Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

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

---

User:The History Wizard of Cambridge has made about 3,000 edits over three years, during which time they have engaged in extensive WP:CPUSH behavior in favor of autocratic regimes. Their edits are almost exclusively in this area, and a large portion of these edits whitewash atrocities committed under communist states. This editor routinely finds technicalities, often quite tenuous, to remove any content that reflects poorly on China, Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Vietnam. For this discussion, I've listed some examples from the last two months, but this is behavior that persists throughout their editing history and more examples can be provided if needed.

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – Whitewashed Human rights in Vietnam, removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – Removed sourced information from Human experimentation in North Korea, citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed a similar edit to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – A WP:COATRACK edit to criticize Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – Promoted Holodomor denial on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent talk page discussion.
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

I'm aware of the high bar before POV pushing is sanctionable, but this is consistent and sustained, necessitating a restriction on editing subjects related to communism and communist states. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on David Ivon Jones so I'm sorry it ended up like this.

I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being Trevor Carter and Billy Strachan. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.

Let's have a look at these cases individually.

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the Việt Tân wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by Ngo Dinh Diem. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for Voice of America, since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider Russia today a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for The Black Book of Communism is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated (Donald Trump Jr. Kanye West, etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in The Washington Post (see here) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – I was read Ronald Grigor Suny's work Red Flag Unfurled (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide". I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and R. W. Davies, don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by Anne Applebaum at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – A sentence in the wikipedia page for Cuba claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{page needed}} is for. Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.

I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{page needed}} or {{verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. Folly Mox (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely assuming it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{page needed}} or {{verify source}} in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Google Books preview mode often won't display page numbers, though. Ostensibly so that you buy the book. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. Jagmanst (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you will find that most editors agree with you; even THWoC has cited books without providing the exact location of the text in the book (back later today with sample). It's one thing to delete text that has long been tagged as needing a full citation (as in many years); quite another to simply delete untagged text because no page number was given, as many editors aren't even aware of that requirement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, the page number citation policy should arguably be relaxed in the case of eBooks that don't provide page numbers to begin with, but can easily be searched digitally. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

For ebooks, as in every example I have given here, it is perfectly acceptable to give a chapter name, section heading, or some other means of verifying the text without scrolling through 300 pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

What does THWoC mean? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's an abbreviation for your username. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that makes more sense than the The Real Housewives of Orange County. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at WP:RSP) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather editorial independence that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks editorial independence from the Russian government and it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content. - just to be clear, the cited text refers to South Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The yeonjwaje bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding Special:Diff/1169763206, while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a WP:RS, certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people want to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion here. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on the United States talkpage back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? Jagmanst (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any aggression. Jagmanst (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". Jagmanst (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. Jagmanst (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at WP:CPUSH start to line up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Where did I !vote for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm not calling for sanctions on your account.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. Jagmanst (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of WP:CIVIL and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.

For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook WP:CPOV, and as User:Thebiguglyalien states, a long history of it. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.Jagmanst (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they edit with the bias identified by Rockstone and IP2603; I'll be back later today, from real computer, with examples (iPad editing now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither Rockstone nor IP2603 showed any evidence of bias. Rockstone showed a talk page comment which they didn't think was polite. I saw no bias.IP2603 made some quite scandalous assertions with no evidence. Not thinking the US as a bastion of human rights isn't bias.Jagmanst (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In my defence: When User:Thebiguglyalien accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of which you can see here. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've had some highly positive interactions with Thebiguglyalien over the last six months or so, the duration of the time I've known them on the project: they've impressed me with a pretty nuanced understanding of policy for someone who has been here five years. I preface my comments in this fashion to emphasize that I came into this thread primed to give their analysis some degree of benefit of the doubt. But in truth, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here--at least not yet--and I suspect that Alien may have seen more of a pattern here than holds for the larger sample size, as THWoC implies in their defense.

To be certain, Wizard could stand to benefit from, well as the charming American idiom goes "slowing their roll". I won't reiterate the feedback they have already received regarding deleting sources because they were entered without a page number: I view that as a highly problematic habit that needs to stop immediately. If a goodfaith investigation of the source gives them cause to believe the source is invalid, that is one thing, but that level of presumptuousness that a source and any content is supports may be chucked out because of a pro forma flaw that small is incredibly flippant with regard to the contributions of other editors and (much more importantly) not in the best interests of the accuracy of most articles, if we assume most such absent parameters are the consequence technical issues or goodfaith oversights--as I believe most are entitled to be, one or the other. However, while this is an instance of a case of issues with Wizard's approach, I think it also illustrates that said issues come from personal editorial idiosyncracies and maybe a touch of overconfidence (both of which can be addressed) rather than an overarching NOTHERE motivation to massage the content to reflect personal bias.

For the remaining diffs, I'm not going to do a play by play, but suffice it to say that I think most are similar issues of an editor coming from a specialist field and not yet hitting their stride in adapting their editorial approach to the context of encyclopedia prose and process. And others are just not particularly that problematic (or at least debatably so). It's true for example that genocide is treated under international law (and by most contemporary historical researchers) as a crime defined by the intent to wipe out or suppress a culture, while the soviet famine in question was famously the result of one of the most horrific outcomes of mismanagement, support for junk science, and cultural infighting in the Soviet bureaucracy. So it would not surprise me to hear that many contemporary historians and researchers do not label it as genocide per se. That said, THWoC, do be mindful of WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT here: no matter how rational you think your argument is for a description being dated, biased, or otherwise inaccurate, you must accord your description in a fashion that is respectful of the balance of the sources.

Lastly, the slight hubris extends to the discussion style: that means of introducing the discussion on the talk page for our article on the United States I would describe as almost calculated to start everyone off in entrenched positions, if I didn't have the context here to believe THWoC had no such intentions. But honestly, my friend, that level of antagonism as the starting point for discussion is only a little south of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and putting aside for the moment the question of whether you might be sanctioned for it, it's just not going to serve you very well in any consensus discussions here. Nobody expects you to woo your rhetorical opponents with honeyed tones, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by blowing into a discussion with an approach that clearly marks that you think your perspective is indisputable and the standing consensus clearly the collectively reasoning of nitwits. A significant adjustment is necessary in this area too.

But what I'm not seeing is someone looking to serve as an apologist for the great tyrannies of the last hundred years. THWoC clearly is a little out of step with consensus on some of these topics, may have a somewhat noticeable bias with regard to communist topics, and after three years still needs to adjust some to our consensus dynamics. And they could definetly stand to dial down the arrogance a little. But I don't get the sense of someone incapable of doing these things and I do believe they are here to contribute to the project's stated mission. I believe no action is needed at this time other than a firm recommendation to ease up on their drive a little. Alien's concerns are not entirely unwarranted here, but I can't endorse their interpretation of the underlying motivation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thebiguglyalien that these edits are difficult to defend and likely indications of POV editing:

1. 17 June 2023, deletes text because book has no page number, when a quote is clearly given and the content is easily found on google. (See analysis below of The History Wizard similarly not citing book page numbers in their own writing.)
2. 16 June 2023, fully cited text deleted, no good reason; hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand that it is possible for there to be more supposed "rights" for certain groups even as there is less freedom overall. This is the clearest indication in this series of edits of POV crossing over into editing.
3. 18 June 2023, another weak reason for deleting cited text when the book is available online.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the Constitution of Venezuela at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from X-Editor because you disagree with it is blind POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree and warn - Pretty clear POV-Pushing based on CP-origin sourcing. Not good-faith editing in simply removing the sourcing. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Carter (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources

After IP2603 stated that The History Wizard’s editing was "textbook WP:CPOV" and "The problem is they edit with that bias", I took a deeper dive by looking at The History Wizard's highest assessed work, to see if POV is evident in their writing. In this sample, it is.

Analysis of POV editing at GA Trevor Carter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As of today's version, The History Wizard is responsible for 88% of the page content. WhoWroteThat identifies the only significant text not written by The History Wizard is the throwaway sentence at the bottom of the article about his family donating a park bench in his honor. Since The History Wizard wrote essentially all of the content, with minor copyedits, I'm not providing diffs. The following sources are useful for examining the article’s anti-US and pro-communism bias. Bias from sources not used or misrepresented: Okojie: Okojie, Paul (October 1987). "Book reviews : Shattering illusions: West Indians in British politics By Trevor Carter (London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1986)". Race & Class. 29 (2): 107–108. doi:10.1177/030639688702900217. S2CID 145052302 – via Sage. Okojie is used, but misrepresented. If anyone wants a copy, I can forward if you email me. All Wikipedia says is that it is a "positive review", when in fact, it is neither positive nor negative—it simply states what Carter states. More problematic is that POV is created by what it (the article) does not say about Carter’s views, when combined with the two sources below that are similarly not used (Brown and Smith E) and say the same things. Significantly emotive and negative wording is used to describe racism in the US, while Carter's condemnation of British racism in general, and the role of the communist party and the left specifically with respect to continuing that racism in Britain, is omitted from the article. The History Wizard has a remarkably different way of treating the US relative to the UK on racism, and has decidedly biased Carter’s own views on racism in Britian and among communists, according to interpretations of Carter’s own writing. Carter reminds us that the Britain to which West Indians came in the 1950s and 1960s was one which rejected, insulted, devalued and discriminated against them ... [more of same, for several paragraphs] ... Carter discusses too the role of the trade unions and the white left in combatting racism ... Brown: Brown, Geoff (1 July 2019). "Tackling racism: the Communist Party's mixed record". International Socialism (163). This source is never used; view in conjunction with Okojie and Smith E, which make the same points. Citing page 140 from Carter's own book: Trevor Carter, also a leading black member of the party, later wrote: "My impression was always that the left was genuinely concerned to mobilise the black community, but into their political battles. They never had time to look at our immediate problems, so it became futile to refer to them. So blacks ended up in total isolation within the broad left because of the left’s basic dishonesty. They still believe they know more. It’s an inbuilt prejudice of people born in the country which was our colonial master.10" Smith E: Smith, Evan (October 2008). "Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race Relations". Science & Society. 72 (4): 455-481. If anyone wants this article, pls email me and I can forward. This source is never used; it delves into Carter’s writings in ‘’Shattered Illusions’’ (describe in the Wikipedia article as Carter’s magnum opus), and supports what Okojie says. None of these views, explaining British racism or Carter’s views on communism’s role in that, are included in the article. The Communist Party continued to recruit significant numbers of black members during the 1950s, such as Billy Strachan and Trevor Carter, who were active in the London branch of the Caribbean Labour Congress ... The split was between those who followed leading West Indian figure Billy Strachan and other members, with Carter suggesting that the reason behind this division was the question of class before race (Carter, 2000, tape 04). ... For Carter, the "stubborn class-before-race position of the Party during the fifties and sixties cost the Party dearly in terms of its [black] members" (Carter, 1986, 62) Bias from choice of sources used: The huge majority of the article is cited to Meddick and something cited only as Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies. See below: Meddick: Meddick, Simon; Payne, Liz; Katz, Phil, eds. (2020). Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism. Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited / Communist Party of Britain. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-907464-45-4. I cannot find this on WorldCat, Amazon, Google books, archive.org, or anywhere else I’ve looked. The ISBN returns as faulty everywhere I check. Can anyone find this book or determine what is wrong with the ISBN? Regardless, we have misrepresentation of sources (see above and below), and yet we are asked to take at face value a large amount of text from a book that can’t be located. Stevenson: "Carter Trevor". Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies. 25 August 2011. Archived from the original on 30 April 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2021. In an article with otherwise mostly complete citations, the author of this ‘’encyclopedia’’ (a personal website, eg, blog) is not listed. That author is Graham Stevenson (historian), and the page tells us it is maintained by his family. When evaluating Graham Stevenson wrt WP:EXPERTSPS, the first thing one encounters is that his article is also written by The History Wizard (so I didn’t go further—I’ve already seen enough to know there is likely bias, and don’t have time to delve in to yet another article). At least it seems more attribution to blog and personal websites is needed here, along with adding that which is missing from more neutral sources. Found now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies, so generally as I thought, but I remain troubled that the author was omitted, which looks deceptive (to make it appear as a real "encyclopedia" rather than a personal website) considering all other citations were mostly complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Bias and puffery introduced by misrepresenting sources: Wroe: Wroe, Simon (20 March 2008). "Trevor, a true fighter for equality". Camden New Journal. Archived from the original on 30 April 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2021. On the matter of the diff posted by Rockstone and IP2603’s description of anti-Western bias, this is evident at Trevor Carter in the Early life section: during this time he travelled to New Orleans where he witnessed the brutality of segregation. (Wroe) His experiences with "Jim Crow laws" made him vow to never live in the United States. (Stevenson, eg, the "encyclopedia") Wroe never mentions "brutality"; that’s editorializing (of the kind that is curiously left out per the sources discussing UK racism above). Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations. The History Wizard does not restrict their original research characterization of the US to one period in one part of the country, as Wroe does, rather goes on to use Stevenson to cite "Jim Crow laws", which Stevenson never mentions. Stevenson says: He visited many places, including New Orleans then at the height of racial segregation in the USA. That experience was so awful that Carter vowed never to go and live in America. That is, besides never using the phrase designed to draw negative emotions (Jim Crow laws), Stevenson also characterizes the period during which Carter traveled there. In contrast, nothing in the article on this level describes Carter’s own writings about racism in the UK. There is a clear contrast to how The History Wizard treats the US and how they treat the UK (complete omission of racism, while using language to evoke the maximum negativity relative to the US racism). In fact relative to what more neutral sources say about Carter’s own views and communism and racism, the article has only the mild, "Elaborating on his political alignment, he claimed that there was a lot of racism within local Labour Party branches", as if Carter’s criticism applied only to the Labour Party—three sources listed above say it also applied to communist orgs. We do get a brief hint of what may be missing with the (underdeveloped) text: "After the CPGB dissolved in 1991, Carter joined the Labour Party". While The History Wizard wholesale deletes text they disagree with when a book source doesn’t include a page number, here their own writing fails to identify either a page number or which section of the article (chapter, heading, otherwise) the text can be found: Schwarz, Bill, ed. (2013). West Indian Intellectuals in Britain (eBook). United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. ISBN 9781847795717. This book has 11 chapters; at minimum, a Chapter title can be given. Inserted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) K. Smith, Melanie (2015). Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies (ebook). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317664208. Retrieved 3 May 2023. A 304-page book with 11 chapters. Inserted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Cashmore, Ellis (12 April 2002). Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations (ebook). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134773886. Used to cite a direct quote, found in the section labeled "Reading", which should be provided. Inserted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This is an 82-page report; no page numbers given (Carter is mostly on page 34, but there's more to be trawled through). Struck, my mistake, page 34 is given in the citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) The History Wizard does not universally use page numbers or chapters or section headings themselves, making it additionally difficult to accept that as their only reason for deleting text they disagree with and more likely the deletions are another reflection of POV editing. Skipping through the middle portion of the article, which goes well off-topic into other individuals, we get to things like SYNTH from this source, which never mentions Trevor Carter, and random other puffery throughout, like: "Carter became a qualified British teacher" (is there such a thing as an "unqualified" teacher in British schools, I ask—maybe there is?) "In 1986 with the help of Jean Coussins, Trevor Carter wrote his magnum opus" ... from what source comes "magnum opus"? "In 1998 Trevor Carter, a lifelong admirer of American political activist Paul Robeson," … where does the "lifelong admirer" come from? "Jeremy Corbyn, at the time an MP for Islington, was a great admirer of Carter," ... where does the "great admirer" come from? These are examples of plain vanilla puffery; all of this combined with the lack of access to Meddick, and likely bias from the Stevenson blog, make me wonder if any of the article is neutral. I understand admins are loathe to involve themselves in conduct content disputes, but at what point does civil POV pushing become a behavioral issue? It looks like the whitewashing concern has validity and that The History Wizard's editing at articles related to Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea and other similar states should be subject to some restriction. We shouldn't wait 'til we have another Polish situation; communism is whitewashed at Trevor Carter, and a different standard is applied to the US and the UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I'm in awe. Great analysis. Re: the Meddick book, I paged through the entire set of book listings on the publisher's website, no such book listed. I found a book review on a blog; ISBN fails, and it says published by the UK Communist Party whose site can't find that book. I did find an announcement of the book on the Communist Party's website; reading the description, this would probably not be an acceptable source: it's a package of biographies written by friends, family, activists and historians (I question how many are actual "historians"). Apparently the PDF can be downloaded (I'm not going to try it). Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The Meddick book is on the publisher's website, see it here. Have a second glance at the "blog", it is the website of a historical archive called the Working Class Movement Library which is supported by Salford City Council. Also in that blog post, at the very bottom it does admittedly say it was published by the communist party so I can understand the confusion but this is clearly a mistake. If you look at the book's back cover it says the communist party's heritage programme helped support the book's publication (likely through author contributions and oral interviews contained in the book) but doesn't credit it as the publisher. I recommend downloading the PDF and having a look through the contents. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Meddick book was "Published by Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party"; it is copyrighted to the Communist Party, and Manifesto Press has "proclaimed itself republican and anti-imperialist; secular and feminist; anti-fascist and anti-racist; committed to working class political power, popular sovereignty and progressive culture". Excerpts from the first two pages include:

• "The people you read about in this book shared a desire to bring to an end a society based on exploitation and oppression, to establish socialism...This is their story, told by comrades, friends and family, in their own words."
• "The one thing that unites each and all, is pride in and ownership of, a ‘card’, they were members of the Communist Party, a revolutionary Party, striving for peace and socialism ... These ‘Red Lives’ are a testimony to lives lived in hope and determination. We are sure that they will inspire you as much as they did the editors."
• "In early September 2019, in anticipation of its centenary, the Communist Party wrote to its membership asking for recommendations of past members, no longer living, who might be included in a collection of life histories. Red Lives is a selection of these."

Yeah. I'm not convinced. You can find the book at this link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Since it's directly relevant to this analysis, I'll say that I first thought this was looking into after checking the sourcing in Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1, and their subsequent reluctance to remove a self-published source by Graham Stevenson (historian). Stevenson's article was created by History Wizard, and Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You say "Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian". However it took me a minute to look on google scholar and find at least three academic articles he wrote for an academic journal published by Liverpool University Press. If having your historical research published in a journal by a well respected university doesn't make you a historian then what does.The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth might explain what kind of credentials make one a historian, and also opine on the Meddick book published by the "Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party" (with a non-working ISBN and not found on WorldCat). I believe some sort of educational degree in history is a starting point (Stevenson's article says he left school at the age of 16), but Ealdgyth will know better. I notice that the lead of Graham Stevenson (historian) says he's a historian who specialized in x ... what independent source supports that text? It appears that Wikipedia has conferred upon him the status of historian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, a historian is someone who has some training in history in a university setting - i.e. not just taking general history classes but classes that touch on the actual process of research and how to interpret sources. So a class that requires one to do original historical research would be a minimum. Failing that, I'd expect to see publications in a number of academic journals or having books published by scholarly publishers. In this specific case, I note that the three articles found above are published in Theory & Struggle which Liverpool University Press notes is the "journal of the Marx Memorial Library", which Stevenson is specifically noted as being the treasurer of, which makes the publication of articles by him in that journal .. a bit less independent than would be desired. Two of the articles listed show the author blurb, neither of which call him a historian nor give any academic affiliations. I'm not impressed with calling this person a "historian" - he seems most notable as a labor leader.Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Yes, there can be unqualified teachers (i.e. teachers without Qualified teacher status) in some (and only some) British schools, for a variety of reasons that are too boring to go into here. But the "qualified" seems somewhat spurious. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. In UK, private schools don't require PGCE.

I am scratching my head on this:

"Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations."

Jagmanst (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Also is it biased to say segregation was brutal? Did I miss something? Jagmanst (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, iPad typing again, had to dash out just after I hit send, and whatever I meant to say in that sentence, it is now just another of my infamous typos (maybe when I can catch up and re-read, I will remember what that sentence wanted to be ... have struck for now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite, in that case, a wikilink for the benefit of non-UKers would be good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not persuaded by SandyGeorgia's analysis.

1. They list sources in Trevor Carter article without page numbers. We don't know who inserted these sources since no diffs are given. Many people have edited this article, which has been reviewed and given GA status, placing it within top 1% among articles in the Wikipedia project.

2. The content removed by TWoC due to lack of page numbers has already been shown not to reflect bias one way or the other. See comment by Aquillion.

3. The allegation of bias seems to rest on segregation in the US being referred to as brutal, and a reference to Jim Crow laws. Describing segregation as brutal or referring to Jim Crow laws is neither original research nor biased. Nor is questioning US's leadership in human rights in a talk page (the other 'evidence' for bias cited).

4. I didn't see the stylsitic concerns (referred to as puffery) in the article indicative of bias.

Jagmanst (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Look again. And see WP:DCGAR for perspective (hundreds delisted at once).
2. This section is about content written by The History Wizard at Trevor Carter, showing a double standard wrt use of page nos as a basis for deleting text.
3. The allegation of bias rests on choice of sources, content not included at all wrt communism and race, and sources chosen. The two sentences of misrepresenting one source merely lead us to worry what else is misrepresented in sources we can't access.
4. That's unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm growing curious as to why an editor with less than 300 mainspace edits is so invested in this discussion that they feel the need to repeatedly reply to everyone who comments here and lecture them about what proper editing looks like, even though they apparently don't know that page evaluation tools can tell you what portions of the article were written by whom, that GA status is decided by one person with little oversight, or that WP:IMPARTIAL tone without judgemental language of any kind is one of our core content policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope you aren't pulling rank (WP:PULLRANK).I am sorry if anyone thinks I have lectured to them. I have given my honest assessment to this case, as I think I am allowed. I believe wikipedia does have a systematic bias but not in the direction people have alleged here. I think the editor being targeted here is doing good work, and on the basis of evidence presented should be allowed to contribute freely. Jagmanst (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

While I forgot to add that they should also be encouraged to stay away from articles about the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add, I commented in response to SandyGeorgia's post, because they referenced their analysis in a reply to my prior comment. I am not "repeatedly" replying to everyone, and never replied to anything TBUA has posted here. Jagmanst (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not (yet) troubled by your responses to my responses; you were right to ask for diffs on who inserted the sources, and in adding those, I did find one error, so thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't think Thebiguglyalien is remiss in being curious about your investement as a fairly new account in this matter, considering your persistence here after only 300 edits, and that ANI is your second-highest page edited (after Sengoi). Your userpage indicates you are a Wikipedian in Residence; how did that come to be for a new editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Graham Stevenson (historian) is a POV title;[8] the article should be moved to Graham Stevenson (trade union leader) before anyone else is misled about the nature of his "encyclopedia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to moving the Graham Stevenson article that I wrote but I wasn't "misleading" anybody by calling Graham Stevenson a historian. I discovered Graham Stevenson through his historical research on Britain's socialist movements, including his multiple articles in an academic journal belonging to the University of Liverpool. I then later learned of his trade union activity while researching the article. I wish you had just asked me to explain my edits before going nuclear. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have work so I'll need adequate time to respond to everything but I have this to say. For whatever faults you find in my work, if I were really such a sneaky POV pusher then I wouldn't be frequently inviting both experts and experienced editors to comb through my work. This all started after I began working with Thebiguglyalien to review my article on David Ivon Jones (which I'm still grateful for despite his views on my editing), conceding to 90% of his suggested changes during his GA review. @SandyGeorgia just put a POV template on my Trevor Carter article, again one which I submitted for GA Review and invited experts to comb through. I was so proud and confident in that wiki that I even linked to it at the very beginning of this dispute. For my Billy Strachan article, the largest wiki page I have ever created, I've gone through everything from a peer review, then onto an (unsuccessful) FA review, and I'm currently on another GA Review. Inviting countless experts and experienced wiki editors to tear into my work is not the modus operandi of a POV pusher. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Where did I omit the author? Also how could I possibly omit the author of Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia when his name is literally in the website address and there's a giant banner with his name and face on it when you follow the link? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Here, I inserted the author yesterday which you omitted from the very first edit and up until yesterday. Since most real encyclopedias don't have individual authors for each entry, by leaving off the author, the fact that this a self-published website is obscured. (By the way, you've got many of the same issues with problematic sourcing raised here also at Billy Strachan, now under review by User:Llewee at GAN, as well as others which I can detail when I have more time, but including failed verification and too-close-paraphrasing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not thoroughly examined all the links above, probably there are a number of issues where it is acceptable to assume good faith, but the double standard regarding sources (immediate removal of sourced contents with the excuse that the page number is missing, while he himself introduced book sources with no page numbers given) is hardly defensible. --Cavarrone 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Where have I ever challenged somebody for deleting one of my own citations that did not include page numbers? I'm within my 3,000 edits there were cases where I mistakenly missed a page number, but if somebody deleted my mistakes then I would consider that fair game and correct myself. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an unlikely scenario. No one has removed your citations just because removing a citation for lack of a page number is inappropriate, and I don't recall anyone but you removing citations with such a weak justification. Cavarrone 09:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Warn about sourcing and POV editing wrt autocratic governments: History Wizard, it's not a question of being intentionally deceptive or sneaky; many editors who edit with a POV are unaware that their POV affects their editing. You would be naturally inclined by your bias to label Stevenson a historian when he is not; this could cause a GA reviewer to think the source is a good one, for example. You are using a double standard on page numbers to remove text you dislike, but more importantly, using marginal and non-reliable sources to support pro-communist party content, leaving out balancing content from better sources, misrepresenting some sources to introduce an anti-US bias, all as in the Trevor Carter example, and confirming your pro-CP bias as seen in the diffs given in the discussion, where you also made unnecessarily inflammatory remarks on the US talk page, raising additional concerns about an anti-US bias.

I think the POV at Trevor Carter can be fixed by adding in the better sources you failed to use, but I don't see how it can retain GA status with the use of two marginal sources (a self-published "encyclopedia", and a book from a communist press that no one can find). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck and switched to proposed topic ban, considering FOARP feedback on the longevity and previous awareness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Other examples of POV editing

@SandyGeorgia - Just FYI - Meddick, Payne, and Katz are all prominent members of the Communist Party of Britain (Meddick is head of a large local branch, Payne is chair-person of the party as a whole, Katz is head of communications). So that's a communist party-authored, communist-party published source, and BulgeuWu/The History Wizard uses it EVERYWHERE. He's well aware just how dubious a source it is, just as he knows how dubious anything from Lawrence & Wishart (a publishing hosue set up by the communist party) is, but even after basically conceding it shouldn't be used on one page you'll see them using on another.

The POV pushed is always the same - some random communist party member is an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-fascist hero, and they are because the communist party said they are. For example the statement that Harry Pollitt "ran an anti-war and anti-colonialism campaign against British colonialism in Malaya, publishing leaflets which exposed atrocities committed by British troops during the Malayan Emergency" was sourced by BulgeuWu/The History Wizard to a single pamphlet authored by Harry Pollitt and published by the communist party. They have persistently tried to add this content back alongside a reference to Harry Pollitt supposedly leaking photos of attocities to the Daily Worker - however when you look at the source they are citing for this it makes no reference to Pollitt having done any such thing. The POV-pushing is far too consistent to be a simple mistake. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

FOARP if you could provide diffs to support that The History Wizard was made aware of their dubious sourcing and yet persisted, I would press for a topic ban. Could you provide more detail on the pamphlet you mention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I raised the subject of Red Lives being an inappropriate source to The History Wizard (then editing as BulgeUwU) on 14 September 2021. They responded uncivilly. They have repeatedly used the same source since then (1 2 3 - just a random sampling looking only at new creations). They are also aware that Lawrence & Wishart is an non-independent source (see diff) but then still advocates using them (see Harry Pollitt talk page). The pamphlet Malaya: Stop the War! is not available online but is in the Imperial War Museum collection as published by the Communist Party. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; it is interesting how civility issues evolve towards civil POV pushing, as admins are typically loathe to engage the content issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't see that your deletion of my well sourced information about Harry Pollitt's anti-colonial activism as indicative of your own biases in your editing? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the comments I made further down about the sourcing for those additions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

When cleaning out after the move from Graham Stevenson "historian" to Graham Stevenson (trade union leader), I encountered another example of the effect at No Other Way:

• Puffery corrected that was inserted by The History Wizard in February 2023.

My deep dive at Trevor Carter was perhaps not deep enough, and I suspect that Thebiguglyalien was on to something about whitewashing that may be more widespread than we have yet touched upon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Jim Prendergast (revolutionary) probably needs attention, based on the sourcing and puffed title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Battle of Carfax seems to warrant more attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I saw the truth in Korea, stopping there (most of the articles created by The History Wizard are bios, and probably their entire body of work needs review-- no sense in continuing to list them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, you are faulting The Wizard for not using Geoff Brown's article in International Socialism. The magazine is published by the Trotskyist Socailist Workers Party and the only info about the author is that he is a member. You are basically faulting them for not including fringe views. Do you yourself routinely add Trotskyist perspectives (or any left-wing ones for that matter) to articles? TFD (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, read more carefully-- I added that as an example of three different sources covering that pov that is left out of the article, including from one source that The History Wizard did use, while omitting that content. Specifically, The History Wizard used Okijie (misrepresented) who covered that same POV, while omitting Smith, as well as Brown, who both covered the same content ... and it's clear that in his own words from his "magnum opus" book, Shattering Illusions: West Indians in British Politics, as described by Okijie and Smith, Carter was critical of the communist party with respect to racism. Yet we have The History Wizard including (and embellishing with original research) Carter's criticism of US racism while omitting his criticism of communist-party racism. Double-standard, POV editing, cherry picking, and pro-communist, anti-US whitewashing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Billy Strachan: more issues, including source-to-text integrity and close paraphrasing/copy-paste identified at Talk:Billy_Strachan#Sourcing. After Mujinga raised to The History Wizard on 18 May 2023 the sourcing problems at Wikipedia:Peer review/Billy Strachan/archive1, The History Wizard did not correct those issues before presenting the article to WP:GAN. Strachan is extensively cited to Horsely and Morning Star (British newspaper), a British tabloid with communist roots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yeonmi Park, BLP VIO: After Mujinga explains the problems with sourcing to a British tabloid on 18:57 18 May, The History Wizard uses it in breach of WP:BLP at Park on 03:23 19 May. I suspect that Yeomni Park needs a serious review for BLP vios, and will next bring it to the BLP noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Tabloid removed but The History Wizard still has 44% authorship on a BLP in the area originally identified by Thebiguglyalien for POV editing (whitewashing North Korea), so a deep dive on this BLP is needed. I posted to BLP noticeboard. Whitewashing political content is one thing; using tabloids to defame living persons on BLPs is quite more serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Did all the cleanup I could at Yeonmi Park, but stopped after a full day because I'm concerned there is more close paraphrasing than I have time to deal with. It's as if two entire articles (Washington Post Sommers, and The Diplomat) were used in their entirety with slight wording changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A few more articles where THWoC is the primary author:

• Malayan Emergency – One of the main subjects of the POV pushing, edited to present the UK as the villains in a war against a Malayan communist insurgency.
• Information Research Department – British intelligence organization, edited to give undue weight to a WP:CRITICISM section
• Morning Star (British newspaper) – Far-left British newspaper, edited to be overwhelmingly positive and to make the UK look negative. Editors identified misrepresentation of sources on the talk page. Our friend Burrobert jumped in to defend the POV version.
• Also worth noting is their edits to Cuba, which removed thousands of bytes of info.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal: The History Wizard of Cambridge

Through the discussions above, we now have pro-communist party and anti-US POV editing including puffery, source-to-text integrity problems, faulty sourcing and some indications of what may be deceptive editing or double standards at least identified in the discussion above and at:

• Trevor Carter
• Talk:Billy Strachan
• Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1
• Graham Stevenson "historian"
• No Other Way
• Harry Pollitt
• Yeonmi Park (BLP Vio after being notified, see above) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As FOARP has indicated, these problems have been brought to The History Wizard's attention since 2021, and as Thebiguglyalien has indicated, the whitewashing is widespread, and from FOARP, persistent and long-standing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for The History Wizard of Cambridge, formerly BulgeUWU, broadly construed, on all discussions and topics and articles related to autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism. Cleanup is needed across many articles, and we should not delay so another Polish or Nazi whitewashing more deeply permeates Wikipedia content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I support a topic ban for The History Wizard of Cambridge, broadly construed, per analysis shared by SandyGeorgia above.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• I also support a topic ban of the same scope as SandyGeorgia. I originally supported just a warning, but seeing all the pieces put together, and what appears to have been attempts to smuggle POV-pushed articles through the GA process (where many reviewers understandably tend to assume good faith in the sourcing), a more serious measure needs to be taken. I also have to say that it strains credulity that a new editor's first edit would be to italicise the title the Malayan communist leader Chin Peng's autobiography, or even one in their first few months, and strongly suspect that Wizard edited for a long time before that - either way they ought to know better. A Tban will give Wizard a chance to work in areas where the POV they seem interested in promoting is less relevant, and so the chance of disruptive editing is less. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think don't think WP:TE applies unless they show a pattern of disruptive editing, which would be provided by a history of sanctions. TFD (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @TFD So do you support a lesser sanction? And if so, what sanction? Like I said in my support !vote, I suspect THWoC has been an editor for longer than three years and thus should know better, but even if they were a new editor in January 2020, where are they supposed to get a "history of sanctions" if we don't sanction what appears to be a consistent pattern of behaviour in at least some way? FOARP (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. I do not think you can show a small number of edits by an editor and infer a pattern. OTOH, you said that none of these edits on their own are sanctionable. All you say is that he his edits show a particular POV. But the same can be said about a number of other editors, including at least one who has posted here. Why would we sanction an editor who sees Guantanamo Bay as a violation of human rights and not those who don't? There has been btw discussion about which descriptions to use for the U.S. in the lead and some editors (of which I am not one) think that some of the positive descriptions should be removed.

  Going forward, I think you should take any possible POV violations to ANI or AE as they arise.

  To establish long term TE, you should show that the editor has argued a point long after consensus was obtained. Or that they have edit-warred, posted opinions not related to the wording of text or made personal attacks. I can't accept the view that although they have done none of this, that a handful of edits that another editor has picked can used to show a pattern. TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is not their personal POV - my grandfather was a communist, I lived in a communist country and had friends in the communist party so whilst I disagree with communism it is not an unknown quantity to me.

  It’s the pushing of that POV by repeatedly using sources they’ve been advised not to use. It’s the use of those sources to state something that no reliable independent source says is true just to further their POV. It’s smuggling that stuff into a GA by taking advantage of reviewers assuming good faith. FOARP (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's a long string of advice that The History Wizard ignored. FOARP lays out sourcing issues advised and ignored since 2021. At the June 2 closing of the Billy Strachan FAC, the sourcing issues were clearly laid out by three different editors (Buidhe, Lingzhi, and Guerillero), and yet, without making a single edit to the article in the interim, The History Wizard nominates Strachan for GA on June 30, with those same sourcing problems still in the article today, along with close paraphrasing/copyvio and source-to-text integrity problems. There's not only a POV problem; there's an WP:IDHT issue as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @TFD - I'll add that in other cases (particularly Lugnuts) I've seen that withholding from sanctioning a large amount of bad behaviour and giving the person doing it a "second chance" just resulted in them seeing that witholding of sanction as an endorsement/vindication of what they were doing and a redoubling of the bad behaviour. Additionally, having basically told them that doing a large amount of misrepresentation/IDH/POV-pushing doesn't even, in your view, warrant a warning, why would you expect that doing individual acts even could be something that could be referred again to ANI? I see why someone might say a TBAN is excessive even if I disagree in this case, but not even supporting a warning is just basically inviting them to not just continue their behaviour, but to behave even worse. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  My last experience with FOARP was when he deleted my well sourced additions to the Harry Pollitt wiki and then he came here. For those who don't know, Harry Pollitt was instrumental in exposing never before seen British war crimes in Malaya. Despite citing work published by Oxford uni press and written by Harvard history lecturer Erik Linstrum, he still felt the need to delete it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  THWoC: I just took a look at those edits. You provided two sources - the pamphlet itself, which is obviously an affiliated primary source, and also a book by Erik Lynstrum. I just searched in that book (on Google Books) for the word 'Pollitt', and it gives me only one hit, on p295, which looks like it's in the list of references. Is Google missing something - does the book actually cover the pamphlet in any depth on page 47 as your citation suggests? Or is it a mention so fleeting that it doesn't actually name the author of the pamphlet? If it is the second, then I can easily see why someone would consider it UNDUE, especially for it to be mentioned in the lead. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit, I have the physical copy of Erik Linstrum's book Age of Emergency in front of me opened to page 47. The page discusses the Daily Worker's role to exposing cases of British colonial violence. {{font color|red|"The paper ran more photographs in the days that followed; all showed British soldiers posing with corpses, or parts of mutilated corpses, as trophies. "We cannot plead ignorance," CPGB leader Harry Pollitt declared in a follow-up article that appealed to "restore Britain's honor" by bringing the war to an end. Although no other newspapers reproduced the photos, several ran stories describing them, and the colonial secretary was forced to concede in Parliament they were genuine."}} It describes how a newspaper founded by a party that Harry Pollitt was a member of, published stories that included Pollitt's own work, forced the colonial secretary to publicly admit to instances of colonial atrocities. It seems very notable that this figure's writings ended up influencing the actions of such a high level of government. I've tried a few times to increase the content on Pollitt's wiki to include information on his role in Britain's anti-colonial movement. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm confused now - does the book mention the pamphlet at all? It sounds like the book makes a brief mention of something he wrote in a newspaper article. Have I misunderstood that? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  On second inspection it does not mention the pamphlet. I made an error and mixed up Pollitt's articles on Malay with the pamphlet. The title of the article was "Stop This Horror" and the title of the pamphlet was "Malaya: Stop the War". The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think that it might be this sort of thing that people are concerned about? You seem to be trying to add stuff to the article that you think is important, whereas what we ought to be doing is summarising what the authors of reliable, secondary sources think is important. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, but in your efforts to make that article reflect your own perspective, you were sloppy with the sources, and misrepresented what they say - and you even went as far as to accuse FOARP of bias further up this thread for pushing back against that. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @The History Wizard of Cambridge - you see, this is the problem. You say "Harry Pollitt was instrumental in exposing never before seen British war crimes in Malaya" but literally none of the sources you've cited say he was "instrumental" in any sense. They say the Daily Worker published photos and Pollitt authored a follow-up article. There's no evidence that Pollitt was personally driving any of this - it could have been a subordinate of his or a member of staff on the Daily Worker who did this.
  

  And this is not an isolated case. In every one of your CP-member biographies I can find the same embellishments, always using communist-party-origin material to push the same POV (communist party members were anti-fascist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist heroes). Billy Strachan's article literally opens with "a British communist, pioneer of black civil rights in Britain, human rights and anti-colonial activist, charity worker, newspaper editor, and British legal expert" - now, I respect Strachan's military service but it has to be conceded that the source for most of this is stuff published ultimately by the Communist Party of Britain (particularly David Horsley - a CPB member - and the book Red Lives, which was authored by CPB's chairperson and published by CPB) and without that most of this is just unnecessary hyperbole. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  How is all of this going to be cleaned up? At the last huge cleanup effort I worked on, the banned editor had friends who were willing to carry on with more of same until also t-banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support misrepresenting sources in favor of your personal bias is disruptive, and arguably more so than obvious POV that can be quickly identified. THWoC has shown an inability to identify and correct their bias on this topic, and in some cases seems to be resorting to IDONTHEARIT behaviour. A topic ban is well-merited here. AryKun (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: For reasons stated in my above comments. All I see is editorial nit-picking plus some rather quaint allegations of bias for referring to segregation as brutal, and referring to that period as Jim Crow. These allegations seem to me as attempts to whitewash segregation. Jagmanst (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trevor Carter (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources and #Other examples of POV editing for a full representation of "these allegations" with respect to cherry picking of sources and POV representations of racism in the UK and the communist party relative to the unsourced statements added by The History Wizard to Trevor Carter regarding US racism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per TFD, Jagmanst and my comments on this issue above. A warning is one thing, but a topic ban is overkill IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @C.J. Griffin - then you support a warning? FOARP (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm neutral on a warning, oppose the topic ban. C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - not even a close call. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Repeated and persistent misrepresentation of sources is an insidious disruption of the project and one of the most difficult to prevent, unlike blatant vandalism. THWoC's edits to the topic area can't be trusted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much per SG's cogent reasoning. Luckily, being a wizard, the editor will have no problem doing a disappearing act from this topic. SN54129 17:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per all the above. A warning will do nothing. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have had to restore properly sourced information removed by this user on numerous occasions. Eyudet (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Can you give me a link to these edits so that I can see what I did? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  The removal of ABC News and Radio Free Asia despite both being considered reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES are two that immediately come to mind. Eyudet (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a sad state of affairs when some of the charges laid include being technically correct about things. The only form of correctness is technical correctness. This seems like excessive nitpicking aimed at punishing an editor for not holding mainstream POV. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the comments I made above. In attempting to defend themselves from accusations of bias, THWoC accused FOARP of bias for reverting some 'well-source additions' that were not, it turns out, supported by the sources THWoC had cited. I'm sure they are acting in good faith, but I don't think they properly understand how to write neutrally about a subject they're passionate about, and I think that a period of time being restricted to writing about other stuff would benefit them. After six months or a year of productive and problem-free work in other areas, they could ask for the TBan to be lifted. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The issues raised are to some extent a result of editors holding different political opinions. Some examples of comments about THWoC that are political statements:

- a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies

- Promoted Holodomor denial on the article of a Holodomor denier

- they hold an anti-Western bias

- concerns about an anti-US bias

- hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand …

- communism is whitewashed at Trevor Carter

- some random communist party member is an anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-fascist hero, and they are because the communist party said they are

- pro-communist, anti-US whitewashing

- pro-communist party and anti-US POV editing

- is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the Constitution of Venezuela at the same time their overall rights were degraded?

I have not checked all examples provided in this wall of text. I will mention here some examples with which I disagree.

THWoC was accused of a BLP:VIO at Yeonmi Park because they used the Morning Star as a reference. Our Perennial listing says “All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed”. The text introduced by the Wiz was This sentiment was shared by a writer for Britain's oldest socialist newspaper, the Morning Star, who accused Park of fabricating stories for financial incentive …”. The text has been properly attributed to the Morning Star.

Regarding the removal of text at the Communism page on 16 June 2023, the Wiz did provide a reason for the removal and, since the text was not re-added to the page, it appears other editors agreed with the removal. The text that was deleted included positive and negative assessments of Communism.

I don't think it is helpful to write that "I ... strongly suspect that Wizard edited for a long time before that". Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you, too, need to read WP:BLP in conjunction with WP:RSP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert - "I have not checked all examples provided in this wall of text" - yet you are !voting here? And not responding to the main substance of what people are saying about THWoC? Particularly his tendency to misrepresent what sources say repeatedly, always to promote the same POV?

And again, I don't think it is unfair to doubt that adding italics to the title of (Malayan communist leader) Chin Pen's memoirs was really THWoC's first edit on here. Nor is it likely that they had only be editing for a few months at that point since their first edits on this encyclopaedia were a slew of edits of the kind that typically people only make when they are pretty familiar with wiki, all focusing on the same topic (the Malayan Emergency, in which British authorities battled a communist insurgency). It is of course entirely possible that THWoC was editing as an IP prior to signing up as BulgeUwU and there would be nothing wrong with this - but the point that they are hardly a new editor here stands in either case, and therefore need not be treated like a new editor who is not aware of our PAGs. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Take a poll to see how many voting editors checked every claim made in this wall of text. I checked a few and found them unconvincing, but am not interested in spending more time reading through them. I also found the tone of the accusations had a strongly political flavour. Burrobert (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion is basically a few editors atracking another editor, with a stupendous amount of text, allegations and verbiage, and nit picking criticisms, which are repeated again and again. I have no idea how one or two editors can post so much and WP:Bludgeon does not apply. Jagmanst (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst - Not sure who you're talking about on this thread as offending WP:BLUD, but since you're replying to me: I count 16 comments by you on this thread, and I've commented 10 times. If you are accusing another editor it would be better to be specific as to who. FOARP (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has posted a stupendous amount of text here. My bludgeoning concerns are mainly regarding their contributions. Jagmanst (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - But I don't think this has to be a permanent topic ban. I'd suggest that History Wizard take a break on this topic and then come back after 6 months or so have passed, and try to be a more neutral editor. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Having read the argument made above in the original analysis, I'm satisfied there is a problem. The analysis looks and reads reasonably decent. There seems to be a slight NPOV, whether its human error, favouritism in some manner, or intentional bias. Either way, it cant go on. I saw a comment about opinions above. Its not about opinions. You leave your opinions at the door. They are for the pub, not here. Even if it was opinions, your intellectual rigour and internal ethics would preclude you from doing that, assuming it is not intentional. You would self correct as you want your work to shine and survive the long term, like for decades. It could be human error. You do get into a rut occasionaly if your doing a lot of stuff. Your read sourcing and you try to faithfully represent it, or you think you do, and then you copyedit it later and you realise its wide of the mark. That has happened to me several times and I've had to go back to fix it. But at the moment it has to stop, as its adding more work for folk. It shouldn't be permanent. Lastly you can't spin your own web here. You have to use what is the sources and nothing else. No adding words here or there that you think it might need. scope_creep^Talk 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Last words before I'm banned: I need to get to work and I awoke to 66 notices so I'm sorry that I cannot respond to everyone. There's clearly some serious issues with my writing style and when it's all laid out Infront of me, even I can see that my personal views have deeply permeated my work. Within my 3,000+ edits I've used emotive language which injected puffery into my work, I was rude and combative with other editors, my attempts to save-face dug me into a deeper pit, and in some cases my personal views led me to cutting corners by using sources that weren't the best quality. I stand by that most of the accusations made by Thebiguglyalien and others are easily explained and justifiable, and that my specialist knowledge and expertise in topics largely neglected by fellow editors has done far more good for the wiki than bad. However that doesn't change the fact that the deep dive into my GA article for Trevor Carter has proven even to me that I have made many mistakes and that my work isn't as great a quality as I thought. Perhaps this could have been avoided had been this much in depth examination of my work and style when I was reaching out for help and criticism. I still feel as though I have plenty of energy and knowledge to contribute, so if this subject ban is happening then I will greatly appreciate it if any fellow editor reading would kindly help me to switch topics so that I can contribute to wikipedia in some different area. Since most of my specialist knowledge of 20th century history (anti-colonialism , black civil lights, women's rights, etc) all heavily link to socialism in one way or another, I would appreciate an editor helping me to navigate this ban. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The History Wizard of Cambridge I haven't reviewed all the evidence in the thread above, but assuming this Tban goes through (I will confess to putting a lot of store in the judgment of some of the people arguing in favour of it), I'll give you this advice: find a different area to write about, one which you are interested in, but not passionate about. Most of my content work is about historic buildings. I am interested in the subject - I enjoy visiting castles, mediaeval churches and the like. I enjoy reading about them, and the history of the people who built them. I'm not an architectural historian however - I trained as a geologist, worked for many years as a geophysicist, and am now a primary school teacher. Buildings are just an interest - I don't care enough about any particular building that I feel tempted to puff it up, or to distort sources in order to write about it in the way that I think it ought to be written about - I just summarise what I find in the sources. If buildings don't do it for you, you might consider sport, or literature, or whatever floats your particular boat. Just stay away from politics (even if the Tban is restricted to 'communism and socialism', I'd urge you to just give politics a miss altogether to avoid being accused of pushing the boundaries). Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great advice to everyone. Being passionate about a subject is the downfall of many Wikipedia editors; editing with a dispassionate interest is the best way forward. Any subject that provokes an emotive response is probably best avoided. I'd add that you don't need to be particularly knowledgeable about a subject area to contribute to it - much of the joy of editing Wikipedia comes from finding information in reliable sources as opposed to coming in with an opinion and trying to find sources to justify it. WaggersTALK 11:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Another thought is that there is a LOT of gnome work out there to be done. New article patrol. Tag cleanup. Whittling down giant backlogs of unsourced articles and reviews of drafts. Anti-vandalism patrol. There's close to an infinite amount of it out there.

With that, we don't see many editors who accept an impending ban as positively as you're doing. Kudos for that. Ravenswing 12:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I was about to say the same thing after The History Wizard's 09:53, post, but then he accused FOARP at 10:36 (above), and this post to a GAN reviewer leaves me cold. There was a previous peer review, and a previous FAC-- both where multiple competent FA-level reviewers identified the same issues that The History Wizard had not changed before wasting a GA reviewer's time on the same content without making a single change before submitting it to GAN. And yet they were waiting for a fourth opinion at yet another forum-- disrespect of fellow editors and their volunteer time. It looks like Thebiguglyalien turned up a big can of worms that is going to require a lot of cleanup, and I hope that will be without interference from those in support of The History Wizard's work. I was initially impressed with the outright apology, and willing to believe The History Wizard just didn't have time or was too overwhelmed by the 67 posts to apologize for all the wasted reviewer time on Strachan and the three other GA noms, but then they went after F0ARP again, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope that will be without interference from those in support of The History Wizard's work – I wouldn't be so optimistic. I suspect that some of the users who believe sanctions aren't necessary (though certainly not all) are worried about the precedent that this discussion sets because their editing style is very similar to that of THWoC, de-prioritizing the accurate summarizing of sources in favor of inserting negative information about democratic nations and/or positive information about autocratic nations. I hardly believe that THWoC is the only editor doing this, or even the most active. They're just the one that did it in a way that was easier to notice and brought attention to the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The section title, some comments, as well as the topic ban proposal seem to be introducing a false equivalence between autocratic government and communist regimes. Similarly, some users seem to be equate criticism of the US/UK with criticism of liberal democracy (for an example of both, see the immediately above post by TBUA accusing THWoC of de-prioritizing the accurate summarizing of sources in favor of inserting negative information about democratic nations and/or positive information about autocratic nations). From the evidence gathered here it's quite clear that THWoC has been editing in a way that is partial to communist/socialist regimes, movements, and individuals associated with them, and critical, perhaps exceedingly so, of the US (and some of its allies?). However, we should remember that communist/socialist regimes make up only a fraction of the authoritarian/autocratic governments in history. Excluding monarchies, think of Putin's Russia, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, Nazi Germany, the plethora of Latin American dictatorships that flourished during the Cold War (many of them, by the way, sponsored and/or backed by the US - just one of many reasons why equating criticism of the US with criticism of liberal democracy as a form of government is disingenuous), interwar dictatorships in Europe, the Franco regime, Oliveira Salazar's corporatist experiment... There is no evidence of THWoC editing in support of any of these regimes, so to propose a topic ban on all discussions and topics and articles related to autocratic governments or individuals is unduly broad, and would potentially forbid an active editor from participating in an area where he could prove useful, that might be of interest to him, and where he's not as invested. I would, on the other hand, unreservedly endorse a more focused topic ban on articles related to socialism, and communism, where the user has repeatedly proven unable to contribute without wearing red-tinted glasses. Ostalgia (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The user is clearly engaging in original research. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be editing disruptively User:Maphumor. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some WP:SYN going on with the sources. User:XYZ 250706, can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like 'this page is not your personal, everyone can edit' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:XYZ 250706 thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 You can see in revision history of Next Indian general election in West Bengal, Next Indian general election in Kerala where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Punjab etc and sometimes contest in edit war. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think @Shaan Sengupta can give some more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for resolving disputes for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, Lourdes 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes@Ramos1990 See Revision as of 15:59, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 19:48, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 21:16, 16 August 2023 Revision as of 08:38, 19 August 2023 etc XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am giving more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Revision as of 21:21, 19 August 2023 XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Yes I see there is some edit warring going on and I see you gave User:Maphumor a warning on their talk page [9]. I think that since they did not follow WP:BRD after these reverts by not starting discussions on talk pages, and instead kept on editing (for example [10], [11], [12]) sometimes edit warring for days; they should be blocked or sanctioned to prevent such constant behavior. It looks WP:DISRUPTIVE. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706 @Ramos1990 @Lourdes It looks like @Maphumor also has a habit of not explaining his edits by giving an edit summary. As I said above User has engaged in original research and revision links above show that. Not editing with WP:NPOV. Cases of Wikipedia:Edit warring. All these things go against Wikipedia's guidelines Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta There are still more links that I can give. But it will take long time for me. User:Maphumor sometimes do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that XYZ 250706 has on multiple times sent threats of blocking on User:Maphumor(talk), because of a content dispute. I am not seeing any collaborate attempts to engage them in a discussion about the content. Or explaining to them rules such as the need to start a discussion following WP: BRD, or WP:3RR. Further, when this user has replied to their block threats, no attempt was made to discuss with them. Rather they were basically told to 'stop'. I am seeing a violation of WP:BITE, and WP: CIVIL. This new user, I beleive, will feel they have been railroaded. They are likely engaging in this 'disrputive behavior' because they don't know the conventions here. I propose, the users engaging in content dispute, make a honest effort to include this person in discussions, instead of threatening them. If I misunderstood, please send me evidence of more sincere attempts to engage in discussion. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jagmanst@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta Not only me, many editors have warned him by giving a hint of block. That was not only content dispute, he was adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is literally what content dispute entails, when one editor claims another is "adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring".

  You claim the content as per someones edits is wrong, well discuss it with them in a civil manner. They might disagree with your characterisation. Threatening a 4 month old user with blocks on your first comment to them is not collaborative.

  I note there are other editors too who are trying to shut them up with threats of blocking, instead of actually engaging in a discussion as WP:CIVIL requires. I am not impressed. Jagmanst (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  It was explained in edit summary why his information was wrong and sufficient explanation was added. In his initial days of editing, he was warned for adding other election table in another election also. Then his words like this page is not your personal, everyone can edit do not also maintain civility as well. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  He was warned in edit summary also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  • "this page is not your personal, everyone can edit". That is not uncivil. They are actually refering to WP:OWN. I agree with them. You don't own the page. They are not obligated to defer to you. You both need to discuss, and if you cannot come with a consenus, seek dispute resolution. Jagmanst (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    I know I do not own the page. I never claimed it also. But the act of adding other election table in another election is indeed a vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    I doubt he edits in Wikipedia reading the policies. Even after I informed him about this discussion, he did not join this discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Jagmanst@Ramos1990 What it means actually referring to WP:OWN? How User :Jagmanst is so sure about the fact that User:Maphumor's words were not personal attacks and were for good means. Besides stopping vandalism does not mean I am claiming the page as my property and there was no such words in my comment in his talk page. Besides I think the discussion is probably deviating from the main matter of discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Besides I am not supporting the word threats here. I used words like please stop, may be blocked. Threats and warning have difference in meaning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jagmanst, I see on theUser:Maphumor talk page that a few other editors ([13] & [14], [15]) have given Maphumor warnings and some advice, specifically by User:Dhruv edits on using talk pages. At some point with 5 months of editing, Maphumor should already know to use talk pages to settle differences instead of engaging in edit warring. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see two editors repeatedly using threats of blocks as a way to shut this user up to win a content dispute, instead of engaging them in a good faith discussion. The "advice" was basically do as I say or I'll have you blocked. Jagmanst (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says that the responsibility of getting consensus on disputed content is the person inserting the disputed content (in this case Maphumor). Even still edit warring and getting reverted by multiple editors should be enough for anyone to rethink their editing habits. Plus Maphumor has replied in talk pages before and there is no good reason for them to not use it to resolve disputes. After 5 months of contributions with 1,500 edits, they are not that unaware of how this is supposed to work. I would understand if this was a few edits in 5 months, but over 1,500? Clearly this editor needs to consider the community when they get reverted and seek consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 Vandalism (adding wrong information, blanking content) and general content dispute are indeed different. There is nothing to win or lose in stoping vandalism (which User Jagmanst has termed as content dispute). User:Maphumor is generally not keen in participating discussions. Otherwise, he would join this discussion also. I had informed him of this discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not vandalism, i.e. intentional efforts to disrupt the project. Nor have you shown any evidence they are intentionally being disruptive. All I see is their (perhaps misguided) edits as being branded as vandalism. Please read WP:VAND and WP:AGF. Jagmanst (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 User:Maphumor added election table of Karnataka 2023 election in Next Indian general election. So it is not vandalism, it is taken to be constructive? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 Are his acts of blanking content without citation or explanation, original research, edit warring according to Wikipedia policies? He contests in edit warring many times. Out of which, few examples are given only here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh

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

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely.". These were the two attacks they had made [16] [17]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

1. At Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [18] [19], despite it having no relevance (MOS:ETHNICITY) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
2. Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [20]
3. This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

WP:NOTHERE if you ask me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to acting like an angry mastadon) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see this fruitless discussion. A classic WP:ADVOCACY issue: they wrote We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong. I wrote back Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I have given them a ctopic notification. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Tekosh, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up WP:PILLARS, WP:NOT and most importantly, WP:V and WP:RS. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at the Teahouse is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, Lourdes 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another WP:NPA towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [21]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [22]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. Lourdes 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.

I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.

But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes forgot to tag you. :) Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under WP:Content policies. Thank you, Lourdes 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I have read the Wikipedia:CONTENTS. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. Tekosh (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at this link? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. Lourdes 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read many including: Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Things make more sense now. I will be active within those guidelines. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, thank you for taking the effort to read these policies (and guidelines) up. Just for your benefit, please also read up the policies (and guidelines) given under CONDUCT too. And finally, do remember, CONSENSUS takes precedence when we discuss issues on the talk pages of articles. If multiple reliable sources have supported some contention, and if there is consensus on the talk page to include that, it doesn't matter if you believe that the contention is wrong (or right). Go by reliable sources, not your personal beliefs and knowledge. I will close this discussion here and archive this in a few hours, with the hope that your name doesn't re-emerge here on this noticeboard for any other issue. Happy editing. Lourdes 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I'm sorry but really? That was why I commented earlier. None of what I wrote above has been addressed. I am not surprised that Tekosh ignored it, but you as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks my friend. I obviously understand logic and all you gave me was logic. I agree about the reliable sources and am on the same page as you now. I will read the policies as well. Now I’m curious about many things that didn’t have a good grasp on about Wikipedia. @Lourdes Tekosh (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran. The intent is to correct unproductive editing, which emanated from the editor's misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of our policies. As they have confirmed their growing understanding of our editorial policies, I expect them to have better sense in their discussions going forward. You may of course continue with your topic ban proposal below to prevent this relatively new editor from engaging in this area. Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban from all Kurdish-related articles

• Propose topic-ban from all Kurdish related articles: While there barely goes a week where I don't get attacked, such things should never be treated so casually. I am not someones punching bag. Let's see what Tekosh has said in their short amount of time here:

• "Dude, whoever you are I don't care but I know for sure you're a racist person. Her name was Zhina. Will you please respect the kid who died for this huge uprising? Her government name was Mahsa because they didn't allow her Kurdish name. Her own mom calls her Zhina. Have some decency! You're no different than the Barbaric Mullahs! I will publish all your racist comments about Kurdistan and Kurdish people all over social media."

• "Can we block someone for being racist? That HistoryofIran user is a genuine racist person."

• "Persians have been trying an intense appropriation against Kurds. We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong."

• "I am here on Wikipedia to stop Persian's appropriation against Kurds."

And after they used the excuse of being "new" and trying to do good at the Teahouse, they randomly attacked me again, in a 10 year old talk page section: "That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.".

A person doesn't change from this in the blink of an eye. Tekosh is clearly apologizing and saying that they "understand" to avoid the consequences. As Edward-Woodrow perfectly put it, Tekosh seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. If truly Tekosh means what they're saying, then I'm sure they can demonstrate it in other topics where their personal feelings aren't so strong and disruptive to this site. Let's not forget that they already received their last warning in October 2022: As you may have expected, since you have continued to use your talk page for another personal attack while you are blocked, your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. I shall also increase the block length to a week. If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. That is not how Wikipedia works." --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In the news discussion of Lucy Letby

I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

• Sentencing nomination for Lucy Letby
• Conviction nomination for Lucy Letby

A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:

1. "But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"
2. "Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"
3. "This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"
4. "Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the whole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The really sad part is that these two discussions are barely even outliers. I've about given up. —Cryptic 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

(I do want to note that - taken in context - Jayron32's comment isn't hostile to UK editors; it's hostile to editors that are hostile to UK editors.) —Cryptic 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

ITN is, by quite a long and obvious way, consistently the worst quality feature on the main page and ITN discussions are a sinkhole of appalling behaviour. It's inexplicable why it continues - but it does and it's untouchable. Just one of many Wikipedia mysteries. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a good opportunity to point out that Today's Featured List runs twice-weekly in a dusty corner of the main page, when the list of FLs-never-on-TFL is substantially longer than the list of FAs-never-on-TFA and if given a permanent big four slot would have plenty of material for years. Vaticidalprophet 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I was reading this comment and thinking "I should ping Vat into this discussion" and then saw the siggy... berk jp×g 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we're at the point where arbitration is necessary. Everybody seems to be in agreement that ITN/C is uncivil and toxic, but in all the times I have seen it brought up, nothing ever gets done. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble picturing what an Arbcom decision that fixes it would look like. Honestly, just putting it out of its misery is the only answer. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur, as a longtime watcher from the sidelines there. Not sure what (if there are) any solutions are, though. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. It would probably help to summarily ban some of the worst actors from the area or perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole, and to authorize sanctions over the page in general (instead of just part of one side, like we already have with WP:AP2 - I haven't been able to decide whether it's good or bad no admin's been willing to enforce it on ITNC). Though I'll admit I've also been mulling starting a proposal to just remove ITN from the main page. —Cryptic 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to say I support the tone, phrasing, or even the majority of the sentiment in these comments, this commentary comes on the heals of a premature posting of this story in a short period of time regarding an event of questionable sustained impact for which many of the initial support votes simply cited high coverage, which is something that is always a tenuous main reason for supporting given such a concept is debatable in it's criteria, and I think it's fair to argue that this story is more of a passing one to the non-Brit population. And this story comes on the heels of several contentions death blurb nominations, such as the Michael Parkinson one. There is a growing discontent with inconsistent blurb procedure and bias in particular at ITN (which I think is very much present and certainly not limited to UK-related stories, but Western ones broadly speaking), and more and more dubious nominations and questionable postings recently have really put people off. And I hate to say it, but Fakescientist is fairly close to the truth here, even if not right on the money. If such a murderer had been active in a non-Western country, we probably wouldn't bat an eye, mostly because Western media in general doesn't give a **** about what happens outside of the West under most circumstances. For example the Mahach Kala gas station explosion would probably have been posted had it happened in, say, the US, the UK, etc. Personally, I think Jayron not assuming good faith is the real violation here. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Having long observed (and remained extremely reticent to participate in) ITN discussions, it seems there are factions of American and British users who are convinced that the other represents a critical mass of regular users who routinely shoot down nominations involving news from the other country. This in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many such editors then get extremely prickly when an item involving the other country is posted, or are more inclined to support nominations from their country in response. Add in the inherent tension of ITN discussions—major, real-world tragedies being callously reduced to their "notability"—and it's a recipe for the brutal and toxic environment that's festered on that board. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

These...don't really seem particularly egregious? Is it not normal for ITN discussions to evaluate the global relevance of a topic? We get far worse characterizations of groups of editors at AfD every day. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In theory, global relevance should not be a major feature of discussion, as WP:ITNATA says that "arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful." But it's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry into actual discussion much. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete ITN already ... Banedon (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Two things. 1) You really ought to ping the users whose comments you quoted (I will do it for you, in a moment). 2) I really don't think my comment was hostile to the UK or its citizens, and if it is being interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rockstone35 informed me of this discussion. For context, I am one of the more conservative users on ITN. My record reflects contrarianism; going against the grain is the strongest vote a user can have. Supporting a nomination that which only falters in article quality is an unnecessary vote and detracts from work I could be doing elsewhere on this site. The sentiment here that ITN is Anglophobic and anti-U.K. is an egregious exaggeration of ITN and this particular situation. Before detailing why I wrote that comment, I should take the time to inform users on ITN's environment and why consensus opposed the Lucy Letby nomination. ITN is a partisan forum because it relies on personal points of view and biases to generate discussion. ITN reflects both its users and the news. The definitions of both have changed; the 2010 Stockholm bombings were posted but would likely not be today, as was the authenticity of Sunset at Montmajour, the posthumous royal pardon of Alan Turing, AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV, the conviction of Abu Hamza, and the encyclical Laudato si'. At one point, Pokémon Go was temporarily added to the ongoing section. In recent years, ITN has shifted to a global focus, driven by Wikipedia's global reach, and it is conversely facing pushback from younger and newer users who believe ITN needs to reflect their perspective.

The Lucy Letby nomination was opened and attracted plenty of attention from British editors who believed that it was notable on the basis that they had heard of Letby. The discussion was closed very prematurely before being pulled because it was U.K.-internal news. The nomination wasn't pulled because of Anglophobia—I'm American, as are plenty of people here, and I have no issue with British editors—but because it was only relevant in the United Kingdom. Editors often cite the second rule of ITNCDONT but neglect to see its purpose. A train derailment in Pakistan is exceptional for what it is. A woman murdering seven infants is a horrible story but only exceptional because the United Kingdom rarely has such stories. I wrote the comment in the way that I did not because I felt that it was vengeful, but because I felt the need to state what I was observing. A focus on stories from one particular country is much to be avoided regardless of which country it is. The U.S. happens to have this issue to a much larger degree because it is a larger country, but ITN has molded to reject any mass shooting with less than a dozen deaths.

ITN is valuable because it provides readers with an accessible ticker to which they can click on individual stories, and it provides a running obituary where editors seek to improve articles on people that would otherwise go untouched after reflecting the past tense. Dismantling the system presupposes that toxicity is rooted within ITN itself when it is the juxtaposition of ideas that is breeding conflict. The increasing use of hidden archive templates is not a promising sign for ITN's longevity, but this period of disagreement will subside. Editors need to be vigilant and respectful; fortunately, Wikipedia has systems for the former and punitive processes when the latter is not represented. In a worst case scenario, I would not be opposed to the enforcement of contentious nominations à la contentious topics. Ultimately, editors who are meek and understanding will be met with respect on ITN. Such respect wanes when editors choose to be obstinate. This is not a flaw of ITN in particular, it is a flaw in humans. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We’ve had our disagreements before, but I can’t succinctly and clearly sum up the situation any better than you have spectacularly done so. Brilliant comment.

This arb case is a gross misrepresentation of the system, and in attempting to accuse users of supposed Anglophobia it almost seems almost to bolster the concern of pro-English bias. The Kip (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I was accused of anglophobia despite being British! Just horrible environment. Secretlondon (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Firstly, I’d like to second Rockstone’s comment regarding not pinging those who have been mentioned on ANI, as it’s typically normal procedure to do so. Secondly, I’d like to take the time to point out the fact that my comment (and some of the others) were meant to take aim against U.K.-based items frequently being posted, not the UK/its people/editors on Wikipedia from the U.K. Thirdly, the item in question was regarding a nurse who had killed seven babies. Horrifying? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely, and I’m not trying to downplay its affect on the families or the general UK populace - but if seven people would die in a tragic event like this in someplace like China, or India, or Australia, or Canada, or any African nation, or even the U.S., then I feel as though consensus probably would not develop to post those items to ITN, unlike how it happened here. Regardless, I can confirm that my comment had no intention of wishing harm or bringing anti-U.K. sentiment to ITN, and if it did end up being interpreted to mean that, then I apologize, as I personally have nothing against the U.K. or its people. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe there is no intended maliciousness, bigotry, or anglophobia in your comments FS. I suspect everyone here can readily take you at your word as to that. But here's the problem: ITN has become habitually (and I mean in pretty much every single one of it's day-to-day determinations) disconnected from any of the normal policies which govern how much weight to show to a given topic. Large numbers of the regulars there routinely oppose entries along "X country gets enough attention in the world already." rationales. Even though ITN's own inclusion criteria clearly advise against this kind of argument, it is absolutely omnipresent: the last four times I've been RfC'd or otherwise passed through ITN in the last few years, the majority of the proposals had comments that were constructed exclusively around this sentiment. In if it's not objection based on geography, it's some other personal, idiosyncratic objection as to why the subject isn't "really" important, when you think about it.

  Now, that's all problem enough in itself, from a content perspective, but the real issue is that because the space has become so completely unmoored from any objective, source-based test, it is an absolute hotbed of subjective sentimentality, and all the usual value-based flame wars that define so much of the open forum of the internet. You see, the precise reason we have an WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT-based test as the only kind of metric of "importance" on this project is to short-circuit those kinds of arguments based on personal perspective, by tethering our determinations of inclusion to an analysis that takes the personal perspectives of our editors out of the equation.

  ITN lacks that objectivity, and so instead there is a constant cultural tug-of-war there based on the values and biases of the individual contributors as to what is "significant" (that is to say "important" enough to mention. As a consequences, it has become without question and without even a remotely close competitor, the single most consistently toxic, disruptive, and unmanageable space on the entire project. And for the record, I am including ANI and AE for comparison. I'm sure there are many there who, like you, have no particular hate in your hearts for the residents of other countries, but many of those same editors nevertheless are clearly on a self-appointed mission to fight systemic bias, one ITN candidate !vote at a time, and that only further inflames the issues there, actually elevating the overall levels of bias, and the pitched battles that result, in the space as a whole.

  And I know for a fact that these issues have been raised there many times, and the regulars have failed to heed community concerns or make even the most marginal efforts at reforming the space. So bluntly, the cost-benefit ratio for the project has been in the red for many, many years, and I agree with others above, it's time to cut this diseased appendage of the main page off. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think everyone can acknowledge that many votes are nonsensical in their rationales, which harms the process, but calling it a diseased appendage is absolutely absurd. The real solution is to just empower admins to be more decisive on not counting unproductive votes, which is already policy but I'd certainly support it being followed even more strongly. And it's quite clear, I'd say, that the "significance" issue is a broader one throughout Wikipedia, where no one gives a you-know-what about WP:DELAY and posts an article on anything they THINK might be notable. WP:ITN/R attempted to codify certain events considered as automatically notable, but itself faces issues, none bigger then WP:CCC. And I absolutely understand your concerns regarding the tug of war between nations at ITN, but I would say a lot of this is derived from media bias itself, which explains why not just US or UK news, but both dominate ITN at any given time. I think it's policy that should be revisited here rather then taking a TNT approach. We can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which is what every proposal regarding changes to ITN seems to be. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Someone make a VPP proposal already. I'm ready to !vote to close ITN once and for all. I have held out hope for years that the space and its processes could be reformed to work consistently with this project's policies and values, but it's never happened, and the talk pages associated with it have been a chronic source of disruption and toxicity, as well as a recurrent drag on community attention and resources that far exceeds the value our readers extract from the feature. Not withstanding the "for all" above, perhaps we can relaunch it in the future with tighter constraints and a more objective basis for decisions made in the space, avoiding the kind of culture war nonsense that currently defines its daily arguments, but I don't think it's possible while it remains live and functioning as it is. Please, please someone competent construct the proposal, and notify me when it goes up. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yep we should get rid of it, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd say keep the "recent deaths" but for the rest, if people want to edit WikiNews then they should go and do so; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WikiNews needs more contributors.

  Just to correct @Fakescientist8000's comment, the Letby saga isn't a case of a nurse killing 7 babies. She was convicted of 7 murders, with 5 more counts potentially going to retrial and might have been responsible for many other deaths that weren't part of the court case. It was Britain's longest ever murder trial and probably the UK's biggest instance of serial killing in the 21st century. But none of that takes away from the point that this story seems to be of limited interest outside the UK. WaggersTALK 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  (1) The toxicity of those debates is in the eye of the beholder; they're not that bad.

  (2) If the real problem is that US readers don't want to read UK news stories, can't we have regional variants of ITN that display depending on your geographical locale?

  (3) Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway? Don't they belong on newspapers? Encyclopaedias are supposed to provide information on a very wide range of subjects of lasting interest, while ITN is about providing information on a very small number of things that are interesting in this precise moment. Diametrically opposite aims. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Elemimele The purpose of ITN has always been to encourage the improvement or articles or the creation of new ones. Regionalizing it would be difficult and imperfect. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway: There is some background at Wikipedia:In the news. —Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If paper encyclopedias had the text information of over 100 Britannicas like Wikipedia does and also as much image information as Wikipedia and were as up-to-date as Wikipedia (they'd have to be magic like Harry Potter newspapers) then they'd definitely have an article on things by the time they reach ITN. Encyclopedias have simply moved on. Britannicas also had yearbooks for each year and every few years or so articles were rewritten before they became too out-of-date, Wikipedia is simply a more advanced version of that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have come to think ITN should be more like Recent Deaths, with much less room to object on notability or newsworthy grounds. I don't know the specifics on how that would work so I've never offered a proposal, but there is too much voting on, in essence super-notability. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  And some cite "systemic bias" to discount what is actually in the news so that it is not posted on "In the news". —Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  My thinking largely aligns with 331dot. Focusing our efforts almost entirely on improving articles and not worrying about some "extra notability" hurdle to clear to make ITN would improve the working environment immensely. --Jayron32 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I recall RD was trialed before being fully implemented. We could trial whatever changes are made(like removing supernotability discussion somehow). 331dot (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty much just Current Events. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and? --Jayron32 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes and what? Current events already exists, therefore there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think therein lies a problem. The current events portal is an easter egg currently. Multiple attempts at fixing that have failed. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Make VPP proposal to mark ITN historical and start the discussion about what to replace it with. It cannot be saved. We recently tried banning problematic editors; they were quickly replaced. Levivich (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that saving it is impossible, but even if what you suggest is done, Recent Deaths could just be expanded to fill that space. No need to come up with something else. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem isn't with what kind of text is on the webpage. The problem is the people. Anyway, this is a discussion for the pump. Levivich (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm with Lev on this one: if salvaging anything like ITN on the main page is going to be feasible in the longterm, I think it's going to need to happen by TNTing and rebuilding from the ground up. The issues have been as apparent from inside the rotting building as from without, and yet I have observed nothing there except deeply entrenched commitment from most of the regulars to their self-presumed right to judge the abstract "importance" of events from a personal and idiosyncratic basis, with all the inevitable clashes of perspective, values, bias, and personality that entails. Not one in ten of the regulars even abides by ITN's own proscriptions on arguments, and those are the rules they ostensibly all agreed to among themselves, once upon a time! Fixing from within the space is obviously a non-starter, and I expect that even a reformatory process at VPP would become an absolute quagmire of conflicting outlooks (and probably no shortage of surly offense that we are trying to take away the right to decide for the main page's half million daily viewers what, in all the world's happenings, is important enough to know about.

  No, much more sound for the community excise the problem altogether and then have a second, even deeper conversation about whether to replace it with something similar, and make the stakeholders buy into the process of building (and thus internalizing) new, more objective, and less disruptive rules for moderating the processes. Doing this piecemeal will only lead to cloudier revised standards that many will just avoid comporting with, to the maximum extent possible, in order to try to preserve their old standards, expectations, and methodologies, with all the entitlements as arbiters of the important that they currently enjoy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever we replace it with will likely inherit the same problems that have plagued ITN for years at this point, assuming it would still be something relating to current events. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Others have said points I would make (this far from what has more uncivil behavior in the past; that the issue of these noms stems from the rapid posting based primarily on UK editors' !votes,leading to the national aspect issues). But this case epidemic of the broader issue that we broadly are violating NOTNEWS. There are a contingent of editors that create news ates on any event no matter how insignificant it is. And I think some of those also want to push ITN to be more on line with headline news, rather than the original purpose of feature high quality articles that happen to be in the news. This has created a rift of how ITN should be handled, which has been discussed at length on its talk page but without agreement on any solution because of this divisive rift. And that I don't know if we can fix without addressing the broader NOTNEWS issue, pointing editors to Wikinews if they want to focus on current events and keeping our focus on encyclopedic topics, some which will be news studies with clear enduring coverage. Masem (t) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is largely fixed by focusing on currency rather than newsiness. If we are only concerned with the recency of an event, and on the quality of the Wikipedia coverage of the event, we don't have to worry about if the event is "newsworthy", merely that it's something that's happened recently (so is broadly "in the news" in the most general sense) and that we have a really good article about. --Jayron32 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic comments about the motives of the original poster

Comment I' @PicturePerfect666:, there's literally no Anglophobic sentiments in the quoted comments, with the closest being Jayron's, which, if we're using these standards, was rather anglophilic - he was attacking the "anti-UK" side. As stated, most of them were not out of hate for the United Kingdom, but more over the perceived bias towards British stories, especially when compared to American stories. The immediate WP:ASPERSION casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG on the part of PP666. By that logic, every anti-US-centrism on ITN is Ameriphobic, which, considering some of the statements that have been made in that department, would hold more weight, but still be largely generalizing. — Knightoftheswords 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Please refrain from making personalised comments, these are unhelpful subjective observations on your part. What you may consider to be something interpreted subjectively one way. may subjectively be seen by others as something else. Please also do not post threatening comments which amount to a SLAPP-style comments of "The immediate WP:ASPERSION casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG on the part of PP666." What you are failing to see is that the comments are exemplars used to illustrate a point, not attacks on the commentors, and by you making a SLAPP-style comment you are having chilling effect on participation and raising issues. You cannot bring up an issue like this without examples and the only examples available are comments made by users of Wikipedia. Before you state 'legal threat', it is not. I am simply drawing an equivalence from the legal world which fits. Please withdraw your comments which are an attack on my motives for posting this item. your comments are also an attack on posting this kind of observation, and it can cause and does have a chilling effect cowing people from raising these issues. Also before you come back with No no no how dare you, these are my subjective opinions of your subjective opinions on my posting of this item. I am not attacking you, simply pointing out my subjective observations. I am not saying posters get immunity, but the way you have come in and stated what you have is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and is not in anyway constructive. Again this is also my subjective opinion. It is also in my subjective opinion emblematic of the toxicity that is on ITN/C. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) I mean, you just labeled at least four users as Anglophobes; literally stating that they think ill of the United Kingdom and the like for simply opposing a British story. That's essentially what you said above, which is very much an WP:ASPERSION. — Knightoftheswords 12:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) I stand by posting the examples, I reject your aspersions and weird conclusion jumping, that I have painted those four users as anglophobes, I also have no interest in continuing this Twitter-like discussion on this board. If you wish to file a complaint go ahead, but this is just chest-puffing off-topic personalised commentary at the moment. If you wish to continue this kind of discussion then you know where my talk page is....though don't expect me to engage with you there. I am now formally stating to you that i am not responding to these comments from you as they are toxic and totally unnecessary and seek only as distraction from the topic at hand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Would there be some way to turn over this small section of the main page to Wikinews? (See also: Wikipedia:Wikinews, m:WikiNews, and n:Main_Page.) I mean, we have a whole project dedicated to this, with policies and guidelines and everything. And I say this noting that I kinda appreciate that I can read ITN occaisionally. But it sounds like we're attempting to re-create the wheel in this section? - jc37 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I kind of like the idea, but there's a tricky cycle involved where Wikinews is...quieter than might be viable (I recall in late January 2021 seeing that it hadn't been updated since the 4th -- "well, good thing nothing in the news has happened since January 4, then"). While big-four attention might help this, it also might result in the preservation of the "extremely slow news ticker" element. Obviously Wikinews would also have to consent. (I still think TFL is a viable big four candidate.) Vaticidalprophet 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that sounds like an opportunity than a problem. Instead of having a "big 4" in a 2x2 grid, put them in a left-side column, and put the Sister projects along the right hand side (NOT hidden), to help inspire/nudge people to go there to read and edit those prohects as well. We don't do third-party ads, to be sure, but we really seem to do a poor job of advertising our sister projects. And having them buried "below the fold" as it were, on the main page, really seems less-than-helpful. - jc37 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, turning it over to Wikinews(which isn't terribly active anyway) misses the point of what ITN is for(please see WP:ITN. It isn't to be a newspaper, but to motivate the improvement or addition of articles and highlight them. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the goal, wouldn't a link to Category:Current events do that? Template:Current adds articles to a dated subcat. - jc37 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  That only tracks recentness, but not quality. Because we are highlighting articles, those articles should represent some of WP's best work. ITN does link to Portal:Current Events for those seeking other topics in the headlines. Masem (t) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's consistently failing to do that. There was a comment on ITNC recently that stood out to me, opposing a western (I think US [yes, the Hawaii wildfires]) news story for being an example of systemic bias. Not because we were considering posting it, but because if it had happened in Mali, then editors wouldn't have gotten it to the quality that ITNC could post it. All the other Main Page sections update at least once a day; lately ITN blurbs have been averaging closer to once a week, and not for lack of sufficiently-improved articles. Of the four bullet points at Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose, we're objectively failing at least the first, second, and fourth. —Cryptic 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with your assessment- although Wikipedia is not responsible for bias in the news media; which is why I think removing the ability to object on notability grounds might help. I think RD functions well and ITN would be helped to be more like it. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The ability to object on notability is the best way to combat media bias. Otherwise you are probably determining eligibility by frequency of coverage, which is the main symptom of such bias. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here's an idea to piss everyone off! Toss out DYK and OTD, expand ITN to give enough room for both the UK- and America-centric news articles as well as a "rest of the world we don't care about unless it's a major disaster" section. Ban all politicians from RD that weren't long-term leaders of countries. Ban any subjects whose activities (during life or upon death) weren't reported on in at least 10 national newspapers of record. Today we have entries on the Shiba Inu Cheems meme dog (most notable topic by far), a captive orca, an Italian opera singer, and a trio of unspectacular American politicians whose names 99.5% of Americans wouldn't recognize and 99.9% wouldn't care about, including an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, a NY senator, and a judge for the middle district of Alabama. (Didn't we recently have a protracted debate over whether Barbara Walters was notable enough around the globe for RD? And yet these people are??) JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, we didn't. We had a discussion about whether she was notable enough for an ITN entry, which is completely different. Every person with a Wikipedia article is notable enough for RD if their article is up to scratch. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah my bad, then. Is there not a limit to how many RD entries can be posted at a time, or their geographical breadth, if the only criteria an article has to pass are "not a stub" and "sufficient quality"? JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Joelle, I think you misunderstand RD. RD does not assess notability, merely article quality. Thus no matter if the person is JFK or (Special:RandomPage), they are considered eligible for posting as long as their article is up to the minimum quality standard (WP:ITNQUALITY; largely the same as DYK's). The discussion about Walters was if she was notable enough for a death-blurb, which is completely different from RD. Geographic distribution is such a big deal for RD as we can't control who dies and where they are from, only their article quality; additionally as there are only six RD slots (the goldilocks zone, not too few and not too many), RD has a full cycle every day or two if things are running smooth. Curbon7 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here's an alternate idea to piss everyone off: Abolish ITN, expand DYK and OTD, and have two featured pictures. Divide the now-expanded DYK into three sections: Culture & History, Science & Technology', and Art & Politics. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment II, on the state of ITN - I've seen the writing on the wall for months, and I knew it was going to occur; we were finna exhaust the community's patience and get dismantled. Here's my two cents. I, and many others across this mini-project and the broad project believe firmly in the purpose of ITN. If I didn't, I would have left months ago, and if the community hadn't, it would have been dissolved years ago. I personally made it my mission to attempt to reform the processes of this mini-project, and despite several times of complete and utter disillusionment and anger, I've remained and attempted to persist. I am apart of the problem; I can be crass, disruptive, rude, and intolerant on ITN/C; a contagion certainly supported by the rest of the mini-project. My spat with Jayron in the earlier of the listed noms are indicative of this.

ITN hasn't faced any serious crisis to force reform of the system; compare it to the culture wars in the west, in which critical issues like transgenderism, the role of men and women, work-life balance, dating, etc. are currently unanswered since we're wealthy enough that we can feign outrage over them and self-flagellate over our inherent moral superiority over the opposition, while not actually solving the issues at hand. WT:ITN has always been amusing to me, since most discussions will feature massive, götterdämmerung conflicts over key issues relating to the very purpose of ITN, where dozens massive walls of text will be erected and discussions often escalate into toxicity, only for the discussion to fizzle out after a week at most when everyone gets exhausted and just unknowingly passively accept the status quo and move on to another controversy. Just like how the questions of the culture war will be answered when the coming global crisis occurs, this crisis, where ITN is at serious risk of being deleted altogether, will (hopefully) force serious answers.

The thing is that ITN often has discussions and guidelines that should prevent the current state of ITN, but these are completely ignored. For example, last year, there was a successful push on WT:ITN to hat all disruptive comments on WP:ITN/C. Despite garnering consensus, it has rarely been seriously enforced.

The issue, I think, is that many on ITN simply are too-conflict adverse in the stuff where conflict is actually desperately needed. I think the story of Fuzheado (talk · contribs) is a prime example of this. One of the primal examples of ITN's weak-willedness is how !votes on ITN are more or less counted as votes (this is actually a better descriptor than the reality, in which, to keep the illusion of a !vote-based system, if there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of posting a story, it often won't get posted; meaning that often times, noms have to get a 1/3 minority of opposers to get shut down). Since consensus on Wikipedia is already vague enough, on ITN, many admins when judging consensus simply just choose this system since judging in favor of the posting position will lead to accusations of WP:SUPERVOTING. Fuzheado tried to unlock this system, but people labeled him as a supervoter and eventually took it to ANI, where they threatened to desyop him, and even went as far as targeting other users in the discussion, claiming that Fuzheado had organized members of the WMF to defend him. Shit like this is why many on prefer to not deal with all the drama and be rather passive on ITN.

What we need to do is put our foot down. We've agreed on multiple solutions to combat systemic issues, but they never get enforced because people are two timid and want to avoid drama, ironically leading to even more drama in the long-term. ITN's various guidelines are getting ignored because we let them be ignored. As a mini-project, to save ourselves from destruction, we ought to learn to say "no" and take serious action to defend the fundamental principles of Wikipedia:In the news.

TL;DR: WP:JUSTDOIT. — Knightoftheswords 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Unrelated, but just FYI — transgenderism is a bit of an outdated term, predominately used these days by anti-trans activists.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with Fuzheado was not the supervoting (though this did happen) but the fact that (a) on at least five occasions he posted articles which were not up to scratch, with citations missing, (b) posted articles without sufficient time for consensus to form, (c) on at least one occasion posted an article with BLP violations in it, and (d) wheel-warred to post an entry which he had already voted in favour of. And there were other issues as well, over a long period. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have opened an idea lab discussion with some ideas I have to remove notability discussions from the ITN process, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Changes to ITN. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Slightly wider, and thus equally unfocussed, I find myself agreeing with those who think the ITN section has outlived its usefulness. On the plus side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles. On the negative side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles.

I wonder if we could have some sort of crosswiki conference with Wikinews, where we could take their headlines in return for exporting more editors to them? Of course, they are much smaller and might crumple under the weight of the extra new editors, and, with something like 90% of their active editors being in North America, the headlines would be very US dominated.

But an exchange of our new users who think an encyclopaedia is for news for their problems with attracting editors at all could prove profitable for both of our sites if negotiated well.

ITN would have to die for it to work, but, well, I'm okay with that. YMMV. — Trey Maturin™ 20:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think I've come to the conclusion that ITN needs to be put out to pasture. It has long outlived its usefulness. I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would disagree with any proposal to abolish that doesn't keep RD (Recent Deaths) alive. RD is working fine, discussions remain cordial and productive, and serves as a great venue to encourage content creation and improvement. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd oppose any proposal to abolish ITN full stop. Outlived its usefulness? Really? When something big happens one of the first places I look for an overview is Wikipedia (and I know I'm not the only one who does that), and most of the time the relevant articles are linked from ITN - very useful. Anyone saying ITN has "outlived its usefulness" needs to specify usefulness for whom, because they're definitely not thinking from the persepective of a reader. As for ITN/C, it's definitely not perfect but it's the only main page process which isn't hidden behind layer upon layer of instruction creep and bureaucracy, and I think that's a good thing. And I don't believe for a second that DYK and FAC are completely non-toxic and drama-free either. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree whoheartedly with your comment. Khuft (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• ITNC is the place where a. raw vote count and b. entirely subjective opinion count for the most on Wikipedia. That it lacks any type of concrete criteria on which to assess whether or not something should be posted is both its fatal flaw and its most prized feature to a number of editors there. And as such any proposal to rectify its flaws is shot down because people want their own views to be able to carry sway, unlike most other places on Wikipedia (ANI excepted). I dont think it need to be abolished, it definitely needs a way to make it so peoples own opinions on the noteworthiness of something is given the weight it deserves (~0). It needs objective standards. But the subjective voters wont allow that. Shrug. nableezy - 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's honestly rather stunning, the peculiar matter under which ITN operates. As I've mentioned in WP:HOWITN, the documented guidelines, suggestions, etiquette are all ultimately meaningless since ITN/C subordinates itself to an overall infallible principle of "a consensus of editors is all that is required to post something". Necessarily, the inverse is also true in that "a consensus of editors is all that is required to deny posting something", and any group of like-minded editors can come along and essentially say "I've decided we are not posting this ITN/R item today" and that is the end of it.

  What do we do? I think the idea of shutting it down is certainly a tempting one. The reason the standard of significance became so discriminatory is because some editors realized that running every news event on ITN/C is not a good idea because that would run contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, but it feels as if things have been taken too far in the direction now of being stagnant at best, and then violently toxic worst due to accusations of systemic bias, regionalism, parochialism, etc.. Unless we somehow replace that deeply divisive significance standard with a more objective decision-making process that can't be weaponized, abolition is really the only option. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm honest, I don't see how this is fundamentally different to other discussions that happen on Wikipedia. I got involved somehow in the Charles III discussion last year on how to name the page and whether it should be moved, and the vitriol and subjectivity during that discussion seemed to me to be ten times worse than what we typically see at ITN. Khuft (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  That was one discussion, though. With ITN/C, it's a nearly regular occurrence, with the added morbidity of having it occasionally focus around a recently deceased figure whom someone deems transformative enough to merit a blurb instead of a recent deaths entry. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• ITN has its problems, but the suggestion that we ought to mark it as historical is... well, you know... Kurtis ^(talk) 05:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would support a proposal to deprecate ITN for the reasons I outlined here. TL;DR: It's an embarrassment to the project that content on the Main Page is determined by such a dysfunctional process, and I have no confidence that an RfC would result in any meaningful reform. I would support community-authorized general sanctions for ITN as a second choice. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and tasking editors with coming to consensus on what news is not only notable, but important enough to place on the main page (an arbitrary metric) when most news arises on a national level first, is condensing the most contentious parts of wikipedia editing into one highly visible, high traffic location. It's tempting to try and reform it into more global news with some kind of caveat that news must be widely reported on across the world to be eligible (SARS-CoV-2, the Ukraine Conflict) but I fear that in carefully trying to extricate the baby from the bathwater we may just spill it on the floor. If I were a more smug or petty person I might even suggest replacing the current ITN panel with an unchanging one stating that Wikipedia is not a news source, and encouraging visitors to seek other sources for breaking news. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User Fixthetyp0's sockpuppet allegations over Mrs. Globe

Hello,

Fixthetyp0 appears to be having issues with a blocked user named Australianblackbelt.

The user states that the articles Mrs. Globe, Svetlana Kruk and Alisa Krylova were created by Australianblackbelt for the purposes of self-promotion. I created Svetlana Kruk, so it seems I am now involved in this.

His first attempt at a triple AfD was done here in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(2nd_nomination)

The user's second attempt at a triple AfD is now ongoing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination)

Can someone take a look at this? I have no idea what's going on with those two, but it doesn't seem like it's accomplishing anything of value and I don't really want to be involved with this.

Thanks, KatoKungLee (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Went and wrote up an oppose on the AFD and I can second that this is a situation requiring sanctions, because Fixthetyp0 for some reason has beef with the aforementioned blocked user and is letting it spill out onto uninvolved pages. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like Fixthetyp0 is a rather new account with very few edit counts. I do not quite understand why they are having a row with another editor. Is it possible that Fixthetyp0 is run by someone undisclosed? TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that Australianblackbelt was blocked back in January, before Fixthetyp0 was registered. ABB was a prolific self-promoter for themselves and their friends (and is now globally locked due to doing it on other Wikis as well) however and had many dozens of articles deleted as a result. It's not a bad idea to go back through their other creations and see what else is non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

But in this case it is quite evident that these articles are NOT self-promotion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No not self-promotion, but possibly still promotional. They seemed to have many contacts in the beauty contest world and would actively promote non-notable entities in that world through one of them, especially anything even remotely related to the non-notable attention seeker Maurice Novoa (who may or may not have actually been Australianblackbelt) who seemed to have his fingers in every beauty contest and attempted connection to every contestant. So I couldn't rule out a connection. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, As the person in the center of this incident, I just want to say that I was in NO WAY accusing KatoKungLee of anything. I wasn't even paying attention to who created the 2 articles of the Mrs. Globe winners. I was just accusing Australianblackbelt of creating the Mrs. Globe page for promotional purposes only, and was also suggesting the other 2 articles for deletion based on them being nothing more than winners of a non-notable pageant. I am not accusing KatoKungLee of being Australianblackbelt. However, like Canterbury Tail said, I was not saying that Australianblackbelt was making the Mrs. Globe page to be SELF-promotional, but for general promotional purposes. That person could be a friend or employee of pageants for marketing purposes, and I believe created many inappropriate and non-notable pages for promotional purposes (not SELF-promotional). That account was clearly blocked for that reason. I would like to leave KatoKungLee out of this and I am sorry that I was not more clear with my nomination and that it led to an assumption that I was making sockpuppet allegations. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that I have no idea who Australianblackbelt is and have no personal issue with them. I'm not sure why I'm being accused of having a personal row here. To me this is purely a professional issue, as Canterbury Tail pointed out: this user was blocked for making several non-notable promotional articles, and I believe I'm rightly calling out yet another promotional article to be looked at. It is a big shame that the point of AfD is being lost in people making assumptions about personal rows and personal attacks when I couldn't care less about who Australianblackbelt is and only care about the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes (whether self-promotional or other-promotional) for non-notable subjects. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Update I am withdrawing the nomination of Svetlana Kruk at AfD. I feel personally targeted by KatoKungLee and DarkSide830 threatening me with sanctions that that is why I have withdraw this nomination. I apologize that I misspoke and offended KatoKungLee by stating that I think the Svetlana Kruk article is self-promotion; I should have just said promotional and/or non-notable (after this experience, I'm thinking just non-notable maybe makes more sense). I apologize for my mistakes and would like this animosity to stop because it has been an unnecessary source of stress in my life and makes me hesitant about continuing to edit on Wikipedia. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

User:RevolutionaryAct

Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Teenyplayspop: If you want admins to take any action on this, you're almost certainly going to have to provide them with some diffs showing the behavior you're reporting. If you don't know how to do that, see WP:DIFFS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow up Teenyplayspop (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You are required to leave a notice on the editor's talk page—as per the big red box at the top of this page—which you didn't, so I've gone ahead and done so. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have been made aware of a discussion about my edits. Please allow me to defend myself:

First, one can edit whatever subject they want to my understanding on Wikipedia, provided that the page is not locked or restricted. Working in one area does not disqualify a person, or otherwise there would be no subject matter experts or people working on what interests them.

Second, the edits that I made on other pages regarding "alt-right" figures - Tina Peters, Gregg Phillips, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - are largely critical of them, their claims, their history, etc. so to accuse me of partisanship and activism is unfair and unfounded. Furthermore, all of the sources presented come from reputable sources and are properly cited.

Third, the very page which you are using as evidence against me regarding Andy Ngo has a hyperlink in it which takes one to a separate civil case against 2 of the 5 initially sued/charged, and it describes them as "left wing activists":https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-loses-civil-lawsuit-against-portland-activists.html

That article links to the following article: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/right-wing-writer-andy-ngos-lawsuit-against-portland-activists-begins.html

Which links one to the following in which Ngo sued Rose City Antifa and named the 5 defendants, 3 of whom were in the original article, and 2 who were dismissed in the civil suit. The defendants have not denied affiliation, nor has Rose City Antifa, nor have they contested anything he claimed or showed up: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/conservative-writer-sues-portland-antifa-group-for-900k-claims-campaign-of-intimidation-and-terror.html

Given that it was in the original lawsuit and no parties have denied or stepped forward to contest these claims, and all media has referred to these defendants as left wing activists, it is understandable to see why one would consider them Antifa. However, even if we remove the name Antifa from the article, it is unfair to accuse me of hyper partisanship and try to remove my editing ability or punish me over one word.

Partisanship certainly cuts both ways on this website and none of us are perfect, but it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page or speak with me vs. assume bad motives and try to get me in trouble at the outset. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You specifically added this citation to support your edit in which you accused people of being antifa on Andy Ngo. The article is a WP:BLP and the word antifa is not found once in that citation that you used. Your edit was disruptive at a minimum. You need to be aware of that instead of making excuses and throwing around accusations towards others. Have you even bothered to read WP:BLP or perhaps WP:OR? TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the original lawsuit was against those 5 and Rose City Antifa, which none have denied.

I have read that article, however, I will review it again. This is the first time I've had any issues, and it seems like there's some personal animus with Ngo and/or bias towards Antifa that I uncovered in this reply.

As this is supposed to be constructive for all involved, I would suggest that you not infer malicious motives behind my work or edits (or others for that matter) without at least consulting with them vs making accusations in revert edits or posts about them without their knowledge. Ironically this inference and original research is what you accuse me of doing. This can be found in the original accusation, and using inflammatory and charged language in your loaded question - "Have you even bothered to read"? It would be a lot less off-putting to people who are less experienced and made an error. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As an example, refer to this disruptive editing in which they edited Andy Ngo, which is a WP:BLP to indtroduce heavily biased political language not found in the source which they were citing, ie the word antifa. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Diannaa, perhaps you can provide some context on what happened at Tina Peters (politician). The revision history does not paint a pretty picture. Also can you provide your interpretation on this? TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(1) There's really nothing further to add; no context or backstory; I simply removed a paragraph of copyright material copied from elsewhere online. (2) Prior to their username change, the user was apparently formerly editing under their real name, and removed it from the archive for privacy reasons. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding that, she is correct and the copyright issue was addressed.

If you read the revisions re: Tina Peters you will find that they are all from reputable sources and well documented, and none are particularly flattering they are just the record laid out in chronological order. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Refer to this which demonstrates WP:ADVOCACY. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not advocacy considering that it was quotes cited and sourced by the Washington Post and The Hill. If anything the prior edit was pushing an agenda and these sources quoted the organizer directly. The direct sourcing of the website was also sourced in their pages.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/572268-sept-18-rally-organizer-asks-attendees-not-to-wear-pro-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/09/18/justice-j6-rally-capitol-riot-dc/

@TarnishedPath it seems you have some sort of animus with me because I referenced one word "Antifa" and the names of three people made public in the article in a post, and since then you have gone through my history to discredit my work. Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed? I have not seen anything showing that the sources are not valid, incorrectly cited/sourced, etc. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryAct: "Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed?" Is a violation of WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS without providing any evidence, and is therefore also a violation of WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I suggest that you strike it immediately before you are blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Done as requested, however, this criteria should be applied to @Teenyplayspop who wrote "Clearly a partisan writing this." in the initial reversion on my Ngo edit, as that would be a casting aspersion/personal attack, which was not only unfounded without evidence, but immediately followed by an inquisition into me: "Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources" especially considering that my edits were not dubious sources nor were they supporting any of these figures. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper way to withdraw a statement in a posted comment is not to delete it, it is to strike it out. I have fixed this for you.

Teenyplayspop did write "Clearly a partisan writing this", but they provided evidence to support their contention in this thread, so they were not casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Evidence was provided by TarnishedPath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryAct, I have provided evidence of WP:ADVOCACY by you per above. Now that was a while ago and if it was a one off maybe we could think nothing of it, however it colours every edit that you've made since. Particularly your accusations that I'm antifa and your adding material into a WP:BLP calling people antifa when that term was not used in the source which you were citing. Rather than going on the attack you need to own it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have explained why the 5 in question are likely Antifa. Aside from the fact that they (1) never denied it, (2) Rose City Antifa never denied it, (3) all 5 are confirmed to be left wing activists according to The Oregonian (we can all agree that they aren't Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, right?), and (4) this has been cited in other news articles.

What would you like me to do at this point?

All edits in question have been reverted or corrected. I have committed to rereading the rules and already done so, and will again. I believe that my edits have shown to be factual and simultaneously show non-favorable information of "alt-right" figures. So if there's anything else to discuss then please advise.

I believe that had this been addressed on my talk page or at least just an edit of the Andy Ngo page, then this would have blown over but again it seems that I am being singled out for mention of Antifa on Andy Ngo, and on no other pages which are critical of right wing figures have I had any pushback, which leads me to believe that there is partisanship and bias at play. But regardless of that, what would you like me to do at this point to bring this issue to a resolution so we can move forward? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No you have not explained why you engaged in WP:OR to introduce the term antifa when you made this edit even though the term itself was not found in the source that you cited. Even if other sources previously referred to an allegation made by Ngo, who incidentally calls everyone antifa just as you accused me of being antifa, you have not explained why you felt it was appropriate for you to use wikivoice to call people antifa. I'm thinking of suggesting a topic ban for all US politics related topics, because you obviously WP:DONTGETIT. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel that you need to do, it seems that there is nothing I can do or say that will be enough and you already had set out to convict me from the outset.

I wasn't even given the courtesy of being notified as this was done behind my back so it was a secret inquisition until 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 looped me in.

I have edited and deleted references upon request, agreed to comply, provided links and sources, and when asked why I included the reference I explained.

And also for the record I did not call you Antifa, I asked a question as to any undisclosed connections given that there is so much being made out of this one word in a post, and as such questions about my partisanship were raised accordingly it is a fair question to ask. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, you appear to be much too intelligent to get away with that. It was, I think, obvious to everyone that read it that asking if they had "undisclosed connections" to antifa was tantamount to implying that they were antifa. And your claim of a "secret inquisition" because Teenyplayspop failed to notify you -- something that happens with great frequency on this page -- and then two hours passed between the posting of the report and your notification of it, with no topical commentary during that time is totally ridiculous and simply makes you look silly.

If it weren't for the fact that your editing history indicates that making the kind of POV edits you do is your entire purpose here, I would suggest you avoid the topic of American politics and edit in other subjects, but your clear partisanship inclines me to agree with TarnishedPath that an American politics topic ban would be in order. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave on a two-week vacation, so I don't have the time to put together a coherent proposal, but if anyone does have the time and energy to do so, please consider this to be a Support vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "POV edits you do is your entire purpose here"? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

and what do you mean by "clear partisanship"? Have you not read the edits on Tina Peters, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, Gregg Phillips, etc.? It seems the sole basis of this claim is the one mention of Antifa in Andy Ngo's edit, and there was no evidence of partisanship considering I showed the sources cited. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you just quit making justifications already? The source you cited was this. Tell me exactly where in that source the word "antifa" appears? TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I already explained the original citation / suit and the defendants, if you want I can put these 4 citations mentioned above in the original edit that all 5 were sued (3 mentioned in the article and this was removed even though they are mentioned by name), 2 dropped in civil, no denial from these 5 or Antifa when he sued them as they no showed, etc. and that would be more thorough and accurate all around.

To say that there is zero connection considering that they were in the lawsuit, 3 / 5 lost, are "left wing activists" and moreover trying to ban me instead of even a warning about this is extreme. and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Also, I've been accused of partisanship and such, and when I explain you're being extremely passive aggressive in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression

PS Current issue about Antifa aside, where are my supporting of conspiracy theories on my other pages about "alt-right" figures? There have not been any piece of evidence provided, considering I directly quoted The Hill & Washington Post and provided the links. Please retract these accusations and stop Wikipedia:CASTING ASPERSIONS RevolutionaryAct (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You still WP:DONTGETIT. Those other citations which mentioned 'antifa' were pre-existing to the section and they said that Ngo accused people of being 'antifa', which he accuses everyone of being. The bit you wrote was a stand alone paragraph/sentence with its own citation and not once in the source was the word 'antifa' used. Even if you are claiming to rely on previous citations, you didn't use the word in a way to acknowledge that it was an accusation, you straight up said they were 'antifa'. The fact that another editor had to clean up your edit speaks for itself. Then in this conversation you for all intents and purposes accused me of being 'antifa'. If you can't see a problem with what you're doing then I really need to ask if you are competent enough to be here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I get it, and all that had to be done is remove the word from the edit and perhaps make a comment on my talk page. However given the extreme bias from the person who reported me, this appears to be in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression and now there is talk of banning me.

I have been here since 2007 and not had any issues, and the fact that you're taking the word of what appears to be a sockpuppet account formed 07/31/2023 who has only a few edits over mine is extremely suspect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh and PS multiple news sources with left, right, and center biases all have since confirmed that the event was organized by Rose City Antifa, and furthermore that members of the mob (organized by said group) attacked Ngo, of which 3 of 5 he successfully sued:

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-journalist-gets-300000-after-antifa-assault-protest-1821760

https://news.yahoo.com/conservative-journalist-andy-ngo-wins-191317437.html

https://themessenger.com/news/journalist-andy-ngo-awarded-300000-in-lawsuit-against-antifa-protesters-for-milkshake-attackhttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/antifa-thugs-who-assaulted-reporter-andy-ngo-ordered-to-pay-300000/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/22/andy-ngo-wins-300000-judgment-against-antifa-membe/

It is upon you and the original accuser(s) to show that all of these news sources are incorrect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well that's two obviously garbage sources and two content farms so well done. Maybe in your 15+ years here you should have become familiar with WP:BLP? Your edit was obviously terrible, these sources do not support it and also do not retroactively make it non-terrible, and at some point you should be like "Yeah sorry my edit was bad, I apologize" or similar. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying 4 of 6 aren't good and that 2 of 6 are therefore valid? Thank you for admitting that there is a basis to the claim. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed 4 links before, missing the Washington Times one -- so it's actually three garbage sources and two link farms (out of 5 total). Is there some point where you're going to engage in any self-reflection at all? --JBL (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

note that User:Teenyplayspop may be a sockpuppet or working in coordination with other accounts, as all are very recent edits and account formed only 07/31/2023, a possible sockpuppet account evading ban due to citing advanced rules and weaponizing edits which is not normal.

Support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Teenyplayspop • Username: Teenyplayspop • Registered: 23:34, 31 July 2023 (24 days ago) • Total edit count: 198 • Number of attached accounts: 5

Initially this user deleted my one edit on Andy Ngo as "biased" and accused me of being "partisan" due to a mention of Antifa (for which he is famous for documenting) and opened an investigation into me, however, Teenyplayspop's talk history shows an extreme bias and failure to remain neutral in talk towards the subject, let alone conservatives, right wing, etc.

Here are the various comments on Ngo's talk page from Teenyplayspop showing animus towards the subject and anybody with a different view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

The guy literally calls anyone with dyed hair and a mugshot "antifa" for simply being at a protest. If we are being fair hes a lazy journalist that is always a grifter Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ngo is a journalist? I thought he was known only for his role in misinformation campaigns. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was just being generous. Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservative and (american)right wing are the same exact thing. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

right wing is a notable term used by political scientists to describe someone who is pro-capitalist. That's all it is. I consider myself left wing and don't see that as a pejorative. My family considers themselves "the right" and they don't see that as a pejorative. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aligning himself with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer most notably. His Twitter functions as a doxxing list where he calls everyone antifa and a pedophile. He's a grifter more than anything Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have so much of it from Andrew Duncomb and Alan Swinney's personal social media videos when they were doing 'flag waves' in the northwest during 2020/2021. But apparently thats not a real source apparently according to wiki. You can pretend he's not what we say he is and we can just roll our eyes i guess Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As for the collusion evidence it is noteworthy that two days after on the same board another user appeared User:TarnishedPath making the following comments, and TarnishedPath is one of the users on this thread who became involved.

That went a lot smoother than I imagined. Thankyou everyone involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, no I didn't accuse you of bad faith. As far as I'm aware bad faith is not required to violate edit warring restrictions. All that is required is not sufficiently making ones self aware of the conditions of editing. In any case I already striked the comment that got your back up as a show of good faith, please refer to my comment above. As I suggested on WP:AN3 I could very well tag your talk with warnings re: WP:AGF also if I was so inclined. There's really no need for this continue. I suggest you undo your last edit on my talk and we drop this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Teenyplayspop began going through my history and deleting posts with the sole comments as "hogwash" instead of countersources, additional information/context, or even a talk, which is a form of WP:Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia&action=history

Failure to remain neutral and weaponizing against another user is cause for concern in light of this user's own admitted bias and talk history, and appears to be a WP:Personal Attack.

If one scrolls to the bottom I have provided links and sources for all points regarding my initial claim, which have since been confirmed in no less than 6 reliable sources. None of the others have, they have essentially nothing aside from they don't like me, my style, my supposed political leanings, and really, the use of one word. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Is WP:SPI something else you have not learned about in your 15+ years editing here? --JBL (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As for the collusion evidence it is noteworthy that two days after on the same board another user appeared User:TarnishedPath making the following comments, and TarnishedPath is one of the users on this thread who became involved.

Just to be clear: you are accusing an editor who's been here for 16 years with 20x the number of edits you've made (which I mention only since you've decided total edit count is relevant) of either creating a sockpuppet or "colluding" with an account that's been here less than a month for the purposes of... editing Andy Ngo's page and undoing blatant BLP-violating original synthesis added by you? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. First you accuse me of being antifa without evidence, next you accuse others of being sockpuppets without evidence. The wall of coversations that you copy and pasted from talk is just nice. Ps, if you'd taken any time to go through the archives of talk you'd see that for a while it was almost a yearly event to have RfCs on whether Ngo should be referred to as a journalist in wikivoice and some of them have had no consensus and thus the WP:QUO has been maintained. Please do continue digging yourself a WP:HOLE. TarnishedPath^talk 01:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

and people as of 20 mins ago are voting on to keep him in the lede as a "journalist". This whole thing is wild Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is sounding more like WP:NOTTHERE, this also is almost leaning towards WP:Hounding considering that you are trying everything to irritate another user. I think an admin should start a temp edit block discussion for user user:RevolutionaryAct, under WP:NOTTHERE and WP:Hounding. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've tried repeatedly to get RA to see what the issue is and they point blank refuse and have been making it about everyone else going on 4 days now. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you are the one who opened this thread here, you could try making a sub-section on this thread titled "Should RevolutionaryAct be Temp blocked?" and you can state WP:NOTHERE as it is obvious that user:RevolutionaryAct is not here to contribute due to "Treating editing as a battleground" under WP:NOTHERE Wikipedia Project article. You could also imply that this is WP:Gaming the system as from what I am seeing, User:RevolutionaryAct has been repeatedly using Wikipedia Project space rules and processes (like their request on this thread for an SP Investigation on you) to WP:Harass you. Thus WP:Harass is something else that you could bring up if you wish to create a sub-section in this thread. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: You do not have to worry, I have done it for you bellow. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Biases, which we all have, are not an indicator of me being a sock account. Saying Andy Ngo is a provocateur (a fact) doesnt make me a sock account, nor does having a new account indicate that.

Your angle of 'they have a new account/few edits' is quite ironic too! You have only slightly more edits than i do (over a 15 year span?!?) but you arent a sock account. Im not casting dispersion upon you, but showing you how odd that take is with very little self reflection.

Me and the other user don't even have the same style of writing. You'd think a 15 year editor would be able to deduce writing styles but here we are, calling people with similar povs sock accounts.

Forgive me for not knowing how to tag multiple Wiki Policies and forums or change the color of my font to outline every single thing you've said in a talk forum. I tend to Google "How to ___ on Wiki" because idk...I'm a new user.

This is one of the funniest 'in my feelings' thread i have ever read on the entire internet and would never have ever thought Id have to defend myself from *insert WP casting asperions, personal insults etc hyper link* on an encyclopedia. I thank you for that Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Should an admin temp-ban User:RevolutionaryAct for WP:NOTHERE and WP:Harass?

In this thread that User:TarnishedPath User:Teenyplayspop created, the user in question had repeatedly harassed (via both violating WP:Civility by calling TarnishedPath a member of ANTIFA repeatedly, and by WP:Game by making an obviously false SP allegation against TarnishedPath on ANI.) The user also threatened to TarnishedPath that the user was suspecting TarnishedPath for being a SP, just because TarnishedPath used a word that was placed by an SP. The user in question event went out of their way to try to prove themselves correct, but instead used unreputable news sources. The fact that User:RevolutionaryAct has been here for 15+ years, and has done these edits, is obvious for them to know what they are doing is wrong. Thus I think WP:NOTHERE should also be looked at as well for this situation. For this reason I think a consensus discussion should be done as to whether or not an admin should consider temp-blocking User:RevolutionaryAct.

Diffs (proofs):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171866000

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172110189

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172371382

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172372979

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172375277

Pings (Relevant parties were already notified about the existence of the main thread in the past):

• @RevolutionaryAct:
• @TarnishedPath:

As for the not here, I am relying on the sections "Treating editing as a battleground", "Dishonest and gaming behaviors", and "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I need to correct the record, it was @Teenyplayspop, that they accused of being a sock. I don't think that takes away from the behaviour however considering everything else that's gone on. Given your conclusion of WP:NOTHERE, I support a permaban. TarnishedPath^talk 07:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Although on closer inspection is does look like they are accusing TPP of being a sock of myself. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that just now. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ps, it was also @Teenyplayspop that started this thread, not myself. I merely added in some content because what TPP started was vague and unsupported. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Teenyplayspop's editing behavior does raise sock suspicions. When one see's an editor with so few edits bringing people to ANI it does raise red flags. However, absent an obvious master it's much harder to make that case. It also is possible this is just the activity of an editor who is too enthusiastic. I see nothing in RevolutionaryAct's edits that would warrant a NOTHERE block. They should be more careful and just in case read the CIVIL policy. Otherwise this seems much ado about nothing. Springee (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think you need to strike that suggestion that TPP 'brought people to AN/I'. I'd recently left a message on RA's talk in regards to their editing on Andy Ngo and when I saw them mentioned here I became involved. RA making accusations that TPP is a sock of mine was completely out of line and as suggested WP:HOUNDING, taken in context with them copy and pasting irrelevant discussions from Talk:Andy Ngo. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm not mistaken this topic was opened by TPP thus I would say they brought someone to ANI. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I dont even know how half of the meta in wiki works. I dont know how to even tag users and barely can add templates (i believe you can see that from any edits, correct?). So the assumption that "i brought someone" here is hilarious. Seems like they just went to RA's user talk page and bounced on over here?

  I wish i had the energy and time to do all that... Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread you. TarnishedPath^talk 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can assure you, Im not on a sock account. I just got interested in editing over the summer when i got off from touring which im back on now - hence why i havent had a moment to do. Im willing to own that i dont know every single guideline (i assume is normal for new-ish users) and will apologize/concede if i made an error elsewhere. But as regards to the Andy Ngo page the articles from Oregonlive (oregonian live?) dont mention Richter and his co-defendant as "members of antifa". Actually, its my recollection that the same news outlet quotes them as saying "I am not a member of 'antifa' but have anti-fascist stances" (Im paraphrasing that). I will be happy to dig up the exact article, as well as address whatever else happened, when im not constantly changing times zones and working on 2 hours of sleep. I didnt mean for this to be a hubbub. Apologies to all Teenyplayspop (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  And if any of this makes 0 sense refer to the "im working in 2 hours of sleep" each day and ill get back to you guys when im functional Teenyplayspop (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't need to dig up sources. It's irrelevant. The source that RA used did not mention antifa at all. You were correct to remove antifa from the content that they added as it was a blatant WP:BLP violation. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with @Springee that this is a mountain out of a molehill. Some are still going on about the use of the word Antifa for the past week now with @Teenyplayspop also claiming she only has 2 hours of sleep a day.

  Even though one of the defendants who lost "Joseph Christian Evans, was one of a handful of people Ngo sued for allegedly assaulting him at different times from 2019 to 2021, primarily during antifascist protests in Portland." I'm sure he's not Antifa though, it is just a coincidence, as well as the other 6 sources I cited above https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2023/08/24/46675695/defendant-sued-by-andy-ngo-says-they-never-received-legal-summons-before-being-ordered-to-pay-100000

  Anyway, edit has already been reverted. I am not sure what else we are discussing at this point other than I apparently I don't have the right politics even though I have made edits criticizing "alt-right' figures as well.

  It's clear that they have been wanting to ban me from the outset and this would be a violation of WP:HOUNDING, especially given that my edits were then reverted and labeled "hogwash" by @Teenyplayspop without evidence why considering all were well cited and properly sourced by reputable news outlets. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a he, not a she. I have had 2 hours of sleep a day and would be ecstatic to show you proof of that - good lord dude. Teenyplayspop (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ftr, i didnt ask for you to be banned. I'm sorry you feel that way but there is no evidence on the contrary.

  I wanted to report this to the proper channels to look at. Maybe i sent it to the wrong channel(?), a combo of being a noob and no sleep (and now a sock account??). Above i even said im willing to concede and apologize for the commotion if i indeed put it in the wrong channel/did improper edits. But I guess you forgot that part.

  I have more work on little sleep and won't be looking at this thread until I have.

  Have a great week Teenyplayspop (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Above i even said im willing to concede and apologize for the commotion if i indeed put it in the wrong channel/did improper edits. But I guess you forgot that part.

  If you are willing to retract your accusation since you were the one who filed an incident report against me, then can administrators (@Euryalus) please close this nuisance complaint already and we all move on with our lives? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  hell ya brother Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good, thank you @Teenyplayspop

  @Euryalus it seems that we are all willing to move forward and close this whole situation out.

  I never meant this edit to be controversial or misleading, I could have sourced it better, however I am not perfect, make mistakes, and can learn, and I have learned the Wiki rules from this experience. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  The right thing to do would be to apologize for your obviously terrible edit, not to grandstand about how you are willing in principle to apologize (even though you apparently haven't done so). --JBL (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: This particular thread has generated a lot of heat and very little light (ie diffs). Pinging @RevolutionaryAct, Teenyplayspop, and TarnishedPath: and @JayBeeEll and Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: as the principal contributors to this sprawling discussion: do we have a general consensus that this can be closed with a general reminder to everyone to make well-sourced edits based on reliable sources? If so it will be something of an ANI miracle: very few discussions here end up with people agreeing on anything. Those who haven't commented recently (or anyone else), please let me know what you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem for me, I try to make edits with reliable sources.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Sock Puppetry Investigation (with CU)

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

---

The issue in the first half of the thread seems to be resolved except for the SPI claim To end that issue and come to a closure of this thread, I think doing the following would put an end to the SPI claim. Basically the Shock Puppetry Investigation (with CU) results will show who is right or who is wrong. If after the closure neither party likes the outcome, they can ask for an appeal via WP:ArbCom. Instructions on how to file an ArbCom case are provided there.

I am not able to request via the WP:SPI page as User:RevolutionaryAct has not provided the diff links but rather only time stamps in his claims of proof/evidence. Diffs are required if creating a request via the Sock Puppetry Investigation page, especially for CU requests. I do not have the energy or time to go thru looking for these diffs, and thus am placing the request here where someone who might have the time to find the links to the diffs. I am requesting two Shock Puppetry Investigations, of which only one I am requesting a CU for.

The first SPI I am requesting is with CU. This is to see if User:Teenyplayspop and User:TarnishedPath are the same user, and to see if User:RevolutionaryAct's claim of TPP being a possible formerly banned Sock Puppet is true.

The second investigation I am requesting is without a CU and is to see if IP Addresses (User: 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 and User: 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64)​​ are being used by someone else here to make it seem that User:RevolutionaryAct has more supporters. It is very unusual and suspicious for an IP user to know the requirements of how to notify another user when they are involved in an ANI discussion. It is also unusual for an IP to make the claim that another user is accusing a user "that has been here for more than +15 years" as seen in this diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171739278 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172422583 . It seems as if the IP has been at one point a user on Wikipedia. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is completely the improper forum for this sort of stuff. If RA wants to throw around baseless slurs then they should start an WP:SPI themselves. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, go for it. Im not a sock account so have at it Teenyplayspop (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out... alright, hello, both IPs here. For starters — editors using an IPv6 tend to bounce around the subnet, as you can see by checking the /64 log.

being used by someone else here to make it seem that User:RevolutionaryAct has more supporters

I said nothing whatsoever to indicate support in that first edit, just notified the editor being discussed as both policy and human decency demand. In the second edit, I did the opposite of supporting; I questioned the absurd unfounded accusations being made by the user in question. Sort of like those being made by you against me now. (My personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant here, but I'll also note that I don't support anything remotely in the ballpark of the type of POV being pushed by the user in question. Again: irrelevant.)

It is very unusual and suspicious for an IP user to know the requirements of how to notify another user when they are involved in an ANI discussion.

Need I point to the sign? Or state again how leveling accusations of inordinate experience against a dynamic IP without even checking the IP range in question is amateur hour behavior?

It is also unusual for an IP to make the claim that another user is accusing a user "that has been here for more than +15 years"

Y'know, one need not be glued to the project for 15+ years to be able to click Tools -> User logs.

It seems as if the IP has been at one point a user on Wikipedia.

Correct! Which means nothing! There's an entire page of policy about how editors in good standing can just stop using an account one day.

For the record, I've had one account in the past, created in 2006 at the age of 9 and which I last touched in 2009. (I spent most of my time adding userboxes to my page, but hey, every edit I made to mainspace stuck.) The only thing keeping me from making a new account after getting bit by the wiki bug again this past year or two is being too ADHD to settle on a deep cut of a username that I won't easily tire of.

Now then: given that you've been here for 7 years and appear to have regularly used the various noticeboards during that time, I'm quite surprised you think requesting an SPI at the completely wrong forum on behalf of an editor who couldn't even scrounge together a single diff is an acceptable thing to do — let alone throw one in for me, based solely on ~vibes~.

You admit to knowing I am not able to request via the WP:SPI page, and yet you toss out a half-baked request here because I do not have the energy or time to go thru looking for these diffs.

Pardon my language, but if you don't give enough of a shit to take SPIs and CUs seriously, consider doing everyone a favor by not sidetracking actual discussions with baseless accusations that require more heat than light to respond to. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, im like "how does he change the color of his font" while being accused of being able to create sock accounts lol Teenyplayspop (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Nguyễn Năng Quang

I think it's time to block User:Nguyễn Năng Quang. He has reposted the copyrighted images of Vietnames banknotes over and over again in his article 100 Vietnamese đồng. I listed them at for deletion at Commons[23], where they were deleted[24], only for the uploader to readd them to Commons and to enwiki articles. And when he isn't doing this again and again, he does this or this. Fram (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that that seems to be two accounts. Likely the same person, but two accounts as one is User:Nguyễn Năng Thủy. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the highlighted copyvio issues and this image (that they uploaed to this project), I will ping Diannaa. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If nothing else the images are incorrectly attributed as they claim the bank notes are their own work. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The four images that are local uploads are all tagged as fair use. I have nominated the ones at the Commons for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder why they moved the local upload (that they initially tagged as fair use) to Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That one was actually uploaded to the Commons first, at 13:16, August 24, 2023 and locally at 14:13, August 24, 2023. Then they blanked the page, presumably because it is a duplicate of File:100 dong.jpg. I gotta take my mom shopping now and will be gone for several hours — Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for Clarifying. They didn't upload it locally, they just created a local page for it, hence the confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Nguyễn Năng Quang, who this is about, was not notified of this discussion. Only User:Nguyễn Năng Thủy was. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's my mistake, I went to their page from a page history, and didn't notice the different names. Thanks for noting this, I have now notified the correct editor. (I presume there is some connection between them, as Thủy only edits pages created by Quang it seems). Fram (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see,the recent history of 100 Vietnamese đồng, where this editor, an IP, and "new" editor User:Quangst are edit warring with a bot and established editors. Fram (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism from a dynamic IP editor

There is an IP editor (with dynamic IPs) who, over the last couple months, has been vandalising various pages with names of people, and some of the edits have been privacy-infringing enough that they've had to be surpressed. When the most common pages were protected they stopped, but immediately started again after the protection expired. They have also occasionally been rude to editors (such as the edit summary of this diff). I honestly don't know what more admins can do other than continue to block when their new IPs show up, but I thought I'd put this here since it's consistent and has been going on for a while now, just in case something can be done.

IPs:

• 31.217.32.102
• 31.217.33.69
• 31.217.62.158
• 46.188.240.81
• 46.188.241.3
• 31.217.2.111 (most recent)

Common pages:

• Pandorina kutija
• Godine nestvarne
• Jače manijače
• Various South Park pages, notably South Park (season 5)

I've put the ANI template on the latest IP's talk page, but let me know if I need to add it to the previous ones too. Thanks for all your hard work on this page. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ping @JBW: who put a partial block on the 31.217 range. Perhaps the same can be done for the 46.288 range as well. --Jayron32 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Suntooooth and Jayron32: I did also put a partial block on 46.188.241.0/24, but that doesn't cover 46.188.240.81. I'm not sure why I didn't include that: maybe I just didn't notice it, or maybe it was because there has been no recent editing from there recently. I was very unsure how much blocking to do, and eventually settled on a fairly minimum amount. None of the articles in question has been edited by the 46.188.240.0/24 range since the last block, in July, and I am normally reluctant to block a much used IP range where there has been none of the disruptive editing recently; however, for a partial block on just a few pages, the risk of collateral damage is negligible, so now that you have prompted me to rethink, I shall go back and extend the block from 46.188.241.0/24 to 46.188.240.0/23, and also add the article Godine nestvarne, which I missed before. The South Park articles are more difficult to deal with, because there's a large number of pages which potentially could be involved, and since it isn't possible to put a partial block on more than 10 pages, it's quite likely that whatever pages are included in a partial block, the editor may just move to other ones. However, looking at the editing history, I see edits from the relevant IP ranges only on 6 South Park related pages, so that together with the other three articles listed above, they can be fitted into a partial block, so I will do that. Suntooooth, if you see any editing from this person on any other pages, please feel welcome to contact me, and I will consider whether further action should be taken. JBW (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks very much for your help :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-responsive User:Laensom using Wikipedia as an image host

Non-responsive User:Laensom in continually[25] bulk adding NASA/Hubble images to a series of astronomy related articles without any MOS:PERTINENCE/significance or relevance to the topic's context, basically using Wikipedia articles as an image host for "pretty" pictures. Most images have no relationship to article text and have copy paste verbiage from a related website that is un-encyclopedic[26] or simply unintelligible[27]. Images are added indiscriminately causing image squeezes[28] or pushing pertinent information down the article[29]. Pointing out problems and guidelines[30][31][32] has no effect since the editor is non-responsive. Note: Same MO as non-responsive editor User:Pandreve who cropped up previously doing exactly the same thing[33]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's way too many reverts in a very short period to be allowed to continue unchecked. This new editor needs to be compelled to communicate and address the problems with their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

They also seem to be copying text from elsewhere, for example here the caption was copied from a website that says its content is protected by copyright. I've removed it, but does it need a revdel? Brunton (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

P-blocked from articles until they start communicating. If they do, any admin should unblock. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, request RD1 on the copyvio edits. 2600:100F:B1B1:3616:E556:9B81:40EC:3ECD (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright protected but under an acceptable license. Per https://esahubble.org/copyright/ ESA/Hubble images, videos and web texts are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. CC-BY is compatible with our CC-BY-SA. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

92.40.198.206

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

---

92.40.198.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please revoke the TPA of this anonymous users to prevent further personal attacks. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I updated the range's block to remove TPA. Courtesy ping to JBW. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Did I do the right thing here?

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

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [34]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [35] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

These comments [36] [37] 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 [38] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns

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

Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[39][40] 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. [41] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have some specific questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBAN proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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

User:Meters

User:Meters has been harassing as defined by Wikipedia:Harassment section hounding leaving numerous warning yet never actual filing a report. 1keyhole (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

1keyhole, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done this for you this time. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. 1keyhole (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples of this alleged harassment, or are you going to just make vague accusations and expect others to go look for it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

They previously accused me of disruptive editing on Hidden Lake Academy article, this happened again today.

Meters edit history for hidden lake academy

My own history for Hidden Lake Academy

Afterwards, they followed me Mount Bachelor Academy article and removed an external link I had added today. Meters edit history Mount Bachelor Academy 1keyhole (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing there constitutes “harassment.” Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong it's harassment, specifically a type of harassment called Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. 1keyhole (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment)(edit conflict) OK so from the editing history of Hidden Lake Academy, you added an alumni without an article to the Notable alumni list and were correctly reverted, you then added another alumni without an article to the Notable alumni list with an incomplete edit summary and were correctly reverted and correctly warned. You then added a link to Mount Bachelor Academy and were reverted, you then reverted the revert and were warned that per BRD it was on you to discuss the addition, and now instead of discussing your accusing meters of harassment? (added after the EC)As BGsu98 has said Nothing there constitutes harassment. Meters is a regular patroller of school articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article about Mount Bachelor Academy currently features just a single external link. The link I inserted directs to another website that was formerly operated by the school, showcasing a campus map and a collection of photographs.

Edit Summary by Meter for the removal of the "pointless archived link."

Help:Edit summary

"Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict." 1keyhole (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That guidance continues: "Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack." Perhaps Meters should have been clearer about which guidelines were relevant (in this case WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which says that "Normally, only one official link is included" (bolding original)), but I can't see how that edit summary could "come across as a personal attack"; it's clearly commenting on the content.

You also cite WP:HOUNDING, which says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Looking at Meters' reverts of your edits, they seem valid to me; even Meters is following you around rather than watching those articles (although, in fact, they edited Hidden Lake Academy as early as 2015, and Sarah Lawrence College back in 2018; it's only Mount Bachelor Academy which they first edited to revert you) it's not clear that it would be a violation of HOUND. I'm really not seeing a compelling case that Meters has done anything wrong here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To place the words like "pointless archived link" is not harassment nor is it inappropriate. For example, saying that this harassment or WP:Hounding claim is 'pointless' would not be harassment. Disagreeing with what is or is not pointless is called an opinion. Further more, highly likely that it is just a coincidence that Meter has reverted your edits once in a while. Further more, they did provide valid reasons for their reverts on your edits. Even if they are following your edits, they may just be doing it to make sure your edits are following the rules and norms of Wikipedia editing. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

From WP:Hounding: “This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor”. I don’t believe that is the case here. Editors are permitted to examine another editor’s history if they detect problematic behavior. User:Meters is a longtime and well-respected editor is the field of academic institutions. It is understandable that he would examine other edits you’ve made regarding academic institutions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Evaluating the quality of work based solely on the tenure of an editor or the volume of contributions isn't a accurate approach from a cybersecurity standpoint.

I don't think you understand these are not schools in the traditional sense these troubled teen programs like the place Paris Hilton was sent too Provo Canyon School or you might have seen Diamond Ranch Academy in the news the last few months after a teenager died. 1keyhole (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Very strange response... how does this thread involve "cyber security"? What significance does the type of schools these places are have to do with a discussion of whether I am hounding a user? What does Paris Hilton have to do with a discussion of whether I am hounding a user? What does Diamond Ranch Academy have to do with a discussion of whether I am hounding a user?

The link I removed was partly because of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I picked which one to remove, and used the summary "pointless archived link", because the colour contrast on the second link https://web.archive.org/web/20011125142019/http://www.welcomemba.com/index.htm was so poor as to render the page's text illegible on my screen, and the description of the link "Welcome to Mt. Bachelor Academy" did not indicate that there was any use for the link beyond the first, legible, official page. I did not leave any user warning for the initial edit. I left a level 2 warning and pointed to WP:BRD after the user restored the edit. I then bumped the warning to a level 3 (and explained why) after noticing that the user had previously been warned about this type of behaviour (and was at a level 4 just a few days ago). When the user then wrote "Your are being disruptive not me the article was nothing wrong with the external links I added they contained additional information such as photos and maps." I responded If you think the article needs two archived copies of the official web site then discuss it on the article's talk page per WP:BRD and we'll see if there is consensus to do so. Instead, the user chose to open this ANI thread.

Note that the user has a more extensive record of warnings than is apparent from their user page. They are in the habit of clearing warnings, as they are allowed to, to the point where more than one editor has pointed out that blanking warnings and continuing the behaviour that led to the warnings is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're violating wikipedia:harassment right now you're trying to use my talk page to shame me.

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space.

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space. 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What you are referring to is normal procedure for one to do if they want to inform a user that actions that user are doing could get them in trouble later on. It also is a way off helping and guiding a user to understand the rules of Wikipedia. The warnings that have been placed on your page are not warnings that are given to blocked or banned users. The following is the template that is placed or blocked users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Blocks

The following is a template that is used on banned users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WMF-legal_banned_user

Neither of the two are on your talk page. It seems that you do not yet understand the meaning behind each template. I really suggest that you read this Wikipedia project page that I linked bellow to understand the meaning and when each different type of template is used.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index#Non_article-related_namespace

On a side note, as for why some users are placing warning messages back after being removed by you, this is debatable on the type of warning message. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not debatable, the current policy is clear that I can remove warnings and I have even had to remind an editor with over 90k edits that they are not allowed to restore comments.

Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments 1keyhole (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct with the claim you just stated according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings as the warnings on that page are not on the list of non-removable templates listed on the page I linked in this reply. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@1keyhole: You have not replied yet. Is the issue in question still continuing? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Persistent misuse of talk pages

• Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24

A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [43] [44] [45] [46]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sure:

• User talk:95.149.166.130 (three warnings)
• User talk:95.149.166.138
• User talk:95.149.166.153
• User talk:95.149.166.156 (one warning, not for misuse of talk pages but for trying to whitewash an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.186
• User talk:95.149.166.192
• User talk:95.149.166.194 (one warning for addition of their opinions to an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.231

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

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

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: [47] [48]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Many of the comments did make an argument about editorial decisions (77, 79 and 81 explicitly do). I dont think the IP address warrants a penalty, or even a warning. I think a penalty will be perceived as being more for the users opinions than for at most minor violation of policy that has negligible disruption to the project. Jagmanst (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The disruptive editing continues:

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

BFDIFan707 and Heraldrist are both claimed to be coat of arms vandal

Both accounts BFDIFan707 and Heraldrist each were both coat of arms vandal. However, despite BFDIFan707 does not editing on any heraldry or France-related articles, he only edits random-related articles. Otherwise for Heraldrist, unlike BFDIFan707, Heraldrist edits on heraldry and France-related articles, but occasionally edits related to heraldry of Spain and other countries. These both accounts are suspected to be coat of arms vandal, entering the edit summary "added coat of arms". Both accounts are registered in Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia, and MarkisMysoe and Italy Herlan Heru were both registered in Tapaktuan, South Aceh Regency, Aceh, Indonesia. 2001:448A:11A5:1861:DD14:FB21:CF3E:E63F (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

SPI

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

---

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa

I have been accused of being a sock puppet of Kaiser von Europa, here, despite my rebuttals with evidence which has been ignored and CU claiming saying I'm a sockpuppet. Now I'm waiting for an admin to make their decision, I request the admin who's seeing this to carefully read my responses and make a wise decision, if they think I'm a sockpuppet, so be it, but please read my response carefully. Crainsaw (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's going to difficult for an admin to evaluate this since you didn't include diffs of where you were accused of being a sockpuppet and by whom, where your rebuttals took place, and where a CU claimed that you were a sock and who the CU is, all of which would seem to be pertinent information. In any event, CUs are privy to information that not all admins have access to, so a non-CU admin is unlikely to overrule a CU, and in fact is not allowed to do so if a block is issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Crainsaw, you're about to be blocked indefinitely. My advise would be to come clean, apologise for the socking, inform us of all your other accounts and give a confirmation you will not sock again. Otherwise, an indefinite ban will really debilitate your tenure. (If you want to re-write that you are not a sock, I would suggest against it; your arguments have been read completely at the SPI noticeboard. I am just giving you this final piece of advice before you get indefinitely blocked). Thanks, Lourdes 05:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But I don't understand, even if I were a sockpuuppet, I haven't violated a single policy, Kaiser von Europa was banned for disruptive editing before he started socking. If you want to ban me, do it, even if I haven't violated a single policy or did something disruptive such as vandalism, or vote stacking. I apologize I'm Kaiser von Europa (I'm not, are you happy now?). If you decide to ban me, please range block my IP, so I don't get the temptation to edit again. If you ban me, I won't sock, I' not like Kaiser, and respect admin decisions, even if they're wrong. Just remember this is not the spirit of Wikiedpia. Crainsaw (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I never thought users entrusted to CU would lie, but I guess people are people. Can't expect more from a human. This is a prime example of Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust p.187 "as it enables the distortionist group to write off every editor who opposes them as an Icewhiz [in this case Kaiser von Europa] sock or delegate." Crainsaw (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Kaiser socks and I get blamed, vóila. Crainsaw (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, there's no need for all this. The ANI community is a forgiving one if you were to truly come clean. Alternative is also okay, as nobody at ANI will bat an eyelid if you get blocked (not least for the Holocaust bit)... It's your call. Thanks, Lourdes 07:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If admit all my mistakes (I've had another account which I've stopped editing on since early February, it didn't get caught, and was engaged in a different topic area before this account was even created), and promise not to sock, and act better than Kaiser von Europa and whatnot, will my ban get lifted after some time? Will I get tbanned? Or will I still stay indefinatly blocked? Crainsaw (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You could wait six months and try the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have an offer if the admins would like to review it. Ban me for 1 month. After that Tban me from Poland related articles for 3 months. And to sweeten the deal, I'll digitize 500 pages at Wikisource as a community service. And I promise not to sock again, behave better, and all that. Crainsaw (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no offer Crainsaw. Only deal is come clean with all your sock accounts and there might be a possibility (might) that you remain unblocked, but with conditions. Lourdes 14:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any other socks. I swear. I'm Kaiser, and I apologize for causing disruption, and socking thereby wasting valuable time in the SPI's. Crainsaw (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unsourced content from 103.210.29.143

Original heading: "Vandal IP. Please act ASAP." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:103.210.29.143 IP User vandalising Indian Election Pages. Changing numbers on own will. Adding Unsourced content. Pushing POV. Please act ASAP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shaan Sengupta, in general, please attempt to inform the user on their talk page about the issue ({{welcome-unsourced}}/{{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}}) before reporting them for ignoring your messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Thanks for the advice. I shall do it in future. But I want you to once look at their contribution. Its very clear that they are knowingly engaging in disruptive editing with POV pushing. I am providing the link of the revision I reverted because he made multiple edits. See this - Reverted 7 edits by 103.210.29.143 (talk): Reverted all the vandalism. Here he says Koi nahi hai modi ke takkar me which means noone is in competition to modi referring to next Indian general election. Increasing survey tally of his preferred party. Abusing opposition leader. Here - Revision as of 14:00, 27 August 2023 calling him murkh means fool. That's why I thought better to first report it here so that his actions can be stopped ASAP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the quick report then; if you see such violations of the biographies of living persons policy and report a user because of them, please ideally say so in your report. In such cases, warning is usually not necessary, but the report needs to make clear why. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It was unclear due to hurry. Will make sure next time. Thanks. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Reverting and reporting was the right action to take; I just didn't notice that part of the contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Use of hash sign in summaries

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

---

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

There's clearly a method to the usage.[53][54] They sometimes leave their mainspace edits unsummarized, so it's interesting to see them write only hash signs when removing notices from their talk page (possibly to say something uncivil without writing it outright).[55][56][57] Is this behavior civil? KyleJoan^talk 12:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cry AGF and assume it's some kind of technical issue or a misunderstanding. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's for my own personal benefit on my own talk page. If you wanted to discuss this you could have asked me there? Can you inform me what I could possibly be saying that is uncivil that I am not writing outright? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Worse has not been accepted as being WP:UNCIVIL, you'd need to show directly that there was a personal insult or ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour to get anywhere. In general I don't think editors should expected to be invited in for a cup of tea and biscuits by someone they are having a disagreement with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

So the usage is not a technical issue or misunderstanding? After ItsKesha didn't respond to me on their talk page,[58] I thought this noticeboard would be a more appropriate place to raise this issue, also due to my concern about communication being required. Three unconstructive editing notices this year, all unaddressed.[59][60][61] That behavior clearly persisted by the time I came across their most recent unconstructive edit today.[62] It's not only on their talk page,[63][64] so how does this "personal benefit" apply there vs. other articles? The pattern is that ItsKesha only does this when reverting or engaging in a content dispute. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it used amicably. They could easily clarify that the usage (and the intention behind it) is civil. Why haven't they? KyleJoan^talk 23:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What on earth is being alleged here? Do you think this user's use of "#### ### ####" is some sort of internalized slur against you, that only they are privy to? Zaathras (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, that's possible. Is it impossible to you? KyleJoan^talk 23:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems... very unlikely, and unactionable (becuase it's unprovable) even if it were the case. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors can remove anything they like from there talk pages (other than failed unblock requests while still blocked, etc) and they don't have to answer you and they don't have to satisfy your curiosity. Communication is required only in certain circumstances.

I'd suggest ItsKesha just requests editors they disagree with to not post to their talk page, rather than being civily uncivil. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not curious. I just thought summaries were supposed to explain edits rather than contain open-to-(mis)interpretation coded messages. Unclear communication in general seems unhelpful. That said, if no other user sees "civily uncivil" as an issue, I'm dropping it. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 01:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User appears to be using account and IP to support his edit claim: Vandalism Issue

The account @EldenLord12282 and IP 103.58.155.236 are making vandalism to pages Mahesh Bhatt and Pooja Bhatt. A ban maybe fair.

Vandalism links:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Bhatt&diff=1172486291&oldid=1171684839

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahesh_Bhatt&diff=1172499195&oldid=1171536657

Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(1) SPI is the correct venue to report suspected sockpuppetry, (2) you had already filed an SPI before making this report here... why did you feel this was urgent enough for ANI?, (3) said SPI has been closed without action (quite rightly) as it does not amount to an actionable claim of sockpuppetry (or any claim of such, to be honest). Quoting MarioGom It is common that people start editing Wikipedia without an account and then register an account. This is not sockpuppetry.

May I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia before diving into internal processes? firefly ( t · c ) 14:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I updated it here because I thought vandalism isn't reported at SPI when the request was closed. Now I understood the mistake I did. I will have a look at the mentorship program as MarioGom suggested. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced random data changer

I'm way busy this morning and don't have time to work on this, but there is a whole stream of unsourced minor data changes coming from this IP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reverted, warned,  Done. Tails Wx 20:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

jps and their shutting down of discussion at Talk:Journal of Cosmology

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

---

ජපස (aka jps) recently took it on themselves to purge basic information from the Journal of Cosmology article, which has been relatively stable since 2011 or so. This, by itself, is whatever. I've restored the information, which has been re-reverted by jps, WP:NPA calling me "rogue" in the process because of their disagreement.

Around the same time a thread was made at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Journal_of_Astrobiology, again WP:NPA calling me WP:PROFRINGE, which I'm really getting tired at this point. Having a disagreement about how to present verifiable information on fringe content is not being WP:PROFRINGE.

Clearly we're at an impasse, so I started an RFC about a simple matter. "Should we keep the infobox" at Talk:Journal of Cosmology#Infobox? JPS then tries to abort the RFC as "out of process". I restore it. Then jps closes it.

Since it is impossible to have any reasonable discussion with jps about anything they disagree with, even if you try to ignore their personal attacks, I move that they are topic-banned from fringe-related and journal-related discussions entirely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't grok jps closing the RfC as out-of-process when they're involved in the content dispute. It's not up to involved parties to determine if that step is premature. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, if you are serious about your proposal for a topic ban, you are going to have to present a whole lot more evidence than you have so far. As for the RfC, though arguably jps shouldn't have closed it, it was clearly premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither party seems to have put that much effort into identifying/arguing specific changes other than the infobox. To my eyes, there's not even a huge difference between the two versions other than the infobox (granted, I don't know this journal). If there was a PA in these threads, it wasn't Jps's but Tercer's It's going to be hard, Headbomb is sure to show up to obstruct any progress at FTN (not that I'm saying it's worth bringing here at this point, either, as I don't know what historical context there is between these editors). At the end of the day, Jps should respect BRD, Headbomb should make an argument on the talk page before starting an RfC, and it shouldn't be at ANI yet. IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The context is here and here 2600:4040:475E:F600:41D9:41E9:57C1:C7D3 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this calls for WP:BOOMERANG. ජපස attempted to improve Journal of Cosmology, which gives way too much credence to what is obviously a pseudoscientific journal. Headbomb immediately undid all his work with the rather rude summary nonsense logic/reasoning for those edits. This echoes a recent dispute with Physics Essays, where Headbomb was obstinately whitewashing the article, and was overruled only after extensive discussion at WP:FTN.

As for the RfC in question, I agree that ජපස shouldn't have been the one to close it, but it definitely should have been closed as there was no discussion before. In any case, I think this is a rather frivolous use of ANI. Tercer (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing of what I did at Physics Essays is remotely close to whitewashing. Insisting that we follow sources is the opposite of whitewashing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, you called above for jps to be topic banned. I strongly suggest you either present evidence to back the proposal up (which will need to demonstrate an ongoing problem, rather than a spat over a questionably-initiated RfC), or withdraw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See IP above, SilverSeren below, and jps' extensive block log. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If vague hand-waving and a log that shows the last block for behavioural issues dating back to 2016 is the only evidence you are going to offer, I Suggest you stop wasting people's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, there seems to be a clear problem of FTN editors trying to minimize pseudoscience topic articles into nothingness if given the opportunity, as a better way to delete them later. That's precisely what was attempted at Physics Essays. There is an ongoing observable issue that editors dealing with fringe topics areas against SPAs pushing pseudoscience nonsense (a topic area I frequently deal with myself) often try to get rid of those articles by any means available, regardless of reliable source coverage of the topic in question. Silverseren^C 18:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes fringe topics do not belong in Wikipedia. We have a guideline that says when we should include them and how. Right now, WP:NJOURNALS conflicts a bit with it. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay. Headbomb treats it as policy. It's his right, but there's the tension. jps (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, no one is calling for Journal of Cosmology to be deleted. It has caused too many tiffs about pseudoscience over the years for it to be memory-holed. There are plenty of reliable sources which have commented on it. jps (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, if I get the norms wrong when posting here as I lack experience. I came across this dispute after editing the page in question.[65] I see that an editor has proposed a "fringe" topic ban for jps here. And so I would like to offer a story:

Once upon a time, there was a terrible, nasty, possibly illegal article about the 2007 Alderney UFO sighting. It included copyright violations from multiple sources, fabricated statements about living persons, and fabricated statements attributed to living persons along with Wikipedia-specific shortcomings like "orginal research". All of this until, an editor known as jps flagged the page for cleanup, nominated it for deletion, and eventually blanked it.[66] When another editor (UC) arrived to rewrite the page, the two of them argued, but jps did not blank UC's rewrite and never again nominated the article for deletion after the AfD voted to retain the new version. UC remains the primary author of the page's contents.[67]

After all of the dust settled,[68] I flagged the old bogus versions of the page to be scrubbed for copyright violations. I would likely not have posted here but I realize that this (due to my requested scrubbing) is not context that can be gleaned from edit histories.

Thank you for your time and patience, Rjjiii (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I undid my criticized close of the out-of-process RfC. Let someone else handle that mess. In the meantime, look at what I get to have fun with. Headbomb will literally revert every edit I make out of spite, it seems. He did the same on Physics Essays. He did the same on WP:NJOURNAL. Guy has a real WP:OWN problem when it comes to his pet area of "journals". That includes this nonsense. jps (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Here Headbomb edits in, without a source, a claim that the pseudoscientific website "Journal of Astrobiology" is actually an academic journal with a discipline of "astrobiology". You tell me that this is doing our readers a service? This is how we inform them about junk? jps (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're the one that created the redirect about Journal of Astrobiology, then you complained that the Journal of Cosmology infobox should be removed because 'Which website should the infobox document?' [69], then added the information about the Journal of Astrobiology in the Journal of Cosmology infobox [70], and now you're complaining that I'm doing a disservice to readers by putting the Journal of Astrobiology information in its correct infobox? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm complaining that you are claiming the discipline of this website is astrobiology. That's an insult to astrobiologists. I have switched over to a more appropriate "discipline", but really, the idea of identifying a "discipline" for this website is a complete misapprehension of how we categorize nonsense like this. jps (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine, if you want a source [71] LCCN says "exobiology", a synonym for astrobiology. 19:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See below. Same problem. Taking the website's word for its own content seems hardly the right move. jps (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Disciplines apply regardless of peer review says Headbomb edit warring back in a claim that the Journal of Cosmology's discipline is "cosmology". Is that the Wikipedia truth? jps (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's in the damned title. If you want to be ridiculously WP:V-minded, see LCCN Disciplines: "Cosmology, Astronomy, Exobiology, Life Origin". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Are we now to take our marching orders from a source that indicates its "Description based on: Vol. 1 (Sept. Oct. 2009); title from caption (journalofcosmology.com website, viewed on Dec. 14, 2010)." How are they a reliable source on what they're actually doing? You think just because the Library of Congress copypastes a word into its database that it becomes suddenly a verifiable fact?! jps (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact. Cosmology describes what field the journal is interested in. That the journal publishes pseudoscience does not change that it's pseudoscience about cosmology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What basis do you have to take the website's word on what it is publishing? jps (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, This is not an article about Russian history. "Cosmology" is a perfectly acceptable, and rather obvious, description of what field of science that article is about. That is why we describe Kritika (journal) as being about Russian history, and Journal of Cosmology being about cosmology (not exclusively so, but that doesn't not make it about cosmology either). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Cosmology describes what field the journal is interested in That "cosmology" is in the title carries absolutely no weight in this case. The Journal of Cosmology is a pro-pseudoscience, pro-fringe, and likely predatory journal in which pretty much anything can be published, as evidenced (and this is but a small sample) here, here, here, and here, wherein the journal's "interest" not in cosmology, but in pseudoscience, is on full display. But if that small sample is insufficient, this should do the trick: a 2013 volume of Journal of Cosmology in which it is claimed, front and center, that "A remarkable series of meteorites in Sri Lanka containing extraterrestrial life" exists. Despite any claims here to the contrary, this journal has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And with that we reach revert number three for Headbomb. jps (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I've asked for page protection because your POV-pushing is apparently not about to go away. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the norms in this topic area, but this edit strikes me as pointy, at best. The journal isn't about pseudoscience, yes, but rather a journal about some other topic that publishes pseudoscience? Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it a journal at all? How do we decide what the topics of a website that publish writings on such wide ranging topics as life on Mars, quantum consciousness, and women's sole reason for existing being procreation? I am at a loss. I tried removing the discipline entirely. Headbomb didn't like that. "Pseudoscience" seems an accurate umbrella, but now that's gone. So here we are. WP:FRINGE is not an easy needle to thread, for sure. jps (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And now you're at four. Again treating "journal" as if it's an honorific, rather than a basic descriptor. It's not a "website", it's a journal. That it's shit does not make it not a journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

How is that a revert? What's the previous version? jps (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

All your edits have the same goal of denying basic verifiable information because you treat things like "discipline" and "journal" as honorifics, rather than basic descriptions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, every edit I make to Wikipedia is a revert since I always hold those opinions widely and generally. jps (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb and jps are both experienced editors, and both of you need to dial it down. By my count, there are at least two Contentious Topics at play here (pseudoscience and infoboxes), so this could very well be something for WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The more jps comments here and makes edits to the article there, the more it does seem like they can't deal with pseudoscience topics neutrally. Trying to remove basic information from an article and even replace the discipline field with "pseudoscience" is laughably wrong and something more akin to what a random vandal account would do. Silverseren^C 19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be noted here that Headbomb has now applied for page protection for the Journal of Cosmology at WP:RFPP. [72] Given the wording of the request, I cannot possibly see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an abuse of process via an attempt to win a content dispute through protection of a 'preferred version', in addition to constituting obvious forum shopping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• ජපස, Headbomb: You both are getting close to being blocked for 3RR. I strongly suggest you both stop editing that article and chill out for a bit.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: I know, that's why I applied for page protection. This shit needs to be locked down and settled on the talk page, which is currently impossible to discuss because jps keeps re-inserting contentious material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, it takes two to edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only one reverting and disagreeing with JPS's edits here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I count multiple editors reverting him, and multiple editors reverting you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Applying for page protection in a dispute is routine and completely unnefarious. Any closing admin will review the full history, including this dispute and judge for themselves what's appropriate to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking specifically for it to be protected on your version is not routine, though. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting to the version prior to the dispute/insertion of contentious material is routine, yes. In all cases, the closing admin can make their own decision about what's appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Can you point to the relevant part of page protection policy that stipulates that admins arbitrate content disputes, and settle the matter through page protection at one particular preferred version? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the request from Headbomb to protect this page and restore a preferred version on WP:RFPP and declined it. It seems clear that both Headbomb and ජපස are edit warring and have failed to maintain civility in their edit summaries as well as on talk pages. Rather than trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page or another dispute resolution process, each of them are trying to game the system on various noticeboards. I have warned each of them on their respective talk pages for edit warring, but it might be best to partially block both of them from editing this article for some period of time. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I made the page protection request specifically so the talk page would be used. I don't intend to break WP:3RR, I don't need blocking, and I haven't been uncivil. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say you were incivil in these two edit summaries: [73], [74]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for any incivility on my part. I will step away from the page. There are plenty of eyes on it now. Hopefully people can figure out what to do with it without my personality getting in the way. jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, this can probably be closed now. JPS kindly extended an olive branch on my talk page, and I've accepted it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that, from both of you. Given that jps has acknowledged mistakes, are you willing to acknowledge your own? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Komoro72

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

• Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [75] [76] [77]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [78]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [79]

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

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

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

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

I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [80]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

IP distruptive edit

2001:4451:912:6600:A021:1BC5:AE08:A271 (talk · contribs) and 2001:4451:912:6600:9ddd:a8e3:6c61:83a2 (talk · contribs) are the same editor make disruptive edits to the Victory Liner. He added cities like Bagabag and Solano which does not appear from their sources. I tried to revert his edits but he tried to forced back what he added without any reasons and to discuss it. - Jjpachano (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The first user you mentioned has been blocked indefinitely due to sockpuppetry. Do you think the other user should also be blocked? LoveHop123 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123: Neither IP is blocked, and IPs should never be blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Guy V. Coulombe

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

---

I was about to leave a warning for user:Guy V. Coulombe, then found out that all his editing lately is disruptive. He has been blocked before and hasn't drawn correct conclusions. It is probably time for a permanent ban. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, is the user you talking about the IP above this section? The one with at least 2 accounts? Or is this a different user? LoveHop123 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Another user. I'll improve the header. Thanks for your attention! gidonb (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. LoveHop123 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've had issues in the past with this user, also. One time, the user deleted multiple pages on my talk page and made many disruptive edits since it was last blocked. I agree that a permanent block should be issued. LoveHop123 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 Your talk page doesn't have multiple pages - I have no idea what you mean. And Coulumbe has not edited your talk page at all. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're being extremely disruptive here and above @LoveHop123. Please stop trying to participate in areas in which you're unfamiliar, or you'll lose access to do so. Star Mississippi 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll stay out of it. Sorry. LoveHop123 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't refer to people as "it". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to proffer some recent diffs, or indeed any explanation beyond "he's disruptive?" People aren't going to back a CBAN on that threadbare a charge. Ravenswing 03:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• this is disruptive and a habit and merits a final warning, but I agree with @Ravenswing, @Doug Weller not ban worthy.

Star Mississippi 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - User blocked indefinitely for disruptive edits/vandalism. This discussion can now be closed. LoveHop123

No, the reported user isn't blocked, and you never actually blocked the reported user, as you only left a block template on the user's talk page. Only administrators can block. Also noting for the record that the reported user, Guy V. Coulombe, hasn't edited in nearly four months as their last edit was on May 12, therefore it doesn't warrant an indefinite block, Gidonb and LoveHop123. Likely stale. Tails Wx 04:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Tails Wx So if someone spreads out their vandalism sufficiently, anything becomes permissable? gidonb (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gidonb What vandalism after 2018 do you mean? Doug Weller talk 08:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: the stuff I just reverted is from 2023. Done twice. gidonb (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gidonb Thanks. Looking further back, I'm blocking indefinitely. They were blocked before for disruptive editing, enough is enough. @Star Mississippi @Ravenswing @Tails Wxit just seems too likely the behaviour will continue to ignore it and cause more timewasting. They can always appeal if they want to, and I don't mind anyone overturning my block without contacting me. @LoveHop123 I'm not sure that you are competent enough to be editing here, especially with your claim about your talk page. How do others feel? I don't mind either if you all develop a consensus here that my block is wrong. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Doug Weller! gidonb (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me re: Guy V @Doug Weller. I'm 100% in favor of avoiding more time sinks.

And I've warned @LoveHop123 to dial it back, which hopefully they take on board. They're definitely too inexperienced to be clerking here. Star Mississippi 12:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Thanks. I'm not optimistic. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block and warning, Star Mississippi and Doug Weller. I wouldn't be wasting time, I'm not going to object to the block, and hopefully LoveHop123 learns from their mistakes and heed the advice on their talk page. Thanks y'all for taking care of this. Tails Wx 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

He’s on a tear after being blocked, same sort of attacks aimed at me and Wikipedia. Sort of funny that he’s proving why he needed blocking. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

well wasn't that just charming. Always nice when the editor resolves the They can always appeal if they want to, and I don't mind anyone overturning my block without contacting me. question. And I'm not either, although I'm trying Star Mississippi 22:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Becausewhynothuh?

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

---

The editor Becausewhynothuh? (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has returned to changing the order of images of photo montages in infoboxes of articles, despite having already been blocked twice due to this type of behavior (see also here and here). Now, is promoting an edit war on Houston (1, 2, 3) and Rome (1, 2) articles. It is important to remember that recently the editor in question has already been in an edit war on this same article and on the same subject with the user Cerebral726 (1, 2).​ Chronus (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Ethan955

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

---

Massive page blanking by User:Ethan955 on 2023 Sudan conflict, followed by cloning the same article thrice.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Sudan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1172656368
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Sudan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1172656642

Borgenland (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

SamhainStrode

User:SamhainStrode talk contributions continues to constantly change the countries of films either without sources or using unreliable source, as well ignoring rules about ethnicity .They have been warned about this several times [81][82][83][84], but they show no intentions of stopping. These were made after their final warning: [85][86]. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of warnings. I think a 3 day (72-hour) block would be necessary in this case, and possibly longer if they continue to add unsourced material. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hour, left a longer form note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 01:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Massaro House

2601:196:180:dc0:f887:7d06:d585:2f97 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka 2601:196:180:dc0:95f9:909b:4c66:2830 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka 2601:196:180:dc0:7155:d3d4:cc85:3aa9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) very much wants to repeatedly link their website savewright.org/building/chahroudi-house/ several times across Massaro House. The site has one paragraph on the building in question. It's being reinserted with the false edit summary of copyedit, so I didn't spot the pattern over several days until they reposted it now with the edit summary

Please stop the edit war. 1) Not a link to e-commerce or other commercial site; 2) Not a link to the subject of the article: is to *another* house on the property (that has no separate article at WP, and very little cogent on it abroad this Internet. This is one such site. The story of which cottage is important and germane to an understanding of both the Massaro House (and its design, etc.) and the controversy that leaves one authenticated by the Wright Foundation and the other not.

I've been reverting under WP:NOELBODY, which they've read but not understood. It is, as we all know, quite difficult to talk to an IPv6 as the editor slides around a range so many of us end up doing it through edit summaries... which hasn't worked here.

Where to now? Blacklist (for one editor?), page protection (for one link?), blocking (across an IPv6 range?), a trouting for me for reverting a not very spammy but still not really welcome link? They all seem a bit like using a firehose to put out a match.

They are now issuing me with warnings for edit warring. Advice, please. — Trey Maturin™ 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the website and it seems to be partly about conservation and partly about flogging their services and properties. Knitsey (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi for two weeks. Try and get them to discuss on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist the domain. That will stop the problem. Otherwise you’ll be playing whack-a-mole with IPs and blocks.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Cult of personality by User:JabarPC

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

A newly created account named JabarPC has twice removed large amounts of sourced content from the page cult of personality. (1 2)

Despite receiving a warning, a minute later the account proceded to again remove large amounts of content (here). Potentially this may constitute Vandalism.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk), 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hexatron93

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

• copyvio ([87] + [88], [89] [90], [91])

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

• removal of sourced information ([92], [93], [94]) with edit summaries calling them fake or false, with no background to the claims

There’s also changes of what appears to me to be notable unsourced changes to Economy of India that I have not touched: [95], [96]

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

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

Dare Devil Dare

User:Dare Devil Dare readded an unlikely claim after the claim had been deleted. No source was provided, and the editor had received a final warning for adding claims without proper sources. Dare Devil Dare was dismissive of the warning. Today the editor made an additional edit that seems unlikely and is not supported by the source cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant this for that last "additional edit" link. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates

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

This editor who is autopatrolled is creating articles with non-standard references and is continually removing maintenance templates when they are tagged. They references are raw search urls that are completely useless to man nor beast and are leading to non-standard articles. About 14 months ago, I unreviewed 14 of these articles where the majority of the references were these bare urls and although I got flak for it, I think there was a promise to fix them at the time, and even though I tagged them with maintance templates, the tags were all removed. I went back a couple of days to review the latest articles and they are still the same. I tagged the page, the maintance templates were again removed Here is an example for 14 months ago Lazarus House [97] Here is an example of an article that was created last week: Frederick W. Schumacher. I tagged this article with maintenance template a couple of days ago: Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio and the tags were removed [98]. I had a conversation with user:Ɱ. Editor opened a dicussion here]] but still doesn't seem to taking the problem onboard. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?. I tagged the Lazarus House [99] and it was removed.. The editor seems incapable of taking on the problem and resolving, instead pointing to a whole other bunch of unrelated stuff like reliabilty, which has not been questioned as the sources cant be examined. scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The editor should have the autopatrolled permission removed so that WP:NPP can check the work for the foreseeable future. scope_creep^Talk 23:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved in the previous conflict between Scope creep (SC) and Ɱ in December 2022; see User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 19#Continued "new pages" and the following section for context. (I happened to have Toledo and Ohio Central Railroad Station watchlisted, and re-marked the page as patrolled after SC unpatrolled it.) At the time, I wasn't pleased with SC - they were unpatrolling articles created by Ɱ, including that 6-year-old article, apparently due to an unrelated dispute. I also find it very curious that SC tagged Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio at seemingly a random time (i.e, not while reviewing other articles), and this talk page message seems to indicate that SC was specifically looking at Ɱ's work. So I certainly sympathize that Ɱ may rightfully feel animosity towards, and perhaps even feel hounded by, SC. I'm not sure I trust SC with the new page patrol right at this point.

That said, Ɱ's behavior has been extremely troublesome. Part of that is the long-running issue with sources: as SC discusses above, Ɱ has been moving articles to mainspace with bare URL references that redirect towards a library login page, making verification next to impossible. I warned Ɱ about that during the dispute last December, so they're aware of the issue from multiple editors, but their replies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio indicate they do not feel a need to properly format sources before moving articles to mainspace (or even therafter). That, unfortunately, is probably enough to revoke autopatrol over.

On a more recent scale - the last two weeks or so - Ɱ has been acting unusually hostile. That seems to have started with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Template:Attached KML/Hudson River watershed on August 17 and continued on Commons with Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Gregory Ackers (also see commons:User talk:Marchjuly). The AfD thread I linked and the NPP thread that SC linked have a lot of invective from Ɱ. This isn't the first time that Ɱ has thrown such a fit - they went on a similar tear in January 2018, then stopped editing for two months - so there needs to be a recognition from them that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Normally when people are getting bullied and their work is getting destroyed, we don't insult them further and say they're having a fit and hope they lose all their rights. Fuck this toxic project. Fuck this toxic community. If you can't see that problem, then you are part of the problem. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled I have no idea what went wrong with Mj but the unwillingness to write articles in compliance with V, the defensive behavior in the NPP thread mentioned above, and the dismissive attitutde at a related AfD tell me that autopatrolled needs to go, and probably a stiffer penalty to end these ongoing bad acts. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove autopatrolled, I guess. Clearly their work needs a bit more scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal: They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. leaving bare URLs which a portion of the userbase cannot access and not providing the info for them to look the article up via TWL or other database to which they may subscribe is unhelpful to the reader or other editors. In the absence of other sourcing, this can lead to verifiability issues.Star Mississippi 01:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke autopatrolled unfortunately after reviewing their behavior I determine that more scrutiny is needed in order to ensure that new articles are verifiable. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• remove autopatrolled they can earn it back as some point maybe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ɱ (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait a second - we have 2 conversations going on at once: this one and the one at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?. Why? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumably because that conversation is played out and the OP said they were going to archive it. And because the removal of the AP userright cannot be decided on that page. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close: this right is granted by administrators to prolific editors, and does not have a mechanism for community review, approval or revoking. Nor are there standards like ref formatting work that procedurally let a user be disqualified from the right. I will reply more on the nominator's egregious actions later. I'm at work. Or I may just leave. ɱ (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As an involved party, it’s not your place to close this discussion.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think there’s merit to some of Mj’s complaints at the other thread; there’s bad blood that goes back to some AfDs in the past. Unfortunately, as that thread played out, Mj got increasingly exasperated and did not do themself any favors.

  I suggest looking at both parties in this dispute.

  I’ll also note that as I add to an article, I also may leave bare refs, then come back and clean them up later. I’m not sure it’s that big a sin.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Leaving bare urls for a few hours or days while working on an article isn't a big deal. Leaving them for months is a bigger deal, since there's a real risk of link rot, but they will still get bot archived and/or cleaned up by others before becoming permanently dead. Leaving bare urls that other editors cannot even visit - thus preventing others from cleaning up the citations whatsoever - is a much bigger verifiability issue. If those links go dead - and many logged-in database links like that are only good for 24 hours or whatnot - then the sources are permanently gone for everyone. Repeatedly using those unusable bare links, after being repeatedly asked not to, is where things go from a content issue to a behavioral issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  if someone asked me ONCE without being nasty, I'd be happy to oblige and improve the refs. I have done that. And I also go back and improve them without anyone asking. All I'm asking for is some patience and simple human kindness. I have a proven track record for improving the bare references. Why would you punish me for all this? ɱ (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually the community can review the granting of permissions like autopatrolled, per the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions. The only permissions the community can't review are admin, 'crat, checkuser, and oversight. Those require ArbCom to make a request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am just noting that this whole thing appears to be a conflict that was stoked by scope_creep and others, with the effect of alienating Ɱ from the project. And this proposal is an unnecessary escalation. This is despite the fact Ɱ is an highly experienced editor and that the issue is a stylistic one, not one of reliability as it is being described. The sources are not unreliable, they are just poorly described. scope_creep is calling them that knowingly, and edit warring over it with Ɱ. Then, in the user talk thread, he threatened to draftify the article in a way that would violate WP:DRAFTIFY and began the interaction with such a hostile tone ("You'll move it back no doubt and I will need to start issuing warning against you.") it is very obvious why Ɱ was upset with him. Chris troutman, who also should know better, then took it upon himself after a recent discussion thread to nominate the article for deletion when there is very clearly no issue of notability, and it is one of the core tenets of AFD that you do not delete an article just because sourcing is poor. That is heading towards a clear keep. Then some IP showed up to harass Ɱ on his talk page. It is not clear to me why this editor is being followed around and having minor infractions enforced in such a hostile way, except that the goal seems to be to incite this reaction. Dominic·t 01:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled This is not a big deal. It simple means that a second set of eyes will look at any new articles. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove perm Request for Procedural close requested above doesn't apply here. Nor should an autopatrolled creator be removing unfixed maintenance tags. This could in theory be avoided by the use of {{under construction}} or draftspace one at at a time, but responses on this issue including the one to Cullen at the AFD ("I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above." -- try??) mean the perm should be removed. Note that:
  • WP:PERM states "If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard."
  • WP:APAT states "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of the New Page Patrol process".
  • WP:NPP states "Typically, one sourcing tag should be added to address lack of sources entirely or depth of those in place, and if others, to address the manner of sourcing, such as no footnotes, the poor attribution of those cited, the use of only primary sources and related issues. // Other common tags include ..{{citation style}}, {{cleanup-bare URLs}}".
  • WP:CITE states "If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it.". Your citations -- both bareURL as well as amended minimal news cites clearly don't meet this.
  • WP:WNTRMT states, "You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply: ... 2. The issue has not yet been resolved; ... 4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;"

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I invite folks to look at this version of Mj’s user page until they deleted it a few hours ago. That’s a staggering amount of article creation — more than probably most of the other protagonists have done and certainly more than I’ve done.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The first link I clicked on was Angel's Share from January of this year, and some stylistic shifts made copyvio/close paraphrasing alarms go off in my head, so I clicked through to sources and found these before I stopped looking:

• Source: Despite its outsize importance as a trailblazer in the craft cocktail movement
• Our article: "The bar had an outsized influence on the craft cocktail movement,"
• Source: It was a direct influence on Sasha Petraske, the founder of the seminal cocktail den Milk & Honey, which in turn inspired dozens of bars around the world
• Our article: "The bar directly influenced Sasha Petraske, who founded Milk & Honey, which inspired bars around the world"
• Source: With a creative cocktail program and a romantic room with a view of Stuyvesant Triangle,
• Our article: "The upscale craft cocktail bar had a "romantic room" and a view of Stuyvesant Triangle."
• Source: The bar utilized elements of Japanese bartending, including measuring, stirring, and shaking drinks with precision
• Our article: "Stirring, measuring, shaking and preparing drinks with precision—these were the aspects Petraske latched onto"

Maybe I'm just unlucky? Anyway, opinions vary about close paraphrasing, so stuff like this could do with some more eyes on it, which I think is the point here with regard to the permission. (Apologies for the indentation mess.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Being a prolific creator of articles is not the same thing as being a prolific creator of good articles. From a spot check of articles where Ɱ was the article's sole creator (as some on that list are not articles Ɱ created), there are several problematic creations. Franklin County Corthouse (1840-1884) has the same bare URL pointing to login screen issues that are at the heart of this complaint. Columbus Landmarks was wholly uncited until its fifth revision, where a bare URL was cited. 320 Newbury Street's sole initial reference was to a site that had been tagged with {{dead link}} ten years prior to the article's creation. Cristóbal Colón, 14th Duke of Veragua had no citations from its initial revision on 23 February 2015, until the first was added two years later on 14 June 2017. Those are all articles that would have failed NPP in their initial state.

The confounding thing is though, Ɱ can create articles that don't have this issue. Sugary drinks portion cap rule had reasonable CS1 named citations in its first revision, though it was wholly lacking in content. Star of Burma was, based on a skim, a pretty solid article from its first revision, minus the description section being a potential copyvio.

On balance, from my spot check, there are enough issues present over a prolonged period of time, that give me pause as to whether Ɱ should have the autopatrolled permission. Editors who are autopatrolled should not be making article creations that would otherwise result in a NPP fail. And right now, I'm only really assessing whether or not an article meets WP:V from its initial state. I'm not fully checking for other common issues that NPP is designed to assess, like copyvios, close paraphrasing, lack of categories, article duplication. There may well be other important issues here that require closer scrutiny. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You're analyzing old versions of articles? From before I edited them, or from while I was in the process of expanding them? You can't judge my work while it's being written... What? ɱ (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the goal of the phrasing "clean article" in WP:APAT to refer to an article that can have no issues whatsoever? Because you could nitpick almost any new article that has been created by even the most skilled articles. Or is the point of autopatrolled simply to automatically mark "patrolled" the contributions from editors whose new pages are consistently worthy of being successfully reviewed by NPP patrollers? None of the issues you raised have any relevance to notability, copyright, spam, or other considerations for NPP. I reviewed the checklist and flow chart on NPP. There is a minor "optional" step about adding additional cleanup tags as needed. It's on the same level as adding categories, which I admit I almost never remember to put in my own articles before I publish. There doesn't seem to be any indication that one of the purposes of NPP is to hound editors to enforce "consistent citation style," nor any indication anywhere else that citation style is an element of "autopatrolled" status. As stated above, Ɱ certainly has a very good grasp of Wikipedia notability and reliable sources. None of Ɱ's articles, even the ones with these issues identified, are worthy of deletion, or really questionable in any sense, aside from some need of cleanup. They certainly shouldn't have been mass-unreviewed by the other party here. I think people are applying a stricter standard here to make the crime fit the punishment, rather than the other way around, simply because of how Ɱ blew up after being threatened repeatedly. Dominic·t 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Weak remove. As noted by A. B., this user seems to be a prolific creator, but you shouldn't be making articles with bare refs. I also weakly concur with the fact this was to an extent provoked, but the root cause was said failure to make proper refs. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty gobsmacked by how many people are are continuing to pile on without actually scrutinizing Scope creep's claims, and the more I read the more I feel the need to call BS. Just look at one of his examples, Lazarus House. He alleges that he added {{unreliable sources}} to the article, and that Ɱ removed it. Just click the article history and you will see how Scope creep is misrepresenting what occurred. First, {{unreliable sources}} should have been removed. Scope creep is in the wrong to keep trying to claim that reputable news sources are "unreliable sources" just because they are behind a paywall. (These only links that were problematic in this article were already tagged {{Bare URL inline}}.) Ɱ reverted him, saying, correctly "Reliability is not an issue." I would have removed this myself. And then, in the very next edit, 40 minutes later, he fixes all those references by providing all the necessary citation information so they are no longer even "bare" links. That is Scope creep's evidence, diffs taken out of context and mischaracterized, in what looks more like a vendetta than new page patrolling. Dominic·t 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled - Autopatrolled is for editors who produce content that requires little to no cleanup, and inserting bare URL links isn't that. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• DO NOT remove autopatrolled It looks to me as if Dominic has the right take on this, and that many of the "remove" !votes are essentially ill-considered pile-ons. At least some of those here, including Scope creep, could do with a good trouting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate you standing up for me. I know we've had our differences, and I respect you more for this comment. Thank you. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I definitely get it now, that many people feel frustrated clicking these sources and finding no information, even a simple way to ascertain what the source is (I don't get, however, why people feel that's a reason to punish me). I would have liked for someone to seriously and nicely, again, ask me to rectify the articles, or for me to do more going forward, before voting to remove rights. And I've never heard any real concerns about this type of move before today. Only a bit 8 months ago that was directly part of Scope Creep's wrongful targeting of me. I wish others had raised their voices earlier, and I don't think it's right to punish someone over a problem that was seriously raised against me just today. I had been writing new articles like this for months to years without a whisper of a complaint, except for that attack 8 months ago. ɱ (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Scope creep plays pretty hard ball. Some like that style, some don't. See also from this week:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tines
  • Exchange with Steven Walling. A couple of highlights:
    • "I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about."
    • "If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you're going to ignore requests to do things you need to already be doing because they're not polite enough. Even more when you should have already known that what you were doing wasn't acceptable or otherwise shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. More importantly, there's nothing impolite about this request back in December [100] Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's one 100th of what happened in December. Then and today, I was deliberately riled up by Scope Creep and some others. I don't respond to hostile threats. Ignoring a request is one thing; ignoring a hostile request and the fallout from it is another. ɱ (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: You keep saying you only need a polite request and you will improve but there are two problems for this. While editors should generally be polite in their interactions, an editor cannot ignore a request for them to stop doing something they should not be doing simply because it was insufficiently polite. I can perhaps understand the situation where someone was so absolutely rude that you missed their request or stopped reading but it doesn't sounds like this is the issue here. Perhaps more importantly, can you explain to me what part of this December 2022 request was impolite [101]? Yes Pi.1415926535 did not re-review your articles, but that cannot reasonably be interpreted to make their response impolite. In fact they partially agreed with you but sought further feedback. If you consider such a request impolite enough that you're going to ignore it, that's an even bigger problem.

  And let's be clear here. Even for someone willing to parse URLs, there is no realistic chance anyone can get what reference the URL refers to from that URL, nor from visiting it unless they happen to have access to that specific online library. You didn't even remove the webproxy bit from your URLs so even people with access to Newsbank generally will not be able to easily access your URLs.

  More importantly, as others have said, this isn't like a paywall URL where there's generally enough info to at least know what the source is even if you don't have access. Also there is a good chance those URLs can stop working quickly. Are they still working now? I guess they might be since you were somehow able to source them now, but how confident are you that they aren't just going randomly die? Because unlike with a normal URL where we at least have a chance that the URL may be archived, and even more nowadays since some services do try and archive links in Wikipedia, this isn't something that can happen here.

  Do you really think it's okay for me to source an article with the reference, the book Nil_Einne X-ed about today? Because frankly that's in some ways better than what you're doing. This isn't simply a stylistic issue but whether you've actually included enough info that it's reasonable an editor can be sure you have referenced the details.

  IMO it's fairly reasonable to say these articles are unsourced in such a circumstance. Perhaps there are better templates that could be used, but ultimately that's more semantics than anything. You should be aware, even without being told that what you were doing was unacceptable and you were in fact specifically told back in December that it was and even in a polite fashion. I'm personally not a great fan of editors leaving something in main space even for a day or two while they cleanup, but even if we accept giving you a week, this doesn't explain why you only fixed the ones at Lazarus House in August after so many months [102].

  Given the circumstances I'm also leaning towards supporting removing the user right, unless you can better explain why we're here now. By accepting the userright, it was your responsibility to ensure any articles you created were acceptable for main space solely by yourself. Or if for some reason they weren't, you should have manually marked them as unreviewed by yourself. You seem to have failed to do so, and in fact have contested when another editor has recognised the problem and taken action. I don't know and frankly don't care much whether scope_creep followed whatever the correct process is for unreviewing an article since. Ultimately even if they didn't these articles shouldn't have been marked as reviewed since they weren't in an acceptable state for main space and they remained like that for months. Your assurance you're going to improve now seems a little too late since you should have done so before you accepted the right, and you definitely should have done so when Pi.1415926535 politely warned you that what you were doing wasn't acceptable back in December yet we're still here now. If scope_creep has been interacting poorly towards you perhaps we could consider an i-ban but that's a separate issue from you losing the userright.

  Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't reasonably respond to all of the items you bring up here. I've been at work late, and now I need to sleep. This is a lot. The conflict in December was malicious and complex. If you wish to understand all the nuances of what took place, I can detail some of it out for you on your talk page tomorrow. ɱ (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're missing the point. I DGAF about the conflict. It's clear that Pi.1415926535 made a polite request for you to improve. Whatever your problems with scope_creep are completely irrelevant to the fact you received a polite request but ignored it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)