgehammer to tear the wall down when the claw end of a hammer will suffice. Our objective when working with editors that are causing disruption is to close off those specific vectors in which they are disruptive, in the hopes that they can continue to be effective in other areas of Wikipedia. I think SN54129 is echoing (rather glibly) my perceptions here that Dicklyon has made some very high-profile enemies here through his apparent failure to understand the depth of his disruption, and perhaps in some way that informs the siteban. But to me, reading this as an outside observer, it still seems too excessive a response. For now. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - The semi-automated ban suggestion below is a better first step, and echo what WaltClipper said above. It could be argued that it's warranted given his sanction history, but I would suggest that those issues were several years ago and this isn't exactly the same thing. However, in order to warrant a site ban we need to know that the issues extend beyond those of just issues around the operation of a semi-automated editing tool. At this point, I don't think that has been established. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Overkill and I've seen their work and valuable expertise in other areas.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing
Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify this:
...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal
- These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC) - Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [60]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify this:
- Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. SilverserenC 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- re
At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit
: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- re
- Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about
what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed
. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) - Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.
- As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. This has been an ongoing issue for far too long already, and this proposal is the most basic measure to start mitigating it. --Sable232 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Given the potential for widespread damage to the wiki, the standard for automated or semi-automated editing ought to be higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: MOS edits topic ban
There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.
- Dicklyon is topic banned from:
- Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
- Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
- Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.
- These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.
- These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.
This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.
Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value,
I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against youyour approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [61]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was
blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues.
Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC) - Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:
- Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [62] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said
Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year
and that he has madeunilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles
. [63] - Dicklyon was blocked for sockpuppetry in May 2015; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive. His socks' edits were MOS related (mainly capitalization).
- An editor from a previous ANI thread said Dicklyon was
blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues.
That was from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves which, again, is capitalization-related (May 2020). - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon was in March 2022 (mass edits related to capitalization).
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon and pointless edits once again was in April 2022 (decapitalization edits, semi-automated edits).
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization was three months ago in May 2023.
- Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [62] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said
- This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's
Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines. There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would think that an
unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots
on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC) - I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding
too many caveats which make it unworkable
as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would think that an
- Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above:
All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted.
ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC) - Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2crzppul
2crzppul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be adding errors, be they careless or deliberate, to virtually every article they edit. For some useful background see the discussion on their talk page at User talk:2crzppul#Marcel Demonceau from July this year, where they were told Wikipedia isn't a source. In particular pay attention to their reply of "Read the sources, I'm not a Kindle" to the straightforward request "Which source, precisely".
On to some of their article edits.
List of convicted war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article, an IP editor removed the entry for Alfred Taylor (British Army officer), on the grounds he was acquitted (according to his article anyway, and therefore rather obviously not convicted). This was restored without explanation by 2crzppul.
Hanno Konopath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) creates this article with sources including Wikidata, a blogspot blog, or sources that don't even source the sentences they are next to.
List of Nazi Party organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article adds the claim that the "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Union der Hand und Kopfarbeiter) were "established by or closely associated with the Nazi Party", supposedly in 1840 before being dissolved in 1945. In reality, the Union of Manual and Intellectual Workers (same German name) were close to the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and existed from 1921 to 1925.
List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) At this article adds (right at the bottom) an "Other" sub-section to the "Government" section with an entry for "Nahid Kulenović, newspaper editor". According to the linked article he was born in 1929, and while related to an official in the Independent State of Croatia", was highly unlikely to be anyone of significance during WWII, since he didn't turn 16 until the war had ended in Europe.
Those glaring errors are just from their last few days of editing, I wish I had the time to dig further but I'm hoping people will be able to see there is a problem in need of a solution. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm 2crzppul, please note that the Union of Manual and Mental Workers, is not the same organizations as the one you are comparing it to. Also, Nahid Kulenović was also present on the article prior to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Really? Can you actually provide any evidence for the existence of this organisation from 1940 to 1945? I can find absolutely no evidence of the existence of an organisation with the exact same name at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you believe it appropriate, you may remove the entry. 2crzppul (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Really? Can you actually provide any evidence for the existence of this organisation from 1940 to 1945? I can find absolutely no evidence of the existence of an organisation with the exact same name at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Further behaviour I meant to add. See this version of Draft:Contested (which was created in mainspace). It is unclear exactly what it's supposed to be, since all the wikilinks pipe to completely random pages. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- This edit was made by my brother on my account. He no longer has access to my account. I apologize for his actions. 2crzppul (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You do realize you've admitted that your account is a compromised account now correct? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is not. My brother no longer has access to my account 2crzppul (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:LITTLEBROTHER -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- That page is literally a joke. And it was my older brother. Thank you. Go fuck yourself. 2crzppul (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I was trying to be nice, but I'm blocking now. That comment was uncalled for, and to be honest even outside the admitted compromise of your account, there are other valid concerns with your editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- That page is literally a joke. And it was my older brother. Thank you. Go fuck yourself. 2crzppul (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:LITTLEBROTHER -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is not. My brother no longer has access to my account 2crzppul (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- You do realize you've admitted that your account is a compromised account now correct? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Due to the high risk of subtle hoaxes such as the description of an imaginary 1940-1945 "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Special:Diff/1174182920 during this ANI discussion, Special:Diff/1173990153/1174182920), I have now moved all pages created by 2crzppul and not substantially edited by others in the meantime to the draft namespace. For example, the above-mentioned Hanno Konopath is now at Draft:Hanno Konopath. Additionally, I have reverted most of their contributions to pages that have not been edited by others since. 2crzppul has been editing for 6 months and a lot of misinformation may remain hidden. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate ToBeFree’s caution. This article, Ashot Mkrtychev looks legit, which is out of the pattern. Maybe the other brother wrote it?
- —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Hanno Konopath is not a hoax either. It is however a very poorly sourced article on a person who is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I looked briefly into Hanno Konopath yesterday, and concur with Random person no 362478479's assessment. Narky Blert (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Hanno Konopath is not a hoax either. It is however a very poorly sourced article on a person who is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Gaming the system to allow edits to Conor Mccreedy
- Conor Mccreedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rietvlei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Conor Mccreedy is semi-protected to prevent repeated disruptive promotional edits. New editor Rietvlei gamed the system by making a series of null edits and subsequently added 10k of content to the article. According to WP:PGAME, the remedy for such action is an administrator warning so I am bringing it here for that reason.
Given that the article has been subject to repeated promotional edits which suggested ownership by "interested parties", I would also suggest there is a good chance of undisclosed paid edits here too. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Additional discussion not requiring admin involvement
|
---|
The majority of new content is "reported by" or "according to" "Carol Real from Art Summit", but the referenced article all falls under the heading "Artist Statement" and is clearly a non-independent primary source. As a result I am inclined to roll it back in its entirety, but as I am anyway here I'll await comment before doing so. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
|
- In a June 27 comment in the protection log of Conor Mccreedy, User:Daniel Case wrote "Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; restarting with indef because this has been so persistent." Other entries in the log state that the article has been troubled by sockpuppetry. Notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty69t/Archive. User:McGeddon wrote in another SPI in 2014 that "The entire Conor Mccreedy article looks like it may have been written by COI socks since 2011." If the problem continues the simplest admin action would surely be indefinite EC protection. This protection would curtail the socking while still allowing good-faith edit requests on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- And, if anyone is so disposed (which I am not because I don't have time to look into this enough), that may let a deletion discussion take place without too much disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I went ahead and put Conor Mccreedy under indefinite WP:ECP, per my above rationale. This doesn't rule out a nomination for AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Very many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I went ahead and put Conor Mccreedy under indefinite WP:ECP, per my above rationale. This doesn't rule out a nomination for AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- And, if anyone is so disposed (which I am not because I don't have time to look into this enough), that may let a deletion discussion take place without too much disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
IP editor on Lee Van Cleef
There is an ongoing vandalism situation (I first inquired about this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism but got no response) with the article Lee Van Cleef and related articles that has been difficult to deal with because the editor changes IP addresses with every editing session, and sometimes during sessions, so leaving talk-page warnings has been a waste of time. This editor has been editing Lee Van Cleef since May, but I've only been involved for the past few days.
Recently, for example, the editor added an inaccurate award nomination to Lee Van Cleef with this edit, and then altered Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture, to support the lie, with this edit. Then, under a different IP address, altered 29th Golden Globe Awards in the same way, with this edit. And this editor has, under different IPs, done the same thing in the past (diff, diff, diff, diff). There are issues with this editor's other changes to Lee Van Cleef, as well.
I've been chasing this editor around futilely from IP to IP for several days, and I would like to know how to proceed. Thanks! —ShelfSkewed Talk 13:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I protected the article for 3 months and applied pending changes to Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture for a year, this should solve the problem. Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. If this continues after the block expires, WP:RFP is the place to take this, I guess? I should have thought of that myself <sigh>. —ShelfSkewed Talk 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. If this continues after the block expires, WP:RFP is the place to take this, I guess? I should have thought of that myself <sigh>. —ShelfSkewed Talk 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Consistent breaking of NOR rule
- CriticKende (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User CriticKende continuously employs original research to edit articles, see History of Transylvania: 1, 2, 3. Previously on the article Vlachs: 1 which was admitted here and on Keszthely Culture article for example here which was admitted on the talk page here and on another dicussion seen here. I have opened a discussion on his talk page at User talk:CriticKende#Recent edits on History of Transylvania after which he briefly stopped editing and resumed today with this. His OR edits are sometimes masked under citations of sources but those sources do not, specifically or at all, say what the editor added, circumventing 3rd opinion mediation as seen here.
Edit: sorry, I missed the most recent example: 1, after the discussion on the user's talk page.Aristeus01 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry if I am insistent, is there someone who can provide some assistance ? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
021120x
021120x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The user was blocked for edit warring. But they have also made pa's in edit summaries [[64]] (not as well misrepresenting sources, this is in fact highly edited, in that it leaves out some context that alters what it says). Is bludgeoning the discussion (and telling about half a dozen experienced edds they are all wrong), launching somewhat dishonest RFC's [[65]] (not one had in fact objected to this), continues to misrepresent the source by cheery picking [[66]] [[67]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Your first two diffs are from 2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Mistake god knows that happened there. [[68]] [[69]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I may be stating the obvious, but: The two broken diff links both lack their two final digits, compared to the correct ones. Likely broken while copying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Obvious? Not to normal people. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I may be stating the obvious, but: The two broken diff links both lack their two final digits, compared to the correct ones. Likely broken while copying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Mistake god knows that happened there. [[68]] [[69]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This user has been resorting to noticeboard escalations when it becomes clear that his arguments may be lacking. He has reversed positions in the middle of discussions,[[70]] cherry-picked information from sources while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same - and then deleting his comment and the response which disproved it[[71]][[72]]. And is now trying to close an ongoing RfC that has only just started and has not received any external comments. 021120x (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I did not nominate if to be closed, and no one (at the point you launched the RFC) had objected to the way you worded the text. My position reversed (as I said) after I checked what your source actually said (as opposed to what you claimed it said), Nor do I see any deletion of comments, I see a comment by you, and me altering my comment to include the right link. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Its worth noting that these are exactly the same behaviours that previously led to a week's block in a WP:BOOMERANG by GeneralNotability. We are seeing POV editing [73], which is not supported by the source and I found when checking the source the quotation was very much chery picked to give a misleading impression. There are personal attacks in edit summaries [74] and edit warring. The editor is simply bludgeoning the discussion. The block appeal shows no sign of comprehension that their conduct was in any way wrong and they blamed everyone else. There is very much a battlefield mentality at play here. If after a week's block for inappropriate behaviour, repeating the same nearly 3 years later and believing they are being wronged by everyone then perhaps a WP:CIR block could be considered, at the very least some mentoring may be appropriate. 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This [[75]] is what caused the mistake, deleting both a block and unblock rejection notice that is still active. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It pains me to learn that not only has the user not stopped doing the exact behavior that was in question in the previous conflict linked above, but has escalated the behavior. Even despite repeated warnings from several editors in the past few months. User seemingly takes the warnings off their talk page when they happen, which is likely to be why this has not resulted in some 3RR or other action being already taken. User is clearly aware the behavior is inappropriate and yet continues to do it. I have little faith that the current page-specific block would bring an end to the disruptive behavior, or the battlefield behavior. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 04:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User writing about himself in random pages for atleast five years
Enoska13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Everything this editor has been adding to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for years is all about Alan Amron, and every image he uploaded to Commons is also taken by Alan Amron (with permission via VRT). He also adds information about "Alan Amron" to a bunch of random pages where it is not necessary, such as Sticky Notes, where he changed the leading sentence to be about "Alan Amron" instead of the desktop app Sticky Notes. Example diffs: 1 2 3 4 the list goes on
This all led me to believe that this editor is most likely Alan Amron himself, if not a paid editor with connections to Amron, and as such should not be allowed to continue this vandalism. He has also been warned very many times throughout the years, but still continues. The issue here is either conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. JonasTisell (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Vandalism?
- I have been learning what the Wikipedia rules and guidelines are and made some mistakes, but I in no way am vandalizing at all. If my edits are taken down I understand the reasoning and learn from it. I don’t do that much editing, but on inventions and inventors that I follow I try to be correct. Enoska13 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you’ll notice I have not edited on Wikipedia for five years just started again a month ago. I write about several inventors and inventions. I happen to have been in contact five years ago with Alan Amron to get his right to publish his photos on wiki commons. Since then I have followed his inventions. Enoska13 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Enoska13 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, this is an obvious case of inappropriate promotion, whatever the motivation might be. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- There was also this series of edits within 20 minutes:
- which seemed to have no purpose other than to promote an invention that might be used on those applications. And this on Blood bank[79] again about Amron
- On the other hand, this edit on Super Soaker relates to a different inventor.[80]
- I directly asked @Enoska13 about COI on their talk page here[81] and was given a similar response to that above. However, I never got an answer to my question about whether the user has edited under another name. In light of the other comments above, I think we deserve a straight answer:
- @Enoska13 can you tell us if you have ever edited using another account?
- Assuming good faith we should hesitate before throwing around labels like obvious promotion or COI. But the pattern of editing does raise concerns that are worthy of discussion here. Oblivy (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, I never edited in any other name or account.
- Dear Wikipedia administrator and Editors,
- I am writing to apologize for my inappropriate edits. I was inexperienced in Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines and I acted too aggressively and impulsively. I did not represent those I respect properly and I caused unnecessary conflicts and confusion.
- I am deeply sorry for my actions. I take full responsibility for my mistakes and I sincerely regret any harm or inconvenience I caused. I have learned from this experience and I will make sure to be more careful and respectful in the future. I have also read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to improve my understanding and skills as an editor.
- Thank you for your understanding. I appreciate all your work and dedication to Wikipedia and I hope we can move past this incident and work together constructively.
- Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I welcome any suggestions or advice on how to improve my editing skills. 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Enoska13 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Enoska13 although you have said nice words about learning from your experience you have given a pretty thin explanation for your behavior. It strikes me as way beyond simply not understanding Wikipedia's rules. Why would you suddenly pursue a campaign of pushing the contributions of an inventor - who you "follow" but have no connection to - into every article that could possibly hold them? Either you're engaged in superfan behavior, which would be excusable, or there's a connection to Mr. Amron you're not prepared to tell us about. We have to assume good faith, but this strains credulity.
- The other thing that puzzles me is the claim Mr. Amron gave you permission to upload a bunch of his photos even though you have no connection to him. Can you shed light on the circumstances that led to that? Wikimedia commons says there's an email saying the owner of the media granted creative commons license for the material. Was that email from you, or Mr. Amron? Are we to understand Mr. Amron gave the photos to you to upload, and then contacted Wikimedia foundation to confirm the license? What about the photos credited to Edijs Pālens? There's a process to request clarification, but asking you directly seems to be the right first step. Oblivy (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Wikipedia administrator and editors,
- In response to editors questions, I will answer in detail here.
- Years ago I uploaded images I found on the internet and submitted them to wiki commons. I was new to editing and wasn’t sure how it worked. When I did submit them I was told I needed to get approval from the owner or creator of those images.
- I reached out to Alan Amron directly and he was happy to do it. He sent me a confirmation that I filed with the images.
- Then I found the image of him in a newspaper Dienas Bizness and uploaded that to wiki commons as well, but that wasn’t owned by Alan Amron. I researched the owner photographer at that newspaper in my home town of Latvia and they had the photographer give me permission to post on wiki commons. Of which I did.
- I stopped editing on Wikipedia for some five years, traveling the world, then the pandemic and lost interest. When returning to Latvia months ago I heard more about Alan Amron and got interested again.
- Now to to explain why I write so much about Alan Amron and other topics related to inventions and inventors.
- List of inventors I follow closely and write about.
- I am fascinated by the creativity and innovation of inventors who create products and solutions that improve our lives. Some of the inventors I follow closely and write about are:
- - Alan Amron, who holds 40 United States patents in various fields, such as toys, electronics, stationary, sports, medical, ticketing and food. He is also known for his campaign with Muhammad Ali to reunite the Beatles in 1976 and his patent disputes with 3M over the invention of the Post-it branded sticky note.
- - Lonnie Johnson, who invented the Super Soaker air pressurized water gun 34 years after Jack Seltzer, now one of the most popular toys in history. He also holds patents in fields such as thermodynamics, nuclear engineering, solar energy and aerospace.
- - Gary Esposito, who invented the air pressurized water gun after Jack Seltzer and before Lonnie Johnson.
- - Jack Seltzer, who first invented the air pressurized water gun, 34 years before either Gary Esposito or Lonnie Johnson.
- - Andris Sedmalis, who invented a process for making bagel products that are soft and chewy on the inside and crispy on the outside.
- - Art Fry and Spencer Silver, who co-invented the sticky bookmark, later to be called and used as a Post-it sticky note, one of the most widely used office products in the world.
- Companies and things I’m interested in and edit about.
- I am also interested in the companies and things that are related to the inventions and inventors I write about. Some of them are:
- - Dynamic Ticket Systems, LLC., a company that holds patents for electronic ticketing systems that provide network controlled access to spaces and events. The company recently sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation for patent infringement. Patent numbers US 9,635,183 B2 and US 10,721,374 B2.
- - 3M, a multinational conglomerate that produces a variety of products, such as Post-it Sticky notes, Scotch tape, ear plugs, medical supplies and more. The company recently agreed to pay $6 billion to settle lawsuits from U.S. service members who experienced hearing loss due to faulty earplugs.
- - Live Nation Entertainment, a global entertainment company that operates Ticketmaster, Live Nation Concerts, Live Nation Media & Sponsorship and more. The company is one of the largest promoters of live events in the world.
- - Larami Corporation, a toy company that produced the Uzi battery operated water gun and then the Super Soaker air pressurized water guns along with other popular toys, such as Nerf guns, Super Soaker Keychains and more. The company was acquired by Hasbro in 1995.
- - Cannelle Bakery in Latvia, a bakery company that produces bagel products using the process invented by Andris Sedmalis.
- Why so interested in Alan Amron?
- I find Alan Amron to be unique amongst American inventors that he invents in several diverse industries. Toys, electronics, stationary, sports, medical, ticketing and food.
- He has 40 awarded United States patents. That’s a lot to write about.
- His life’s experiences include managing and partnering with TV and sports stars, like Kristy McNichol, Pat Summerall and Muhammad Ali. I find all this very interesting and thought so would the world. So I write about him.
- But not only him.
- I recently posted about:
- - 3M's new ear plugs product litigation settlement for billions of dollars.
- - Larami Super Soaker patents related to inventors Jack Seltzer, Gary Esposito and Lonnie Johnson air pressurized water gun patents.
- - Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC.'s patent lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation over electronic ticketing systems.
- How my edits are relevant and beneficial to Wikipedia.
- I believe that my edits are relevant and beneficial to Wikipedia because they:
- - Contribute to the coverage of notable topics that are of interest to many readers.
- - Provide useful information and context about the inventions, inventors, companies and things that I write about.
- - Improve the quality and accuracy of existing articles by adding reliable sources and references.
- - Follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines for editing, such as verifiability, neutrality, no original research and more.
- I hope this explains why I write so much about Alan Amron and other topics related to inventions and inventors. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions on how to improve my contributions to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
- Personally, I assume the administrator knows my name, location and email address. Enoska13 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Example Citations:
- Alan Amron Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents
- https://patents.justia.com/inventor/alan-amron?page=4
- Carlson Law Firm announces $6.01 billion settlement in 3M earplug lawsuit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carlson-law-firm-announces-601-billion-settlement-in-3m-earplug-lawsuit/ar-AA1gpnvG.
- 3M Earplug Lawsuit Settled: Everything You Need to Know. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/3m-earplug-lawsuit/.
- 3M agrees to $6 billion settlement for faulty earplugs, resolving .... https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/3m-agrees-to-6-billion-settlement-for-faulty-earplugs-resolving-lawsuits-from-u-s-service-members/articleshow/103233889.cms.
- Ticketmaster Hit With Fresh E-ticketing Patent Suit After Win. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ticketmaster-hit-with-fresh-e-ticketing-patent-suit-after-win.
- Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC v. Ticketmaster LLC et al | Law.c.... https://www.law.com/radar/card/dynamic-ticket-systems-llc-v-ticketmaster-llc-et-al-49809853-0/.
- Ticketmaster Live Nation Face New Lawsuit Alleging Patent Infringement. https://nnn.ng/ticketmaster-faces-new-lawsuit/.
- Enoska13 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this exchange[82] at Wikimedia Commons is consistent with the story told above. Oblivy (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- A few minutes with google has turned up information that is decidedly inconsistent with the story told above, which I will not post here per WP:OUTING. If anyone looking at this would care to let me know where we are submitting such things these days I can do so. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch, @MrOllie. If we're looking at the same things, that's pretty strong evidence of a substantial real-world connection between this editor and Mr. Amron. As I understand it, this is something which is supposed to be handled by email. I don't have email activated or I'd do it myself. Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @MrOllie: that would be the paid queue: paid-en-wp
wikimedia.org. All evidence involving privacy concerns (or WP:BEANS, for that matter) goes to paid-en-wp for functionaries to investigate. JavaHurricane 09:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @JavaHurricane.
- @MrOllie Are you planning to make a report to the paid queue? I am prepared to go with a report immediately but want to make sure it goes to the same place.
- I don't know what evidence you have; mine looks strong (subject to some checkuser-type verification) but perhaps you've found something different. Oblivy (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Wikipedia Administrator and Concerned Editors,
- I am writing to apologize once again for my improper aggressive postings. I understand that my actions were not in accordance with the guidelines and rules that you have established. I continue to take full responsibility for my mistakes.
- I have a question for the editors who removed not only my contributions but also content added by other Wikipedia editors over the years. I am curious about the fairness and accuracy of this approach. Recently, I came across Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, which emphasize that editors should prioritize fairness and accuracy over retaliatory editing. In this case, I feel that the editors did not respond in this manner, despite it being my fault.
- I began editing Wikipedia on a whim in February 2018 and subsequently stopped approximately a year later. However, I resumed editing five years later in July 2023. Unfortunately, I exercised poor judgment over the past two months, leading me to make the decision to withdraw from any further Wikipedia editing. As I depart, I kindly request that the editors involved here approach the edits they swiftly removed with fairness, restoring those that are genuinely valuable and those posted by other Wikipedia editors.
- Thank you for your understanding.
- Enoska13 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have already said a lot at this discussion, so I will be brief:
- Wikipedia values are summarized at the 5 pillars. These include principles like building an encyclopedia and not treating Wikipedia like "a soapbox, an advertising platform, [or] a vanity press".
- Being "aggressive" ("being bold") is welcomed when it serves the encyclopedia. Bold edits that seem inconsistent with that often get reverted, at which point editors are expected to discuss the edits. This is described as bold revert discuss. So when you objected to my reversion of your edits, I suggested you post on the article talk pages and see if other editors of those pages agreed with you.
- Editing pages under a conflict of interest is discouraged. Editors are expected to disclose such conflicts and to place the interests of the encyclopedia above personal interest. It was concerns over whether you were in compliance with that policy that have caused your account to be discussed at this page.
- Oblivy (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have already said a lot at this discussion, so I will be brief:
- @Oblivy, @JavaHurricane, I've sent my findings to paid-en-wp, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- As have I. Oblivy (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- A few minutes with google has turned up information that is decidedly inconsistent with the story told above, which I will not post here per WP:OUTING. If anyone looking at this would care to let me know where we are submitting such things these days I can do so. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this exchange[82] at Wikimedia Commons is consistent with the story told above. Oblivy (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
They've made >20 DOY additions without in-line citation that PC reviewers all revert, with warning accordingly. (In general, they have no cited or explained edits at all, and have 4RR on November 5 including on the account User:Guilherme Gava246810). Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- And I'll add that they've tripped & ignored the relevant filter log warnings for just as many times Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It would be far better if the lazy people took 5 seconds or less to check for a source in the bio and copy it over. Wikipedia definition of "Sneaky Vandalism" includes "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." It's disruptive and damaging to wikipedia and makes it harder for people to identify the removed content or entries in lists that legitimately don't have a source when you are just removing random entries without even checking the bio for a source to copy over. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hyphenation Expert I have tried to report a ip for repeatedly not using any in line citations in DOY articles before, the report was denied. The admins reasoning was for the pending change reviewers to not deny his edits and instead find and add sources for it instead. Really at this point all we can do is give up at trying to get people to stop adding things without in line citations. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Persistent copyright violations by User:Alexgodwin31
Alexgodwin31 continues to add copyvio material to Haslingden High School and The Valley Leadership Academy, despite given and ignoring warnings on their talk page. Can an admin take a look at their contributions? Thanks. Tails Wx 21:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
User:BoTy10
After multiple warnings to not make unsourced edits by me via their talk page and edit summaries, this user continues to make unsourced edits, primarily related to NFL player numbers. Last time I noticed the editor doing this, I warned the editor I would post to ANI if the behavior continued. User also fails to communicate outside of a single conversation I had with the editor a year ago. Requesting a temporary suspension of editing privileges for unsourced edits and failure to communicate.--Rockchalk717 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
RFC consensus ignored by User:Popcornfud (reverting archiving)
Hello,
On the page Creep (Radiohead song), I have tried to add sourced content concerning use of the song in film. This content has been repeatedly deleted by Popcornfud. Just the simple fact of adding this section, rather standard in Songs articles, took immense efforts. I had to go on Popcornfud's TP, and then and on the article TP and then open an RFC. The reverts are too numerous for me to list wihtout this being tedious, the latest being this one and this one. I wanted to try and resolve this at the Content Dispute Noticeboard but that page makes it clear that when another user's behaviour is involved, they cannot help. I am therefore taking the issue here. Indeed my feeling is that anything that is not added to the page by Popcornfud himself, substantial or not, sourced or not, consensual or not, will be at best redacted and reduced to almost nothing, or, in general, deleted with a dismissive edit summary. Instead of going to the talk page, informing the contributor and/or adding or asking for a source, Popcornfud simply deletes. I find this behaviour confusing, problematic and, I confess, extremely discouraging. In my view, this is a clear case of WP:OWN and I wish it could be addressed. Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't ignored any consensus. The RFC consensus was to cover use of the song "Creep" in film in the article, where the use is reflected by reliable sources and when it's due. I agreed with that consensus.
- Where I've removed additions since then, it's because they were cited to poor sources (such as fansites), or the coverage was disproportionate, trivial or irrelevant (like Jonny Greenwood composing for the film Norwegian Wood, which is nothing to do with the article subject). Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note
- As the section was archived without input from any administrator, I am posting it again after having asked what was the best course of action on the AN TP. Thank you.
-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
User:23.150.152.38
I apologize if I reported this in the wrong place. This IP 23.150.152.38 initiated an RfC on the talk page of the Muhammad article and cast a supporting vote [83]. However, when I checked on an IP checker, it is stated that this IP is a VPN server [84]. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The /24 range seems to be a colo/cloud services host, so I've blocked it accordingly. firefly ( t · c ) 08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, there is a Wikiproject dedicated to identifying and blocking open proxy IP addresses, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Blatantly promotional new article being shilled in today's DYK.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nike Phantom Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From today's DYK ... that the Nike Phantom Luna football boot considers women's anatomy and the playing style of women's football in its design?
Choosing to ignore the suggestion that a football boot might be conscious, and capable of 'considering' things, I instead would like to object most strongly to the use of Wikipedia's main page to link to an article so utterly promotional as to merit speedy deletion in my opinion. Given that my speedy nomination has been declined by User:Extraordinary Writ, [85] and that WP:CSK seems to consider appearance on the front page legitimate grounds to disallow an AfD (why?), we seem to be stuck with Wikipedia being used as a platform for the promotion of sports footwear, at the whim of whoever runs DYK.
No doubt people will wish to take a look at the article for themselves, but in brief, it is abundantly clear that the sources cited do little to establish notability through 'significant coverage', and instead merely regurgitate Nike's promotional claims (sometimes with questionably close paraphrasing), or instead fail to discuss the product in any depth at all. As an example, consider the second source cited, a paper by Kryger et al in Sports Engineering: said paper only mentioning Nike once, in a statement noting that one of the contributors is sponsored by Nike. And then there is the grossly improper citation of the a catalog-style page on the Sports Direct website, for advertising copy which isn't even specific to the boots concerned. [86]. Sources discussing the need for appropriate design for women's football boots (a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article, I'd think) are being misused to promote a particular brand, and DYK is actively assisting in this highly-questionable promotion. Accordingly, I would propose that per WP:IAR, and in the interests of whatever limited integrity Wikipedia may lay claim to, that the article be draftified, and the DYK removed, with immediate effect. We can discuss further remedies later, but the immediate priority has to be the removal of this improper content from its prominent position on the front page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: is there anything you want AN/I to do that isn't within the jurisdiction of WP:ERRORS? Otherwise, this just seems like forum-shopping. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ERRORS is not an appropriate forum for dealing with the blatant abuse of Wikipedia article space, and DYK, for advertising. Not remotely. The isn't an 'error' it is a fundamental violation of core policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This does seem beyond the pale. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I wanted to wait a bit longer (maybe an hour or two) to give Kingsif a chance to respond before pulling the hook. If you'd like to pull it off DYK right now, though, by all means :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This does seem beyond the pale. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ERRORS is not an appropriate forum for dealing with the blatant abuse of Wikipedia article space, and DYK, for advertising. Not remotely. The isn't an 'error' it is a fundamental violation of core policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and there's a background here.
- I don't think that article is G11-able, but it's far more promotional than I was comfortable putting on DYK, and I'm not sold that it should have a standalone article rather than a discussion in a broader article about women's football boots, or just the main article on all football boots (probably better than having "Men's football boot" and "Women's football boot"). This article and a number of other articles on women's soccer were written during what's probably best described as a unilateral attempt at a themed month that didn't work out because its main champion had...ideas about how to handle it that interact complexly with the reality of building DYK preps. Having spent enough time watching things like "someone tries to unilaterally promote a hook they reviewed to prep, but it's definitely not an invovled promotion because they did it as a hidden comment instead", I was not touching any of those articles again. I had concerns about that article, but absolutely no intent of reigniting the Women's Soccer Themed Set Wars.
- This is the sort of thing I refer to in my last comment here:
There is a huge amount that routinely concerns me at DYK regarding undisclosed connections, POV-pushing, factual accuracy, etc. [..] if every weird nomination came with an attached "I'm making this because I think it'll help me win an internet argument" or "I've been repeatedly told my articles have factual errors, come check them", I'd call that a win. That's not to say I'm going to die on the hill of running [an article with a declared COI], but I am really not comfortable drawing the line at "you admit the problem".
(Oh, that discussion could use some thoughts from people outside the bubble, while we're here.) DYK's main problem is when it does not admit its problems, and ends up with promotional stuff, factually questionable stuff, horrible AE wars, etc because there's no clear indication of "look closer at this one". Here it would've been easier to look closer at this one, and get it stopped, if not for it being wrapped up in a completely different drama previously. Vaticidalprophet 05:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC) - From what I've seen, this is part of a much larger trend at DYK where there's almost no scrutiny actually applied to what's posted. Blatant NPOV violations, including advertising, are routinely featured in the DYK box. Reviewers only put in a token effort because they just need the review done to get their QPQ credit, and promoters have no incentive to double check anything or even read the hook because turnaround is prioritized over quality. And this is to say nothing of DYK's questionable track record of posting articles with other issues, such as copyright violations, straight to the front page.This in itself is part of an even bigger problem at Wikipedia where the main page (one of the most popular English language webpages on the internet) is basically a free for all unless there's a problem severe enough to post at WP:ERRORS, which then maybe fixes it after the problem has already been on the main page. Things posted to the main page should receive more scrutiny for policy compliance than any other page on the project, but our processes for posting things to the main page are incredibly lackluster. It all comes down to the walled-off type environment that each "corner" operates in, even though this is something that we should strive to avoid. Allowing a small group of the same editors to control the same area without sitewide oversight consistently and invariably causes more problems than it solves. This is true for DYK, it's true for ITN, it's true for WikiProjects, it's true for the Signpost, and it's true for any little corner or special interest that crops up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, I utterly reject your statement:
promoters have no incentive to double check anything or even read the hook because turnaround is prioritized over quality
. That is not what is happening at DYK. Schwede66 05:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- If promoters are checking these hooks and they're still getting through, then that points to even more fundamental issues at DYK. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- At this point, probably a good time to ping Thriley (reviewer), Cielquiparle (promoter), and Z1720 (enqueuër). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, yes, the fundamental issue is that DYK, unlike basically the entire rest of the project, has 8-16 deadlines every day. Yes, stuff gets through that shouldn't. I think a lot of people think DYK's a net positive despite that. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- If promoters are checking these hooks and they're still getting through, then that points to even more fundamental issues at DYK. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, I utterly reject your statement:
- I was also astounded at how promotional the hook was, although not particularly surprised given the structure of DYK. This is after all a system that incentivizes extracting utter trivia from article content that basically by requirement couldn't have existed long enough to have been organically evaluated by disinterested independent non-DYK parties, that is often on questionably-notable subjects to boot, and is so easily used to further editor disputes surreptitiously (e.g. submitting a DYK nom for an article at AfD or under merge discussion). JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of
submitting a DYK nom for an article at AfD
? I'm interested in what you're saying and would like to see an example of that and what the editor doing it thought that would accomplish, given that DYK noms are placed on hold during an AfD, and any articles that are in the queue when an AfD is initiated are pulled from that queue until the AfD closes. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- I've seen it many times, but virtually always for things clearly heading keep when nominated (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander K. Tyree, which clearly wasn't going to be deleted by the time of its nomination on the 27th). Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin L. Tan is the only real exception, and that AfD was...
I can see why you'd relist this one, because I for one would hate to be the closer
was a good summary. I can see why Cunard nominated it when he did, though. Vaticidalprophet 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for those examples. It seems reasonable for someone for example to improve an article after looking for notability at AfD and then nominating it once it's clear it's not going to be deleted or to nominate it to make sure it's done within the appropriate timeframe (keeping in mind the article couldn't be promoted until the AfD resolved) but if DYK is being used as a way to influence AfD results that would be something worth looking into more, and if that's the case I'd like to see examples of that happening to see what, if anything, could be done to address that. - Aoidh (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen it many times, but virtually always for things clearly heading keep when nominated (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander K. Tyree, which clearly wasn't going to be deleted by the time of its nomination on the 27th). Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin L. Tan is the only real exception, and that AfD was...
- Do you have an example of
- To me, the most shocking part is how un-hook-like the hook is, and how it is not DYK material in the slightest. To many readers, this probably looked like product placement on Wikipedia's main page.—Alalch E. 07:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- What's a start class article even doing finding its way onto DYK? Advertising concerns aside in this instance, where is the quality control if articles that are ranked start class are allowed to be on DYK? I think this incident indicates a strong need to overhaul the procedures in place for nominations and acceptance of DYK articles. TarnishedPathtalk 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Article rating below the level of formal quality assessment is wildly subjective and in many cases meaningless (plenty of articles are nominated at GAN while nominally rated stub or start, because they were rewritten from scratch and the author didn't bother with the formality of reassessing pre-GA). Articles that are bold links on the main page can't be stubs, but the assessment categories between stub and formal quality assessment really aren't things people bother to argue about these days. (Some people think anything 300 words long is start-class; some people nominate articles that length at GAN. I can rant about the latter, but there's no consensus against it yet.) Vaticidalprophet 07:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've nominated this page for AfD. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not shocked, and the reason I'm not shocked isn't because "DYK is terrible yada yada". I'm not shocked because it's an article on a product, and sometimes articles on products are written too promotionally, and sometimes promotional writing isn't caught by a DYK reviewer. Neither is great, but making broad generalizations based on a sample of one (plus vague gestures to the past) isn't the most helpful IMO. There are a lot of DYK hooks; most of them aren't advertisements. One slipped through. Short of finding a pattern, I don't see why this needs to go further than "Kingsif, please work harder to ensure an article is not promotional before sending it to DYK" and "Thriley, please more carefully look for promotional writing while reviewing articles and their hooks". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that @Kingsif created that article with this being the state it was in the last time they edited and two of the citations they placed in the article[1][2] are sales websites for the shoe that the article advertises. Why did they do that? TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yup, it's not good, but it's still one example (i.e. a mistake) and not a pattern of using lousy sources. That doesn't require ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Getting blatant advertising off the main page definitely required ANI. Or are you going to propose that the DYK-clique-policed WP:ERRORS noticeboard is up to the job? Given the clique's self-evident inability to see what was right in front of them when they let this vacuous puffery get into DYK in the first place, I'd have to suggest that would seem a dubious premise. I started this thread because of one specific issue that clearly needed addressing urgently, and if this resulted in a broader discussion, that isn't a reason to downplay the initial concern. And no, it wasn't just a case of using 'lousy sources'. It was clear and unambiguous misuse of sources (most obviously the Kryger et al paper, which it should be noted was published long before Nike announced their product) to imply that Nike's product had specific benefits in regard to reducing the risk of serious sports injuries, supported by scientific research. That is utterly unacceptable in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well if you're starting from a position of "DYK is a pile of garbage manipulated by a cabal of self-serving incompetents"...
As for the article itself, it looks like Kingsif tried to give some background/history about a particular type of women's shoes. There's no claim that that the Kryger paper has anything to do with this particular product. Is it more appropriate for an article about women's sneakers, bias in the sneaker industry, etc.? Sure. Is it borderline WP:SYNTH to include it in the article at all? Maybe. But it's not presenting the source as anything other than what it is. Think it should be excluded? WP:SOFIXIT. We do have lots of background sections that use the occasional source that predates the subject to provide context. An article on some pseudoscientific documentary might include a source explaining that its filmmaker is known for advancing such pseudoscience even if that source came out before the documentary, for example. An article on a historical person might include a source that doesn't mention that person to support some contextual detail about the time the person lived in. Not defending the article -- just saying it's a pretty typical article-level editorial decision whether the source is used properly or should whether it's too much of a stretch. It's not an emergency that merits ranting and insults. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Given the response here, and the response at the AfD (where I note that even the article creator now supports deletion [87]), I'd have to suggest that my position on the merits of the article/DYK remaining in sight is better supported than yours. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't invent imaginary quotes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You've summed it up well, Rhododendrites. I'll ping @AndyTheGrump: at this part, even though we've touched on it below, to ask why this wasn't your assumption; your opening salvo here seems to acknowledge the depth of background but only does so for you to accuse bad faith misuse (
Sources discussing the need for appropriate design for women's football boots (a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article, I'd think) are being misused to promote a particular brand
). Kingsif (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well if you're starting from a position of "DYK is a pile of garbage manipulated by a cabal of self-serving incompetents"...
- Getting blatant advertising off the main page definitely required ANI. Or are you going to propose that the DYK-clique-policed WP:ERRORS noticeboard is up to the job? Given the clique's self-evident inability to see what was right in front of them when they let this vacuous puffery get into DYK in the first place, I'd have to suggest that would seem a dubious premise. I started this thread because of one specific issue that clearly needed addressing urgently, and if this resulted in a broader discussion, that isn't a reason to downplay the initial concern. And no, it wasn't just a case of using 'lousy sources'. It was clear and unambiguous misuse of sources (most obviously the Kryger et al paper, which it should be noted was published long before Nike announced their product) to imply that Nike's product had specific benefits in regard to reducing the risk of serious sports injuries, supported by scientific research. That is utterly unacceptable in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why? The first citation you mention is used to support the sentence
The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range, which is intended for precision with power
- naming the brand/range and the brand identity. The second one is the Nike product description, used to source descriptions of the product.
Now that I've been notified of this discussion, I'll point out my horror that AndyTheGrump came into this from the start not wanting to improve but to speedy delete; I also seriously question their comprehension skills if they think that the article's use of the Kryger paper they keep mentioning is attempting to imply anything about the product when it is exclusively cited in the background section that discusses the previous issues when women have worn men's boots and calls for more research. Kingsif (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Feel free to seriously question my comprehension skills. I'll similarly feel free to question your understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and your understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia. And if the Kryger paper wasn't being cited to suggest that Nike's boots would reduce the risks of ACL injuries, why the hell did the article even mention such injuries? This is synthesis, being used to promote a product for which any supposed risk reduction is entirely unproven, and based solely on Nike's own unverified promotional claims, and accordingly should not have been discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I like to include background to subjects, and with this article I was more interested in the lack of boots for women than the product; I've had feedback before about my background section being too wide-reaching, so if I'd spent more time focusing on editing this article, I probably would have removed mention of ACL injuries with a "not relevant background for this subject" (again, my complaint about the attitude here - though you've started all discussions with bad faith accusations of 'shilling', I get the sense you were more worried about what you saw as misuse of this source; I did not intend synthesis and I think I did make some latter edits to further remove suggestion these boots in particular have a relation to ACL injuries, but all this could have been an article talkpage discussion, not a matter for AN/I). Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say it very much is a discussion for ANI, not the article talk page - because the priority was to get it off the front page as fast as possible. Anyway, that's been achieved, so I think we could close this and leave it to the AfD now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not following the order of events since I've been offline, but didn't ERRORS deal with that? Kingsif (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, not sure of the timeline myself, so you might be right. But the wider point is that this is about more than the article content, it's about a DYK process failure. So I can understand the desire to bring it to wider attention than just the relatively small "front page" community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Users at DYK have had many unsuccessful discussions on improving process, and reviewer feedback would have absolutely helped in this case, so maybe wider attention on the DYK weaknesses can produce more fruitful results. But that's not for a forum requesting admin intervention, either. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, not sure of the timeline myself, so you might be right. But the wider point is that this is about more than the article content, it's about a DYK process failure. So I can understand the desire to bring it to wider attention than just the relatively small "front page" community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Forgive me for not following the order of events since I've been offline, but didn't ERRORS deal with that? Kingsif (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say it very much is a discussion for ANI, not the article talk page - because the priority was to get it off the front page as fast as possible. Anyway, that's been achieved, so I think we could close this and leave it to the AfD now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I like to include background to subjects, and with this article I was more interested in the lack of boots for women than the product; I've had feedback before about my background section being too wide-reaching, so if I'd spent more time focusing on editing this article, I probably would have removed mention of ACL injuries with a "not relevant background for this subject" (again, my complaint about the attitude here - though you've started all discussions with bad faith accusations of 'shilling', I get the sense you were more worried about what you saw as misuse of this source; I did not intend synthesis and I think I did make some latter edits to further remove suggestion these boots in particular have a relation to ACL injuries, but all this could have been an article talkpage discussion, not a matter for AN/I). Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kingsif, Can you genuinely not see that "intended for precision with power" is just empty marketing blather? And don't you understand that Wikipedia should not be reproducing a company's marketing as factual statements about a product? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see it, I also see that there's no real way to rephrase it. And "precision (but) with power" is a fairly simple statement by itself. I thought it was relevant to mention, but the discussion on product/brand details is surely a long one. Anyway, I went out of my way to try and neutralise all the marketing words when using the Nike product description, I hope you'll appreciate, so yes I do know that. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It didn't need rephrasing at all, marketing BS just needs to be ignored. The factual statement was simply "The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range", and that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, I probably thought an answer to "what's Nike's Phantom range"/"why's this boot part of that range" was relevant to include, which (at its core) doesn't go against policy. Whether it's worth mentioning, and if we can use primary sources for the information, are content issues. Edit it out, have a talkpage discussion if that's not accepted, but it's a massive jump to accuse DYK of intentional promo at AN/I because of it. Kingsif (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regurgitation of Nike's empty/unverifiable marketing-speak is promotional, regardless of intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- If there was an article for "Nike Phantom range", how would you suggest it be described, then? If you think any form of using Nike's words is promotional? Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Any description in an article on "Nike Phantom range" would, per policy, have to be based on what third-party sources have to say about it. Same as any description of anything, anywhere, in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have fun going through the many product pages then 😅 Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for making your distain for Wikipedia policy clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You know that's not what I was saying - and hopefully you know your suggestion that all articles follow policy is naive.
But of course, you've been making bad faith accusations throughout this thread so I shouldn't be surprised; I had been unable to decipher if the AN/I was about the DYK process or the article content, then noticed you say that the issue wasblatant abuse of Wikipedia article space, and DYK, for advertising
. That's a flagrant attack on me, so I suggest you either steer your thread to purposeful ground or withdraw. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- I have no intention of withdrawing anything. I'm not the one arguing for basing article content on advertising copy. I'm not the one who cited Nike's own website, and a Sports Direct webpage selling football boots, for said promotional content. I'm not the one who thinks a smiley is an appropriate response to a simple restatement of core policy on neutrality and sourcing. I'm not the one who linked a second Nike football boot article in the 'see also' section on no better grounds than on what Nike's own advertising had to say about the product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're still assuming bad faith of me here, again accusing me of deliberately making promotional content. Cool down. And no, I haven't argued for
basing
content on marketing in the slightest - I explained why I had used info from primary sources here. I said the Nike cite was my laziness and that there was a simple factual statement on the Sports Direct page. And you're either unfamiliar with humour or want to see me so poorly that you can't see the cry-laugh emoji is a "have to laugh or you'll cry" joke about lack of policy adherence. Kingsif (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Funny how you're the one telling others to "cool down" when you have a rich history of losing your head at others who disagree with you. Anyway, I think this article and its respective DYK is a symptom of a wider inability on your part to both follow core policies in the mainspace and be able to properly judge when it is appropriate to use certain Wikipedia processes such as the GA process and DYK process. Your whole approach to editing and communication here is a concern and your delete !vote won't rectify these issues, just distract others from them. Willbb234 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Will, I said "what the fuck" to you one time after, ironically, you chronically misunderstood GAN to the point it looked like vandalism or targeted disruption. That gives you no right to make sweeping statements about me as a person or my cognisance of article recognition processes. Do you also want to continue down your alley of completely unsubstantiated bad faith accusations? Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Funny how you're the one telling others to "cool down" when you have a rich history of losing your head at others who disagree with you. Anyway, I think this article and its respective DYK is a symptom of a wider inability on your part to both follow core policies in the mainspace and be able to properly judge when it is appropriate to use certain Wikipedia processes such as the GA process and DYK process. Your whole approach to editing and communication here is a concern and your delete !vote won't rectify these issues, just distract others from them. Willbb234 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're still assuming bad faith of me here, again accusing me of deliberately making promotional content. Cool down. And no, I haven't argued for
- I have no intention of withdrawing anything. I'm not the one arguing for basing article content on advertising copy. I'm not the one who cited Nike's own website, and a Sports Direct webpage selling football boots, for said promotional content. I'm not the one who thinks a smiley is an appropriate response to a simple restatement of core policy on neutrality and sourcing. I'm not the one who linked a second Nike football boot article in the 'see also' section on no better grounds than on what Nike's own advertising had to say about the product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You know that's not what I was saying - and hopefully you know your suggestion that all articles follow policy is naive.
- Thank you for making your distain for Wikipedia policy clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have fun going through the many product pages then 😅 Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Any description in an article on "Nike Phantom range" would, per policy, have to be based on what third-party sources have to say about it. Same as any description of anything, anywhere, in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- If there was an article for "Nike Phantom range", how would you suggest it be described, then? If you think any form of using Nike's words is promotional? Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't make that accusation ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes :) Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Regurgitation of Nike's empty/unverifiable marketing-speak is promotional, regardless of intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, I probably thought an answer to "what's Nike's Phantom range"/"why's this boot part of that range" was relevant to include, which (at its core) doesn't go against policy. Whether it's worth mentioning, and if we can use primary sources for the information, are content issues. Edit it out, have a talkpage discussion if that's not accepted, but it's a massive jump to accuse DYK of intentional promo at AN/I because of it. Kingsif (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is no way to neutralise marketing words. You shouldn't use them. TarnishedPathtalk 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You know I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. It's not always done cleanly, but don't act obtuse. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kingsif, I don't like to pile on, but you clarified that I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. No, you shouldn't be going anywhere NEAR what marketing sources are saying. You cannot rewrite brand promotion neutrally. And if brand promotion is literally the only thing that is interesting about this shoe, why are we nominating it? Valereee (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry, you've written it as constructive feedback; I had assumed marketing material could be treated as other sources with inherent bias. Note to avoid it. And no, it wasn't the only interesting thing (or an interesting thing at all) - we are discussing these sources because someone brought them up and asked why they were included. They don't relate to anything else (besides, as you say, a pile-on of every issue that should have just been edited out with an edit reason like your explanation here). Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kingsif, I don't like to pile on, but you clarified that I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. No, you shouldn't be going anywhere NEAR what marketing sources are saying. You cannot rewrite brand promotion neutrally. And if brand promotion is literally the only thing that is interesting about this shoe, why are we nominating it? Valereee (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- You know I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. It's not always done cleanly, but don't act obtuse. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It didn't need rephrasing at all, marketing BS just needs to be ignored. The factual statement was simply "The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range", and that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see it, I also see that there's no real way to rephrase it. And "precision (but) with power" is a fairly simple statement by itself. I thought it was relevant to mention, but the discussion on product/brand details is surely a long one. Anyway, I went out of my way to try and neutralise all the marketing words when using the Nike product description, I hope you'll appreciate, so yes I do know that. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Feel free to seriously question my comprehension skills. I'll similarly feel free to question your understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and your understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia. And if the Kryger paper wasn't being cited to suggest that Nike's boots would reduce the risks of ACL injuries, why the hell did the article even mention such injuries? This is synthesis, being used to promote a product for which any supposed risk reduction is entirely unproven, and based solely on Nike's own unverified promotional claims, and accordingly should not have been discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yup, it's not good, but it's still one example (i.e. a mistake) and not a pattern of using lousy sources. That doesn't require ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Users at DYK have long known that the lack of users willing to contribute to later checks lets things slip through, so... Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Users at DYK have long known that the lack of users willing to contribute to later checks
allows, if not encourages, shoddy and poor workmanship from them. FTFY. Frankly, the only time DYK has cleaned up its act (13, e.g.) is when it's been forced to. Usually here. SN54129 14:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I was skeptical of this appearing on the front page, but I didn’t say anything as it isn’t anything new. There does seem to be a problem of promoting commercial products like new television shows, pop singles, etc on DYK. I’m not sure how we would solve this as there does seem to be a lot of interest, particularly of new editors, but it does in my opinion violate a core ethos of this project. Thriley (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- One example of something that shouldn’t be normalized: a promotional article written by the subject’s brother that looks likely to appear on DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón. Thriley (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thriley, if you're skeptical, don't pass it. That hook is both not interesting and resume fodder for a brand manager. If there isn't anything actually interesting to say about a currently available commercial product, if literally all you can come up with is marketing crap, reject the nomination. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that any broader questions about the DYK process going forward move to another venue. It looks like complaints about this incident have been thoroughly aired. The immediate issues have been addressed with regards to this article.
Kingsif looks like a useful, valued member of the community who made a mistake. I think any messages he she needs to hear have been delivered at least once. Is it time to stop caning this editor and move on?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- +1. I'd suggest closing this now, as I don't see any further admin action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- (*he, and I do have that in user preferences, but no worries) Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. Your username is even Kingsif, not Queensif. No idea where I got this notion.
- —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps goddess Sif 😄? Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I read through this word salad and I am trying to understand the motivation of AndyTheGrump. Like what is the reason for posting this in ANI? Errors did what they were supposed to do and as theleekycaldron has said this seems unnecessary. Is this a public finger-wag? Or simply designed to embarrass editors? Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I explained my reasoning in the post that started this thread. The main page (which gets around 4.5 million views per day) contained content, and a link to further content, which (per clear consensus here and at the AfD) was improperly-sourced and grossly promotional. In my opinion it needed immediate removal, as damaging to Wikipedia's (already limited) credibility. If people are embarrassed by putting Wikipedia in such a situation, they probably should be. And if it led to a broader discussion on apparent systemic failings at DYK, maybe DYK regulars should be embarrassed too, since it was their failure that led to the dubious content being accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: No, the point was to stop any appearance that our main page has more adspace available than bloody Pearl & Dean. Of course, that may not be a priority of yours. SN54129 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a misuse of the forum and my priority Serial Number 54129, is to de-escalate drama and improve the project: which runs counter to the purposes of this post. And @AndyTheGrump: you have saved us and our integrity is in tact. This post is a drama seeking and grandstanding finger-wag. You should tone it down and make a post on WT:DYK - because that is where these things are discussed without this excessive drama. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- When I see the Wikipedia main page being misused in such a blatant manner, I will post about it anywhere I damn well like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Suggesting problematic edits are discussed in the very very forum that allowed them to pass in the first place? WP:CIR. SN54129 15:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Conversing with someone who enjoys drama and provocation is never pleasant. DYK has a very good record of rationally discussing and pulling articles, or modifying them. This was pulled at errors , then AfDd then discussed here. I am out now, I feel bad that I have added more characters to this thread. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- While DYK outsiders have sometimes been met with hostility, I would have appreciated the feedback. As I said, the non-background content of this article was rushed on my part, and I think it's a universal truth that we see fewer issues in our own work than others. I have some learning points from this that I am going to start a DYK discussion about when I have time, too. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see much drama here. This was a sensible and mostly decorous discussion with a constructive resolution. Maybe the lack of intensity makes it feel like it didn't belong to ANI in the first place, but even if it really didn't, why would it matter so much; it's essentially over now. I don't think that an after-the-fact desire to police the use of the forum can generate any new bursts of light.—Alalch E. 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- "bursts of light"... nice. You may be good at suggesting clever hooks. Remember that we are all volunteers and it might keep you from being snarky. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a misuse of the forum and my priority Serial Number 54129, is to de-escalate drama and improve the project: which runs counter to the purposes of this post. And @AndyTheGrump: you have saved us and our integrity is in tact. This post is a drama seeking and grandstanding finger-wag. You should tone it down and make a post on WT:DYK - because that is where these things are discussed without this excessive drama. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Nike Phantom Football Boots". Sports Direct. Archived from the original on 31 July 2023. Retrieved 31 July 2023.
- ^ "Nike Phantom Luna Elite Firm-Ground Football Boot. Nike UK". Nike.com. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
Zefr's mass removal of "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" from CN templates
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could somebody please take a look at User talk:Tamzin § Blackout tattoos ref and tell me if I'm being unreasonable in asking Zefr (talk · contribs) to stop with (part of) the edits they're making? To summarize, there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409 § Healthline: deprecate or blacklist? to blacklist Healthline, which was implemented at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests § Blacklist healthlinedotcom, with consensus to replace citations with {{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}}
, pending human review. Zefr has been engaged in that human review, a noble and good task. I appreciate their edits that replace these CNs with new references, or that remove the unsourced claim if found unverifiable. However, a significant portion of their edits have simply removed these |reason=
parameters without changing anything else. I have pressed them for an explanation for these removals, and they have been less than clear. As best I can tell, their goal in removing them is to remove the pages from the backlog for those bot-made CNs. But of course, by replacing {{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}}
with a regular {{citation needed}}
, they aren't actually removing the problem of a claim previously sourced to a unreliable source. They're just removing the page from the backlog without fixing the issue.
That's my assessment at least. Maybe there's some detail I'm missing here that makes these edits make sense. But I asked Zefr to stop making these edits or point to an explicit consensus for them (again, no objection to their edits that actually resolve these CNs), and they have declined to do so and instead continued, so I would appreciate others' perspectives. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The bot generated by GreenC replaced the existing Healthline citation with 'citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom' (840 articles) to allow a cleanup editor 1) to find the healthlinedotcom statement where an actual Healthline ref had existed, 2) review the statement for medical quality or delete it (common for Healthline sources), 3) replace the citation with a WP:MEDRS ref, if available, 4) remove the healthlinedotcom search tag, and 5) leave a 'citation needed' for non-MEDRS content or 'medical citation needed' if a MEDRS source is not readily available. Dozens of hours over two months of checking content and sources, and editing of some 700 articles have gone into this cleanup.
- I'm puzzled by your statement "they aren't actually removing the problem of a claim previously sourced to a reliable source." a) what's the problem with a 'medical citation needed' tag for content without an obvious ref? b) What reliable source had existed before? None - the source that had been in the article before the bot was implemented was Healthline, which the community has declared as spam, blacklisted, and designated for removal.
- I feel I have explained this sufficiently on your talk page. Zefr (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, I meant to say "an unreliable source". As to the rest... That five-item list you give, I'm still not getting the 5th item. If you haven't done one of the first four things, then you haven't fixed the issue, so the CN should still be tagged as a former Healthline citation. You keep emphasizing how much work you've done on this. I appreaciate that, sincerely, but has it occurred to you that, if you're removing the Healthline tracking tag without actually fixing the issue, you're just hiding more work that still needs to be done? And if that logic doesn't work, we can come at the problem from the opposite direction: In what way are you helping the encyclopedia by changing
{{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}}
to{{citation needed}}
without changing anything else? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- I've done all of the 5 tasks. For #5, as with any article, an editor can tag a statement needing a ref. Feel free to visit any of the 700 articles to review and insert a MEDRS source. Zefr (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is your sixth comment about this, here plus at my talkpage, and you still haven't explained why you are removing these reason parameters. You've explained everything but that. So, again, why? What does it improve? What does it accomplish other than moving something from a short, well-curated backlog (the Healthline tag search) to a massive, unwieldy one that is literally older than some of our editors (CAT:CN)? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I interpret those edits as just validating that a human has evaluated the bot-generated CN healthline tag and determined the claim it's supporting is not so egregiously out-there as to warrant outright removal, but still needs a MEDRS or general source to support it. Editing out the "reason" parameter prevents duplication of effort, since I think the tag is really only there to alert editors to assess HL-sourced claims that might need immediate deletion rather than to function as a standard CN tag. JoelleJay (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense, thanks. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation that I would have been happy to receive from Zefr in any of their six replies. The detail of
and determined the claim it's supporting is not so egregiously out-there as to warrant outright removal
is the piece I had been missing, as Zefr had been making it sound like they were simply changing a more specific CN to a less specific CN to move the page out of the backlog. I hope maybe there's some lesson learned here about clearly communicating the reasoning behind a mass edit—not related threads, notThis has been discussed with admins
, a simple "here is why I did the thing being questioned".More broadly, though, and no longer referring to Zefr in particular, I'm somewhat skeptical this is the best way to go about it. I've done a fair bit of CAT:CN patrolling, and it's very useful to have any context for a tag. Removing that indication seems counterproductive. Perhaps there should be an{{unreliable source removed|source=}}
to fill that gap. Then an editor like Zefr could replace these templates with that, rather than the jack-of-all trades{{citation needed}}
. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense, thanks. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation that I would have been happy to receive from Zefr in any of their six replies. The detail of
- I interpret those edits as just validating that a human has evaluated the bot-generated CN healthline tag and determined the claim it's supporting is not so egregiously out-there as to warrant outright removal, but still needs a MEDRS or general source to support it. Editing out the "reason" parameter prevents duplication of effort, since I think the tag is really only there to alert editors to assess HL-sourced claims that might need immediate deletion rather than to function as a standard CN tag. JoelleJay (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is your sixth comment about this, here plus at my talkpage, and you still haven't explained why you are removing these reason parameters. You've explained everything but that. So, again, why? What does it improve? What does it accomplish other than moving something from a short, well-curated backlog (the Healthline tag search) to a massive, unwieldy one that is literally older than some of our editors (CAT:CN)? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've done all of the 5 tasks. For #5, as with any article, an editor can tag a statement needing a ref. Feel free to visit any of the 700 articles to review and insert a MEDRS source. Zefr (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, I meant to say "an unreliable source". As to the rest... That five-item list you give, I'm still not getting the 5th item. If you haven't done one of the first four things, then you haven't fixed the issue, so the CN should still be tagged as a former Healthline citation. You keep emphasizing how much work you've done on this. I appreaciate that, sincerely, but has it occurred to you that, if you're removing the Healthline tracking tag without actually fixing the issue, you're just hiding more work that still needs to be done? And if that logic doesn't work, we can come at the problem from the opposite direction: In what way are you helping the encyclopedia by changing
- This seems like a good-faith disagreement on how to interpret policy here; it's not really a behavioral issue that needs admins to block someone. In other words, whether policy mandates removal of the reason parameter, mandates removal of the entire statement so cited, or allows for individual interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Would this discussion be better to hold on another page, like Wikiproject Medicine, or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), or WP:VPP or something like that? I don't see what admins are needed to do here. --Jayron32 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: My administrative concern was that an edit was being made en masse and that, despite multiple requests to clarify its purpose, Zefr was not explaining why, and instead kept saying things only tangential to the question I was asking, with a generally dismissive tone. JoelleJay has answered the question adequately above, but that's not really her job. It's the duty of the editor making a mass edit. I would hate for this thread to give them (or anyone) the impression that if you're making a series of edits and someone asks why, you can wave your hand in the direction of a thread that doesn't actually explain the edit, and when pressed on the matter simply walk away from the discussion and continue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, but do you need them blocked? Does there need to be a topic ban? I can't see where it's needed. Some crossed wires during the communication process is all that happened here. Could Zefr perhaps have been more clear? Possibly. Did they maybe not understand what you were asking of them? Likely. But none of that leads to anything that needs any administrator involvement at this point. I believe you brought this here in good faith, but if JoelleJay's clarification solves the problem it solves the problem. There's no need to demand a pound of flesh at this point. The situation has been diffused, and there's nothing else to do. --Jayron32 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I hope it's clear from my response to Joelle above that I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Here I'm just answering your implied question of why I brought this to AN/I: I'd asked an editor to stop making an edit they were not adequately explaining, and they continued to make it. That core issue has been resolved, so this can probably be closed. I've held off on closing it myself in case anyone had anything further to say on the communication aspect (either regarding Zefr's approach or mine or both). And I thank you for your comment in that regard. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, but do you need them blocked? Does there need to be a topic ban? I can't see where it's needed. Some crossed wires during the communication process is all that happened here. Could Zefr perhaps have been more clear? Possibly. Did they maybe not understand what you were asking of them? Likely. But none of that leads to anything that needs any administrator involvement at this point. I believe you brought this here in good faith, but if JoelleJay's clarification solves the problem it solves the problem. There's no need to demand a pound of flesh at this point. The situation has been diffused, and there's nothing else to do. --Jayron32 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: My administrative concern was that an edit was being made en masse and that, despite multiple requests to clarify its purpose, Zefr was not explaining why, and instead kept saying things only tangential to the question I was asking, with a generally dismissive tone. JoelleJay has answered the question adequately above, but that's not really her job. It's the duty of the editor making a mass edit. I would hate for this thread to give them (or anyone) the impression that if you're making a series of edits and someone asks why, you can wave your hand in the direction of a thread that doesn't actually explain the edit, and when pressed on the matter simply walk away from the discussion and continue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's misunderstanding of why the "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" was added. It use was as a marker to allow the process that Zefr mentioned to track its progress. They could have added "reason=trackingID3256" for the same purpose. If the ID isn't removed once checked then the progress of the process can't be tracked. There's no reason to keep any details of the removed unreliable source, especially one that's been blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
More possibly disruptive editing by 49.145.14.39
There is possibly more suspicious activity and reckless edit bombing by Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39 on page 21st century. They have previously been banned from editing the related page Timeline of the 21st century. I believe that they may be trying to get around the block by going to the similar page instead. See:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_century&action=history
Also, see these similar IP ranges Special:Contributions/49.145.9.177 and Special:Contributions/49.145.8.0/22 which were also blocked in the same pages for the same reasons.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.8.0/22
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.9.177
Based on a tip from another user TagaSanPedroAko, these may be socks of a prolific Filipino LTA.
Borgenland (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Persistent WP:BLP violations at Keith Cameron Smith
I've been waiting well over an hour for a user block, per my report at AIV. In the meantime, the disruption continues. Parenthetically, the article has other problems, for which I've tagged it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what will happen at AIV, but I've left a message on the editor's talk page explaining why their edits were wrong. I'll keep an eye on their edits and the article for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Schazjmd. Their intent has been clear. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- They replied on their talk page acknowledging the errors. We'll see if it makes a difference in their future edits. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've responded here [88]. They've acknowledged WP:RELIABLE, not that you can't come here to do a hatchet job on a writer you dislike. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- They replied on their talk page acknowledging the errors. We'll see if it makes a difference in their future edits. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Schazjmd. Their intent has been clear. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Flanker235 and NOLEGALTHREATS
- Flanker235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prefacing that I would not be reporting this here, but Flanker235 filed an ARBCOM request, which was declined as premature. Flanker235 has made multiple statements (1, 2) that they want to pursue the matter elsewhere.
For about a week, Flanker235 has taken an interest in removing or adjusting some content on the article John Boyd (military strategist). Flanker235 began by adding the NPOV article header template inline (rather than the correct {{POV statement}}
Template:POV statement) first with no edit summary, and again referencing the talk page. I reverted both of the incorrect templates and notified Flanker235 that they should use the right template, which they did.
After that, every response from Flanker235 on the talk page included a suggestion that the contents of the article and talk page were possible legal issues. The first was saying there were all kinds of legal questions that can be raised
and there was a lot of stuff here is potentially actionable
, adding that I'd suggest you go about it a bit more carefully
. I elected not to engage with the legal material in my next reply, Flanker235's next reply said they felt This article is bordering on character assassination
(changed about 48 hours later to This -article- talk page
). After addressing some of their content concerns and asking for more details as to why Flanker235 felt this way, their next reply included If you look through the subject headings there are things here that are potentially actionable
. After this, I implemented a change to the article suggested by Flanker235–there was a valid NPOV concern given the sourcing for a certain passage–and advised Flanker235 of that change and to see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. Their next reply was, in full:
I wouldn’t count on any protection from potential legal problems if I were you. The existence of those two threads, whatever their age, is still a potential problem for you. In any case, their presence does the article no credit. At a personal level, I think it’s outrageous that it was even allowed to remain. And before anyone says it, there would be no freedom of speech defense. It wouldn’t be covered by any tenets of that law. Not from where I’m sitting, anyway.
I posted a NOLEGALTHREATS warning to Flanker235's talk page and informed them that I would not continue the discussion until the legal threat was struck. Flanker235 replied There is no threat. I have no interest in the case. You are being advised by someone who has worked in publishing for a long time
. They also sent an email suggesting that they would pursue "adjudication"; they followed up with the ARBCOM filing. I see this as an editor who needs to be warned to stop bringing legal stakes into a discussion, particularly when much of their discontent seems to emanate from misreading a poorly named talk page section from 2006. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- For starters, I agree no one ever accused Boyd of incest. If someone wants to rename the talk section heading—say, to "'Incest' article mentions this one metaphorically"—that ought to be fine. As to NLT, I don't think this quite meets the insta-block line of
a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target Wikipedia or other editors
, but easily falls under the more nebulous category ofcomments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat
. Flanker, I would advise that comments like "This text could be defamatory" or "There may be a privacy issue in naming this person" are generally okay, but the moment you cross over into hypothetical legal proceedings, you're creating a chilling effect, even if you're not saying you'd be the one to sue. I would strongly recommend redacting those parts of your comments, or even just removing the whole thread and trying to start over with Pbritti on a more constructive footing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)- Thank you, Tamzin—I agree that there is absolutely no reason to insta-block. If the comments are struck and the sole focus of the discussion is article content and improving its neutrality, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with Flanker235 until they feel the necessary improvements are made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree although it seems clear Flanker235 isn't personally threatening to sue, what they're saying is likely to create the same chilling effect. So they need to cut it out, if they do then there's no problem. If they don't then yes a block will be needed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tamzin—I agree that there is absolutely no reason to insta-block. If the comments are struck and the sole focus of the discussion is article content and improving its neutrality, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with Flanker235 until they feel the necessary improvements are made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Abusive homophobic edit summaries
A look at the edit summaries by Special:Contributions/Territory Woods suggests to me that he/she needs an indefinite block and most/all of their edits revdelled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- They were indeffed so this case can be closed. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I imagine that this new account is a sock account, and that his/her posts are attacks on editors he/she disagreed with using a different account. So please could checkuser be used on the account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- THeyve been infected with TPA and email disabled. 2600:100F:B1A4:5889:D8A6:8071:D4E7:527B (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-checkuser comment) They appear to be the IP-hopper at Special:PageHistory/Achterdam and Special:PageHistory/Mail-order bride. I doubt a check would tie them back to any past sockmaster. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This account was the LTA known as Evlekis, who likes to jump into stuff. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well it was inevitable I'd be wrong about something eventually. /lh -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's a first time for everything! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Tamzin just forgot to check the deleted contribs! A quick scan of those page histories says to me that this LTA was just stalking some recent changes. I should take this opportunity to observe that the content being persistently removed in the first of those articles appears to have a reference which sucks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's a first time for everything! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well it was inevitable I'd be wrong about something eventually. /lh -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This account was the LTA known as Evlekis, who likes to jump into stuff. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Template:Universal Sprout
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm trying to tag db-hoax onto the redirect Template:Universal Sprout (a name for Universal Kids that is completely made up by a hoaxing account creating corporate fanfiction) for Template:Universal Kids, but the above IP refuses to let an admin review the tag and determine deletion, claiming they have authority to do so. Another NPP already warned them to stop templating and determining deletion decisions. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I already explained my reasoning quite clearly with [89]. Sprout (TV channel) and Sprout (TV Network) both redirect to Universal Kids. Therefore this redirect very easily could be created by a good-faith user and not as a hoax. It is clearly not an obvious hoax, and for that reason alone should recieve a discussionWP:NOTCSD point #2. Also I believe this discussion properly belongs at WT:CSD, maybe it should be moved or someone should leave a pointer. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- For context as to why I tagged db-hoax, see this edit from IshaTaylor (talk · contribs). Items must be properly sourced, but this never was. It's highly advised to review the edits of the main article to see why a template was so tagged, which obviously was not done here. This template is also used on a select series of articles where it's very unlikely it'll be tagged with this erroneous name. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is not relevant. Vandalism is defined only to encompass edits made deliberately in bad-faith. All vandalism is disruptive, but not all disruption is vandalism. Confused good-faith editors make mistakes all the time. If a mistake is sufficiently likely to be made a redirect is actually a good idea, as an example consider Template:R from typo.
- If the redirect is useless that is a good reason to list at WP:RFD and delete slowly. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- For context as to why I tagged db-hoax, see this edit from IshaTaylor (talk · contribs). Items must be properly sourced, but this never was. It's highly advised to review the edits of the main article to see why a template was so tagged, which obviously was not done here. This template is also used on a select series of articles where it's very unlikely it'll be tagged with this erroneous name. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's probably not worth the drama to pursue an iffy contested G3 CSD of a template redirect. Just take it to RFD at that point. Also, non-admins can remove CSD tags, and with very limited exceptions, they should not be re-added. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism at 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake
Phallic-themed vandalism by User:Ruvh at 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Marrakesh-Safi_earthquake&action=history. Borgenland (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I filed the report to request blocking at what I believe is the right place. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Request urgent blocking of User:Ruvh. Has been tampering with own and other users' talk pages. See
- Borgenland (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have reported the image to MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 06:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can appreciate a good joke when I see one, but this vandal is about as lame as they come, must be new, or just awful. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Request urgent blocking of User:Ruvh again. Issued a legal threat on another user. See *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C&diff=prev&oldid=1174557506
- Borgenland (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- and...they've made a disruptive unblock request. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are they even allowed to remove the blocking notice? It is quite malicious of such editors to do so. Borgenland (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland Don’t quote me on this but I think users are allowed to remove the warning messages if they wish - in any event, it actually confirms that they’ve seen them. Unsure on blocking notices though. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 07:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @A smart kitten and Borgenland: per WP:BLANKING yes they can remove all warnings and the blocking notice. The main thing they can't are any declined unblocking requests for an active block but AFAICT, they only made a silly request as their final edit. Note though that such removals do not qualify as WP:3RRNO so they can't remove them more than 3 or 4 times (depending if you count the first removal as a revert) in 24 hours no matter that editors should not be reverting them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland Don’t quote me on this but I think users are allowed to remove the warning messages if they wish - in any event, it actually confirms that they’ve seen them. Unsure on blocking notices though. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 07:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Reverted, reblocked, think I revdelled everything. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: they've started loutsocking as 213.139.194.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 07:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are they even allowed to remove the blocking notice? It is quite malicious of such editors to do so. Borgenland (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- and...they've made a disruptive unblock request. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have reported the image to MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 06:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alert: a possible sockpuppet has been editing again and harassing other users. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.139.194.57
- Borgenland (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.139.194.154. I believe this requires a range block. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Another IP: Special:Contributions/213.139.194.154 – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 07:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- argh, reply tool just loves edit conflicting. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorting out proxy blocks now. Bear with me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Think those rangeblox cover the IPs they've used so far, plus many other ranges owned by the webhost in question. Switching to revdel mode but please ping if I missed any IPs, if I'm still awake. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Another range block request for sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.117.91.101. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Another incident of vandalism by User:Tahco43 involving possible promotionals. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tahco43 Borgenland (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly a promotion for his TikTok account. Riad Salih (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
West Papua copy-paster
An IP-hopper from Surabaya, East Java, is copy-pasting English and foreign-language Wikipedia articles and adding promotional links regarding the independence movement in West Papua. The most recent attacks by 114.125.88.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also include material from a copyrighted source at [90].
They are also known to be active at other wikis, e.g. as reported by me at fr:Wikipédia:Demande_de_purge_d'historique#Herman_Willem_Daendels_(d_·_h_·_j_·_↵)_et_3_autres_titres; this user also created 6 nonsense pages at frwiki. I don't feel like putting the effort into tying together all the known editors, but it should be easy to find them all since they often target specific pages related to West Papua's geopolitical history, such as Talk:Indonesia. A duplicate of Republic of West Papua was created by the IP at Draft:Negara Persatuan Republik Papua Barat on July 29, which was also targeted by 114.125.88.13, but this is too early for me to apply G5 with certainty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is likely that 114.125.88.13 will need their TPA revoked, because while issuing the ANI notice I discovered that they added more of the same at their talk page after the block; however, this does not include the copyvio content from the other revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is an LTA from Indonesia Wikipedia, see also User:114.125.158.158, User:114.125.159.39, User:Nederlands New Guinea1965961, and User:Sony Esau Mbisikmbo19880312. There's a whole load of other accounts that are already blocked for the same disruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Their typical habits are copy/paste disruption, posting about "Nederland/Dutch New Guinea", pasting large untranslated Indonesian texts, and posts containing "Sony Esau Mbisikmbo". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: Since this LTA has been active at enwiki since at least July 29, you should create an English version of the LTA page. I have also tagged Draft:Negara Persatuan Republik Papua Barat for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Disruption on enwiki goes back to at least May 2022, I've started an LTA report in my user space (I've not create one before) and posted a related SPI case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is an LTA from Indonesia Wikipedia, see also User:114.125.158.158, User:114.125.159.39, User:Nederlands New Guinea1965961, and User:Sony Esau Mbisikmbo19880312. There's a whole load of other accounts that are already blocked for the same disruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Deceptive contact by political operators
Early this morning I was approached by WondersShallNeverEnd on my talk page to upload an image of a politician from Flickr. As I am not well versed in Wikimedia Commons, I declined their request. This is the full log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1174562864
Adding image to article Simon Ekpa @Borgenland
Greetings to you!
Can you help me to add an image found on Flickr to the article page Simon Ekpa? The page is protected, hence l can't add it. Meanwhile, l have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia commons automatically. Link here WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello! As much as I'd like to, I'm not an expert in Commons. Also, are you sure this is not a potential copyright violation? There is a tendency to remove such items if found so. Borgenland (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland
- I understands your concerns but I can assure you that the image is not copyright violation. It's in terms with Wikimedia commons rules. Thanks WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- If the image is a copyvio, it would have been removed from Wikimedia or probably marked for deletion. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
A few hours later, I get dragged into Talk:Simon Ekpa and find out that WondersShallNeverEnd is a sockpuppet of several accounts that have been affiliated with certain African separatist organizations. Ultimately another account that is also identified as a sockpuppet admits to being a member of the said organization who is trying to find someone else to upload the image. Showing you all the full log:
Add Simon Ekpa's image to the article
Hello, distinguished editors,
There's an image found on Flickr that needs to be added to the article page. Here is the link. The image has never been seen elsewhere. This page is protected and that's the reason I can't add it myself. Can an editor help add it? Licenced (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Licenced, upload it to Commons then, I'll add it here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Now that's interesting. Per previous uploads of pictures of Ekpa, the question arises if it's reasonable to assume the uploader is who they say the are, or if this is more FLICKRWASHING. It's not very common that an org would put it's own logo in the public domain, like the flickr-uploader is on-the-face-of-it doing. FYI ping to @Yann and @Elcobbola. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, have you used other WP-accounts, and if so, which ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, was it you who put the images on flickr? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I confirmed Licenced to be a Unibrill sock, along with WondersShallNeverEnd which had already uploaded the image and was also proxying here, and blocked both about two hours before your ping above. Why are we feeding the trolls? Эlcobbola talk 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hope springs eternal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI-ping to @Borgenland, in case you wonder what that was about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do wonder why I got dragged into this out of nowhere. Dealing with images and Wikimedia Commons is not exactly my forte. Borgenland (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you did so admirably in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was trying my best to be polite to a stranger. Now come to think of it, I think someone may have remembered me when Ekpa was dragged into the 2023 Nigerien crisis which I was heavily involved in at the time. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
- All of your concerns are well noted. In all sincerity, l am directly affiliated with Biafra Republic Government in Exile organization. I was directly informed by Simon Ekpa to add the image they uploaded on Flickr to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I work for him and Biafra Republic Government in Exile.If you do your thorough research on the media, you will find out that image never existed anywhere prior to it's upload on Flickr on 7th of September 2023. I was directly authorized to add the image but to COI and page protection, l couldn't. I will inform them about the development that l have been blocked and see how they will react. Licenced (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland@Reading Beans
- Maybe, Simon Ekpa himself will assign a new user to add the image on Wikimedia. I have tried my best and I give up! Licenced (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying you tried to hire me to do work for a political organization under false pretenses? You do know Wikipedia has very serious rules on that. I am afraid I would have to report you to ANI. Borgenland (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was trying my best to be polite to a stranger. Now come to think of it, I think someone may have remembered me when Ekpa was dragged into the 2023 Nigerien crisis which I was heavily involved in at the time. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you did so admirably in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do wonder why I got dragged into this out of nowhere. Dealing with images and Wikimedia Commons is not exactly my forte. Borgenland (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I confirmed Licenced to be a Unibrill sock, along with WondersShallNeverEnd which had already uploaded the image and was also proxying here, and blocked both about two hours before your ping above. Why are we feeding the trolls? Эlcobbola talk 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Long story short, this is the first time that this has happened to me and I am shocked by the fact that there are users like this who are trying to lure neutral, objective minded users into moonlighting as promoters of certain political agendas. I urge any concerned admin who reads this to take the appropriate action to ensure this does not happen again. Thank you very much especially to @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Elcobbola for helping me connect the dots to this horribly bizarre anomaly. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Borgenland, non-admin here. Just to remind you that you should leave a talk message on the talk page of @WondersShallNeverEnd to notify that they're on AN/I. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. Also putting one on User:Licenced. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- For context, there's a bit of history on Ekpa-pics on Commons:[91] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland, misconstrued the whole maybe. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång understands the scenario better because he has been there. Generally, the image found on Flickr was dedicated to public domain which enabled me to add it to wikicommons. Simon Ekpa took the picture himself and uploaded on Flickr through the political organization flick account. He directed that I add it to Wikipedia but when I came, the page was protected which made me to write @Borgenland on his talk page. I never meant any harm. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are you using the User:Licenced account as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- But as far as I’m concerned, that in itself is against the rules. It appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but are here for en errand for your boss, which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:PROMOTION. Borgenland (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- And if I had accepted your request and got caught up when dung hit the fan, I could have lost this account that I built for 2 years on suspicion of being a meat/sockpuppet. As such you and your friends are threatening to harm the integrity of users you are trying to recruit. I hope I don’t get misunderstood to be making legal threats but you and your backers could end up having notability in Wikipedia in things that are the opposite of what you expect. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I erred against @Borgenland and I am deeply sorry. In all these, shall we leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa? This is a critical issue here. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, You can testify the hurdles passed so far on trying to improve the article page by adding an image. As a human, l am deeply feeling bad now. I wish I can be understood but I assume that everyone now understands. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- What I know is that various user-accounts have for whatever reason made copyvio etc uploads of Ekpa-pics on Commons since 2021, and, I'm told, made fraudulent VRT-claims. This wastes time and cause annoyance. So yes, to leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa seems like an excellent solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I erred against @Borgenland and I am deeply sorry. In all these, shall we leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa? This is a critical issue here. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, You can testify the hurdles passed so far on trying to improve the article page by adding an image. As a human, l am deeply feeling bad now. I wish I can be understood but I assume that everyone now understands. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- And if I had accepted your request and got caught up when dung hit the fan, I could have lost this account that I built for 2 years on suspicion of being a meat/sockpuppet. As such you and your friends are threatening to harm the integrity of users you are trying to recruit. I hope I don’t get misunderstood to be making legal threats but you and your backers could end up having notability in Wikipedia in things that are the opposite of what you expect. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Borgenland, misconstrued the whole maybe. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång understands the scenario better because he has been there. Generally, the image found on Flickr was dedicated to public domain which enabled me to add it to wikicommons. Simon Ekpa took the picture himself and uploaded on Flickr through the political organization flick account. He directed that I add it to Wikipedia but when I came, the page was protected which made me to write @Borgenland on his talk page. I never meant any harm. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps en.wiki CUs should tend to their duties (10 days and no response (!!!)). Outrageous. Эlcobbola talk 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
IP editor making bizarre edits on articles regarding Popeye or Warner Brothers
There is a least one IP address making bizarre edits to articles with info about Popeye the Sailor Man and Warner Brothers. They change facts without changing sources, in one case they modified the url of a source to make it appear to support the baseless addition,[92] they remove information about Warner Brothers, and sometimes they add bizarre un-sourced information. For example, in an article about a kid's channel they replaced the Powerpuff Girls (an actual children's cartoon) with Happy Tree Friends (a violent fake children's cartoon).[93]
- 181.188.176.77 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
- 181.115.64.89 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
Rjjiii(talk) 17:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Update: an admin blocked one IP for 2 weeks while I was writing this up. 17:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Typical cartoon series vandalism. I reverted similar edits some months ago from a similar IP range. I think it may be an WP:LTA case here, but I'm not sure. Reverts and blocks of IPs is really all we can do. oknazevad (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Agamino911 (talk · contribs) personal attacks
I wasn't going to open this. Wrote on his talk page. Then he said Your actions were chauvinist. Your seemingly futile attempt to conceal the current statuses of birthplaces of Turkish historical and political figures (i.e, which country they are currently part of), is chauvinist. This is not an attack, but giving the reason of your actions.
which is a clear lie. "present-day x country" is redundant on the infobox, and I removed dozens of times articles related to Turkey as well. As examples[94][95][96] since this has become a propaganda material for various people. "Look she/he was born in x". He was also reverted by another user. Here is the initial edit Again, Salonica (Thessaloniki) is currently in present-day Greece. Wikipedia is not a place for chauvinism.
Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Persistent disruption by Hamtrane
Really hoping someone could take a closer look at Hamtrane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has been warned numerous times about creating implausible redirects (mostly just annoying, but really wish they would stop), but now is inserting hand-made "[Newslink missing]" notations (their version of a proper {{cn}} tag?) to dozens and dozens of old news portals. Simply disruptive, and I don't have any good tools to quickly revert all of those. Appreciate additional eyes. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can someone take a look into ZimZalaBim? Why is they so persistent in getting so fixated on redirects? Wikipedia even has an article on how redirects are cheap. See: WP:Redirects are cheap. Is they being diligent or is just bored and wants to ruin people's days. Why is they complaining about edits being disruptive? Is they even fit to be an admin? Thanks. Hamtrane (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hamtrane, can you review WP:NOTBROKEN. I recently reverted this unnecessary edit of yours. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hamtrane: what is the purpose of these [Newslink missing]... things? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CHEAP is not an official policy or guideline, as indicated by the "This is an essay" box at the top of the page. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RPURPOSE. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- My only experience with this user is their creation of many implausible, annoying redirects, as ZimZalaBim said. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- They've just been partially blocked for other unnecessary stuff. WP:NOTHERE? DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Eh, many of their contributions are adding infoboxes to settlement articles, which look legitimately useful. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The questionable redirects continue: [97]. Really tired of them trying to anticipate crossword puzzle clues or bad search engine queries... --ZimZalaBim talk 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do echo your sentiment of "not every crossword puzzle clue needs a redirect to assist", and I have ran into issues with this editor adding defunct parameters to WikiProject banners, as brought up earlier on their user talk page. That being said, just to let you know, I don't think the redirect you linked is a great example of an "implausible search term". On most other situations I would be concurring with your sentiments, but that one doesn't seem too terrible. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The questionable redirects continue: [97]. Really tired of them trying to anticipate crossword puzzle clues or bad search engine queries... --ZimZalaBim talk 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Eh, many of their contributions are adding infoboxes to settlement articles, which look legitimately useful. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- They've just been partially blocked for other unnecessary stuff. WP:NOTHERE? DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- When was it decided that we would start referring to each other by the gender-binary terms that came from the LGBT culture; "them" "their" and "they"? I actually don't mind it, and find it ingenious, convenient and useful, but what is Wikipedia's policy on that? Hamtrane (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Um. Because we don't want to assume other users' genders? And singualr 'they' has been around for ages. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 01:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- s58 opens their copy of The Oxford Book of English Verse: "They flee from me that sometime did me seek/..." Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- What the heck?! Do explain and elaborate on this please! Hamtrane (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- s58 opens their copy of The Oxford Book of English Verse: "They flee from me that sometime did me seek/..." Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Um. Because we don't want to assume other users' genders? And singualr 'they' has been around for ages. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 01:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User has also added bad templates to talk pages, including adding the vital article template and inappropriate wikiproject assessments. When the issue was raised on his/her user talk page, he/she responded with a singular rhetorical query (possibly feigning ignorance) and continued to ignore the problems and requests that he/she fix them.
I was initially going to suggest that Hamtrane's problematic edits seemed like honest mistakes a new user (created 23 August) might make, but looking closer at his/her contributions (and the aggressive responses above, plus the classic tactic of trying to deflect and derail the conversation), the WP:NOTHERE tendencies are becoming more apparent. An SPI seems warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why is it that I'm the only one actually doing these changes when the established editors should be taking it upon themselves with articles that I'm editing have not been touched in at least a year and a half, like as Paul_012 said; "and no one has gone through the effort".Hamtrane (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me like everyone here could do with a reminder that assume good faith is still a policy. I see an enthusiastic new user who wants to help, and like many similar users before them, they need guidance, not a talk page full of opinions and an ANI thread in their second week. Many of the RFD nominations I've seen have been akin to WP:IDLI arguments, and it's a bit soon to say there's a pattern but many of the nominated redirects are surviving or have survived RFD. "Someone finds it useful" is #5 in the list of reasons to create redirects. I've been floating around RFD for a decade, and in my experience this spate of marginally useful redirects is barely a blip in the scale of problems we've seen before. (Who here remembers Neelix? And Eubot?)
- As for problematically enthusiastic editing in other areas, like this thing with portal tagging which they've already been partblocked from, I refer to the essay competence is required, particularly the section "a mess made in an honest effort to help is still a mess." I'd advise Hamtrane that when more experienced editors offer you feedback, you should listen to and understand what is being said and ask questions, rather than being defensive and pushing back as you seem to have been doing. "Assume good faith" applies here too: we're all trying to help. Going back to competence: if people tell you you're making a mess and you won't stop on your own, eventually we will stop you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Shelley Ross
So, some suspiciously promotional, uncited content got added to the Shelley Ross article, not to mention a blatantly promotional link to the article subject's nonprofit, and the removal of cited content. It's a mess. When asked about the issue, the relevant account Notoriousep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) basically admitted to being the article subject. She also clearly operates another account, Shelleyzross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which she also uses to edit articles about herself.
My inclination given what an uncited mess the whole thing is is just to restore the article to the version before she started editing two days ago. But I don't know where to begin with the multiple accounts issue; I am struggling to see it as a benign mistake, all things considered. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have pageblocked Notoriousep and Shelleyzross from editing Shelley Ross. The article talk page is the proper place for article subjects to request changes, providing references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Concerns of Suicidal Incitement on Wikipedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User 'Vanthorn', who is an administrator on Wikipedia in Portuguese, wrote the following on their talk page:
"Have you ever tried cyanide? It would do you good at least temporarily since you easily come back from the dead." [translate from portuguese: Já experimentou cianeto? Fazia-lhe bem pelo menos temporariamente já que ressuscita dos mortos facilmente.]
This is clearly an incitement to suicide. Since the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use are governed by the laws of the State of California, Section 401 of the California Penal Code deals with assisted suicide and incitement to suicide. According to this section, it is illegal to encourage, advise, or assist someone in committing suicide or attempting suicide.
Furthermore, according to the Universal Code of Conduct, "Encouraging harm to others" is unacceptable, and this includes encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party.
I hope that those responsible for handling such situations will prevent them from repeating this harassing and intolerable behavior. This has also been reported to WMF Office.JMagellan (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Issues on the Portuguese Wikipedia need to be addressed there; we can't address those even if we wanted to. You may wish to see WP:SOS. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I also doubt that the State of California can do much about editors who are most likely in Brazil or Portugal. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is not an issue regarding Portuguese Wikipedia at all. The suicidal incitement has occurred in English Wikipedia, although has been written in Portuguese. This is a crime not only in California, but also in Brazil and Portugal, but it is up to the Wikipedia community to control the misbehaviour that happens in the public spaces. Furthermore, according to the Universal Code of Conduct of the Wikimedia Foundation, "Encouraging harm to others" is unacceptable, and this includes encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party. JMagellan (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was confused. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't deny that it was unacceptable, and I'm aware of the Code. Just confused, thanks. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems that this issue actually came up on English Wikipedia, the comment was just made through the Portuguese language and by a user who is, incidentally, an admin on Portuguese Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is not an issue regarding Portuguese Wikipedia at all. The suicidal incitement has occurred in English Wikipedia, although has been written in Portuguese. This is a crime not only in California, but also in Brazil and Portugal, but it is up to the Wikipedia community to control the misbehaviour that happens in the public spaces. Furthermore, according to the Universal Code of Conduct of the Wikimedia Foundation, "Encouraging harm to others" is unacceptable, and this includes encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party. JMagellan (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is likely this is a sock of belonging to globally locked User:Pórokhov. Suggest a swift boomerang. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: This seems like a case of a sockpuppet baiting a user, and that user taking such bait. Vanthorn calls the OP a Pórokhov's sockpuppet. The OP's only edit to main space is at Perdeu, mané, which was created by one of their sockpuppets. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 23:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- My edition was actually an attempt to correct a poorly done translation. JMagellan (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Telling someone to "drop dead" when they bother you is not an inducement to suicide, just as telling someone to "go fuck yourself" is not an inducement to masturbation.
- Special:Contributions/JMagellan shows a total of seven edits across all Wikimedia projects.[98] But the Portuguese-language post that he/she made on User talk:Vanthorn is discussing the behaviour of different accounts on Wikipedia. JMagellan is clearly sockpuppet account and should be given an indefinite block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Indeffed for sock puppetry. I'm also in agreement that this was not an actual incitement to self-harm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Insulting&abusive comments about living human in their Talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user User:Altenmann keeps adding demeaning, insulting and abusive statements at the user-talk page of a living human, see the full discussion, or one specific absolutely inacceptable comment. Such behaviour can not be acceptable, it is demoralizing for any co-author, and insulting for the involved scientist. Could someone please help and step in to stop this condocending behaviour of this user? -- Mario23 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- This report is premature as people are free to express opinions even if it's frustrating. I have asked for assistance at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Craig S. Kaplan—they will know if the notability tag is warranted and will handle the situation. I'll watch the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help! --Mario23 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Category IP editor in New York
For about a year or so, this IP in New York (2601:184:C401:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been adding inappropriate catgories and unsourced claims, primarily on articles of right-wing political figures, mass shootings, and actors/voice actors.
They have:
- Added categories that are not backed up by the article in question (see WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT) or are already subcategories (WP:CATSPECIFIC)
- Added various unsourced and/or defamatory claims to biographical articles (including asserting that a 1930s stage actor was a "neo-Nazi" even though he predates the neo-Nazi movement, calling a politician a "conspiracy theorist," speculating on the motive of a mass shooting, etc.)
They have been warned multiple times previously (including on September 9, September 4, and August 19), and have so far failed to communicate or change their behaviors. They were blocked for 1 week in January, which has failed to stop them from editing. wizzito | say hello! 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Range block request
Please block 2400:2200:CD:EE9B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), they are Yusaya Takei (talk · contribs) per User talk:2400:2200:CD:EE9B:2566:468F:9268:A3E3#Yusaya Takei. Please nuke their contributions as G5 after block. Thanks. BTW, how can I use twinkle to report an IP range? -Lemonaka 06:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Already done by Materialscientist. In the future, you can report their current (active) IP via Twinkle and just add a comment about their range; I don't believe there's a more advanced built-in functionality. Complex/Rational 13:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Removal of valid wikilinks by Sandi0000
On List of Nat Geo Wild original programming article, Sandi0000 have removed all of the wikilinks that redirects to many TV programs that actually has an article for them, despite disagreement with other editors (You can see the talk page to know more). In addition, Sandi0000 displays WP:OWN behavior when confronted (see 1) 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 09:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting this. Similar disruptive edits at List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC and List of programs broadcast by BBC America. Further warnings at their talk page deleted [99]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- In addition to what has already been mentioned, disruptive editing also occurred at List of Animal Planet original programming and List of National Geographic original programming. Thanks. Cheezknight (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Sandi0000 this is section for you, see you responded to other sections above confused Indagate (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User:BestOkieHistory
- BestOkieHistory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Okiehistory is a user with an apparent conflict of interest with Wade Burleson, who was partially blocked on 23 July 2021.
- BestOkieHistory signed up on 9 May 2021 with the sole purpose of patrolling Okiehistory's contributions and later report Okiehistory (this report is a spin off of Okiehistory SPI.
- The activity and BestOkieHistory's username choice makes it clear that badgering Okiehistory is the sole purpose of this account. This sounds like a WP:NOTHERE issue.
- BestOkieHistory was clearly not a new user when they started editing, and this not a valid purpose for a privacy alt. Regardless of who the sockmaster is, this looks like WP:ILLEGIT socking. MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Can an Admin lend an eye over here?
Hi. I was wondering if any admins with more powers could step in and look at all the new user accounts being made in this deletion discussion. There are some legitimate users, and maybe the other fervent new defenders are all just off-site fans or something, but it seems weird how suddenly all of these new users come in to weigh in on things when the discussion was started (by a different user) about if this pianist was notable or not. I'm just trying to discuss it fairly and get sources (I have no problem if she is decided notable) but a ton of new user accounts seem to be defending this one page quite strongly, just feels a bit odd to me. Anyway, if an Admin or someone could take a peek, that would be great. I'll try to put notices on all the newly made accounts about my request here, but there are also lots of random IP accounts etc, too. Thanks. Regarding this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Nakazono#Lisa Nakazono
Nesnad (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I'm new to the ping an Admin thing, so could have done something wrong, although there are also IP users (are we suppose to put notices on the IPs too?), these are the three new user accounts I put notices on: User talk:Sanobunji User talk:HayashiMichiKimi User talk:Daniel Limster
If I did something the wrong way, or missed a user or something, let me know. Cheers! Nesnad (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nesnad I've labeled their posts on the AFC as SPAs. (BTW we don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article/page). You say some of them have claimed to be Lisa but I don't see where that was stated, I may have missed it. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment (by starter of AfD)... I think User HayashiMichiKimi was in this discussion from the start, and should not be accused of jumping into the AfD discussion. This user's talk page has a note from 1 August about being an SpA, but that was well before the AfD started. And @Nesnad:: I do not think anyone has ever claimed to be Lisa N; they are quite openly the fanbase, and I see no sign of bad faith at all. I do, of course, see a huge amount of misunderstanding of what WP:en is. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I guess I got mixed up with when User HayashiMichiKimi (a single use account, too) tried to delete my photo on Commons, that's why it felt like it was a made up account too. Nope. Just checked. That was user Tyranzion, another single purpose account. I'm just confused by this torrent of new accounts. That account only works for Ms. Nakazono too though. Sorry, they didn't say they were her I guess? Just her "dear friend" (one of the IP users)? But they all have the same odd way of talking, and I don't know, I'm just getting weird vibes from all those new users, as if I'm talking to the same person. But I guess it's just some sort of off-site fan thing or something? I don't know. I just wanted to establish if she was notable enough or not. Instead I got covered with tons of fake claims of her being super famous and having Japanese Grammy Awards (made up) and links to small concerts and stuff. Anyway, I just thought this might be a good place to get someone who could add a higher power perspective since I have no idea if I am talking to tons of new users or one user. And in any case, the user(s) clearly misunderstand WP:en or something. Nesnad (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- At least one claims (plausibly) to be a friend of the subject. They all talk a bit oddly, because I believe they are all Japanese speakers. Incidentally, I think the argument about the Sony/not label is immensely counterproductive, and is helping to fill the AfD discussion with fluff. How on earth an uninvolved admin is going to plough through this I do not know. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I guess I got mixed up with when User HayashiMichiKimi (a single use account, too) tried to delete my photo on Commons, that's why it felt like it was a made up account too. Nope. Just checked. That was user Tyranzion, another single purpose account. I'm just confused by this torrent of new accounts. That account only works for Ms. Nakazono too though. Sorry, they didn't say they were her I guess? Just her "dear friend" (one of the IP users)? But they all have the same odd way of talking, and I don't know, I'm just getting weird vibes from all those new users, as if I'm talking to the same person. But I guess it's just some sort of off-site fan thing or something? I don't know. I just wanted to establish if she was notable enough or not. Instead I got covered with tons of fake claims of her being super famous and having Japanese Grammy Awards (made up) and links to small concerts and stuff. Anyway, I just thought this might be a good place to get someone who could add a higher power perspective since I have no idea if I am talking to tons of new users or one user. And in any case, the user(s) clearly misunderstand WP:en or something. Nesnad (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment (by starter of AfD)... I think User HayashiMichiKimi was in this discussion from the start, and should not be accused of jumping into the AfD discussion. This user's talk page has a note from 1 August about being an SpA, but that was well before the AfD started. And @Nesnad:: I do not think anyone has ever claimed to be Lisa N; they are quite openly the fanbase, and I see no sign of bad faith at all. I do, of course, see a huge amount of misunderstanding of what WP:en is. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Multiple disputes and disruptive edits - 2023 G20 New Delhi summit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings!
The page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit is being edited heavily as it is an ongoing event. However few users are observed to be adding non-neutral unreferenced material and lots of reversions are taking place and also the content is disputed. A user is also observed to be resorting to fights in edit summary of reversion. Requesting administrators intervention on how to proceed and also the page has been flagged for extended protection.
Thank you Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Talk page edits by 24.38.185.65
Since at least January 2021, IP user 24.38.185.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using talk pages as a soapbox, complaining that the article subjects are not "really" the gender that matches their gender identity. On September 9, 2023, the IP user did so again on Talk:Amy Schneider. I gave a warning on that page and on the IP's user talk page. The user responded with vitriol that included more misgendering of the subject and removed a "final warning" of WP:BLP violation from User:Innisfree987. Please block the user to stop the misgendering and editor attacks, and please provide guidance on how to appropriately remove the WP:BLP-violating content from talk pages. Thank you. --LinkTiger (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)