Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109

Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)

I posted a new article Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre)‎ on Wikipedia yesterday. It was immediately flagged for deletion. I contested it and contacted the reviewer Velella. It has now been removed by Justlettersandnumbers. What is going on? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator, I would have recommended asking Justlettersandnumbers. I see you have already asked at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers and they have responded there. TSventon (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have received no notification of this discussion even though I am named. However, I have nothing to add.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

TSventon I am sorry that Justlettersandnumbers and Velella are so offended that I was trying to find out what you did to my article. Apparently, they had plenty of time to change things without explanation but no time to respond to my trying to understand what they have done. As you can imagine, when you spend a lot of time writing an article and have it summarily dismissed might cause a person to wonder why. Here are the facts:

I posted a new article yesterday fully sourced and independent of any article currently on Wikipedia. It was immediately flagged for deletion and yet did not appear on the AfD list. I followed the process to protest the deletion. The article was then deleted and the title was redirected to Godfrey of Bouillon which contains a one-paragraph discussion summarizing the article.

I have written hundreds of articles for Wikipedia and each has gone through a review process for consistency followed by technical assessment by users in the field. Please restore this article to where it was when first posted and allow the process to continue. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Velella draftified the article as unsourced and patently not ready for main space. Highly probably that text should and doule be acommodated in Godfrey of Bouillon. Title also appears contrary to WP:MOS. As the version of the article that was moved to draft has 123 citations and an extensive bibliography, the reason for moving to draft doesn't make sense. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, Velella should move the article back to mainspace. Issues with the title can be dealt with on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record it did make sense at the time as the move to Draft was made after the first edit. There would appear to have been an edit conflict between my consideration and completing my edit and the considerable addition of material by the article's author. As the article stood, it was a short unsourced stub. I didn't delete it, nor did I propose it for deletion at that time, but the same article immediately re-appeared back in mainspace and I did ask that that be speedily deleted as an unneeded fork of Godfrey of Bouillon. I was content that the Draft could be worked on to provide clear water between the two articles.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to draft: Draft:Advocatus_Sancti_Sepulchri_(Advocate_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre). It does appear to have been draftified quicker than the NPP guidance calls for. It can be moved back to mainspace to replace the current redirect to Godfrey of Bouillon. I'm not one to know how to properly do that, though. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the timeline of the article on 17 September:

16:25 Article created 16:27 Article populated with 90k+ amount of text 16:28 Velella moved article to Draft saying "unsourced and patently not ready for main space." 16:33 Velella requested speedy deletion 18:43 Velella asked for an explanation on their Talk Page

No answer was received for the request for an explanation until 26 hours later after a second request.

18 September

20:23 Article deleted by Justlettersandnumbers with no warning 20:28 Justlettersandnumbers asked for an explanation on their Talk Page 20:41 Second request to Velella for an explanation 20:51 Response from Justlettersandnumbers: Yes, if you'll allow me enough time write an answer, I'll reply. Please be aware that you are not the only pebble on the beach. 20:52 Response from Velella: Responding when I am not online I have always found to be problematical. Are we done? 21:39 Response from Velella to Admin Board: For the record, I have received no notification of this discussion even though I am named. However, I have nothing to add.

It seems to me that Velella and Justlettersandnumbers acted in haste with incomplete information, and refused to even consider an explanation. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that this dispute is a content dispute (and thus outside the remit of ANI); is this notion correct? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I really don't think this is a content dispute. This is not an area I edit in, or I'd attempt to re-mainspace the article myself. The primary rationale for moving it to draft space (that it was unreferenced) was invalid once the move had been made; Velella should have realized this was so after seeing the result of the edit conflict, apologized, and self-reverted. I agree the title is non-standard; moving the article to either Latin or English would have fixed that. Although much of the article does go over material covered at Godfrey of Bouillon and at King of Jerusalem (I would advocate cutting almost everything before "The title of Godfrey"), so far as I can see (for some reason I can no longer search pages on Wikipedia), the material about his various titles is not covered at Godfrey of Bouillon; it's briefly alluded to, and since the conversion of Dr. Grampinator's recreation to a redirect, that article contains a circular wikilink. The A10 speedy nomination also seems unjustified to me; the article does not substantively duplicate Godfrey of Bouillon, in my opinion, and if Velella thought it did, why draftify the original version rather than converting it into a redirect? I see Justlettersandnumbers agreed with me about the A10. People can differ on whether Godfrey's title deserves a whole article—as I say, I don't edit in this area—but it was draftified for what turned out to be an invalid reason after the move went through, then A10 was invalidly asserted, and those are missteps, the former of which is yet to be rectified. Whether the topic is independently notable should then be discussed in some talk space (as a proposed merge?), or if necessary at AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Erm ... you're taking other editors to task for acting in haste, at the same time as you sending a shrill "Please respond to my query" post to Justlettersandnumbers, exactly nine minutes after your initial query (never mind kicking off this ANI complaint eight minutes afterwards)? Seriously? You are not new here, with over 13,000 edits and six years in. We are all volunteers here, and you have little excuse for being unaware of it. None of us are paid to sit at the keyboard, and none of us are required to provide you with <5 min response times to your inquiries. Whatever the rights or wrongs of your dispute, you need to seriously slow your roll. Ravenswing 09:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if people thought I was shrill, but I posted a new article and it was immediately flagged for deletion. No discussion, nothing. I responded to the AfD message and then the article appeared to have been deleted. Again, no discussion. I've not had this experience where these actions were hurried without coordination. What actions, in your mind, should have I done and when? And the others? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely well within your rights to have asked those editors for an explanation; no one's going to give you a hard time for that. And then you should have waited for an answer. As in waiting for a couple of days. If a couple days went by (and especially if the editors had made other intermediate edits without addressing your inquiry), that's when you send a follow up "Excuse me, but may I get an answer here?"

ANI, by contrast, is just about the last resort for this sort of thing. Did you see the blurb at the top of the page stating "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in the original) It is sure as hell not for situations where you didn't get an answer within eight minutes of asking. Ravenswing 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I was under the impression that people mentioned on this board were supposed to be notified? Anyway, here's the reply I made to Dr. Grampinator on my talk-page:

I haven't deleted anything. Your page is at Draft:Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre); you copy-pasted content from there into this redirect, which was then nominated for speedy deletion; I simply reverted your cut-and-paste move, and then re-targeted the redirect. I suggest that you obtain some sort of consensus that the long text you have written is actually needed, and suggest Talk:Godfrey of Bouillon as a possible venue for that discussion. Just a thought: you might consider whether the use of so many long quotations is really justified.

I forget to mention either there or in my edit summary that in reverting the cut-and-paste I was also declining the A10 speedy nomination, which I considered to be inapplicable (sorry, Velella!). It took me perhaps a couple of minutes to write that reply, during which time I was asked to hurry up and respond; just my opinion, but a little patience goes a long way. Dr. Grampinator, I'd have hoped that as an experienced editor you'd know that copy-pasting between pages risks muddling the page history or creating parallel histories, and that for that reason we instead change the title of a page by moving it. You or anyone else is free to move the draft to mainspace, preferably under a title in one language rather than two.

For the record, as I understand it, the version Velella elected to draftify was this, and that doesn't in itself seem to have been anything but correct, even if the timing was unfortunate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Except it was a few minutes after the first save. Secretlondon (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Two IP ranges from Monterrey, Mexico, evading partial blocks

• 2806:109F:16:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2806:109F:13:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The range Special:Contributions/2806:109F:13:B9D:0:0:0:0/64 was given a partial block from the article Ensemble cast for one week. The person behind the disruption couldn't wait a week, and started using a couple of other ranges, restoring the disputed material.[1]

This person has a long history of WP:NOR violations, especially related to Saturday Night Live, its players and its various seasons. For instance, they added conjecture about the streaming schedule two days ago, and edit-warred to restore this conjecture.[2] They commonly violate WP:SYNTH by pulling together disparate facts[3] including future facts.[4] This person adds false material such as Robert DeNiro appearing as a lounge pianist; the media described the skit but did not mention DeNiro.[5] Another frequent target is the Entertainment One article which they plastered with unsupported film projects.[6] They add many other kinds of false information, for instance listing an uninvolved country at a film article.[7]

To me, it looks like we should give up on partial blocks for this person and instead set up rangeblocks. We are long past good-faith editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I blocked the two /48 ranges above for a month. The /64 has not edited for a few days so I'll leave that. Let me know if it restarts. Next time, as well as the good outline presented above, please show at least two attempts to communicate with the person behind the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on my communication skills. Thanks for the rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cleveland IPs adding false music sales and certifications

• 2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Cleveland has been using the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:6010:7706:1A00:0:0:0:0/64 to inflate the sales and chart successes of music articles. For instance, a Gold album was inflated to Platinum,[8] and unverifiable sales figures are frequently added.[9][10]

The person was given two Level 4 warnings a few days ago at User talk:2603:6010:7706:1A00:CC05:2F3B:1FB2:5649 but picked up again today at The Sound of Revenge. I think the /64 needs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is also block evasion; I've reblocked the /64 for 1 year.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Complaint about New Page reviewer draftifying work while I'm still working on it.

I want to raise a complaint about a New Page reviewer who is jumping on people's work within a matter of seconds after they save their initial edit. I'm not going to identify the NPR yet, in case there's physically nothing you can do about them, but to keep a long story short, I started a page about a church, saved the initial edit with a clear edit summary, stating that I was still working on it while getting more information for it. I was in the middle of adding that information, and upon trying to save, was presented with an edit conflict, stating that someone else had edited the page; it'd been moved into draftspace, and left me in a position where I almost overwrote the reviewer concerned. I've since had the draft deleted (at my request, G7), because I simply can't be bothered to tell people what I'm trying to do, only for them to totally ignore it. Do I have any recourse to complain about the reviewer please? Note, that they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers for similar things. Thanks! Dane|Geld 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: per WP:DRAFTOBJECT you could have the draft moved back to mainspace. Any admin will be able to restore the deleted content for you. You can also place the {{In use}} template at the top of the page you are working on. Any editor patrolling the page should give you time to complete your expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DaneGeld. You have access to your own sandbox space as well as draft space to develop content that is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. Please do not place unreferenced stubs into the main space of the encyclopedia. I see nothing wrong with the NPP reviewer draftifying your unreferenced stub. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand I have access to my own sandbox; the reason for getting the stub in place so quickly, was that I'd updated the template for the diocese in which the church is situated, and did not want to leave that template with a red link in it. I think they could have given me another few moments to finish what I was doing, before taking their tools to it. I kept a copy of the source code, and will add references to it, per Polyamorph, and then tag it with an in use. I'm not leaving that template with a missing article in it. Dane|Geld 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I consider an unreferenced two sentence stub that makes no claim of notability to be a bigger problem than a red link. Best practice is to gather and format references sufficient to show notability first, and then write the article by summarizing what those references say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Just don't update templates or put other links in mainspace until AFTER the article itself is ready to be there. You are working out of order, and there was nothing wrong with moving an article not ready to be in mainspace over to Draft. The reviewer was following standard NPR procedures. MB 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, MB. The reviewer did not follow best practice for draftifying the stub, which states that it may be moved if: the topic has some potential merit, and the article does not meet the required standard, and there is no evidence of active improvement, and the article does not contain copyright violations, or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest (per WP:COIEDIT). I never even got to the third stage, "there is no evidence of active improvement", because the article wasn't there long enough for me to improve! I was doing it when the reviewer moved it. I'd only created the page barely 3 minutes earlier, and I understand that ALL of the first 4 rules that I quoted, must occur, for the article to be draftified. There's a lot of things I am, a robot isn't one of them! Dane|Geld 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

While draftifying the stub so quickly may not be "best practice", neither is creating an article directly in mainspace. Best practice is to create it elsewhere and move it to mainspace later. Even if your intent is to create a stub so that other can expand it, there is no reason not to first develop it enough so that there is no risk of deletion. MB 21:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• The NP reviewer did their job. It was an unsourced stub. It's better to start an article with at least one or two sources, or it will get pushed into draft space, where it belongs. It was you that requested a speedy delete, not the reviewer. Why you requested a speedy delete of your own article, I have no idea. You could have simply fleshed it out then moved it back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I requested the G7 on my article because it seemed futile to continue it there and then, if it was just going to get hammered. I'd made my intentions clear in the edit summary that I was still working on it, and the reviewer simply just "nope"'d it out of there and dumped it. Do they actually read edit summaries, or are they just interested in getting 1-up on someone else? I left the CSD template with this rationale: "Can't be arsed. Give people a chance before you smack their work." That's just how I felt. Dane|Geld 08:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I created a blank article. It was deleted before I could flesh it out. Exasperating. At least now we draftify instead. What was said above is true. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. Myself, I've always felt the tendency of the overanxious (whether it be NP reviewers or people aiming to be the fastest CSDers in the West) to pounce on new articles within seconds is totally obnoxious, and that they show a marked disinclination to work from the back of the list. But they're not contravening policy to do so. Ravenswing 18:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  If I may pitch in - a few days back I posted a fairly developed article (not a stub) about a recently deceased legal philosopher of some prominence, a man widely considered an authority on the subject in his home country, published in several languages by reputable editorial houses (including by OUP in English), who received several awards, etc. I did not properly source it because I was simply too tired to go on, so I sent it to mainspace with edit commentary to the effect that I would be adding all the sources first thing the next day, under the hope that the fact that it was a relatively developed article on fairly notable individual (a quick Google search would probably bring up several hits) would work in my favour. Of course, by the time I woke up the article had been draftified, which I found quite irksome (and I was not as kind to the NPR as I could/should have), particularly since before sending my own article to mainspace I had spent several hours that day improving another, one that had remained unsourced and an orphan since 2012!

  Needless to say, I am responsible for sending an unsourced article to mainspace, and as you mention the reviewer did not break any rules. However, I find that over-eagerness to be counter-productive, especially when there's no harm in waiting for a day or two when there's still stuff from ancient times that needs to be dealt with. Ostalgia (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that should become policy then, Ravenswing. It's disheartening to be in the middle of doing something constructive to bring your article to standard, to have some nobody in the middle of nowhere, who can't see what you're doing, shoot first and then tell you they've done it, rather than talking to you first. It makes you feel like it's really not worth it. Dane|Geld 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the reviewer moved too fast to draftify here. Unless there is something obviously harmful in an article, there's no reason to not wait several minutes (I will usually avoid drastic action until hours or days have passed). The advice given by other editors about how to avoid unwanted draftification are nevertheless valid as a way to reduce friction between editors and editing processes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think part of the issue is that NPPer's are a bit overwhelmed with the sheer volume of new articles. I create articles, some of them are stubs. Don't think I've ever created an article without at least one reference which shows that it meets notability criteria. That being said, I don't think any action needs to be taken here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• I have notified Bruxton, the reviewer in question, about this discussion. If this were a broader conversation about draftification that was taking place at another venue, it would be fine, but DaneGeld is specifically asking about "recourse to complain about the reviewer" and discussing Bruxton's past NPP reviews. It's odd to have the subject of an ANI discussion be so easily identifiable without them being notified at all about it, and I don't think it's really fair to start a "complaint" thread in which someone's edits are criticized without letting them know about it and giving them the opportunity to respond. DanCherek (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't identify the reviewer because I wanted originally to know if anything could be done about what they'd done, Dan. I guess now you've id'd them, it's obvious that they need informing. They were only identifiable because you went looking for who they were. Dane|Geld 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It was obvious from the very first post, where you said that they are "jumping on people's work" and pointed out that "they have previously had pages unreviewed by other reviewers". I happen to agree with Rosguill above that the draftification, two minutes after the page was created, was hasty, but that doesn't mean that Bruxton shouldn't get a chance to respond to these statements. Practically every ANI discussion is started by an editor who is wondering if something can be done about what another editor has done. DanCherek (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood, Dan. I guess I should have flagged him from the start. I pinged him from his note on my talk page, but when I looked at his contribs after he didn't respond, he'd stopped editing 2 minutes after moving my article into draft. As it is, it's going to take a little more time to get the bits together now, because I can't remember the pages I got the info from now; I closed them when Bruxton moved my article, and didn't bookmark them! Guess it's going to be in my sandbox for a while, although I may go back and visit the church again on Tuesday before I go back home, they have some information about the construction of the church there. Might be wise to get an appointment with the Priest too. I'm sure they'd be happy to help with the building of a WP article! Dane|Geld 19:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't reference the priest, of course. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Benefit of clergy, is that? EEng 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh crud. I forgot about that. That's original research, isn't it? Bum. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some reading through Newmarket's history. This might take longer than I thought. Still, for a properly referenced, creditable article, it's got to be worth it, right?! Dane|Geld 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can use what the priest tells you as clues pointing to other sources, though. And maybe the priest has clippings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Official guidance for NPPs doing front of queue reviewing is to wait 15 minutes. Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care, Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. In the past I created a user script that NPPs can install to help with this: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast.js. Bummer that this made it to ANI; this could have been posted at WT:NPP or WT:NPPR and gotten the same answer with less of a high stakes atmosphere. I oppose any sanction for the reviewer, I'm sure we can just ask them to be more careful about this in the future. Anyway, hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• What is so wrong about creating articles at AfC – that is the proper venue, as is SANDBOX. Why attempt to create in mainspace when you are not ready? Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Draftspace is a safe place to work on articles that are not yet suitable for Wikipedia. What's wrong with an article going to draft? If an article is in a fragmentary state, it's less likely to get negative attention or actions while in draft, which gives you some time to spiff it up without being bothered too much. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I ask myself this question at least 2 or 3 times a week. I wish we could send more articles to draft so editors could better access resources and learn some best practices before we have cases like this spring up. There is nothing wrong with starting an article in draft and this should be encouraged. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Mm, here's my answer to that. There's only one article I've ever worked on in draftspace, and that's because that I had doubts I could prove the subject's notability. Every other single article I've created, I've had zero doubts on that score. I'm nearly eighteen years away from being a Wikinewbie, and I don't expect to have an article I'm starting taken to CSD because I answered the telephone or put my wife's dinner in the oven (or, like Ostalgia, it strikes me that it's long past midnight, and I can always finish up in the morning) before putting in the citations. Except that it's happened all the same on a couple of occasions, and both from overzealous idjits jumping on the front end of the New Pages list, both within a minute, and no doubt thinking that people handed out barnstars for the most article creations shot down.

  New page patrol is important. I've put in stints on it myself. But if there are patrollers working from the front of the queue instead of properly from the back (yes, I get it, articles at the back of the queue you actually have to put in a little work to verify, instead of just hitting the button, shouting "Gotcha, ya bastid!" and pouncing on the next new page, elapsed time four seconds), and they're ignoring the 15+ minute rule, then at the very least there needs to be a heavy trout slap, with the expectation that a repeat performance will result in the right being pulled. Ravenswing 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ravenswing - First, you're autopatrolled, so you'd never appear on the NPP queue. Second, as editors with more expertise than I have already said, 2 minutes is way too quick to draftify. However, I don't think it's a "do it again and got shot in the head" offense. Over the past 3 weeks, I've put about 100 articles off to the side which had major problems, but I felt were too new to take action on. And I would go back to them either much later that day, or the next. Out of all those articles, many of them which had been tagged for issues, do you know how many were improved? Zero. The reviewer needs to have a word or two said to them, and if it becomes an issue over several weeks or months, then action can be taken. I think we both see the issue pretty much in the same light, it's just the degree of severity on which we differ. And I also agree that most NPPer's should be focusing on the back of the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dr_vulpes, Onel5969 and other NPPers: When draft space was first introduced, I saw it that way: a place to build up an article before mainspacing, especially useful for those working with bad connections or little bits of time. But it's become a place for NPPers and other patrollers to sling articles, and there's a protocol/policy chokepoint with how to get the article from there to mainspace once it's ready; does one need to submit it via AfC (whose standards have become quite high in practice, quite apart from the length of time waiting for a review) or can one simply move it back? I have the impression that some of the people who move articles to draft believe that means the article requires AfC submission. I've improved several draftified articles written by others, usually by editors who have since been blocked so they can't fix the articles themselves, and have had some miserable experiences trying to get them reviewed and passed, exacerbated by the fact I really don't want to get the credit template if they are passed, because they were originally someone else's draft. I've recently given up and just mainspaced them myself. And I'm one of very few people working on draftified articles. The way draft space is currently widely regarded, draftification is not a neutral act, it has a very high percentage chance of resulting in the article being deleted 6 months later. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

O yeah I feel you, I had one guy get upset saying that by sending their article to draft I was ensuring a bot would delete it. During AfDs I try to send articles to draft that clearly need some love or the support of resources that aren't online, it's only happened once which is too bad as the draft process has a lot of potential. I've even offered to personally review the drafts AfC when it's ready but that doesn't even encourage them. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, Drafts do not have to be submitted to AFC. That is recommended for an inexperienced user so they can get feedback and be given a chance to improve the article further. The "problem" NPPers have with editors bypassing AFC is primarily with articles that haven't been improved at all and are just put back in mainspace in the exact same state they were before being Draftified, sometimes under a different title, usually by someone desperate to get their article on some NN subject published. MB 08:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks for that feedback. I'm not sure those who draftify articles would agree, but if I've indeed been worrying unnecessarily, that would explain why I haven't got into trouble for giving up on AfC and just mainspacing. The thing is, it can be harder to clear AfC than AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi... as MB said, draftified articles do not have to go through AfC. But many do. If the editor who created the article (or other interested party) reaches out to me, and they have improved the article, I'll do the actual AfC review myself. One other thing, when you do submit someone else's work on AfC, you have the option as submitting as yourself, or as the article's creator, so that would alleviate the problem of you getting the credit template. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@DaneGeld, just out of curiosity was there a reason you were unable to just move the page back to mainspace with your edits? Like, it just feels like I'm missing something here. I promise I"m not trying to be a jerk or rude, just trying to get all my ducks in a row here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dr_vulpes - I didn't move it back into mainspace, because it would have overwritten someone with a granted right that I don't have and didn't understand. I didn't want to create the impression of my forcing it back into mainspace. As Ravenswing hints at above, some NPPers are clearly not following established guidelines, and it needs to be a given for them, that they patrol from the back of the NPP queue, not the front. This has been a very disheartening process for me. It's no wonder some users are scared to edit here because of the bureaucracy that goes with it. It's like having snipers on the rooftops. Dane|Geld 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So let me make sure I'm getting this correctly. You published an article to mainspace that was not finished. It was sent to draft. The reviewer made a mistake and should have waited ~12 additional minutes. There were options available to you to address this problem. You could have sent it back to mainspace with corrections, reached out the the reviewer in question on their talk page, or gone through the dispute resolution process. Instead you deleted the article in question and we are now talking about it here. Maybe going forward if this happens again you could try some of the previously mentioned remedies. We all make mistakes and that's ok this is a collaborative project afterall. Something something assume good faith something something. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Dennis Brown and Deepfriedokra. I'd be glad if my article was draftified if I released an unsourced stub into Wikipedia mainspace. To work on an article we have the sandbox, userspace or draft space. Unsourced stubs are not good for Wikipedias reputation as an encyclopedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with creating an article and developing it in mainspace. No patroller should be draftifying within minutes of creation. If they're going to work from the front of the queue (despite best practice being to work from the back of the queue) then they need to exercise some restraint, per the NPP instructions that they should be following. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Point of view, one can assume good faith or complain. I assume good faith. And that the wikipedia guidelines enable or even defend the release of unsourced stubs into mainspace, I'd see as not helpful for the project. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying content within minutes of creation, while it is still being developed, is not helpful to the project either as it demoralises constructive editors. No one is suggesting leaving unsourced stubs in mainspace, just don't draftify them within a few minutes of creation - they will remain in the NPP queue. Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case you should also assume good faith on the part of article creators, should you not? But that being said, perhaps you would answer whether or not you think that defying the guidance of Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Care to draftify an article within seconds of its creation -- a time frame in which no human being could possible make an adequate assessment of its notability or sourceability -- is either acceptable practice or one which we ought to encourage? Ravenswing 08:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I assume good faith on both sides and also after reading Wikipedia New Page patrol#care. The reviewer didn't tag the article nor nominate it for deletion but moved it to draft space where the editor could expand the article in peace. The draftify template is worded in a welcoming constructive way. DaneGeld is not a new editor but on wikipedia since 2016 and has created several articles already. That he chose to delete the article, is not the reviewers fault.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Who said it WAS the reviewer's fault, Paradise Chronicle? I certainly didn't. I chose to do it because of what the reviewer did, it didn't seem worth making the article if it was just going to get hit by an overzealous "idjit" as Ravenswing eloquently puts it. I don't see the point of leaving edit summaries that the editors don't read, in favour of adding another mark to their score sheet. Dane|Geld 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You could have assumed good faith and seen it as a sign on how efficient and constructive the Wikipedia process can deal with unsourced short stubs. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I think an admin needs to close this thread with a note that the NPP reviewer has learned to wait until a new article has been in mainspace for at least a week a day or two so the new article creator can tidy-up a bit. At the same time, the article creator (who is not autopatrolled, yet) has learned that we have both the {{in use}} and {{under construction}} templates when creating in mainspace, and better yet, one's Sandbox as it keeps the new article out of the NPP queue, which is already quite frightening because of the backlog. I think that is a fair compromise, and it's easy peasy. Atsme 💬 📧 17:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)^{strike and update 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)}

  I think that would be fair, @Atsme:, once the New Page Reviewer comes here and acknowledges the problem. They were alerted by DanCherek yesterday, and have still not made an appearance to say anything at all. I accept what I've been told, I'm just waiting for an acknowledgement from the reviewer, of the same. Dane|Geld 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Let's be careful that the close summarizes consensus. I don't see consensus for a week. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  A week is too long. If it takes you a week to improve an article to the point that it belongs in the main space, then it should have been in the draft space to begin with. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree this thread has made a mountain out of a molehill. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I agree, but I would still like the NPR in question to acknowledge that they screwed up. It's all very well for Atsme to say "the NPP reviewer has learned to wait", but I have seen no evidence of that. The editor has been pinged concerning this thread and hasn't even bothered to show up, I replied to his message on my talk page last night, and he's still not replied there. Something tells me he's avoiding this thread. Dane|Geld 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, while an appropriate apology would wrap this up quite nicely, ANI is not in the business of extracting apologies from editors by force. Given that it's been established that the editor's actions are not a major violation of editing standards, unless they establish a pattern of rapid-fire draftifying articles going forward, they are in fact entitled to avoid this thread if they so choose. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  @DaneGeld I would highly recommend you check out this essay on being high maintenance as well as review the civility policies. Your tone and attitude are bordering on bullying which wouldn't be acceptable. Sometimes it's hard to see context when working through issues here it's why we all assume good faith and understand mistakes happen. We also all have things to do in life other than wikipedia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would personally disagree with the requirement about having to wait a week- the NPP queue is huge as is and having to wait a week for what is likely DRAFTIFYable as-is is just going to make things exponentially worse. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see how it's helpful (in terms of actually reducing the backlog) to hack away at the low hanging fruit at the front, instead of actually tackling the queue from the back. Time to close this discussion though. Polyamorph (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have been disappointed to see that Bruxton ignored this AN/I. Several people have noted that by reviewing an article within minutes of its creation, they were not following NPP guidelines; and it was almost inevitable that they would thus run into someone who adds the references after laying down the prose. It isn't wise, but it's common. People work in different ways; as I type, there's a section below about another article that was created as a lead paragraph only, and then a second edit a couple of minutes later added a ton of prose and many references. Unfortunately, DaneGeld didn't appreciate not receiving even a response from Bruxton—and I agree, they had reason to expect an apology—and then being told they were being high-maintenance. I do not know whether Our Lady Immaculate and St Etheldreda's Church, Newmarket is notable; the fact they alluded to having had many tabs open to reference it suggests it is. I can't judge whether what they saved asserted notability, because in the heat of the moment, they had the draft deleted. Assertions of notability are also susceptible to individual judgement; some may regard any sufficiently old church as automatically notable, others many require it to be at least Grade II listed. But I would hope we could all agree as project participants that we need editors who are willing to write new articles, and also that having one's new article summarily draftified within minutes of first saving it, then being told one is being high maintenance by caring about it and by expecting at least the courtesy of a response from the reviewer who erred by doing so (there is general agreement here that it was an error), is hurtful. This is referred to as a "drama board" and worse, but one person's "drama" is another's thing they care about. After receiving no response from the reviewer, Bruxton, DaneGeld brought this here as a query, trying to understand. They deliberately didn't personalise it by naming the reviewer. They listened to advice and said they would recreate the article with the references (in their eagerness, they forgot that asking the priest for information would be OR). They said they would be satisfied with an apology. But after being told off for making a fuss, they have now retired. That leaves us down one willing article writer as well as one potentially useful article. I appreciate that NPPers volunteer to stick their faces in front of a fire hose. I appreciate that Dr_vulpes meant well. I appreciate that Bruxton probably has nothing against churches. Maybe they usually follow the rules and don't jump the gun by reviewing brand-new articles, and this was just a one-time mistake. But I don't know, because they don't appear to have responded in any way to DaneGeld or this AN/I. This has not done the encyclopaedia any good, and I think we let DaneGeld down badly. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Problematic new editor

It seems Nitin Malik Nitinmlk is created to troll me and to disrupt this project. I have cleaned up a lot of WP:BLP violations and other disruptive edits of a highly disruptive Koli sock master (Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala) on 18 September. And Nitin Malik Nitinmlk was created merely a few hours later on 19 September. So a CheckUser would be helpful here. Note that, along with general disruption, this user is blanking well-sourced content with misleading summaries, i.e. see here, here, here, etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for impersonation. May still be worth a look by a CU. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits are a mixed bag of good, 'meh', and terrible. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23 for acting so quickly. BTW, from the editing pattern, the timing of account creation, and even one of their peculiar habits, the impersonator seems like a sock of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. As there is an anon suspect as well, I emailed the SPI to GeneralNotability so that WP:OUTING can be avoided. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I was reverting some of their edits, as they were causing categories to empty out and be tagged for CSD C1 deletion, and noticed that blocked editor User:Tushir Jat made some similar edits. Both accounts are blocked now but I think it might be worth a CU check for sockpuppets interested in editing articles about Jat people.

Think there might be a connection to this SPI case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Malik Nitinmlk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to the Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala group. Did not check Tushir Jat, they appear to have a different POV from the Jhala group. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23, Liz, GeneralNotability, & Mako001. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved ANI case

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

This case is still very unresolved, and is a obvious case of a user violating multiple guidelines. Can someone please take a look at it? [11]. You might also want to see this recent thread [12] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User Iampharzad continued the edit war and removed reliable sources from the article Hazaras. His explanation: "your edits are a racial bias", "your contents and resources are not correct". I guess that allegations of racism and deleting sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP without a corresponding discussion in WP:RS/N is unacceptable.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You are more familiar than I . Recommendations? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason. It is by no means clear that the Hazaras spoke Mongolian until the 19th century. Either Turkic or non-Persian. About the Hazaras, said In this reliable source, which is based on genetic research, it is very clearly said that the Hazaras are close to the people of Central Asia and are more related to the Turkic peoples than to the Mongols and the people of East Asia.--Iampharzad (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: What about the other sources that have been presented that stated that they did speak Mongolian? You deleted either one or two reliable sources published after the date of the source you cite. Your actions could easily be interpreted as cherry-picking to favour a particular point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Respected @C.Fred: Most of those sources are from the books of old authors, contemporary historians do not agree with them very much. For example, this genetic research taken from Hazara people is the best evidence to reject them. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: You'll need to demonstrate that the newer sources are solely relying on old data, and the way to do that is through dialogue (and providing additional sources to support your claim, as necessary) at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, this talk page message and others raise substantial doubt on whether Iampharzad is editing in good faith. Since Afghanistan is involved, this is, broadly construed, an area subject to discretionary sanctions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: What about this editing in good faith--Iampharzad (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: I don't see anything bad faith there, especially since it's just repeating what you said at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So this is nothing strange or bad. This is not bad behavior at all. Thanks--Iampharzad (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iampharzad: No. That's what you said at the article talk (which I already said raised red flags) and the same text you put on his user talk page. I am saying HistoryofIran was entirely in order to remove that from their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Skimming through, I see a content dispute. Considering the persistence of the problem, and what looks like bludgeoning and incivility on the part of Iampharzad, Ima WP:partial block from Hazaras. I see CFred is engaged in discussion, so I will wait a bit. This will be a regular admin action appealable w/o the Sturm und Drang of formal sanctions. Any other admin may do as they feel fit. Life's too short for all this fussing and fighting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Per the exchange above, Iampharzad is on a trajectory for a sanction of some flavour, whether it's a partial block, site block, or topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Start with least restrictive and work our way up. Take a minute to fill out the paperwork -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. partial block Hazaras. regular admin action -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:/anyone else: Iampharzad has thrice attempted to get HistoryofIran to proxy edit for them at Hazaras (diffs: 1, 2, 3), despite being told not to post at HOI's page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

...and now the forth attempt [13]. This is really bizarre. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Make that five [14]. In the edit summary of t he diff, he is literally asking why I am deleting his comments. WP:CIR anyone? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And now they've breached 3RR with their 5th such edit. Has this ever happened before? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment must be answered on Talk page, but it was deleted several times.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a comment on the user page to write a solution to the problem somehow, but they delete my comment.--Iampharzad (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Can you explain why you are removing my comment from your Talk page. [15] or [16]--Iampharzad (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Was "don't write in my talk page" and the multiple reverts by various users not explanation enough? You are literally trying to harrass me into answering you, if not doing your bid. You have now attempted to add the message a whooping 9(!) times in my talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Indef block Iampharzad. Edit warring on HistoryofIran's talk page, trying to evade a block, WP:CIR. Looks pretty clear to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You see, I left a message, but disrespectfully deleted my comment without a reply. Please see [17]--Iampharzad (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've extended the block site wide due to continued disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Iampharzad: Users are allowed to remove talk page messages. This looks like harassment to me. Looks like you are WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with editing Wikipedia. Welp, I guess this is the result of me 1) not taking heed and 2) going least restrictive. Thanks, ponyo for cleaning up my mess. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible LTA user

The Number Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't appear to be a new user, see their first edit and please block them. Nythar^T.C 22:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has the whiff of an LTA, but more immediately actionable is the fact that they're evading a block placed earlier today.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My heroes have always been cowboys -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jacobolus

User:Jacobolus and I have a disagreement on the page tangent half-angle substitution. I had edited this page before, but recently went back to make some changes. In particular, I sought to remove original research and some accusatory or non-neutral phrasing. Jacobolus reverted me, so following the guidelines for WP:BRD, I tried to limit my proposal to just the removal of what could count as WP:OR in this edit. All the extra books he listed are still there in the "Further reading" section. He reverted me with a rather aggressive comment. I have tried to have a civil discussion with him on the talk page. Unfortunately, it has not been easy thanks to this aggressive attitude.

I would appreciate it if a neutral third-party were to give this dispute a look. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of escalation is in clear bad faith, an attempt at a “win by superior bureaucracy” because you (Nerd271) have no interest in arguing the merits of your case. This discussion has only been at the page in question for a trivially short time, no other editors have even had a chance to see it, and Administrators have no context or special interest/expertise in this topic. You should instead ping Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where other editors with interest and past participation in this topic are likely to see. –jacobolus (t) 19:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Having seen this from the article page, this seems to be primarily a content issue, although surprisingly heated. Dispute resolution should happen on Talk:Tangent_half-angle_substitution, and bringing it here is a needless escalation. WP:3O or eventually WP:DRN may be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

jacobolus has opened a discussion at WP:MATH; I think it would be good if both parties disengaged until other editors had a chance to weigh in. (Surely this is not an urgent question.) --JBL (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Need Article Restoration for List of compositions for viola: A to B (and other letters of the alphabet)

My apologies if this belongs on one of the noticeboard categories above. An editor, Why? I Ask (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Why%3F_I_Ask), recently nominated a set of pages for deletion (List of compositions for viola A to B and other letters of the alphabet); please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_compositions_for_viola:_A_to_B. This was closed as Keep, and the closing editor started a review of the close that endorsed the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_September_1. The nominator still went ahead and merged the existing pages (effectively deleting the existing content) while the review was underway. As part of that DRV discussion, one of the admins asked the nominator to "Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature." Two editors also posted to the nominator's talk page asking them to restore the article; all of these requests have been refused. The nominator has also made it clear through multiple outlets that they care only about their opinions related to this matter. I am not an experienced enough editor to revert the changes myself and was directed to this outlet by an admin for help in getting these pages restored to their original state.Dbynog (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog

I'm not going to revert my edits because there's no reason to (yet). There are some editors that like my changes and some that don't. That's why I've already started an RfC based on that particular admin's recommendations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music to gauge consensus. If it seems there's consensus against me, then I'll change it back. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Revert If keeping the A-B viola list as a separate article was endorsed twice in a row, consensus to do anything else should be confirmed before performing the controversial merge in the first place. Since the contested merge defies the previously settled consensus at DRV, it should be reverted until a new consensus is reached. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  It wasn't endorsed twice in a row; read the deletion discussion or deletion review. It was closed as a keep, but many commented that they felt it was a notable topic with a bad presentation. The deletion review just argued whether or not the closing admin's decision to close it based on the feedback was right. There was no consensus to keep the page as it was. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  You were advised that your editing actions were inappropriate. This is the logical consequence of your WP:IDHT response. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Tell me how they were inappropriate. Tell me how they were not a good faith improvement. I don't see you offering to discuss my actual changes anywhere, just the nature of how I enacted them. You quite literally said it yourself "[i]t's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. I quite literally did just that. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you quite literally didn't. I have zero relation to this topic, but it caught my eye and I read both this post and the original discussion. I got the very distinct impression that your approach is "my way or the highway". And now you're trying to justify your most recent actions by pointing to someone's suggestion of trimming the page. It's like beheading someone and saying "but it was you who suggested the haircut!" If you were truly interested in improving the article you could've tried to consensually determine what was worth keeping and what was not (which is what was actually suggested) Good faith or not, you're coming across as uninterested in (or incapable of) collaborative work when you're not calling the shots. Your complete refusal to accept you could be in the wrong or to assume any sort of responsibility for your actions only buttress that interpretation, and I would be quite shocked if this doesn't end in some sort of restriction to your ability to edit. Ostalgia (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  You know what? Fine. I'll revert the pages, and keep my version as an overview article as Gerda suggested (repertoire and lists are different). I don't care enough about this particular article anymore. And besides, the RfC I started looks like most of them will end up being deleted or trimmed anyway. If there's issues about my conduct, I admit there are some ways I wish I could have done better. (But in my opinion, it's better to be BOLD and apologize later). However, the fact that no one has discussed my actual changes in a policy based-sense is frustrating. That's why I have continuously doubled down. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your RfC is not neutrally worded and hence invalid; I'm disappointed that no one else seems to have notified you of this sooner. It will have to be closed and restarted neutrally if you want it to be considered normative. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I asked in an edit summary if was neutral enough, and no one seemed to have an issue with it. If you have an idea of how to neutrally word it, then go ahead. But it also seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that your preamble to that discussion is far from neutral. Why not just ask the question, without pre-empting it by laying out your experience with this topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  In the future, I'll be more careful to neutrally word the RfC, but at this point, it really does not matter. I doubt anyone's opinions in the discussion were swayed by my comments, and to start it over seems pointless. Requests for comment should be about discussion and gauging consensus. Not continuously pointing out technicalities that have no affect on the former. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that you think it doesn't matter... doesn't matter. The RfC is invalid, and if you want to get a valid one, you have to start over and follow the directions you should have followed in the first place. If you try to take action based on an invalid RfC's supposed consensus, you'll be reverted, and if you edit war over it, you're likely to be blocked. Mind you, this is not a threat (I don't edit in the topic, and haven't been an admin for almost a decade) just a prediction of what will happen if you don't take the time and understand how consensus works. I encourage you to reconsider your trajectory here, because you're straying into WP:IDHT and WP:DE territory, and I would much rather see you participate appropriately than be sanctioned for not getting it. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's anything written that says if an RfC doesn't have a neutrally worded statement, then all of the discussion is thrown out automatically. Nothing I did precluded a chance for consensus to form. And at this point, restarting a week-long RfC because the preamble to a statement was not neutral serves nobody but people obsessed with "the rules" (and other editors agree). I will, of course, work to make any RfC I start neutral in the future, but I have to ask why you care so much about this one in a discussion you still have refused to actually participate in? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion has been open for a couple of days, and NOT ONE user has seen fit to weigh in and support your perspective, while the original requestor, myself, and three others have politely told you that you're wrong. If you want to blame someone for a week's worth of work being thrown out, that would be you, who failed to read the rules and use a neutral opening statement. While many people would undoubtedly contribute the exact same thing to a new RfC, there's simply no way for you to rehabilitate one that's inherently flawed--this is not a new thing, it's happened plenty of times before, and is probably the most common problem I've seen with RfCs.

  I haven't "refused to actually participate in" anything. I don't care that much about classical music, have no strong opinion on the topic, and so my participation is unneeded and irrelevant; your WP:FAIT behavior while a DRV was ongoing brought your user conduct to my attention, and I happened to note that it made its way here. This is forum to discuss user conduct issues, including yours. Again, I'm happy this discussion is focused on educating you that the way you're going about trying to impose your will on Wikipedia isn't how we do things around here, rather than undoing any disruptive editing. Your end goal might indeed be the best overall for Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of classical music... but your attempts to bludgeon the system to achieve that result are not compatible with collegial editing. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  And I reverted my edits, did I not? However, I only initially did my edits to begin with because there was weak consensus to trim the pages down. I'm also not a fan of your accusation of WP:FAIT. It was not difficult to reverse at all nor did I justify my edits based on the fact of the supposed difficulty. I justified based on the fact that there were editors calling for it to be trimmed (and I can quote them or ask them if needed).

  However, for you to complain about my RfC (as opposed to me not reverting the viola page) is an entirely different matter and belongs either on my talk page or at the actual RfC. But I fail to see your logic. If everyone would just undoubtedly contribute the exact same things to the RfC, then what the heck is the point of starting a new one? Policies and guidelines are great... However needlessly pointing to one and saying "see!" when they ignore the principle of consensus building is not. I could have had my preamble to the statement directly below it, people would see the exact same thing, and it would have been peachy keen. But only because it's placed above the question and listed options does it now invalidate a couple weeks worth of discussion. Also, your last point: your end goal might be the best overall for Wikipedia.... Have you learned nothing from WP:IAR. I feel like if you say something along those lines, then I'm forced to cite that pillar. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Embocomm

Embocomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:role account which as been used for over 14 years by staff of the European Molecular Biology Organization. The account's 158 mainspace edits have all been to articles where there is a WP:COI: Fiona Watt, European Molecular Biology Organization, EMBO Gold Medal, The EMBO Journal, Life Science Alliance, EMBO Reports.

On 1 February 2020‎ @Randykitty posted[18] a COI warning on User talk:Embocomm. That did trigger some updates to the page User:Embocomm, adding a further item to the COI declarations, but it did not halt the COI edits: since that date, User:Embocomm has made 58 edits just to the article about itself European Molecular Biology Organization, plus other edits to conflicted pages.

I became aware of this today, when @Embocomm posted on my talk page, at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wikipedia_entry_on_Fiona_Watt. That discussion was not encouraging, which is why I escalate this to ANI.

As I noted on my talk page, continuing to push the line like this after so many years is the sort of conduct which I associate with dodgy startup companies engaged in marketing, not an international scientific association. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

PS I have added COI tags to several articles edited by this account: Fiona Watt, The EMBO Journal, Life Science Alliance and European Molecular Biology Organization. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you object to the substance of any of their edits? --100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

They have made many edits, this one for example [19]] is primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing "travel grants" to "lecture, travel and childcare grants" does not strike me as particularly promotional. The very heavy reliance on primary sources is a problem for WP:DUE (and perhaps notability), though -- I've nuked the section. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on BHG's talkpage reflects well on the user, FWIW. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how editing in breach of COI policy for 14 years is in any way at all a good reflection on any user, let alone someone employed by an organisation of scholars. I would expect that any such employee should have been more than capable of reading and understanding COI policy.

So I'd say that this reflects badly on them and on their employer. But other editors apply lower standards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for the record they have been reported to WP:UAA by Theroadislong. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have softblocked this role account. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

95.141.17.30 abusing Talk Page

Hi Admins, the IP 95.141.17.30 has been abusing his/her/their talk page by posting legal threats after being blocked for the very same reason....and blanking the page every time editors reply. He/she/they claims that WMF is bound by UK law, and based on his rhetorics, I do think that his/her/their talk page privileges be revoked. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also additionally like to note that the user has used personal attacks against me; in Revision 1111630895, they asked me to remove what they thought of as libelous information and called me a "a holier than thou, basement dwelling, know it all". InvadingInvader (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Page blanked. TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

racist abuse by 2A00:23EE:1100:4B18:8035:8C89:232:8A8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This anon user needs blocking ASAP and their one edit removed completely. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 00:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Another administrator has reverted the racist vandalism, and I have blocked the IP. Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFC/HD Bludgeoning

WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#09:47:55, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Concernsavant - We have an IPv6 who's veered from advocating for their article to mindlessly bludgeoning the conversation, making incoherent accusations of bias, repeatedly throwing up massive walls of sources and text (some of the text I strongly suspect is copyvio and all of the sources are rubbish so far as I can determine) and either refusing or being unable to acknowledge the criticism they're receiving. I'm looking for a 96-hour page-block from AfC/HD to get them to stop with their pattern of power-posting sources and incoherency for as long as the thread remains on the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Recommend the IP be escorted off of Wikipedia, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I blocked 2001:4455:164:700:0:0:0:0/64 for a week as their repetitive comments show an inability to hear what others are saying. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at Don't Worry Darling, looks like a single editor using multiple accounts

Playing good cop/bad cop by vandalizing, then reverting. Blocking all the socks may be more to the point than protecting the article. Someone who's WP:NOTHERE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:D600 (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All three users have been indeffed and the page protected by EdJohnston. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Expedite this unblock request please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unblock request at User talk:Jenkemhuffer could probably use expediting for drama reduction. Reasoning is pretty obvious from editor's contribs. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. DanCherek (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soapboxing on own talk page after block

2A02:C7E:3422:4200:D5D5:9C60:CB38:FE02 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) likely needs their talk page access revoked. See, for example, Special:Diff/1111791324 and Special:Diff/1111793301. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Kleinpecan, a little bit of user talk page venting is common after a block. I do not think that it yet rises to the level where revoking talk page access is needed, but other administrators may have a different view. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to revert a couple images to earlier revision

Hi, not sure where else to request this. Can someone please revert two non-free images to an older/original revision that is now hidden? In this case, two files are uploaded by a problematic user. One photo was AI-upscaled and the other (source) was badly edited to remove background. Neither edit is useful unrealistically manipulating a historic photo. I don't think this is controversial, but I don't have the rights to do it myself. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 11:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that a bot reduced the size of both images according to guidelines for non-free images. See the bot's talk page for more details. As for the one with a different background, the original versions are available at "source", lv:Attēls:IrbitisK.jpg, which you linked, if you wish to download from there, modify as needed, and re-upload here on en.wp. —Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, the bot reduced the images after the new uploads. I reuploaded File:Kārlis Irbītis.jpg (and the bot can reduce it again). But I don't have an obvious source for File:Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh.jpg. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version of File:Mstislav Vsevolodovich Keldysh.jpg. per your request. This is not an endorsement of that version, and any objections can be discussed at the talk page there. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Brainyshark03 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive editing; reverting to previous logos; uploading duplicate logos [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What has this editor done wrong that can't be resolved by a bit of help on the user talk page? There may be something, but it's certainly not shown by those diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:D Pastor2014

D Pastor2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, registered in 2015, exclusively edits the Darin Pastor article, but has denied being the article subject in an edit summary. [26] That in of itself is clearly problematic, per the Wikipedia:Username policy. Recently though, after appropriately sourced content was added to the Darin Pastor article concerning the subject's legal troubles, User:D Pastor2014 has taken to repeatedly removing said content without explanation. Something clearly needs to be done about this. I would suggest that at minimum, the user needs to be blocked from editing the article, and informed that they will either have to change their username, or give an honest answer regarding what appears to be a blatant conflict of interest, if they are to be permitted to edit Wikipedia at all. I generally have some sympathy for BLP subjects who find working within Wikipedia's strange ways difficult, but in the circumstances here, we clearly cannot continue with this charade indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this SPA as not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, disruptive editing, edit warring, repeated removal of well referenced content, a username violation, and conflict of interest editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The indictment states that Pastor and Johnson maintained an online Wikipedia page for Pastor that misrepresented his net worth. Besides the D Pastor2014 account, there is at least one another SPA (Trigger449) involved in that page that claims his name is Darin Pastor, and that account has at least one edit ([27]) that appears to directly act as if it were D Pastor2014. If the indictment is correct, there should be at least one other account, associated with Johnson, that also has been editing that page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Other than KCDPR, a long-dormant account that also belongs to D Pastor2014, I don't see any SPAs on that page. However, KCDPR, D Pastor2014, and Trigger449 among them dominated the editing of that page for many years. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Trigger449 has not edited in nearly seven years. Cullen328 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit too concise in my comments. I'm not concerned about sock puppetry. What I am concerned about is that the press release by US DOJ makes it clear that they believe Wikipedia was an unwitting accomplice in the fraud. And the editing history shows clear COI editing from the very beginning until the news of the illegal activities broke. This is not a discussion for ANI, but, in my opinion, Wikipedia does an excellent job with highly trafficked pages, no matter how controversial they may be (e.g., COVID-19 related pages), but a poor job at less-trafficked pages. The current mechanisms for policing serious issues (such as biased editing, particularly associated with COI) do not work well for less-trafficked pages. There needs to be a serious look at what tools can help detect these issues (e.g., ability to screen for SPAs or screen for edits that have an unduly positive or negative tone). I'll stop here. As I said, this should be discussed in a better venue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User with good intentions not listening to other editors (User:184.177.118.115)

184.177.118.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has good intentions of editing, but numerous editors have alerted them on their talk page about various edits (See User talk:184.177.118.115#September 2022). One of the talk page alerts was about using an edit summary, which this user has never done. A lot of their edits have either been reverted or still remain, however, almost all of them are unsourced additions. Recently, the edited, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, changing the wind speeds to 323 mph, instead of the range (301 +/- 22 mph). Those edits were reverted by myself, but that showed me they are not here to vandalize/harm Wikipedia. However, after so many edits without sources, and what seems to be a lack of response to editor alerts on their talk page and a lack of knowledge about edit summaries (mentioned on their talk page), an admin needs to step in. A ban is certainly not needed, but maybe some alert about citing information if changing numbers (Example: [28]), using the edit summary, and communicating with other editors. The main issue (from the numerous talk page alerts/warnings) is not citing information, which is why an admin is needed and why I am starting this AN/I. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Rodney Regis Baker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rodney Regis Baker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised the Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics article, tried to frame me for loutsocking, and made a personal attack towards me. Given these reasons, I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a returning customer of some sort. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Eranshahr Eranshahr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone from admins have a look to this case please, as far as I am concerned this user's behavior is not build for the Wikipedia and they are not being here to build an encyclopedia.

1. 25 September 2022 - Without looking to the details of the edits, the comment of the edit is worrying on its own heavily pov article. shushu city was never occupied by armenians, it was part of nkao unlike fascists claim. However, edit itself even more controversial. User removed relevant categories and added some unsourced material like : so-called Museum of History of Karabakh; the proposal was ignored by the Aliyev regime
2. 24 September 2022 - removes edit, where other used added relevant information about the notable person from the village, with following comment irrelevant propaganda information. And he revert that edit 3 times in the row.
3. 24 September 2022 - reverts additions of the sourced information with following comments Vandalism from Republic of Azerbaijan
4. 24 September 2022 - several times basically blanks the newly created article with following comment Irrelevant propaganda article, please propose for deletion
5. 24 September 2022 - removes sourced information questioning Where is source that he was Azerbaijani, although source is there and it directly supports material.
6. 24 September 2022 reaches to the talk page of the another user, who in few occasions reverted their controvertial edits, and asks him following Stop your Azerbaijani vandalism.

I am not sure if this user is sock, or not, but their edits definitely do not improve Wikipedia. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a sock. It's obvious if you look at the article history of Vedi, where two accounts are removing the same information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism and hoaxing

• Sythans27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't have time to chase this down right now but it looks like Sythans27, a pageant SPA, has just relocated an event from one country to another as a hoax. [29] They are a mobile editor so I haven't bothered trying to contact them about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor has not responded to an inquiry on their userpage and is making more disruptive edits like [30]. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned user. Let's see if the correct their course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment from User:HandThatFeeds

Last week, I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:No Nazis, arguing that it was a poorly-written essay that, if taken literally, would mean that people with any other fringe belief, most obviously Communists, should be banned as well. Any discussion related to Nazis is of course bound to stir up a lot of emotions, and my comments generated a fair amount of response, which I welcomed (and still welcome). However, User:HandThatFeeds took the opportunity not to respond to my arguments but to repeatedly insult me, including accusing me of (I think) secretly being a Nazi. Examples: [31], [32], [33], [34] (here, they said I was advocating the "race and intelligence" argument, which as I noted in my response is false), [35], [36], [37]. (That last statement is probably the worst of them: Then I look forward to your eventual block when you let the mask fully slip. In other words, I'm a bigot and a liar.)

HandThatFeeds then responded in basically the same way to an unrelated statement I made on this very page: [38].

I went to this user's talk page, to ask them to stop harassing me. They responded with this: You are clearly here to argue on the side of far-right conspiracy theories and anti-LGBT groups/individuals. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I cannot ignore your behavior. Do not post on my talk page again. A personal attack, coupled with a clear indication that the harassment will not stop, capped off with something that sounds like a threat. It was at that point that I decided to bring the issue here. If HandThatFeeds thinks I have secret nefarious beliefs and should be banned for them, there are channels for requesting that, most obviously this page; but simply responding continuously to my comments with these accusations is, at the very least, totally unhelpful; at worst, direct personal attacks and harassment. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect Korny O'Near, this appears to me to be pretty weak tea. I came here fully prepared to say HandThatFeeds should turn down the temperature, and I would agree that the "let the mask slip" comment is over the line. The rest strike me as within the normal sharp-elbowed debate and editing that occurs on Wikipedia. Moreover, I think there is something of a clean hands issue here, as you took to an essay's talk page in a deliberately WP:POINT-y manner. Now, I don't believe there should be any sanction for that, but it shouldn't be all that shocking when one does something deliberately provocative and someone is provoked. As I like to say, reasonable minds can differ, and sometimes even tolerate each other's existence. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment? Are you sure? Have they ever engaged in classic components of harassment like unwanted talk page messages and opening spurious ANI cases or is it just whats in the diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You went in there sparing for a fight, and that was what you got. You have no grounds for complaint here whatsoever. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:POINT applies to talk pages, but leaving that aside: is it your view that, once someone posts something provocative on some talk page, they're fair game for personal attacks from that point on, indefinitely? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

One thing provocative? No, not necessarily. But continuing to argue and belabor your point resorting to whataboutism and moving the goalposts, borderlining on sealioning, yes, you expose yourself to the consequences of such behavior. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing actionable here — I do however fully expect to see this editor back at ANI in due course. Perhaps leave each other alone until then? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think bigots are (and should be) allowed here, so... yes. I haven't just implied that, I've said it directly. - I think that speaks for itself and completely shatters any pretense you have. Stop the WP:POINTy comments. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point. Bigots are indeed allowed on Wikipedia (there's no policy in place against them, as far as I know), and it's my belief that this policy, or lack of policy, should remain. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever your intent, the fact that WP:POINT is repeatedly raised should give you pause. Might I respectfully suggest drafting your own essay might be a more worthwhile use of time than being confrontational on the talk page of one you don't like? Dumuzid (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wanted to write on the WP:NONAZIS talk page because I think it's extremely misleading, whether on purpose or not. But maybe I should have avoided a "devil's advocate" sort of approach in my initial post (which I think is what people are getting at when they refer to WP:POINT, though that's not quite the same). I still don't think it's grounds for harassment - especially not implied future harassment - but we can all do better. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are silent bigots on here, yes, but people have gotten banned for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. in the past. Your sidestepping of your problematic comments is unbecoming. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both sides in this issue said things that were provoking and escalating. I think the best advice, which both @TNT and @HandThatFeeds suggested is to disengage and walk away. Coming here only serves to further escalate the situation. Civility is more than just words but also actions. Searching for and finding a controversial essay isn't hard but then to go and express your displeasure on it's talk page only serves one purpose whether that's the intention or not. Best case now is to let it go. --ARoseWolf 19:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Nothing actionable, and recommend closing this discussion. Korny, you and I have had some discussion in the past, and more recently, on your talk page. I really appreciate you giving me the space and time to try and flesh out some ideas, but our interaction was less than fruitful. You may have noticed that HandThatFeeds is coming away from these discussions with you in much the same way as many others. I myself was left having very similar feelings as HandThatFeeds, even though you were civil and polite in our interaction. I strongly disagree there is a both sides problem here. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expected to happen when you acted, supposedly, as the devil's advocate for bigots. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was acting as the devil's advocate for victims of Communism, I suppose. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That is really a dead-end argument. These groups are not at all the same, as was explained many times before. Honestly I had attempted to suggest that you write your own essay, but really my goal was that you would start to write an essay... only to come to the realization that there was no case to be made. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Korny, I mean this in good faith, but you are doing yourself no favors. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Let it go, Korny. The victims of communism can look after themselves. It is not your job or Wikipedia's to seek redress. John (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I already said what I had to say on the topic, a week ago. I came here to try to get an editor to leave me alone, not to discuss the relative merits of different ideologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just ignore such responses. A roar has no effect, if one chooses to ignore the roaring. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You went to antagonize someone with a post that you knew wouldn't be well-received, and got some blowback in return. Consider this a life lesson and don't poke a bear in the future. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that my original talk page post would not be well received. And I never committed any of the "poking" examples mentioned in that essay, though ironically HandThatFeeds did. But it's good advice regardless. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, lesson learned. Whataboutism is frowned upon when discussing Nazis. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently. :) I don't think I did that, but it seems that anything that appears to come even remotely close to minimizing Nazism (again, not that I did that) rattles some people. Lesson learned indeed. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to add here, as most of what I was going to say is already covered by others. Korny has been deliberately provocative, and I gave back some heat. I'd already disengaged from the page for a short wikibreak, and only caught the notice about this ANI because I stopped by Wikipedia to look up a reference. Korny has been tip-toeing some rather uncomfortable lines, and I'm glad others recognize that. For the time being, I'm just going to take the rest of the week off Wikipedia and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Atul Kumar" disruption

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

This IP has been repeatedly disrupting random, and similarly titled, articles with content for what appears to be a non-notable subject. This is on top of multiple attempts to overwrite the Atul Kumar (actor) redirect with similar content. Templated warnings do not appear to go through to the anonymous user, and I don't think a genuine written warning will get them to stop either, as they also appear to never use a Talk page. This is beyond final warning at this point. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple IPs have been doing this for a while, on (as Jalen Folf notes) a bunch of pages with similar names. I don't think it's random though: they're generally over-writing existing articles whose names match their bio subject. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked a week. I expect another will be along though. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Fuzheado

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 30th August, admin Fuzheado reinstated the ongoing COVID-19 ITN item on the main page [39] against what was pretty clear consensus. Soon after, admin Amakuru asked Fuzheado to reconsider [40]. Instead of reconsidering, Fuzheado accused the admin Spencer of having removed the ITN item in "poor faith" [41]. This was noticed by admin floquenbeam [42] but Fuzheado failed to correct/retract the "poor faith" accusation [43]. I noted in this discussion that I felt the pull was an abuse of admin privilege (going against consensus) [44]. The reinstatement by Fuzheado caused significant disruption to the discussion, other editors including WaltCip, noted that this was not the first time they had made a decision at ITN going against clear consensus [45]. The discussion was closed by Amakuru and can be read in full here. In the second discussion there was once again clear consensus for removal (despite some bludgeoning by one user of that discussion).

A discussion was opened by LaserLegs at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Rogue_admins. At the start of this discussion Fuzheado appeared to defend their actions here. However, even if Spencer's closure was premature, that does not justify Fuzheado reverting it after further discussion had taken place and consensus remained pretty clear. Regardless, we all make mistakes, even admins. That's fine. The issue here is Fuzheado appears to be unable to own and correct their mistake.

In the "Rogue admins" discussion, admin Black Kite pointed out that Fuzheado has made previous ill-considered admin actions at ITN, despite visiting infrequently. I copy their examples here: Pulling something that had obvious support, Wheel-warring whilst accusing another admin - who hadn't wheel-warred - of doing the same, Supervote and criticism of another admin, guess what the final result was. Black Kite suggested Fuzheado should - at the least - voluntarily step back from using their admin bit to impose their own opinions. Otherwise a discussion about a topic ban is clearly indicated.

Admin Spencer posted further evidence of poor admin judgement by Fuzheado which I copy below:

• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#(Pulled)_RD:_Orson_Bean - premature posting, pulled due to lack of citations
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2022#(Posted)_Super_Bowl_LVI - premature posting of an article relying on primary sources with CN tags
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021#(Re-posted)_Tianhe_launch - premature posting, later pulled due to lack of citations, later re-posted after quality improved
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2016 (multiple issues with postings, related to citations and another with an orange-tagged article, resulting in both to be pulled) see the sections related to "Kollam temple accident" and "Merle Haggard". This prompted users to comment, "I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here." and "Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions."
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2016 "Zaha Hadid" prematurely posted, and pulled due to lack of citations
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2021#(Pulled)_2021_Portuguese_presidential_election Prematurely posted, pulled due to quality issues.
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2020#(Reposted)_Italian_lockdown Prematurely posted before consensus settled, pulled, later re-posted.
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2017 RD nom for "Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani" - prematurely posted, pulled due to referencing issues as well as BLP issues ("This absolutely cannot be posted anywhere on the main page in its current state. Not only are there huge slabs of unreferenced text, but a number of BLP issues. Please don't do that folks")

After some discussion with Sean Heron it was clear that the "Rogue admins" discussion at the ITN talk page was not very fair on Fuzheado as it didn't really give them a fair chance to respond. In light of this I posted a notice on their talk page asking them to address the concerns about their use of admin tools per WP:ADMINACCT [46].

I received no reply from Fuzheado after 1 week. I asked at ITN talk what I should do and admin Bagumba suggested I leave a polite reminder, which I did. Over a week later Fuzheado has not responded to this reminder either. This is not what is expected per WP:ADMINACCT.

Only a few number of users at ITN have admin tools required to edit the main page. It is therefore important that any admin retains the trust of the community that they will use those tools responsibly. I believe that trust has been lost. It is very regrettable that I must bring this here, but Fuzheado will not engage in discussion.

Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that to date, Fuzheado has failed to respond promptly and civilly to queries, as per WP:ADMINACCT, prompting this noticeboard post. Still, I hope they can respond here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at the aforementioned thread Wikipedia talk:In the news § Rogue admins.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (I'm involved in this in a minor way and mentioned above) - I think on its own, the COVID ongoing removal incident could be excused - a lot of editors were unhappy with Spencer's early close of the debate, and we can debate whether reinstating it 24 hours later once a lot more consensus had developed was correct or not (I didn't think it was, hence why I asked Fuzheado to reconsider). Clearly the accusation of bad faith against Spencer was not acceptable, though - even though Spencer later apologised and said it would have been better to wait longer, their initial decision to pull was very clearly made in good faith (and indeed, that was the consensus outcome later, when all the dust had settled). WP:ADMINCOND mandates admins to be civil in their interactions with other editors, and the bad faith accusation was not that. So for this incident alone, I'd say a WP:TROUT is in order and nothing more. However, we also have to consider all the other incidents mentioned above - particularly the wheel warring and the bad-faith accusation that another editor wheel warred when they didn't, both of which are further breaches of WP:ADMINCOND - and I think with all that, it elevates to something more serious. If Fuzheado comes here with a full acknowledgement of where they went wrong in the above incidents, and promises to change, then we might possibly be able to move on with a warning, but failing that I think at the least a topic ban from ITN would be in order, which we could enforce here at ANI, and possibly elevating this to Arbcom to consider whether Fuzheado still enjoys the trust and confidence needed to be an admin. WP:WHEEL is supposed to be a bright-line rule, after all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say "possibly." An admin who was TBANned from any area raises grave concerns about their ability to use the tools wisely and well -- what are the odds that any tbanned editor could gain as much as 25% support at RfA? -- and a desysopping inquiry should be axiomatic for anything of the sort. And it's tough to make excuses for Fuzheado when a glance at their contribution list shows around 80 edits since Polyamorph first touched up his talk page. Ravenswing 10:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (I am also mentioned above). I've complained before about Fuzheado's subpar decisions at ITN and I really think it's time it was addressed properly, as it's been going on for years as can be seen above. Making mistakes is one thing - I've posted ITN noms before and had them pulled because people pointed out things I hadn't noticed (one happened the other day in fact), and I'm sure that's happened to every regular ITN admin - but as can be seen from the examples above, this is a more basic problem of "I think this should be posted, so I'm posting it, regardless of consensus and/or quality, and I'm going to treat objections with bad faith". The Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani incident and the wheel-warring one were really not good at all. I'm ambivalent as to whether this rises to the level of whether Fuzheado should be an admin per se (I don't see any other tool issues and they don't use the tools much otherwise anyway), but I would definitely - as I've said before - suggest they give ITN a wide berth in future, hopefully voluntarily. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that there is a problem with driveby impositions of admin will/supervoting and would like this to stop Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• WHEEL, INVOLVED comment The wheel-warring incident mentioned earlier (full thread here) is troubling. Fuzheado accused KTC of wheel-warring after KTC pulled the initial post. WP:WHEEL applies to undoing a reversal, not to the initial reversal: Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes. Clearly an unwarranted accusation. Fuzheado then re-posts, reversing KTC's pull; it's Fuzheado who actually wheel warred. Moreover, Fuzheado was already WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, having !voted support for the post at 21:26, 20 April 2021. It seems inconsistent that Fuzheado re-posted when the ITNC discussion had only been about an hour. Only a couple of weeks prior to that at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2021 § (Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Fuzheado pulled a blurb with the rationale of ...a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here...—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Holy moly That got my attention. @Fuzheado: This wheel warring thing is quite serious. Please deal with this quickly. I think the least remedy we can look forward to is a TBAN from ITN stuff.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sent Fuzheado an email in case they are not aware of this thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• INVOLVED comment - Personally, I hope Fuzheado are able to engage with community concerns resulting in some lessons learned and we all move on. If however Fuzheado are unable or unwilling to do so however, then I share other editors concerns here about a pattern of behaviour which is non-ideal. -- KTC (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sourcing comment From the links in the OP, Fuzheado has been overlooking sourcing deficiencies in their ITN posts since at least 2016, and the problem has continued. In one 2016 incident (here), they posted a blurb within a few hours after just one support !vote, which was then pulled due to BLP concerns. In another apparent WHEEL, Fuzheado unilaterally re-posts soon after without any new !votes at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Quick response (copied from User talk) - Consider the talk page note acknowledged and I have now seen this ANI thread. As you can see from my largely dormant on-wiki activity since September 1, I was away from the Internet for U.S. Labor Day weekend, involved with the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin for another five days, and then filled with work obligations ever since I've been back. I will respond when I get a chance, but with all respect, do understand that I consider a response to these is not the highest priority right now. Thanks for your patience. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Fuzheado: of course, people will have sympathy and give you some leeway if you have real-life commitments that mean your on-wiki time is limited. However, I would also point out that WP:ADMINACCT has a requirement that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings". So while I imagine the community can be somewhat patient if you're busy, that won't be unlimited. And certainly when it comes to on-wiki activity, engaging with this discussion should be your highest priority at this time, if the community is to maintain its confidence in you and your accountability as an admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Fuzheado: thank you for your response. I appreciate you are busy and have other real life priorities, but you have been on-wiki since the note I left on your talk page and WP:ADMINACCT requires your prompt response. So please could you reconsider your priorities? Polyamorph (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you're going to be away from Wikipedia for a while, that is of course understandable. Please don't take any controversial admin actions on the day before you leave. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich that if work and personal obligations are such that it is impossible to devote time to Wikipedia to answer to inquiries, then you should not be taking any admin actions that would indicate a heightened level of discretion and judgment being applied. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your mileage clearly varies, but personally if I was informed about a discussion that cast doubt on my ability to use the tools, I would be making sure that one of my very next edits was to at the least acknowledge it, as opposed to making 75 edits over a period of two weeks before even doing so (66 of those edits after a second reminder), and then that acknowledgement - by which time it's escalated to ANI - to say "yeah, whatever". Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was thinking much the same. After Polyamorph's initial post to his talk page, Fuzheado found the time to tinker with the Don McMillan article on September 2nd, and make page moves on the Indira Lakshmanan article on September 6th. Afer Polyamorth's reminder post, Fuzheado found the time to put in a couple dozen edits on Wikipedia:GLAM and the Women's History Edit-a-Thon on the 13th, 14th and 15th, before segueing to a few dozen more edits and chiming in with an impassioned defense on an AfD.

  Fuzheado was quite accurate in stating that answering such questions is not high on his priority list. But they sure as hell should be higher on his list than random Wikitinkering, and he should well be aware that there will be scrutiny of how many edits he makes between now and when he next deigns to respond here. Ravenswing 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree as well as thinking that replying to the concerns of another editor whilst involved with an Edit-a-Thon would be a wonderful teaching moment and a great way of showing everyone how important consensus was. Even if the edit was done privately and it was just mentioned in passing conversations. Gusfriend (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As someone who only witnessed the whole drama as lurker, I find the accusations against Fuzheado in the covid19 case quite ludicrous. The admin who initially removed covid19 from Ongoing acknowledged himself that his action had been premature and he should have let the discussion run for some more time, and there were many people that wanted the discussion to continue. Those unhappy with Fuzheado's decision started a thread on the Talk page entitled "Rogue Admins" - doesn't that say it all about the presumption of good faith in Fuzheado's actions? Khuft (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not about Fuzheado's reversion of the COVID19 ongoing news removal, but his subsequent accusations of other admins acting in "poor faith", other ill-considered admin actions at ITN, and wheel warring. Regarding the "Rogue Admins" section, I had some discussions with several users, including Sean Heron (User_talk:Polyamorph#I'll_make_myself_more_clear_-_Re_engaging_with_ITN_admin_you_view_as_"rogue") and Bagumba at the ITN talk page about the title of the section (created by LaserLegs) and the neccessity of giving Fuzheado a fair chance to respond to the concerns. It is precisely for this reason that I initiated the User_talk:Fuzheado#ITN thread at Fuzheado's user talk page. I continue to wait and look forward to their response per WP:ADMINACCT. Polyamorph (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment is this about wheel warring or not? If it is then we shouldn't be listing a grab bag of complaints going back six years that have nothing to do with that. And what is a "premature posting"? Who decides whether it is premature and whether consensus has been achieved? It's a judgement call, not a vote, so those declarations of "premature posting" listed as misdeeds are just statements of opinion. If this really is about wheel warring, then those complaints should be struck. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  They are a collection of their administrative actions at ITN. Admins are accountable for their judgements. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:ADMINACCT they demonstrate Repeated or consistent poor judgment. Note only admins can edit the main page and it's concerning if they consistently do so against consensus. There are four concerns I originally raised at Fuzheado's talk page: 1) pulling/reinstating items against consensus, 2) wheel warring, 3) unjustly accusing others of wheel warring, and 4) labelling another admin action as "poor faith" Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Poor judgment in your opinion is not necessarily a policy violation. If people are going to conclude it's poor judgment they are going to need more than a declaration from an involved party that the judgment call was premature. Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    er, wheel-warring is a policy violation and poor judgement. But that's why we are here. Also, admins are supposed to timely respond even if the person seeking a response is off-base. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Sorry for not being clear, I was talking about the "premature posting" issue and how that is clearly a matter of opinion. The timely response issue has already been addressed, I believe. It is unfortunate timing, but the mop is a volunteer position and people should be given some reasonable leeway for real life circumstances. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

      His "real life circumstances" did not prevent him from making several dozen Wikipedia edits in that time frame. I'm at a loss as to why you keep bringing up those "circumstances" while ignoring that, as well as ignoring the several editors and admins (this isn't just Polyamorph popping off) who have concerns in this matter that we are waiting for Fuzheado to deign to address.

      Beyond that, yes, the mop is a volunteer position: one which you have to seek out, undergo an exacting process to obtain -- requiring securing the community's trust to do so -- and carrying serious responsibilities in terms of conduct and communication. Meeting those responsibilities is not a matter of doing so only when you feel like it, or only when you can find the time. If Fuzheado does not have the time to explain his actions, he does not have the time to be using the tools. Ravenswing 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with your opening line when you say I acted "against what was pretty clear consensus." That is incorrect. I go into more detail in the extended response. If Spencer themselves says "I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination," then it was not "pretty clear consensus" at all. Do you have a response to this? - Fuzheado | Talk 04:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Note I responded to this below, I agree this was my personal POV which was both shared and opposed by others at ITN. Apologies for not being clear in my OP. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I'm confused why we're here. The proximate incident that prompted this discussion saw Fuzheado reverse a premature admin action, taken before consensus was established, by reinstating an item on T:ITN. These facts are clear—the admin who later reverted Fuzheado has said it was a "premature reading of consensus," and a brief look at the discussion reveals multiple editors who either opposed the item's removal or supported its reinstatement. Rather than being against any policy, Fuzheado's decision gave the discussion time to come to a consensus that the item should be removed. (The subsequent "poor faith" comment isn't laudable, but it also doesn't come close to violating the usual interpretations of our civility policy, so I'm unsure why that's being prominently cited above.)

So, let's look instead at the diffs cited above. Many, if not all of them, seem to refer to relatively minor issues/concerns and/or reasonable differences in admin judgement. For example, let's look at the Prince Philip ITN removal. Fuzheado reverted the addition to ITN because "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition [and] that is not the case here." That ... sounds like an entirely reasonable reason to revert, slow down, and let the discussion continue to develop for more than 55 minutes. It does not sound like a problem requiring action at ANI, and similarly quick ITN postings for other/non-British royalty topics have been roundly criticized in the past.

So what's actually at the heart of the concerns laid out above? We could look to the relatively loose rules that govern ITN's discussions and posting, and find that we're here today because the significant room for interpretation has led to predictable disagreements. That's not a problem ANI can solve—that's something ITN has to address for itself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason we are here is because Fuzheado has not responded to attempts to discuss these legitimate concerns. There are a number of incorrect assessments in your comment above - no one reverted Fuzheado until after a second discussion. There were actually many more editors opposing the item's reinstatement. Fuzheado was given several opportunities to retract their "poor faith" comment, they declined to do so. I think I explained the situation as well as I could in my OP so I'm not going to keep repeating. Polyamorph (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now posted an extended reply addressing the "poor faith" comment - the user themselves said it was "poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination." So I don't know why it is so alarming when the same word is used in both instances. Regardless, please read the entire response for more context. Regards. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why we're here: Because Fuzheado has not responded to prior queries on other talk pages. I'm more interested in first seeing their explanations for their administrative actions. Per WP:ADMINACCT:

...unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions...

—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Polyamorph and Bagumba: "legitimate" is an interesting word to use there. First, judging consensus—or a lack thereof—is not vote counting. But even if we engage in that exercise to keep this comment shorter, counting the votes reveals a significant minority of editors that are against removing/for reinstating, all in a discussion that's gone on for less than 24 hours. So no, the most recent concerns are unobjectionably not "legitimate." As a result, we're now looking at an ANI that asks an admin to expedite an explanation for alleged issues that are at best seven months old, and that is in my view not appropriate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Replying to the ping. I await a response from Fuzheado. The lack of a response has lead us here only after consulting with admins that is appropriate to do so. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fuzheado has already responded that they are in the midst of international travel, I believe. That is certainly an understandable reason why they have not provided an in-depth response to the current matter. There are also a grab bag of allegations going back to 2016 but I don't see any evidence presented that they historically have not responded to queries. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have opined above, an admin should not be taking controversial actions if they will not be available to explain those actions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A two-week international travel that allows them to do other edits but not deal with this? See this from BK. GiantSnowman 14:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to convince Wikimedia DC Communications Committee and Fundraising Committe member Robert Fernandez (Gamaliel) that Wikimedia DC Communications Committee and Fundraising Committee member Andrew Lih (Fuzheado) might possibly have done anything wrong, the chances of that most toxic of chapters (together with Wikimedia UK probably) choosing reality over friendship is nil. Fram (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Not saying there has been any, but in there event that there is any off-wiki communication/canvassing, should this be declared? Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Is that a conspiracy theory, a personal attack, a bad-faith comment, or all three? You should consider redacting your comment, especially as the outing part has already needed to be oversighted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: The oversighter later restored the information.[47]—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

'Oversight??? Then perhaps someone should inform Gamaliel, self-declared Board member of Wikimedia DC[48], that Robert Fernandez, board member of Wikimedia DC, is impersonating Gamaliel in his Cv on the Wikimedia Dc page[49], including linking to his twitter account, "wikigamaliel". Speaking of conspiracy theories, that oversight is completely ridiculous, can you tell me who thought this a reasonable use of that extreme tool? Fram (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ed17: perhaps you should also contact oversight forCommons and especially Wikidata [50], which was repeatedly edited by Gamaliel. Apology accepted. Fram (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@The ed17: previous ping was incorrect. Fram (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Two WMF members turning up in this discussion is an interesting development. Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: This is not the first time someone has tried to intimidate me on-wiki based on my employment, and I'll tell you the same thing I have everyone else: I've been a community member for a lot longer than I've been with the WMF, and I have plenty of my own views that are separate from those of the organization. (Who even is the other WMF staff member in this discussion?) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the sort! I just find it interesting. Any off-wiki communications with Fuzheado should be disclosed though, if they should occur. Polyamorph (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit to all that we should focus on the matters at hand and arguments thereabout, rather than the identities of participants, or insinuations of improper behavior. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and no. I am not an admin or a WMF member, I am the least intimidating user here. We have a WP:COI policy in article space. Does that not also apply here? Eitherway, you're right. I apologise for any insinuations on my part. Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it should first be made abundantly clear that nobody in this thread has attempted to intimidate Ed. Intimidation is a serious accusation, and it should not be made lightly. This thread is about concerns with the lack of accountability displayed by an admin who also happens to be a WMF staffer. When two other WMF staffers show up and dismiss the concerns expressed by numerous editors, they should expect that eyebrows will be raised. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Especially when neither is a regular at ANI, indeed Ed has not posted here since December 2020. Must be a coincidence, though. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

How did an outing not result in an immediate block? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's not outing when the information has been revealed on-Wiki by the person "outed"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time of my comment that material was oversighted, so it appeared to be a legit outing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Who is outing who? Nythar^T.C 19:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fram posted a comment mentioning Gamaliel's real name, and that was oversighted. It appears that was later restored, once it was established that Gamaliel linked had previously his account to his real name. With that resolved, we can move on from this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh, this place. Unless I've missed the news, Fuzheado is not a WMF staffer. Ditto Gamaliel. They are, unless I'm mistaken, volunteers who help out at WMDC. For anyone who may be confused/misled about what that means: For most affiliates, being on the board is basically someone telling you "hey, so I see you're pretty involved as a volunteer -- would you be willing to help out with writing annual reports and stuff, too?" Like writing articles, uploading photos, fighting vandalism, and copyediting, volunteering with an affiliate is one of many, many ways people support the project. I'm on the board of WMNYC, which I joined about a decade after I became a Wikipedian. If I were an admin/arb/whatever and a fellow board member found themselves in a sticky situation on-wiki, I certainly wouldn't take any formal admin/arb actions about them, but since we're ultimately just volunteers together, I'd expect to be able to have an opinion without a bunch of people insinuating some corruption either directly or by "just asking questions". YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, but since the last time you posted at ANI was three days ago, as opposed to four months or nearly two years, I'd assume that you became aware of the discussion through your normal editing activity, as opposed to any other route. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, after taking a second look, I'm not so sure as I initially was.

• Contrary to the OP, the Aug 30 reinstatement of the COVID ongoing was not "against consensus" in any way. Take a look at the thread at the time of reinstatement. The thread was posted at Aug 29 13:19 and ongoing was removed at 16:48; at that point it was a near-unanimous "support", but as everyone--including the admin who pulled it--now agrees, that was too soon, only a little more than three and a half hours. After the removal, the following !votes were much more mixed, almost half calling for reinstatement by my quick count. Not at all a clear consensus; if anything, it shifted far more towards "reinstate" after the removal than in the first three hours. Fuzheado reinstated it the next day 12:37 Aug 30. I think reinstatement was the right call: the initial removal was premature, and the "consensus" was split 50/50 at the time.
• The most-recent other instance of Fuzheado doing anything wrong provided in this thread goes back to April 2021. I initially misread that as April 2022.
• If the only time Fuzheado did anything wrong with his tools in the past year and a half was to not answer inquiries in response to the Aug 30 reinstatement... while he should have answered more promptly and fully, this is a nothingburger.

So are we seriously talking about one failure of adminacct in 18 months? Or is there anything else relevant that's happened this year? Levivich (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the query I posted on Fuzheado's talk page. The Aug 30 reinstatement is not in itself what I asked Fuzheado to explain. This is what I asked

Only a small number of users at ITN have the elevated rights required to edit the main page. It is therefore important that any user using admin tools can retain the trust of the community that they will use those tools responsibly. After discussion with Sean Heron on my talk page, it is fair that you are provided with an opportunity to respond to the concerns per WP:ADMINACCT. These concerns are that you have historically made controversial admin actions at ITN, including pulling/reinstating items against consensus, wheel warring, and accusing others of wheel warring. Most recently you stated another admin (Spencer) of acting in "poor faith". I'd like you to consider whether this is something you would like to retract. Black Kite has suggested you might voluntarily refrain from using your administrator tools to impose your own opinions. Is this something that you would consider?

. Nearly three weeks later I am still awaiting their response. I would like to hear this.Polyamorph (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the failure of adminacct is still ongoing, yes we are seriously talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Sigh ... look. No-one is asking for Fuzheado to stop editing Wikipedia, no-one is calling for him to resign the tools, no-one is shouting for them to be dragged off to ArbCom. All they are are saying is "look, there's a long history of you editing Template:In the News in a controversial way so perhaps you could, you know, stop doing that?" If Fuzheado gave that assurance and then returned to doing whatever they do at Wikipedia we could all go to the pub and close this. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. Polyamorph (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Here here. One of the biggest criticisms of ANI is someone's friends coming out to bat for them. I hope that's not what is happening here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And now if we choose to TBAN Fuzheado from ITN, must we fear WMF retaliation? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

All that is needed at this point is for Fuzheado to acknowledge and address our concerns. Just like any editor. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I am not an admin and have only been here about a year but would like to say a few things:

• With great power comes great responsibility.
• As someone who has never been involved with ITN or heard of Fuzheado before I have appreciated the additional context that concerns about their previous actions provides.
• Consensus maters and part of that is explaining your reasoning. It may be an admin action or explaining why you declined an article at AfC as it had no references.
• Communication matters.
• The community matters.
• Whilst in no way indicating that this is the consensus of the community or starting a formal proposal, Fuzheado does not have my personal support for continued use of their admin tools at ITN

I admit that this is all way too early as we have yet to really hear from Fuzheado, but we have yet to really hear from Fuzheado. Apologies to all. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you Gusfriend. Honestly I find the lack of any meaningful response from Fuzheado indicates (to me) contempt for the community daring to ask them to be accountable for their admin actions. Note Fuzheado has been active elsewhere on wikimedia but still cannot find the time to respond. Polyamorph (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fuzheado's been on Meta today, fixing a Wikimania volunteer page. Nythar^T.C 03:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's disappointing, because they are pages about Wikimania 2023, which isn't until next year. This seems more urgent. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you folks are not realistic enough about the attitudes of olden day admins, especially those who are not really here, but self-identify as 'intellectuals', 'strategic thinkers' or the like, but have a tendency to intervene sometimes to 'save' us plebs. Many of the ITN regulars who are rightfully not happy about what has happened will have had direct experience going back to the 2000s when there were some arbitrators got into power due to terra nullius but who were absent almost all the time and had the temerity to self-evaluate in semi-public forums that them and their factional colleagues were the 'foundation' or 'cornerstone' of WP or somesuch. Now, any competent POV-pusher or spammer knows that there is one WP for hat-collectors and pseudointellectuals who lie about their qualifications (typically people from a certain type of demographic background), and another where the POV-pusher/spammer can actually have their impact on washing whatever articles they need to, but the impact that the hat-collector and pseudo-intellectual has on the world of Wikipedia is a lot more limited than they think. There are a few amusing instances of old arbitrators delusionally running for re-election and being hauled out a la Marcos/Ceaucescu/Gaddafi etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No response comment @Gamaliel: ...but I don't see any evidence presented that they historically have not responded to queries. (It was too unwieldy for an indented respone to your original comment above) There seems to be at least one prior incident of no response from Fuzheado during the wheel-warring over the George Floyd blurb, which also did not receive a response on their related user talk page thread.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Also User talk:Fuzheado/Archive 18#Close at Talk:Warren Clinic shooting from June 2022. The more I look at this, the less I see it as a wheel warring or ITN issue, the more I see it as a chronic WP:ADMINACCT issue. Levivich (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Their lack of communication is strange. Nythar^T.C 19:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it appears intentional. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If they wait long enough, this section might be archived and forgotten without them responding to it. Nythar^T.C 20:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It's three weeks since I first posted what was a very reasonable request, asking Fuzheado to consider some concerns about their admin actions at ITN. Its been two weeks since my reminder and it's been three days since I posted here. Fuzheado has still not responded. They have indicated this is not their priority. Two of their WMF friends have coincidently appeared in Fuzheado's defence to tell us there is no problem here. I am now kindly requesting some indication of what the next steps should be. We cannot wait forever and it's a waste of everyone's time - we also have priorities of our own! Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Polyamorph: There seems to be some confusion: Fuzheado is not a WMF staff member. As far as I'm aware, the only volunteer here who is also staff is me. See also Rhododendrites's comment above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• There is no confusion on my part. Polyamorph (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Polyamorph: Then who are these "WMF friends" you're referring to, and what exactly do you think led to me "coincidentally" appearing here? As I previously told you, your casual references to the position that pays my bills are inherently intimidating. I'd love to get direct answers from you so I can address any misconceptions and move on from this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• You don't have go be paid by the WMF to be associated with the WMF and have friends at the WMF. I have asked you to declare any off-wiki communication that might have brought you here, but that didn't get a response. I am not intimidating you in any way, that is a vert serious accusation. Polyamorph (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - with 30-odd edits to Meta in the 50+ hours since the above "not a priority" message it is effectively sticking a middle finger up at the enwiki community. I have no idea why some legacy admins, especially those with WMF links, appear to believe they are exempt from policies like WP:ADMINACCT (Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards...). At this point, options appear to be (a) a discussion on a ban from using tools at ITN (which could be technically achieved with a partial block from the single page Template:In the news), and (b) a trip to ArbCom as a last resort. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please try assuming some good faith. I'm on the Wikimania organizing team and we had a deadline for volunteer sign ups that just concluded. As such, we need a clean ordering of sign ups in order to be ingested properly into our database or things don't work correctly. It is simple as that, which is why edits to meta are required to fix those problems. Now that the influx is over, and our systems are setup I can turn my attention to other things, such as the issues raised here. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Intention to enact a topic ban: Based on the multiple concerns raised by multiple people in this discussion, I intend to topic ban Fuzheado from T:ITN if they do not reply in this thread in the next 24 hours. That will have given them 4-1/2 days to respond in more detail to the concerns raised here (and 20 days to respond to the note on their talk page). If Fuzheado has more important things they are dealing with right now - which they very well may have, I know nothing about Wikimania's timetable - then such a topic ban will have no immediate effect on them, while it will temporarily solve the problem that multiple people have brought up here, without leaving this thread and everyone in it dangling, and getting more upset. Once Fuzheado has more time for en.wiki, if they want to edit T:ITN again, they can ask at WP:AN for the topic ban to be overturned, and we can have this discussion then. Since the problem seems to be that Fuzheado is busy, I won't enforce this with a partial block, but by closing this and leaving a note on their talk page. If 24 hours go by, and I haven't done anything, feel free to ping me. I'll notify Fuzheado of this on his talk page. if this doesn't seem fair to you, let me know here; I won't impose it in the face of reasonable opposition if I've misread the conversation so far. But this is not a unilateral decision, I believe some kind of action has consensus, based on the discussion so far, and this seems like a balanced response respecting both sides. (after edit conflict with User:Black Kite: if Black Kite thinks this is short-circuiting his suggestion, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, that's fine - indeed it's exactly the same sort of thing I would have done myself had I not been involved in the issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  This sounds sensible in the short-term. GiantSnowman 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole thread in detail but what I gather is a main concern is the admin conduct part, in addition to any concern over ITN. I think at this point in time since we haven't heard anything, a block from the whole en.wiki is appropriate. Once we get an explanation (even during the whole discussion phase) the site block should be removed pending community discussion. Admin conduct is something that is important and shows that users should not be blown off. We should show that violating that isn't acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse TBAN as proposed by Floq

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I will be replying in the next 24 hours. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Support especially as one of their edits at Wikimania ([51]) was to request administrator and bureaucrat rights which has since been granted. Gusfriend (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Endorse Floq's proposal. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable plan, which also might prod an anticipated formal response as well. —Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended Response from User:Fuzheado

Response to User talk page message

This was originally drafted as a response to the User talk page message, so it is best read in that context as a preamble to the longer response.

Thanks, I welcome any and all civil conversation regarding any of my admin edits.

A quick comment on the idea that a user may act "against consensus." As seen in the COVID "Ongoing" discussion, many folks in that debate should re-evaluate their declaration of broad/wide "consensus."

The early removal of COVID from "Ongoing" went against a basic understanding of ITN customs, as was echoed in the many comments that followed. BilledMammal correctly pointed to the early close, and things happening so quickly, as being at odds with Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels_of_consensus:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

It is a policy page, and not just a guideline or an essay. Logically, "premature reading of consensus" is not consensus. Those were Spencer's own words, and he later wrote:

"I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination."

I appreciate the recognition of "poor judgment" here. 13

This is why I am confused why saying "poor faith" was problematic when Spencer themselves used the term "poor" to describe their actions. I have nothing personal against Spencer.

I employed the word "poor" very carefully to mean substandard. It was not an ad hominem attack, and was specifically chosen instead of a much stronger accusation of "bad faith," which is a serious term tied to intent. If that seemed too subtle, then for that I do apologize. If I really meant "bad faith," I would have said it, but I specifically did not. I believe we can all make unpopular debatable decisions and we don't rake people over the coals for it (see the irony). In this case, I reverted to the status quo that many others in the discussion were demanding and didn't make it a personal issue. Again, I apologize if it was seen as being too harsh, as the words were carefully chosen and that was not the intent. But I recognize that it was likely too subtle a distinction to lean on.

I will continue to participate at ITN and associated pages within community guidelines and accepted ITN customs. I am not reluctant to talk about any of these issues, but do understand that we are busy folks and that may affect my ability to respond immediately to all the concerns.

"You never know what someone is going through, so be kind." I hope folks take that to heart, in both directions.

- Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Fuzheado: Thank you Fuzheado for your response. I did not report you here because of the covid removal, but I added that information for context. I tried as well as I could to explain the context of what brought us here, but you're right the "against consensus" comment is my POV. Regarding your poor faith comment, I appreciate your apology and explanation. Regarding your activities at ITN, I believe the community would appreciate if you voluntarily commit to not using your admin tools to impose your own opinions. Please could you consider this? Polyamorph (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the request is to "commit to not using your admin tools to impose your own opinions" then I would certainly concur and agree with that. The tricky part is that evaluating consensus often requires judgment calls indistinguishable from opinion. However, I have been fine working with contemporary RD sourcing requirements and can aim to minimize the "opinion" as much as possible. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Fuzheado! As far as I'm concerned that is a fair and reasonable response to my original request on your talk page, and this ANI thread should be closed as my initial concern is now resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, very much appreciated. Be well! - Fuzheado | Talk 05:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad faith is defined as "intent to deceive". Your choice to use "poor faith",[52] as opposed to poor decision, read as bad faith by Spencer, but comes off as bad faith on your part.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's fair. As I said above, I chose "poor faith" because I didn't think it was even close to "bad faith." But I can understand how "poor faith" and "bad faith" could be seen as nearly synonymous, and I would avoid this risk in the future. That said, I most definitely did not intend to deceive. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am not reluctant to talk about any of these issues, but do understand that we are busy folks and that may affect my ability to respond immediately to all the concerns: The facts are that 17 days elapsed since a request was made on your talk page, with a courtesy reminder included, before you gave a cursory response after the ANI case was initiated. Your formal response followed 3 days later, coming soon after the topic ban was proposed. Can you see where that might appear to conflict with WP:ADMINACCT?—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I get why the delay could be seen that way. However, I've explained already the two week period was especially bad and if I had to do it over again, I'd at least leave a one-liner saying, "Acknowledged, will answer soon," even when on the run. My last note asked for patience, and my response was already 90% crafted when I was informed of the "topic ban proposal." Regards. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hiccups are generally excusable. However, there are at least two other cases listed earlier where you also seemed to not provide a response: 1) User_talk:Fuzheado/Archive_16#Wheel_war? 2) User_talk:Fuzheado/Archive_18#Close_at_Talk:Warren_Clinic_shooting.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're right, characterizing the single action as wheel warring was in error and I apologize to KTC for the unnecessary fracas around that. For the Warren Clinic shooting question, although it was not an admin action, I could have elaborated better. The ensuing move discussion at Talk:2022_Tulsa_hospital_shooting had answered the questions around NOYEAR and historic perspective, but I could have responded directly as well. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Response to ANI

Introduction

Thanks for being patient and waiting for a full fledged response. It wasn't easy given my schedule and obligations, and I wasn't expecting such a demand for my time with this matter. Let me elaborate.

I considered the proceedings at the very end of August at ITN about COVID in the "Ongoing" section as a settled matter.

The first "remove COVID from Ongoing" debate I was involved with was closed inconclusively (more elaboration below), and there was another fresh request for the removal of COVID from "Ongoing." The discussion went on for just over 24 hours, which I intentionally stayed away from to let it run its course. I saw it was closed as "remove" by Rockstone and removed.

I considered it as settled, and there to be no pending issues on my part, knowing I would be fully occupied for the next two weeks and more. (I find it puzzling someone implied I should not take "controverisal action" before leaving. The proceedings had all been closed by then and actions taken.)

Concerns

Let's turn to the concerns listed by Polyamorph in the ANI filing.

We don't get off to a good start. With all due respect, Polyamorph starts by saying I went "against what was pretty clear consensus." This is factually incorrect.

As stated previously, Spencer said, it was "premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part..." So already, we are starting with an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. I'm not sure what "faith" to label this.

However, I'm going to take the high road and assume good faith and treat this selective telling of my ITN activities as a particular POV of the situation. It may be one person's version of what they see as the truth, but I will present another angle that I trust will give another perspective on the list of "rogue" actions given.

Even a small inspection beneath the surface provides a different context - in more than 150 edits I've made to ITN, the vast majority of those have been uncontroversial: adding blurbs, recent deaths, correcting grammar, updating stats, reformatting posts, adjusting images, collaborating on WP:ERRORS requests, et al. Additionally, many of the ones that are listed here as "poor admin judgment" had plenty of support from those involved with discussions, making the "rogue" label dubious, even while being repeated for effect. [53]

Let's start first with the premise of these proceedings, and the curious demand of an urgent response to this query and while analyzing all my on-wiki moves.

As mentioned above, I considered the "Ongoing COVID posting" a settled matter before I left for the U.S. Labor Day holiday period, a trip to the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin, and ensuing obligations related to work, an edit-a-thon, and the Wikimania volunteer deadline I was supporting. An inspection of my on-wiki edit history shows this unambiguously. (Some folks also want to hone in on a tiny sliver of editing on the run (a redirect, a page move, and one referenced statement) during that two week period. Very odd, but I'll take that in stride.)

The point here is that there was no evasion but simply a heavy set of obligations that had to take priority. and given the length of the response below you'll see why I needed a large chunk of uninterrupted time to prepare a response.

I'll address the issues brought up in order from the list that was quoted by Spencer, including the overall COVID Ongoing issue.

Ongoing: COVID

Without wanting to rehash this case, the actions at the first Ongoing debate were hardly rogue, as I was in full dialogue and explained my actions - many folks asked for and agreed with the revert to the status quo. I explained my actions, many others concurred, we talked policy, and discussed WP:CONLEVEL. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 )

Spencer's own words were:

"I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination."

This is pretty clear that a reset was justified, and I hold nothing against any editors personally.

Orson Bean - February 2020

• Stated POV: "premature posting, pulled due to lack of citations"
• Response: Concur with pull, acknowledging ITN's RD norms

This is one of the scenarios where given the letter of ITN law, I concur with pulling the RD item that I posted, even though the rationale would strike outsiders as unintuitive. Why? In the ensuing discussion, nominator User:7&6=thirteen points out the flaw of ITN - the strict sourcing requirement on the '-ology/-ography' section of an artist creates a problem where highly notable celebrities with long careers never appear on Recent Deaths.

We've seen it with stars such as Alan Thicke, Norm Macdonald, Fred Willard, and Orson Bean who, counterintuitively, got left out of RD because while they were household names, and had a long resume, they did not have enough on-wiki enthusiasts to completely reference their extensive filmography/discology sections.

In our ITN discussions, folks have noted that even without an RD mention, traffic to these Wikipedia biography articles still sees a tremendous spike. (See the discussion with Merle Haggard referred to below, in a thread with Andrew Davidson). People are still organically visting these Wikipedia articles with the incompletely-sourced filmographies. The solution is not easy and merits a longer discussion, but the fact is today the Orson Bean article has the same unreferenced filmography it had 2.5 years ago. [54]

We work by consensus, so I respect this "Alan Thicke" filmography guideline as the custom at ITN since this case in 2020, and continue to do so. To the best of my recollection, I have not been engaged with any RD sourcing issues since then.

Super Bowl LVI - February 2022

• Stated POV: "premature posting of an article relying on primary sources with CN tags"
• Response: After my posting, there were three post-posting support votes and no pull !votes. Folks concerned about game recap "primary sources" or saying it was "premature" were in the minority.

This is a case of the Super Bowl being an WP:ITN/R, meaning it was set to be uncontroversially posted as a recurring event. Some users wanted to delay posting, debating what makes a game recap properly sourced, but the consensus was that the article had proper sourcing and was suitable for a blurb. Users such as Muboshgu, Masem, LaserLegs, Amakuru, and WaltCip supported its posting and had no problems with the sourcing/game recap issue. After it was posted, there were no requests to pull it, and it only got post-posting supports.

Tianhe (space station module) - April 2021

• Stated POV: "premature posting, later pulled due to lack of citations, later re-posted after quality improved"
• Response: I'll take the hit on this one, as there were still missing references at posting time.

Three consecutive "Support" commenters said it was in shape to be posted, and that the CN tags had been resolved. I take the blame in reviewing it quickly and not looking closely enough at the last section and it would have benefitted from some extra time for sourcing. It was pulled, but reposted after improvement.

April 2016

• Stated POV: snippet "(multiple issues with postings, related to citations and another with an orange-tagged article, resulting in both to be pulled) see the sections related to "Kollam temple accident" and "Merle Haggard"
• Response: Kollam temple accident (today Puttingal temple fire) was quickly sourced and reposted in 16 minutes and stayed up after that, but I would do it differently today.

The temple fire article was short, and sources were easily fixed before being reposted. In retrospect, to be consistent we should have waited longer for consensus, and I would do it differently today even if it was obvious this tragedy was a global front page story on every news outlet. This would be consistent with the standard discussed with Spencer, and the recent straw poll about the minimum time required for an ITN item to be open before posting. So for this, I regret the short period and would wait.

For the "Pfizer & Allergan merger called off" story, I'm not sure what to conclude. There were no opposes and five supports when I posted in less than 6 hours. One person voted to pull it two days later without any explanation. No one else had an issue. It stayed up.

For Merle Haggard, as stated previously, this dispute from 6 years ago predates the Orson Bean issue, and since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline.

Zaha Hadid - March 2016

• Stated POV: "prematurely posted, and pulled due to lack of citations"
• Response: Concur, I respect the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline for ITN.

As stated previously, this dispute from 6 years ago predates the Orson Bean issue, and since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD sourcing guideline.

Portugeuse presidential election - January 2021

• Stated POV: "Prematurely posted, pulled due to quality issues."
• Response: As an ITN/R item, there were 6 supports and 1 oppose, with tags all cleaned up when posted. Pulled with a questionable interpretation of guideline/policy around "quality issues."

While it was supported by six editors and opposed by an anon, this item was pulled because four editors said there is "no prose for the results." While this may be a format they prefer, it is not prescribed by the ITN posting guidelines and may be an interpretation of this:

"Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page, and prose should be in narrative style, not "proseline"-type writing." - Wikipedia:In_the_news

However, this was not the case with this article, which was full of prose and had a full narrative description at the top of the article including describing the results, such as, "President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa was reelected as President by a landslide winning 60.7% of the votes. He won every district in country, all 308 municipalities..." If there is written documentation about the "Results" section requiring written prose, I'm open to its guidance.

Italian lockdown - March 2020

• Stated POV: "Prematurely posted before consensus settled, pulled, later re-posted."
• Response: After the pull, all eight !votes were support for reposting, with no opposes.

I'm not sure what "consensus settled" means here. After it was pulled, there was a steady set of support comments including:

• Support per above. Top of all news, article good. Kingsif
• Support as a significant development. Meets ITN criteria of updated, significant, and quality. Kees08
• Strong support - How has this not been reposted yet? Nice4What

It was eventually re-posted by Amakuru.

Summary

So in the end, where do we stand?

• The inaccurate opening line for the ANI, saying I acted "against what was pretty clear consensus," already gives me pause. It accuses me of being a policy violator when that was not the case. In fact the closer said, it was "premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part..." Again, no hate or blame but the basis for initiating this case is in question.

• A series of "Recent Deaths" and biographies cases from 2016. The case of Orson Bean (more than 2.5 years ago) was the last time there was a disagreement about RD posting. Since then, I have followed the custom of ITN on RD sourcing putting the 2016 issues in the past.

• Puttingal temple fire from April 2016 - While it was posted and reposted for good after 16 minutes and no opposition, I would do things differently today and wait longer to be consistent with the WP:CONLEVEL policy as discussed in the recent COVID "Ongoing" case.

• Tianhe (space station module) from April 2021 - I will take the blame for posting this without noting the last section of the article was lacking references.

• Consensus for posting. The cases regarding the Super Bowl and the Italian lockdown had popular support and stayed up on ITN in the end.

• Inconsistent guideline interpretation. The Portugeuse presidential election was consistent with policy and had support votes but ended with a questionable pull.

This brings us to why this is at ANI, which is dedicated to "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." From this list, we are left with two main mea culpa cases from 2016 and 2021, and a concurrence on the Recent Deaths sourcing standard that hasn't been disputed since 2020.

I'm open to more discussion, but I am not clear whether ANI is the right place for it to persist. I am open to feedback on my admin actions, at ITN or anywhere else and welcome good faith dialogue. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I had hoped I was clear why I brought his to ANI. It was because your lack of response at the time was a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. I thank you for providing your explanations. Polyamorph (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thanks, and I do really mean that. It was not evasion on my part whatsoever, as this 2-3 week period was particularly challenging for the reasons listed and beyond. I look forward to continuing the dialogue. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• RD: Orange and red tags For the the Merle Haggard RD (at your #April 2016 above), you wrote ...since 2020 I work with the "Alan Thicke" ITN RD guideline. However, at the RD discussion, the objection by The Rambling Man was please either follow the instructions (Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN...) or seek to have them modified so we post items in such states. At the time of posting, the page had multiple orange tags, and many other unsourced lists weren't even tagged. AFAICS, the rule on orange and red tags existed before 2020. This does not appear to be a new standard that evolved in 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The point of that statement is that the Merle Haggard issue was from 2016, but since 2020, I've agreed to be consistent with the stricter sourcing standard before putting things on RD, whether that is unsourced discography, orange tags, citation needed, etc. Hopefully that sheds some light on that. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

An ANI manifesto of sorts

Sorry for the new section but I am not sure where the best place to include it would be. Whilst I can only say what I personally think, I believe that I am correct in saying that no-one who spends time at the ANI page wants any new items to be added here and would prefer that new items do not raise to this level. In fact I long for days when nothing new is here (as much as it can seem like a gladatorial arena sometimes). The people who comment here view it as part of giving back to the community to help with consensus making just like making comments at AfD, working at ITN, recommended merge discussions and the like and take it seriously especially considering the possible impact (I have seen about a half-dozen productive long term editors indef banned so far this year and each one stings even when there is consensus which you support). In the last couple of months we have seen at ANI more than a few users who required a block to get them to respond to concerns that have been raised here, also a stern measure to take. All of this happens with a heavy understanding of the glorious responsibility of the discussions taking place here.

As such, a comment from an administrator, do understand that I consider a response to these is not the highest priority right now, whilst a totally understandable response, and not necessarily inappropriate, does not match my understanding of the gravity due the locale. I am not arguing for a sanction nor am I saying that I believe that this discussion needs to keep going but I wanted to share my perspective, if only so it is here for an essay later on.

As always this is purely my perspective and apologies to those who feel differently. Gusfriend (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated above, Fuzheado has now addressed my talk page request and I am satisfied with their response and how they intend to approach future controversy at ITN. Their WP:ADMINACCT obligations have been met. Fuzheado has indicated that in the future he will acknowledge any similar requests in a timely manner indicating that if he is unable to respond right away he will be providing a full response in due course. As far as I am concerned this matter is resolved. I think this also addresses their other past failures of WP:ADMINACCT and I don't think it is worthwhile to impose sanctions now for long past issues. I propose we move on and trust Fuzheado on his assurances. Polyamorph (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"not the highest priority": Yes. Consider their previous response: I will respond when I get a chance, but with all respect, do understand that I consider a response to these is not the highest priority right now. I am still determining what was the intent of the underlined part, as "I will respond when I get a chance", alone, would have been understandable. Are they guilty only of being brutally honest, or were they being passive-aggressive about WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions...—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an understandable comment and if what you say is true ("a half-dozen productive long term editors indef banned so far this year and each one stings") then I share your lament. As for the phrase I used, there really is no nefarious intent or passive-aggressiveness. It was meant to be taken at face value as life circumstances "priority," and not on-wiki "priority." My previous comments alluded to this:

• "You never know what someone is going through, so be kind." I hope folks take that to heart, in both directions.
• this 2-3 week period was particularly challenging for the reasons listed and beyond

The goal is not a pity party, so I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is really very complicated. If you take an admin action, and someone asks you about it on your talk page, respond. Don't let it sit for three weeks as you just did. Don't make us threaten sanctions at ANI to get your attention. Don't edit elsewhere while not responding to messages about admin actions on your talk page, and certainly not if there's a thread at ANI. And, again: if you're going to be away and unable to respond promptly, don't take admin actions right before you leave. Ok? Ok. Good talk. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That would make an excellent addition to an ANI related essay. Gusfriend (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Mmmm. I note there isn't a comment about the incident where Fuzheado wheel-warred whilst accusing another admin (who hadn't) of the same thing or the posting of a blatant BLP violation as an RD (section "Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani"). Perhaps they were a bit too tricky, but I'd liked to have seen them addressed. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Note Fuzheado apologised above (at the end of the "response to the user talk page message" section for the wheel warring error, in reply to Bagumba. Polyamorph (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Polyamorph, and I agree that in 2017 Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was posted in a substandard condition, something I would not do today. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

But Fuzheado didn't directly address his own wheel warring in that incident. —Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

For some case context: after the George Floyd case verdict was pulled, the immediate comment from Bongwarrior was, "There is already consensus," followed by two immediate support votes for reinstatement. After I re-posted the item, the next nine expressions of opinion were in support versus one to pull before the discussion concluded. There was clear consensus to post, as was noted in the close message. I hope that sheds some light on the fact that posting was supported by the vast majority of contributors and was not a rogue action.

That said, I do regret inaccurately calling the pull wheel warring and for causing an unnecessary fracas. I know KTC in real life and we have always interacted productively in Wikimedia event settings, so having this as an open wound is a bad state of affairs. Please accept my apologies for the mischaracterization KTC, and I hope our interactions are only good ones going forward. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I hope we don't have to end up here again. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your engagement here Fuzheado. We're fine. :-) -- KTC (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With much thanks! :-) -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Carpaniola and WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to voice my concern on Carpaniola (talk · contribs) beheviour, particularly [this] reply (breaking WP:NPA in my opinion) and in [this] edit (one of the instances breaking WP:AGGRESSION in my opinion). I would like an admin's opinion on this, and if needed the suitable sanction to be imposed. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, anybody who makes an accusation of sockpuppetry is expected to present solid evidence at the correct noticeboard, which is WP:SPI. This applies to you as well as the other editor. I will give you the same advice that I am giving the other editor: Do not conduct yourself like a nationalist POV pusher. This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions, which you have already been informed of on 15 August 2022. You need to comply, in spirit as well as in the letter, with WP:MOSMAC and the Prespa agreement which underlies it. Quibbling about adjectival or noun formulations is inappropriate wikilawyering. Just recast the sentence to comply with the guideline. You need to edit in accordance with the neutral point of view which is a core content policy, and if you choose to conduct yourself as a non-neutral editor regarding Macedonia and North Macedonia broadly construed, your ability to edit in that topic area will be restricted. Everything that I have written here applies to Carpaniola as well. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I do admit that is an oversight on my behalf, ableit I'm not accusing them of sockpuppetry here. I have also been suspected of sockpupeptry, without any report or evidence (to my knowledge) provided. You can freely check that on my talk page. I have no intent of being a nationalist POV-pusher. Even per WP:MOSMAC, and backed by a couple of editors - the adjectival form which can be used is 'Macedonian' (context is provided with the title and there is no issue with ambiguity). Even in MOSMAC, it says that the Prespa Agreement preffers 'Macedonian'. It's not broad construsion, nor a violation of NPOV. MOSMAC deals with the name of the country and the adjectival form seperatly. Anyhow, this is completly off from what I voiced by concern about - did Carpaniola (talk · contribs) break WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE? And if so, will they be suitably sanctioned? Kluche (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, are you willing to recast the sentence to remove the adjectival form and include the consensus formulation "North Macedonia" as described in the guideline, or will you continue to oppose it? You are asking for sanctions against an editor for personal attacks and aggressive editing, while it looks to me like you are engaging in personal attacks and aggressive editing yourself. Should I sanction you as well? Let me offer you another option. Correct your own behavior before asking for sanctions against your nationalistic opponents. This kind of behavior is precisely why discretionary sanctions exist in this topic area. You must be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 I think that it should be waited for a few more days in order to have more time for people to voice their opinion on this matter. If the consensus stays the same (albeit an argument can be made that the consensus is not so clear cut), I'll be willing to change the formulation of the sentence and I'll continue to modernize the article. I'd like to be pointed towards the personal attacks I have commited towards another editor in the talk/this discussion, since I sincerly fail to see them (again, I have no intention of being aggressive lr insultive). Best regards. Kluche (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Kluche, you wrote Carponiola, stop with the blatant false information and slander and then you wrote Your tone also borders passive-aggression and then you wrote I'm also worried that a 2 year-old account, with around 20 edits (even less prior to this whole ordeal) is a sockpuppet. Those are not the words of a blameless, neutral, collaborative editor but rather looks like me to be from someone who shows a lot of signs of pushing a nationalistic POV. You never filed a report at WP:SPI, did you? You just made unsubstantiated accusations that are simply not acceptable. Those are the kind of words that stoke nationalistic divisions. Can't you see this obvious reality? Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 The first one I wrote on a basless accusation that I wanted to remove everything with 'North' infront of North Macedonia. I have never disputed the country name. The second one is a warning that I would report them if they continue with (in my opinion) passive aggression. The third one I admit - is made more from concern rather than anything else, which I do take resposibility for my wrondoing. That doesn't change the fact that I think that the points I've made on WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSION stand. Kluche (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Kluche you are in a page with a lot of experienced editors and you falsify WP:MOSMAC and the Prespa Agreement, like you do with the rest of editors. Instead of doing that, I would recommend you to read the Prespa Agreement which says that it applies only to official context. The Prespa Agreement does not recommend Macedonian, it only says that Macedonian may be used without saying North Macedonian cannot be used. Article 7 of the Prespa Agreement says that nothing changes for unofficial context, people can still call the country Macedonia etc, and common sense explains that, how could an agreement tell us what to do? In the disputed sentence of Gun law in North Macedonia, "North Macedonian law" is not an official organ and therefore the "Prespa Agreement" doesn't recommend any of "Macedonian law" or "North Macedonian law". For wikipedia, the names used in articles are a decision of its editors and reflected in WP:MOSMAC, and I recommend you to read WP:MOSMAC before you make your next edit. You keep saying Macedonian can be used, and nobody says it cannot, but MOSMAC suggests North Macedonian especially on first introducing the topic. You tend to interpret every sentence you own unique way. Carpaniola (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Carpaniola Again, me stating that per MOSMAC, the Prespa Agreement says that 'North Macedonian' should be generally avoided is not a falsification. I have said countless times - the topic is introduced by the title, something which has the backing of a couple of editors. Kluche (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but the claim is the title is enough is so silly that it doesn't even have really been considered in the guidance. Do you really need us to update the guidance to address such a ridiculous suggestion? Can you not just take it from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which is clear that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and does not suggest in any shape or form that the lead does not need to repeat content already in the title. Or to put it a different way, are you really claiming when we say the lead should stand on its own, what we actually mean is it should stand along with the title and both are needed to understand the lead? Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne I agree with your points. I would also like for the original subject matter of this talk to be answered - has or hasn't Carpaniola broken WP:NPA and WP:AGGRESSIVE, and if yes, will the needed sanctions be enforced by the administrators? Kluche (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

All I'm going to say here is that it seems the adjective form is being deliberately used, as there is some leeway in MOSMAC when doing so. However in this case even that is false, as the first use should be North Macedonian. MOSMAC is quite clear on that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisintrested, MOSMAC stipulates that official institutions should be reffered to as "North Macedonian" and all other cases, in the absence of a consensus, the fuller form should be used. In this case consensus has not been fully established in my opinion, while context is not given by the title. Kluche (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said at the article talk page, discussions around how MOSMAC should be interpreted are probably best held at a more central location than an article talk page. Either way it's not appropriate for ANI. That's my fault I should have left that part out of my reply.

Separately I believe the addition space between date and month in you signature is blocking the reply function from working. Could you fix that? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that it is not a subject appropriate for ANI. About the signiture - I think I fixed it. Kluche (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have started a discussion about which adjective form should be used in the first sentence of an article at the MOSMAC talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have started an SPI for this user and five likely sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pratishthana where the user has already admitted abuse. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 13:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by Local hero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In 2022 North Macedonia protests I made some edits that add "North Macedonian" in front of "Prime Minister" and "Foreign Minister" including additional amendments. Local hero reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although the reason for my edits [was explained] Bulgarian and Albanian prime ministers are reported explicitly, the North Macedonian is not, causing confusion to the reader, I improve the text per MOSMAC: "in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural.", North Macedonian as natural and not cumbersome as Albanian and Bulgarian.

This change improved ambiguity as explained in the comment, it is according to WP:MOSMAC that suggests "North Macedonian" by giving "North Macedonian Prime Minister" as a concrete example. MOSMAC states: However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural..

The reason I used the adjective "North Macedonian" instead of "of North Macedonia" is because the same was used for the Albanian and Bulgarian Prime and Foreign Ministers. No reason to handle North Macedonian differently.

I left a message on Local hero's page and he reverted my edits again. I am really disappointed from the tolerance shown to Local hero and other users who violate MOSMAC every day. A few days ago, we had the same problem in Gun law in North Macedonia where Local hero and Kluche coordinate edits and form consensus, like they did in North Macedonian denar too.

Can someone help me in how to report Local hero and Kluche for sockpuppetry? Nikokiris (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have a suspicion of socking (a legitimate one) take it to WP:SPI, but be warned, opening an SPI on someone who opened an SPI on you (something you admitted to, by the way) without any evidence is likely going to be seen as retaliatory. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All the evidence is provided in the sockpuppet investigation you cited. I am very disappointed with the behaviour of Local hero and his friends and the tolerance shown to them. Thanks for the suggestion, I don't want anybody to see it as retaliatory. If some experienced editor wants to use the evidence, feel free to do the report for me. This is my last message on wikipedia. Thanks so much for you help (you and everyone who helped to avoid the disruptive edits of Local hero and Kluche). I cannot spend more energy in this place. Nikokiris (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this a legal threat?

Xuenkitze (talk · contribs) has been going through indigenous peoples articles adding "tribal" and "sovereign tribes" I believe inappropriately as not all tribes are sovereign in Central and South America nor are all indigenous people tribes, eg the Maya peoples. See for example the change in the short description at Indigenous peoples[55] and the edit summary "Some tribes are still sovereign why os sovereign tribes as a term being erased. Tribes is a term used in ancient Greece and Rome at the 1rst Century b.c.e. as sovereign city states. This is a violation of international law to not be acknowledged." They have also been adding original research, eg [56] where they change "the geographic region called the Darién Gap" to "the geographic region called the Darién Gap by foreigners]. I realise this is a different issue than the possible legal threat. I think this is a good faith editor trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, so I'll wait for Xuenkitze to explain the intent of their statement.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a legal threat, but a very weak and strange interpretation of international law which they seem to use in an attempt to justify their position. All of their edits appear to include a bit of PoV pushing, perhaps not with malicious intent, but probably detrimental to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Going by their own description and the edit summaries they drop around, they have "skin in the game", so to speak, and are editing articles about themselves. Ostalgia (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Ostalgia, not a legal threat but a possibly misguided statement about sovereignty under international law. CMD (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So it appears this person is still editing profusely across several articles and seemingly has a fetish for the concept of "tribe". Their unsourced and unsupported edits most certainly fall under WP:RGW, and while I have no reason to assume bad faith, they're not useful, but quite the contrary, and given that they are are getting reverted left, right and centre, their persistence borders on vandalism. Perhaps a temporary block from articles related to the indigenous populatons of the Americas could force them to engage with fellow editors and understand the way to go about their business on Wikipedia? I wouldn't count on that, in all honesty, but I don't think their "misdeeds" justify taking stronger action at this point, nor do I believe they can be allowed to just edit articles to their liking. Ostalgia (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor is not here.....time to go.....mass set a revets again today for sa me reasons.204.237.50.43 (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Help on article Comparison of EDA software

I would appreciate if somebody could give a look to the article Comparison of EDA software. Every little advancement requires an overwelming amount of effort, patience and dead-end discussions (not to say bullying and offenses). The atmosphere scares off anyone who seriously wants to contribute. In fact, Wikipedia just lost yet another valuable contribuer. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a content dispute around the requirement for packages to have their own article. An edit notice requires that, Goitseu is fighting that. The Banner talk 11:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

To throw a serious allegation such as bullying and offenses requires evidence; evidence which is missing from your filing as is. Please provide them in the form of diffs. Otherwise, content disputes are not adjudicated on ANI in any manner; we are only concerned about any violation of policy or guideline here, and you have not presented any evidence to suggest this. Please also be warned that actions that you have engaged with can mean you are sanctioned, and filing this does not give you immunity. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Forget bullying and offenses: they are hard to catch without following the full discussion. Focus on overwelming amount of effort, patience and dead-end discussions by checking the talk sections here and here. Read in particular which behaviour of user:The Banner caused a valuable editor already to quit Wikipedia. I'm interested if you consider this all fine. Thanks, Goitseu (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this IP was a valuable editor? I see no evidence of that. The Banner talk 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

From the arguments he brought here and here for example he is in my opinion very competent. He has also been very proactive, constructive and willing to contribute. Do you have a different impression? Goitseu (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Goitseu: I'm not willing to comment on the value of an editor, but if an editor thinks an entry is notable or suitable for inclusion in a list just because it's in the package manager of a major *nix distribution they're definitely confused about our notability and list inclusion guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ow, and I suggested that he should start an RfC when he wants the edit notices removed. It is not so good that he is turning a content dispute into something personal, as Goitseu is doing now. The Banner talk 15:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Vipz

User:Vipz and I have a disagreement on the pages Tito and Josip Broz Tito but actually his behaviour is very similar to a stalker versus me and my edits: he reverts all my edits at sight on various articles. Regarding article of Broz Tito, I started a section in related talk and I stop to edit in page "Tito" but in other articles he always reverts my edits. In particular he pretends to put the term "dictator" near Benito Mussolini but not near "Josip Broz Tito": they both were dictators and statesmen but Vipz is tendentious with his definitions when he edits in related articles. User Vipz on "edit summary" of article "Benito Mussolini" writed calling name what a hypocrite versus me. Stalking reverts are these:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• 8

Furthermore user Vipz removed two reliable sources in article Italia Brigade (Yugoslavia) without his intervention in related talk page: this is a form of disruption and sources affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito against Italian citizen in foibe massacres. Disruption is this: blatant disruption for his personal political POV. --Forza bruta (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a dispute about Tito, why are you editing articles on Mussolini? Why aren't you doing what was suggested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, [57] and discussing the issue on the talk page - or failing that, using dispute resolution? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Behavior of user Vipz is different point: I don't make stalking versus nobody and user Vipz seems to find arguments calling name versus me. I never did personal attack in edit summary or in talk page.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked. Why, if this is a dispute about Tito, are you going around editing articles on Mussolini, changing the word 'dictator' to 'authoritarian leader', or 'duce'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I am here not for a dispute of article's content but for provoking actions of user Vipz versus me and my contibutions on this project: he calling bad name versus me in edit summary of article "Benito Mussolini". I did change regarding Mussolini writing motivation in edit summary: the definition "dictator" is not officially name of a stateman and, in particular case of Mussolini, his officially name was "duce" and you can see article Duce with image of Mussolini. In the same manner stateman Francisco Franco was named Generalissimo and he was "de facto" a dictator, but you never can read definition "dictator" in articles introductions of Encyclopædia Britannica because definition "dictator" is used by historians in their books. In fact I always report sources by books with definition "dictator" but in sections of related article about historical figure.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica describes Mussolini as "the first of 20th-century Europe’s fascist dictators" in their introduction. [58] So do many, many other sources. Wikipedia goes by what sources say , not by vacuous arguments about 'official names'. And frankly, looking at the sequence of events here, where you seem to be retaliating to not getting your way in the Tito article (having entirely failed to do as you were told and discuss the issue) by editing content on Mussolini. Under which circumstances, I'd have to suggest that Vipz's comment about you might well be seen as justified. If you aren't prepared to actually engage in discussions over disputed content, but instead resort to disruptive edits of unrelated articles, and to repeated personal attacks on contributors (not just here with "blatant disruption for his personal political POV" which is clearly nonsense, but in the NPOV noticeboard thread, where you accused another contributor of the same thing - again while failing to provide any sort of evidence that you had even attempted to discuss the content dispute) it isn't surprising that people react that way. Carry on like this, and I'd be very surprised if you don't end up getting blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I discussed and actually discuss in related talk page of article "Josip Broz Tito": you can read my first message of several messages to user Peacemaker during 2017 and I send various email to him but result was only few changes of introduction in focussed article. In my personal talk page, you can read a message of Peacemaker during 2020 and I don't make here all links of my interventions in talk page of focussed article because I have little time. Regarding "Encyclopædia Britannica", I have an edition of this encyclopædia where article of Benito Mussolini has no citation of definition "dictator" in article's introduction: attention only in lead or introduction but in article's sections, definition "dictator" is present too and same situation is valid for dictator Broz Tito too. I just find reliable sources on various books and report these sources in this project under wikipedia's rules but other users are in permanent violation of wikipedia's rules. Good bless you.--Forza bruta (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You have provided precisely zero evidence of any rules being violated. The 2017 post you made on Peacemaker67's talk page contains nothing of substance that couldn't have been posted on the article talk page, and nobody is ever obliged to engage in email discussions regarding article content (Or anything else, for that matter). They don't belong there. Such discussions should be carried out on the relevant talk page, where others can see them, and participate. If such discussions cannot be satisfactorily resolved, we have multiple options for dispute resolution - as you have already been told. Use them. This is a content dispute, and you aren't going to win it by making repeated unsubstantiated claims of violations of policy. Carry on like that, and you may well find yourself blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, I request and I will request opinions to my wikipedia's tutor.--Forza bruta (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Keimzelle making personal attacks

Keimzelle (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks towards User:Onel5969, claiming that Onel5969 is a vandal. Onel5969 redirected their article, and Keimzelle reverted with an edit summary of "I'm not in a mood to tolerate vandalism, reverted". I asked them to withdraw their accusation, which they subsequently doubled down on. I think that Keimzelle needs a warning from an admin to not make personal attacks like this again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. The German username made me look up their dewiki block log and decide that a mere warning not to personally attack other editors isn't needed anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparent sock pretending to be someone else

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Marvel Lords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created merely few hours ago and is evading WP:SCRUTINY as his edits show and is pretending to be User:Knight Skywalker per his user page. However, nowhere Knight Skywalker admitted alternative accounts. >>> Extorc.talk 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You must check global user contribution, to check when was account created. Two days ago is not few hours ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Marvel_Lords Marvel Lords (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The old account hasn't edited for six months - this could just be someone who forgot their old password and created a new account, and who was decent enough to tell us that was what they had done. Unless you've got specific reasons to suspect that they are lying about being KS? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: But that is not what this user has stated on his user page. He is just pretending to be Knight Skywalker to evade scrutiny. Commenting on ARE about the users he never interacted just after hours of registering the account proves he is evading scrutiny. I have seen this type of play before as well from socks of this LTA. Its not a new thing. >>> Extorc.talk 15:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Knight Skywalker will never edit again, as I am Knight Skywalker. Marvel Lords (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: I just don't understand what you think anyone have to gain by trying to assume the identity of Knight Skywalker. If someone created a new account claiming to be NeilN or JzG, sure, I could understand why we would treat that with caution - but an account with no advanced permissions, and 509 edits? I don't know why anyone would lie about that. And I don't understand the logic behind the accusation of trying to evade scrutiny. Creating a new account, not disclosing it, and continuing to edit under your regular account might be an attempt to evade scrutiny; this is the complete opposite, where the old account was completely abandoned six months ago, and the new one has disclosed the connection. I can see no reason not to assume good faith and let them get on with it. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There can be a few reasons for Marvel Lords to pretend to be Knight Skywalker in order to avoid getting blocked for being an obvious sock since this new account's edits give impression that he is editing for a long time and is currently evading scrutiny. Those who have lost their password can simply ask their account to be locked but that hasn't happened in this case and that's why it makes no sense to think that Knight Skywalker lost his password. >>> Extorc.talk 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I intentionally scrambled my password. Was not interested to edit at that time. I am not aware of any policy to request lock of past account. If you are very sure, then take it to SPI. Marvel Lords (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikilinks added to articles related to Nigeria

There are a number of editors editing articles relating to Nigeria to add internal links that at best seem pointless, and often go to wildly inappropriate articles. For some of the more egregious examples, see here, here, here, and here (I think that last one has been added more than once, and possibly by more than one account). Does anyone know what is going on here, or how to deal with it? I’m notifying the accounts I can remember, apologies if I miss any. Brunton (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that I try to notify them, I’ve only been able to find a couple of accounts doing this, I thought there were more. Brunton (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

That's completely disruptive. I have warned the accounts Gloria Lina (talk · contribs) and Gift Denison (talk · contribs) sharply. Also, the two accounts' edits are so similar that I suspect they're run by the same individual. Might a Checkuser care to take a look, please? Thanks for reporting, Brunton. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

 Unlikely bordering on definitely not, but geographically close enough that they may well know each other. --Yamla (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just some friends trolling together on a weekend, I guess. Silverseren^C 20:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks, Yamla. Yeah, I bet they're playing a game to see who can add the most unlikely link. Bishonen | tålk 20:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

I spot-checked a few of those links, and in each case, it's the first option in the drop-down after you select a word and click VisualEditor's "link" button. I wonder if this is an student assignment gone horribly wrong. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting. Sorry to say the VisualEditor is a bit of a closed book to me. If that's it, I guess the assignment instructions must have been, well, quite unhelpful, especially since the modus operandi has included re-adding the same bad links over and over after being reverted. I have indeffed Gloria Lina, who kept right on after my warning. Perhaps that will get them to explain on their talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 08:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

2015 Canadian federal election

IP address. Most recent incident: 2015_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=1112085428 G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• 2015 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 107.190.33.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This appears to be a content dispute where an IP has removed content twice in four days. It should be discussed on the talk page (I gather there is already a consensus?) but the IP's conduct doesn't require the use of the admin toolset at this time imo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is an editoral consensus on the page that's stood since the 2015 election. The anon's abusive language and attitude toward disagreement with his viewpoint strike me as justifying admin intervention but I'm not an admin and not accustomed to dealing with such matters.

I'll let other editors handle this in future so that I'm not subjected to further abuse for how I submit a report while dealing with severe pain. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

They have returned to the article. I have left them a message to take it to the article talk page. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: Please note that you should have notified the principal IP address involved, 107.190.33.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), of this discussion, as the red notice both on top of this page and when editing to leave this filing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment, disruptive editing (IP editor)

Harassment:

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight

Note, they also left a comment on my YT channel, and have generally been disruptively editing Hood film and List of hood films for awhile now.

IPs (same user): 174.242.209.27, 174.242.221.240, 174.247.252.87, 174.247.252.172, 174.247.251.178, 174.242.206.169 HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 212.73.35.230

by 212.73.35.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made on talk:Kundalini yoga left here on article talk page This article is directly related to current investigations into allegations of violating US law. Adakiko (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but that doesn't read like a legal threat, rather a reason the article state is important to that editor. That said the edit appears rather non-sensical and also not really the 'pedias problem. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also to note I have reverted to the version the IP dislikes. I'm not interested in any sort of battle but changes like 'Kundalini energy is technically explained as being sparked during yogic breathing' scream out WP:FRINGE and probably need a firm consensus to add, which is currently lacking. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I took that statement as a threat. 11:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP was blocked with a reason of disruptive editing so this is really academic at this point, but This article is directly related to current investigations into allegations of violating US law. Anything that is not presented neutrally and/or objectively here may encourage other people to make further claims that are not neutral and objective is not any sort of threat. Rather it reads (at least to me) that negative coverage is going to result in more legal headaches for the user/the org so they would much rather it be whitewashed. 'I will sue you' vs 'More people are going to sue me/go to the cops'. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 11:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Malcolmxl5 Adakiko (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked for disruptive editing. Edit warring, possible block evasion (note the IP 31.4.229.184 on the Kundalini and Kundalini yoga pages yesterday) and the nonsense on the talk pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

And they're back. User:212.73.35.194 blocked one week for block evasion. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And again. User:212.73.35.177 blocked and Kundalini and Kundalini yoga protected for one week. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And again. User:212.73.35.178 on the talk pages. Blocked and added a partial rangeblock from these articles and talk pages for one month. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Judging from the latest edits on Patanjali Project (talk · contribs)'s talk page, seems to be the same person. They have been blocked since the 14th, all these IPs were block evasion. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie. Ah yes. The same use of the 'Connected contributor' template. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably an old sockmaster to be found. I haven't edited in that area for some time now... Skyerise (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Purely disruptive material by User:Ousmanekokoirey

Not sure if it's spam, a language barrier, trolling, or what: Special:Contributions/Ousmanekokoirey ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's disruptive and I have blocked as such. Thanks for flagging Star Mississippi 21:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Kyleung05

Kyleung05 makes changes en masse, across large groups of articles at a time, without providing an edit summary (seriously, not one edit summary or talk page post in 1,045 edits). They reinstate these changes repeatedly even after other editors have objected on their talk page, and they do not participate in discussion to reach consensus, as their complete lack of talk posts evidences. They were recently blocked for 24 hours by @Canterbury Tail: for this behavior, but they have resumed just as soon as the block expired. Wallnot (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that this user is mainly editing articles based on public transit in Toronto. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for another week, same pattern of editing and a disruptive tendency to remove things like photos of political figures. In fact they've warred on many political figures, all edits of which are continually reverted by multiple users. I'm tempted to make it an indefinite to try and force them to communicate, but I doubt they will communicate. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We should keep an eye on pages pertaining to Toronto transit in case the user comes up with other ideas, especially given that pages pertaining to various high-profile politicians have EC protection. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 11:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Toronto transit rings a sock bell somewhere, isn't there a fairly prolific socker in that topic? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Some of us aren't convinced for reasons, but yes there is one particular one we're keeping an eye on about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I will keep a close eye on such articles in the meantime. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Concernsavant

 Courtesy link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109 § AFC/HD Bludgeoning

Concernsavant is the account behind (over?) the IPv6 in the thread above, and from the looks of it he hasn't learnt anything from the block. Aside from getting a sandbox of his deleted as G12, he's been constantly copy-pasting material from the sources he's trying to cite to his talkpage and to AFC/HD in an effort to defend the same sources that have been deemed wanting before, and has also been editing the archived AFC/HD discussion to try and make his case there. At this point I'm of the opinion that there is just no reaching him, and so I have to reluctantly ask for an indefinite block here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive, promotional. Take your pick. Indeffed either way. Star Mississippi 15:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Might I ask for a talk page revocation? They're unwilling/unable to contest their block and are instead just trotting out the same tired Vaudeville act that's been gonged multiple times. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely would have, but @Legoktm got to it first. Thank you! Star Mississippi 13:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

New Evlekis sock needing a quick block

Supreme 2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual infantile harassment, going through my contributions far back in time and reverting everything I've done... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

... and Grooverider9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

LionAjk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Even after talk page full of warnings and a block 2 months ago, this user is still falsifying sources, not using edit summaries, and still adding unsourced content.

Just today, he added unsourced content on Religion in Saudi Arabia,[59] some content on Tatarstan[60] which is not supported by his added source and content on Religion in the Middle East[61] which is not supported by the source. I took a broader look at this user's editing and to me he does not seem to be WP:HERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What exactly did I falsify the tatarstan one was sourced I even added two sources saying in the 55 to 53% range.

Religion in saudi arabia I added sources regarding blasphemy cases and fixed the sources if you bothered to read the sources both news sites like alhurra and saurress used the gallup survey which said 5% people in saudi arabia were convinced atheist they didnt make conduct there own surveys like how that paragraph allegeds.

Also religion in the middle east regarding the shabak edit I got the reference from its main wiki page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabaks if you check the userbox in regards to religion check the reference its the same.

Yes I should use edit summaries but its optional I was warned thar it would be better to use edit summaries if it such a issue I will use edit summaries also wanted to add my older ban two months ago was result of edit warring which I am trying to improve actively on by discussing on the talk page to be honest I didnt it was a thing at first but now I do take the discussion to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

LionAjk, which source supports the content you added to Religion in Saudi Arabia about Shankar Ponnam and Ashraf Fayadh? Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link that does https://en.qantara.de/content/atheism-in-saudi-arabia-gods-own-country — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

LionAjk, you added a bare URL a couple of paragraphs down. How is a reader supposed to know that this URL has anything to do with Ponnam and Fayadh? Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought all the citation are linked there I can see the confusion I caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Plus, the content you added was a blatant copy/paste copyright violation of the source. Why did you do that, LionAjk? Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I didnt know it would count as copyright as it was just the victims names and there reason they were unfairly punished but next time I will be more aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

LionAjk, the names alone are not subject to copyright, but the detailed descriptions of the charges and the punishments are subject to copyright protection. You must paraphrase and summarize in your own words. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: LionAjk does not refute the falsification of sources which he did at Religion in the Middle East and Tatarstan. He is only trying to obfuscate. LionAjk clearly does not understand what is WP:V or WP:COPYVIO. He has been warned about copyright before too. This latest revert proves this. Replies from LionAjk further proves that he lacks the competence to edit. I don't think he will allow cleanup of the damage he did in last 3 months unless he is blocked. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, the word "falsification" implies that this editor is deliberately trying to damage the encyclopedia. To me, it looks more like gold faith efforts by an editor who lacks skills and an even introductory understanding of our policies and guidelines. But people can learn. I am inclined to block the editor from article space, but allow them to propose improvements on article talk pages. I would like to hear from some other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: LionAjk has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786 now. This can be closed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, thanks. I am not surprised. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not warned of copyright I was warned that if I take information from another part of a wikipedia article and place into anothee I should mention it in the edit summary I also explained the edits of both tatarstan and the shabak one in religion in the middle east. As a took the main source striaght from the wikipedia article in regards to shabak and the tatarstan was mentioned in the source that it was 53% muslim or 55% according to the source.LionAjk (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liamgabby79

New user Liamgabby79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently recreating-by-reversion station articles for the Georgia Public Broadcasting network, despite prior consensus they should not be separate articles, and appears to be edit warring to keep them as articles. WNGH-TV in particular has already been restored four times. (This is not limited to GPB; they also are repeatedly reversing the 2009 merger of District of Columbia Route 4 into Pennsylvania Avenue, even reverting a bot that objected to their addition of a GeoCities link.) They also falsely assert on their userpage that they are an admin — and they restored that userbox despite a prior removal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Another admin has indefinitely blocked Liamgabby79. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User: 2601:282:300:52F0:8C8B:3AEF:F424:2FAC

This user had made a legal threat on 2023 Denver mayoral election. I have reverted it for now, and placed a warning on the talk page of the IP user. (The IP user had reverted my edit on the article) Looking through the IP's contributions, they have made disruptive edits to the article mentioned above, often without edit summaries. There have been an edit war between BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP, with both of them breaking WP:3RR. (See the history of edits on the article between 26 Sep and 27 Sep). BottleOfChocolateMilk did try to discuss with them in their edit summaries, but the IP user still continued to revert their edits. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the IP editor for two weeks and semi-protected the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I also blocked 67.176.104.2 for the same time, clearly the same editor. I must admit I'm intrigued with the concept of an election being non-political. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2A02:14C:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

2A02:14C:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been posting nonsense on talk pages for quite some time (examples: Special:Diff/1110311856, Special:Diff/1112233441). Kleinpecan (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's three talk pages. Still, the IP editor has been blocked in the past. I did a month-long block with account creation enabled. If it continues with logged in accounts, I can block them and disable account creation. In my experience, a lot of people are too lazy to create an account just to be disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Jerome501

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that someone should urgently take a look at the recent conduct of Jerome501 (talk · contribs), especially because of this. "Jebem ti boga bre" is a very serious insult in Serbian. —Sundostund (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say that I fully agree. This sort of conduct shouldn't be tolerated, and I absolutely support this being urgently looked at. This is not at all acceptable. This user needs to be talked to and possibly banned, because I've been looking at his conduct from inside his own head. Let me tell you, it's not pretty, I'm barely holding him back from posting "jebem ti" more times. Jerome501 (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say this is perhaps the first time I have posted on a Wikipedia talk page. 172.221.107.113 (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Man, welcome to the show, whoever you are. And I was just about to burn several copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra before you showed up. I'm really not one for gay science, you know. Jerome501 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, don't hold anything back – post it for how many times you want. Its not like I care at all, but I suppose that admins here will care about your appalling behavior. —Sundostund (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but can I just point out that this may be the second time I have ever posted on a Wikipedia talk page? 172.221.107.113 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to immortalize this, believe it or not I found this quoted word-for-word in the Will to Power:

Please, do not hold a thing back from your true self – post it for how ever many times you want. It is not like I care personally, but I suppose that in so doing, you will become the Superman!

— Friedrich Nietzsche

Jerome501 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add, you are what I like to call the Wikipedian warrior-philosopher, a desirable aesthetic pinnacle most will never summit. But sir, I congratulate you. You might even be worthy enough to move out of Beograd na Vodi and into better living accommodations. Jerome501 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me for interrupting your anti-Nietzschean rebuttal, but I would just like to say this is quite likely the last time I shall ever post on a Wikipedia talk page! 172.221.107.113 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Damn, and you were just about to miss the part where I shredded several books by Schopenhauer and Sartre and make them into a casserole. Now how am I supposed to criticize human existence? Jerome501 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jerome501 for disruptive trolling and not being here to build an encyclopedia. I have also blocked their imaginary sidekick, the IP on a leash. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Folks might want to take a look at the editor's userboxen, which have all been nominated for deletion:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jerome501/Userboxes/User_Racist
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jerome501/Userboxes/AAVE
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jerome501/Userboxes/No_Immigration_Ever
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jerome501/Hateyankees/DC
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_Anti-Democracy

While clearly meant sarcastically and satirical in nature, they are also inappropriate for this site. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Good blocks. Paraphrasing Monty Python doesn't make bigoted trolling acceptable. I agree with BMK that those userboxen are completely inappropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• https://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Friedrich_Nietzsche EEng 03:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor above may be a sock of Tablecloth1389. Many of the creations look similar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

2001:8003:b1b8:bf00::/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001:8003:b1b8:bf00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) NOTHERE, good hand / bad hand vandalism, refuses to get an account, imports drama from elsewhere.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  “Refuses to get an account” You can be banned for doing that? Why does that rule exis— Does that rule even exist anyway?

  I do NOT import drama. I do NOT vandalise articles, especially important ones.

  Please don’t block 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00::/64 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • @Jeff G.: Please provide diffs documenting your allegations (except the second one, which is not a policy violation), or retract this report. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

    I can’t get banned for not making an account! 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Azniv Stepanian : WP:CIR?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor is not a native English speaker. Their edits, from 2020 to February 2022, show a lack of understanding of English. They may be using a spell-checker of some sort: I can't see how else they thought it appropriate to change "bibliomemoir" to "bibliometric" in this edit to Elizabeth Gaskell (in which they also changed UK to US English, and mangled the wording of a dialect quote). That was what brought them to my attention as I did not understand the word in that context so checked to see who had introduced it.

Among their most recent edits, in Feb 2022 in Sea state, they changed the clear and correct

"Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years sea state is a normal demand for design of ships and offshore structures."

to the unintelligible

"Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, the sea state is a normal demand for the design of ships and offshore structures."

They seem to favour adding "the" in places where it may or may not improve the text, and sometimes changes its entire meaning ("Where X owned property" is one thing; "Where X owned the property" is quite different).

This is a well-meaning editor who apparently makes a major contribution to Western Armenian Wikipedia and asserts that they have an advanced knowledge of English, but I suggest that they should not be allowed to edit English Wikipedia until and unless they assure us that:

• they will take more care
• they understand MOS:ENGVAR, and
• they will not rely on a spell-checker or similar assistance when editing here.

I have spent an afternoon this week clearing up their edits; because there had usually been later edits to the articles it wasn't just a case of "undo" but needed fiddling around. Then this morning I discovered an earlier one I hadn't spotted, where they turned the surname "Yampier" into "Vampire": although it was 2 years ago, it just seems one too many examples of damaging editing so has brought me to post this request for a block.

They have not received any warnings yet, until the lengthy message I left on their talk page this week. We could wait for them to start editing again, but how much damage would their next spree do, to be unpicked by other editors when someone noticed it? I've been disappointed to find that only a small proportion of their edits had already been reverted: were the other articles on no-one's watchlists? Even an editor reverting them with the edit message "Most of this is wrong" (or words to that effect) didn't comment on their talk page. They were welcomed with regard to their edit to Andes, but even that edit was ungrammatical, changing the already incorrect "x and y were one of ..." to "x and y was one of ...". (That had been in place so long that I began to doubt my own grammar: an IP edit ten years ago introduced "were one of" and no-one has since changed it: maybe in some varieties of English it is OK? I've changed it to "were among".)

Please block this editor, to protect the encyclopedia. Thanks. PamD 11:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent IP vandalism on Baguio, related pages

• 131.226.65.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.176.48.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Both ranges have been persistently used in the past few hours by an IP-hopping vandal to make vandal edits on Cordillera Administrative Region-related pages and Valkyrie Profile-related pages. Given how they've been able to switch their IPs 6 times in the past 4 hours (see Special:PageHistory/Baguio), a range anonblock might be warranted. IP info tool tells me both of these are cellular ranges, although BGPView tells me these are different Philippine ISPs. Both ranges have shared vandalism behavior as far back as 2020 (175.../24 in 2020, 131.../23 in 2021). First range mentioned has a very long history of vandalism and could benefit a longer block. Barely any constructive edits, shouldn't expect much collateral damage from anonymous editors. The second range has a shorter history of recent abuse, but still sizable nonetheless. The usage of "abuse filter test" in these edit summaries (as far back as 2021) concern me, but as I'm not much of an LTA enthusiast who knows something that might follow this pattern I'll leave that to more qualified people. Chlod (say hi!) 11:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a known LTA. I’ve made three /24 blocks for three months though I’m open to any adjustments if others think it appropriate. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Ahh, I see. Thank you the info! Chlod (say hi!) 14:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chlod. Thank you! I blocked one /24 earlier when it popped up on my watchlist and this report has prompted me to block the others. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Also blocked 49.144.16.0/21 for three months. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Darylprasad adding large amount of original research to neoplatonism topics, ignoring editors' concerns

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

darylprasad has added a preposterously large amount of poorly sourced material and original research to Proclus, Neoplatonism, and Plotinus. They ignore any concerns raised by other editors about their original research or article length. On their talk page, they threaten to delete and message left by non-administrators without reading it. Major issues with WP:IDHT and WP:CIR in addition to apparent failure to abide by the core content policies. Their page before they started deleting warnings warning from spinningspark for deleting content at ani warning from johnuniq additional from johnuniq additional from johnuniq and from spinningspark warning for removing maintenance templates concerns about talk page message i left earlier today, which their notice indicates they will likely not read before deleting

I'm bringing this here because these concerns have been raised at ANI a year ago and the situation has only worsened; the sources they cite, which may appear to be recent, are simply translations of e.g. proclus and their additions are their own interpretations. In the past year, they have shown no indication that they have any interest in responding to community concerns, as Talk:Proclus, Talk:Neoplatonism, and Talk:Plotinus clearly show. - car chasm (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that prior to my reversions, the pages in question were 357,789 bytes, 406,770 bytes, and 131,410 bytes respectively. The sheer volume of material alone would be a cause for concern, even disregarding the lack of copy-editing standards or ability to support their claims with secondary citations. - car chasm (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Good god, I think I need mind bleach. This has gone on for way too long, indefinitely blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

May I recommend: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. EEng 00:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Fenetrejones creating copyvio and editwarring to remove revdel templae

Fenetrejones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a copyvio to the Matt Cartwright article and is now edit warring to remove the revdel template for the copyvio revision. WP:CIR IMO. Andre🚐 02:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

no I put it back. That was an accident. I didn't mean to do that. I am genuinely sorry, and I own up to my mistake. Fenetrejones (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Harassment, PA, and GAMING by Horse Eye's Back

Horse Eye's Back has started following my contrib history and showing up in odd places to argue with me.

The most obvious of these is Talk:Epistemic_humility#Critical_Theory_section_is_undue?. The other is Talk:Feldenkrais Method#Entry has strong anti-Feldenkrais bias.

I raised the issue on their Talk page: they confirmed that they were following me and added a personal attack ("your inability to discern reliable sources from blatant fringe is disrupting multiple pages"). They declined to strike the PA and indeed doubled down on it.

HEB continued hounding from the Feldenkrais talk page, going after User:Bbachrac who had done nothing disruptive, though in this case HEB was able to find a likely COI edit to another article in the editor's history.

HEB has continued to post accusations of COI to Talk:Feldenkrais Method#Entry has strong anti-Feldenkrais bias, using an interpretation that is completely at odds with the text of WP:COI.

HEB then deleted large portions of the Feldenkrais Method article where they never engaged previously (though for what it's worth, the article was already in a terrible state). An IP attempted to revert their changes; HEB restored his edits with the comment "horshockey and balderdash".

HEB apparently believes that I have made comments which justify the HOUNDING, I'll leave it to them to provide diffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palpable (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not hounding you (or following you, which you know... as you said on my talk page "I was going to let this drop after the warning, but you seem to have a serial HOUNDING problem." Who else are you alleging I am hounding btw?), as for the IP see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunderland Renaissance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You admitted to this on your Talk page, but came up with a justification for it. Same thing with Bbachrac.

I wasn't aware of the sock puppet investigation of the IP, you didn't refer to that in your edit comment. - Palpable (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I admitted to what on my talk page? To making proper, judicious and appropriate use of your edit contribution history? Bbachrac clearly has a COI issue, check your talk page[62] if you still don't believe me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Also those aren't the "most obvious" examples they are the only examples... Bbachrac has also clearly engaged in disruptive editing, every single one of their mainspace edits since their first one has had major COI issues. (note: that is actually incorrect and I apologize to Bbachrac, their first three edits do not appear to have COI issues) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC) )

I don't want to comment on the rest of this, but "your inability to discern reliable sources from blatant fringe is disrupting multiple pages" should not be considered a personal attack. In that same post you're referencing they also stated that you're welcome to reach out to them regarding sources and additionally pointed towards the Teahouse as an alternative place for assistance. While you may not have liked their tone or the message, that wasn't a personal attack, it was criticism. I myself have been criticized a number of times by editors and admins in ways that allowed me to get better, even if it didn't feel good at the time. Editors are not from criticism (this isn't a note on whether the criticism is valid). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If I was actually disrupting anything it would be criticism. If the real problem is that I was presenting inconvenient evidence, it's harassment. If he has evidence that I was being disruptive he should share it.

I think what HEB was actually angry about is that he was citing a headline in the Tehran Times that wasn't even supported by the article text, and I called him on it. I was making a legitimate point and don't need to go to the Teahouse to know that. - Palpable (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You are making claims about hounding, but from what I'm seeing the "hounding" is limited to... one article? Out of your 6 bullets, only one of them mentions a page that isn't HEB's talk page or the Feldenkrais method.

What you call a personal attack is not a personal attack, it is a statement of (personal) finding. If they called you names or said you were a bad editor because of the disruption, THAT would be a personal attack, but in reality they only said you were making disruptive edits in a bit of a harsh tone.

Why bring up BBachrac if you yourself admit it was likely they had made COI edits?

Why bring up the deletions to Feldenkrais Method if you can admit that the page was in great need? Its fairly common for experienced editors to stumble across an article in obvious need of trimming, who then take the time to cut out the obvious chaff.

You aren't "following" someone the moment you click on their contributions link, it becomes following if you, without valid concern, check on them repeatedly over a longer period. If you saw that I made a boneheaded edit changing all spellings on the England page to use American English, it would be perfectly acceptable to check my recent contributions to see if I was going on a spree of such. Following would be if I reverted an edit of yours and you spent a week checking on my contributions every day waiting for a slip up. Alternatively, Hounding would be more like making snippy comments or trivial edits to every edit I make in short succession, or seeking out any talk page or noticeboard messages I make to post something oppositional to every one. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

HEB admitted he was following me when I asked on his Talk page, and said that it was justified because I was being disruptive. Note that he has yet to support his disruption accusations with diffs.

Similarly, there was nothing disruptive about Bbachrac's talk page contributions. His crime was disagreeing with HEB - on a subject that Bbachrac knows something about, and HEB knows nothing. WP:HOUNDING does not say that it's justified if you find something, it says that it's justified if the editor is being disruptive. Saying that Bbachrac has a COI for Feldenkrais method is a ridiculous interpretation of WP:COI, and given HEB's level of experience it looks more like GAMING than an honest mistake.

Note that I never said that the Feldenkrais article needed deletions. What it needs are corrections and additions. - Palpable (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

On their talk page, Horse Eye's Back wrote: I noticed that you weren't competently identifying WP:RS so I suspected that you might have disrupted multiple pages. This seems consistent with the WP:HOUND policy:

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.

As GabberFlasted said, even the number of pages themselves don't suggest a persistent campaign to intentionally annoy. It seems like a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Except HEB can't point to a single "unambiguous error or violation of Wikipedia policy".

Since they won't provide diffs, here's the thread that they are retaliating for: I pointed out a blatant BLP violation. Palpable (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#New article of the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic? I'm not sure how "Sachs is not subtle about this, among the featured press on his personal website is this Tehran Times excerpt from "Covid possibly came out of a U.S. biotechnology lab, says Columbia professor"[8] so its hard not to say that the more extreme reading of his position is accurate when he endorses it."[63] is a BLP violation. I would really appreciate it if you would stop telling lies about me, its getting a bit old. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Your reply is bizarre. The location of the BLP violation is clearly stated in the BLPN thread using the standard formatting. - Palpable (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about then? Thats the only statement I've ever made which you've brought up as a BLP issue, which you did in the comment you just linked to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm providing the context that led up to your harassment, since you have repeatedly failed to provide diffs supporting your accusations of disruption and PAG violations. - Palpable (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking you about the context, you've repeatedly said that I violated BLP and attempted to cite the Tehran Times in an article but I have no memory of that and reading the discussions I don't think it ever happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said that you violated BLP or that you attempted to cite Tehran Times in an article. Your Tehran Times cite was in a Talk page.

What I have said is that you have followed me to articles that you had no interest in, alleged COI where none exists, and justified this with false accusations of disruption for which you have not provided a shred of evidence. - Palpable (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats not a citation or cite, period. Please strike your comments claiming I made a cite or citation to the Tehran Times. I think I've pretty clearly made my cases for COI and disruption on the relevant talk pages... That you disagree with the evidence is not the same thing as me not providing any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I used cite according to its standard English language usage. But I'd be willing to strike that if you want to strike your repeated allegations of disruption and COI.

I hope admins will note that you have a lot of time for back-and-forth but an extraordinary reluctance to back up your accusations with diffs. - Palpable (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The source cited according to the standard English language usage was jeffsachs.org not the Tehran Times. COI [64][65][66][67][68][69]. Disruptive pushing of non-WP:RS [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] (neither list is exhaustive). Note that the editor you claim has no COI is now threatening legal action on behalf of the alternative medicine organization you and they have a COI in regards to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in there supports your allegations against me. Some of them are from after you started your campaign.

But it's hilarious that you think it's disruptive for me to edit my own user page! - Palpable (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This was never about just you. "I have worked with a Feldenkrais Practitioner as a student for many years. He studied directly with Moshe Feldenkrais, is a member of the Feldenkrais Guild, and teaches courses for Feldenkrais Practitioners." followed by the edit summary "m (The current article is not consistent with the practice of the Feldenkrais Guild. Following surgery and during rehabilitation licensed Physical Therapy takes precedence.. Feldenkrais Practitioners have students not patients.)" followed by the rest of it and ending with legal threats against wikipedia doesn't strike you as supporting the allegation of COI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't care to defend Bbachrac. Making legal threats against Wikipedia is obviously out of bounds.

Of course all this is from after you started the vendetta that prompted this complaint. - Palpable (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The majority of this argument was you defending Bbachrac and claiming I was wrong to allege that they had a COI. If you now accept that they have a COI I think an apology is in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's false. I don't think Bbachrac has a COI for Feldenkrais, but they probably lack editorial competence and they certainly shouldn't even allude to legal action.

I think you are creating a distraction from my original complaint. I've said my piece and will wait to see if an admin wants to evaluate this. Palpable (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Rarely do you get a COI that obvious. My "going after" Bbachrac was part of your original complaint. It is apparently from your opening statement here the reason you opened this ANI discussion rather than letting it drop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated

Unrelated but comments like [81][82][83][84] are clearly inappropriate, border on personal attacks and casting aspersions. This behavior should not be tolerated here. --Rschen7754 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what exactly is "clearly inappropriate"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So, for the most part, these all strike me as comments on edits and well within bounds, if a bit sharp-elbowed. HEB, I might mention that the first is probably a bit much what with the take a good hard look at their lives language. I don't think it merits any sanction, but it's not very helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is accusing established editors with multiple FAs of misusing sources -> casting aspersions. --Rschen7754 20:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussing sources and article improvement is why we're here; some do it in a very gentle and collegial way, others less so. As I said, the (paraphrased) "look at your life" language is too much for me, but not a great enough sin that it needs some kind of response. The rest all strike me as normal, if strident, article discussion. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia big dog (with reliable sauce)

-EEng

It seems that when eating with the wikipedia big dogs one's elbows must be as sharp as one's wits if headway towards consensus is to be made. I do regret that I veered too far into the poetic, but I think it got my point across (the conversation has become more and not less productive since). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This dismissive attitude toward WP:CIVIL explains a lot. - Palpable (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:RSN, WP:RFC and WP:VPP are meant for? I thought ANI was for semantic drama handling edit wars, incivility and vandals? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

By "here" I meant Wikipedia writ large, but your point about petty squabbles drama boards administrator noticeboards is understood! Dumuzid (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: "It is accusing established editors with multiple FAs of misusing sources -> casting aspersions." I hate this attitude. If you accuse new editors of this, then you are WP:BITEing. If you do it with established editors, you are "casting aspersions". We have recently seen that an editor with hundreds of GAs was creating countless copyvios. I have the last few days AfD'ed one article by an admin (it was then deleted), and draftified an article by another admin for clear WP:BLPCRIME violations (which they then corrected). No one is above making mistakes, no group of editors is somehow untouchable and may not be accused of things. What matters is that the accusations are correct, not who the editors are that get accused. Fram (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's not forget we had a prolific administrator who wrote this notorious former GA who is now persona non grata. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please act on this?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

79.109.173.198 has edited a sandbox without reverting it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user 79.109.173.198 has been editing 2001:db8:10:: without removing it (and their talk page). I can’t seem to understand it because the text is written poorly, but it appears to be something about Muslims. Someone might have to check if it is racist or not. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:441B:ACF9:1716:BEC1 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is actually the talk page of 2001:db8:10:: and a now-reverted edit on the sandbox. I didn’t read the contributions correctly 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:441B:ACF9:1716:BEC1 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Their edits weren't an obvious issue, and I couldn't see anything racist in them, nor anything actionable, as you've literally just reported a user to ANI for editing a sandbox (the IP talkpage is also a sandbox). Your editing however is many times more disruptive than theirs, and is bordering on the point where a WP:BOOMERANG becomes likely. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

my edits are not disruptive. Jeff G. was going to ban me for “importing drama”, which I have never done. I think you should read WP:IPHUMAN because you (might) think I am a vandal when I have actually REMOVED vandalism under this IP. Check my talk page for further discussion. 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:441B:ACF9:1716:BEC1 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats by Special:Contribs/2401:4900:38F0:F6ED:2D11:6E49:CA7A:BA3D

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See summaries at diffs Special:Diff/1113488595, Special:Diff/1113485995, Special:Diff/1113490062. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for one week by OrangeMike. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor adding their own details into a number of articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An entry has been made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Student Organisation of India on editor User:Sudeep Sharma Talu but its worth repeating due to the nature of the incident. This editor seems to adding in their own details into various articles, a kind of self-promo act. For example:

• Gurnam Bhullar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talu, Bhiwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

scope_creepTalk 08:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by user Othon I

User @Othon I has directed many defamatory terms and personal attacks at me in his response here:[85] such as: lack of intelligence, plague my comment, dumb responses, incoherent rambling.

The same user has exhibited aggressive behavior towards me in the past, for example here:[86] stop moaning about it. When I first joined Wikipedia, within days, I received a temporary editing ban for less than this. Othon is an experienced user and knows exactly what he is doing. Çerçok (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Is you accusing him of textbook POV. I hope this is clear enough for you acceptable? Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack (see here:[87]). But let's let the admins decide. Çerçok (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Does that really sound comparable to "lack of intelligence" to you? Super Ψ Dro 20:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) @Cercok:Accusing someone of "textbook POV" is a personal attack. "I hope this is clear enough for you" is condescending. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's very ironic that you, Khirurg, of all editors are calling out another editor for being "condescending" (which in this case does not even apply). You and I have previously had a discussion where I have called you out for your condescending tone; in fact, here's some new, recent examples of you using such a tone:

• "Anything you have to say, do so at the article talkpage. Bye." [88]
• "Too long eh? Nah, why don't you tell us the *real* reason you don't want this information highlighted." [89]
• Also the use of "nope" or "nah" in edit summaries is unproductive, condescending, dismissive and simply not a constructive way to edit. [90] [91]

And these are just edit summaries - of which there are more of - and I can find many examples of your condescending behaviour towards other editors in talk pages as well. Stop the hypocrisy, you are the last person on this thread who should call people out for being condescending. Stop trying to derail the conversation, Othon I has used personal attacks against Çerçok and should be punished for it, as it is Wikipedia Policy. Throwing false accusations to try and distract people on this thread, especially when you are guilty of the accusations you make, does not benefit this TP in the slightest. Botushali (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I do remember "Nope" really bothered you, but I didn't know "Nah" did too. They're just figures of speech though, nothing wrong with them. But Stop the hypocrisy, you are the last person...., now that's a personal attack. Khirurg (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again with the condescending comments in that first line - words like that are not adequate edit summaries, that's my issue with it. Above you can see edits of you being condescending and I can provide many more, it's a fact that you utilise a condescending tone on Wikipedia. Now, let's allow the admins to review this without clogging the conversation. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No condescension anywhere. "Nope" and "Nah" are used by everyone. If you don't want "clogging the conversation", the best way to stop that is to stop making accusations about "condescending tone". Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but strange questions like Too long eh? Nah, why don't you tell us the *real* reason you don't want this information highlighted. or But let's stop beating about the bush, shall we? The real reason you want the article moved is because the current title is too Greek, isn't it? [92] really do sound condescending. As the user above as done, I'd advice you against making accusations of something you're not impune of. It also goes without a saying that the choice between using common Wikipedia language and "nope" or "nah" is that of deciding to have basic respect for the other party. You could have worded that differently, but it appears these words reflected what you wanted to express more accurately. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as a person who sometimes uses similar edit-summaries (and is not otherwise involved in this discussion or topic-area), let me suggest that they are at best on the boundary of condescension and rudeness, and I wouldn't use them in a situation in which it was important to me not to irritate or inflame other editors. JBL (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Stating that someone is not editing in accordance with the NPOV policy is not a personal attack, especially if they are actually doing so. (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder why Cercok accused me for the addition of sourced content [[93]] for "extremist racist remark", while in the following edit-summaries [[94]][[95]][[96]] he is constantly reverting by declaring something about his wp:truth. That's too aggressive at least in terms of writing down edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: While I indeed used strong language on Cercok and indeed some of the terms used might be on the borderline of a personal attack, I have constantly tried to reason with him since he started as an editor in WP. I have requested from him various times (you can see from the diffs provided) to stop using language that leans towards nationalism (I have already reported him once and he was blocked for that) but he continues this pattern. I have been also trying to work with him and agreed on many topics but still he continued accusing me for POV pushing - even if I agree with him. I already said that would not tolerate such language ("accept the verifiable truth" etc.) and he still continues that. Othon I (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Since negative comments about editors are considered personal attacks, a way to bypass sanctions is commenting their expressed opinions in an uncivil manner ie "this is stupid" (wording varies). It is not borderline personal attack, it is a clear personal attack and a way of gaming the system to avoid bans. We should make sure this wont go on. Cinadon36 08:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you are a reasonable person, how could you characterise the comment "accept the verifiable truth about...." by the time that I have already agreed on it, and I have suggested an alternate wording? Is it "stupid" to say that or not? And I am very worried about you defending nationalistic comments as such... Othon I (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not stupid, you could have said it as the way you put it now, that you had already agreed on it. Also, note that I am not defending any comment on the talk page, nationalistic or not. Also, I can not understand why you are worried about me- a friendly advice: dont focus on your interlocutor, focus on the arguments themselves. If you feel discussing about me further, please do it on my talk page. I will not reply to any argument that is not relevant to the issue of this section. Cinadon36 09:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Its amusing how certain editors are arguing here about just one WP:PILLARS, asking for bans related to WP:CIVILITY, considering that such preventative means are also needed for violating Wikipedia's other Pillars such as WP:NPOV, which is violated as well and has caused the tensions in the first place. Only by ensuring that all Five Pillars are respected, we can be sure that the project provides a healthier environment for all good-faith editors to work there without tensions arising all the time. That is, IMO, to have bans apply on all editors gaming the system to get personal goals achieved at the expense of the project's principles. After all, how many editors have lost their patience and abandoned Wikipedia due to people forgetting that this is a collective project, an encyclopedia? And how many more left due to disruption occurring by forcing their bias on articles at the expense of WP:CONSENSUS? I don't think this is OK at all. Absolutely not. And editors here failing to see this, by pointing only to NPOV or only to Civility, while forgetting the whole point behind Wikipedia, is worrisome.

The editors in the WP:BALKANS topic area, ought to not forget how problematic this topic area is, and try to achieve not just WP:CIVILITY, but all the five pillars of the project, including WP:NEUTRAL. Othon, if you are dealing with editors showing a non-constructive and non-compromising attitude in the talk pages of the WP:BALKAN articles: I understand that it may be annoying, but I recommend that you do not waste more time with them and just go ask for a third party opinion (or other forms of dispute resolution) instead. It may seem cumbersome, but might save some sanity as well. A lesson I myself have learned well last month. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, you're responsible for a big percentage of the walls of text present in these two interrelated reports. After all, how many editors have lost their patience and abandoned Wikipedia due to people forgetting that this is a collective project, an encyclopedia? What is this sentence here for? Some kind of appeal to emotions? Is there any actual evidence that the disputes between these users have caused such a thing? I don't think writing tens of paragraphs will favor the aim of getting sanctions applied. At least not to the reported users. Super Ψ Dro 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, if you have trouble reading what I have wrote, then you can simply ignore my messages instead of insulting others for that. None forced you to read other's comments if they proved too much for you. To not add that your response shows how detached you are from the toxic reality that has befallen Wikipedia, a fact that at least the veteran editors who have been much longer in Wikipedia than you, are acknowledging and one of the reasons the community is working hard towards improving the climate in the project by adopting a Universal Code of Conduct. [97]. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That this issue is part of some major toxic general problem in Wikipedia is a big claim and your personal opinion, please do not base objective arguments on such a thing. And I only wished to point out that you tend to write lengthy comments that do not contribute to the outcome you desire; other editors, including in this report, have done so too. Super Ψ Dro 19:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you argue with me on whether incivility of individuals constituting or not, part of the broader issue of incivility that is plaguing the Project's community. That ain't convincing. I do not understand why these personal attacks against me, I have never criticized you for the way you speak, and yet there you are, criticizing my expressive disorder! This is disgusting and a completely unacceptable behavior and if this continues, then I will have no other option but report you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? None of this has anything to do with Othon I violating Wiki policy; please stay on topic. Botushali (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Btw, was this you Stop the stupidity, it's just annoying.? Yet here you are lecturing others about civility and how "Nope" is "condescending". Khirurg (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to talk about me, go ahead and do it on my TP - I was already reported regarding what you just put above, and I wasn't sanctioned by an admin [98] whilst you on the other hand have indeed been sanctioned for your behaviours. Stop trying to distract readers from the topic at hand. Othon I broke Wiki policy and needs to be punished for it. Botushali (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Botushali, I am afraid that per WP:BOOMERANG the violations of Wikipedia's policies by the involved parties are very much on topic too, since they constitute violations of Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONSENSUS guidelines. You cannot expect that editors may escape responsibility for their own actions by pointing their finger at Othon I and asking for sanctions to be applied selectively. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think BOOMERANG applies here, since the user bringing this issue to ANI has not been recently involved into name calling afaik. (if he did, lets say he did called other users as stupid or similar, yes, Boomerang should apply). Cinadon36 07:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Behavioral issues leading to violations of Wikipedia's guidelines, are as equally subject to scrutiny. BOOMERANG doesn't distinguish among types of misbehavior. If you read the essay carefully, it doesn't even state anything about "misbehavior having to be of the same kind" in order to be eligible to scrutiny as you are suggesting here. All kinds of misbehavior are damaging to the Project's stability, and it would be naive of us to expect that the ANI has to be selective in dealing with them. Expect no more replies from me here, as arguing here about WP:BOOMERANG is pointless. The Admins know better than you and me about what may really be subject to scrutiny. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I wont agree SilentResident. So, if someone acts even once against the policy at an article, and gets a personal attack ten years later, according to your interpretation, if he complains at ANI, he should be banned, cos there is not type or time limit of misbehavior. I find that against common sense. Cinadon36 10:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The admins please take note how editor Cinadon36 is distorting [99] what others are saying [100] in a bid to alleviate certain editors of their responsibilities in the recent dispute. This speaks volumes. My participation here is over. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cyber Anakin and IP editor conduct

Cyber Anakin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I was in two minds whether an ANI report, or a AN3 report for this was in order. While there is a 3RR violation to the Cyber Anakin article, as the IP editor has made four reverts in the last four hours ([101], [102], [103], [104]), there are also behavioural issues that go beyond this.

Brief timeline. Yesterday Softlemonades, over the course of three edits, removed content from the Cyber Anakin article. The IP editor restored the content, which I then removed again ([105]) citing WP:BLPRESTORE. The IP editor restored it a second time, for which I issued an edit war ([106]) notice to the IP, and the IP editor simultaneously issued a uw-disruptive1 notice to me ([107]). I then asked the IP editor to self-revert ([108])), which they agreed to at the time, while accusing Softlemonades of tendentious editing. Discussion then moved to the article's talk page. In that discussion, the IP editor again cast aspersions about editor conduct ([109]), to which I politely requested that the editor stop implying that content was removed in bad faith, and reminded them to assume good faith ([110]). Despite this, the IP editor continued with the aspersions saying a spade is a spade and then asserting that I should Drop the stick if any or all of the removals prove overzealous. ([111]).

Shortly after this, the IP editor used the {{please see}} template on the User talk pages of five editors (diffs: Cambial Yellowing, Deku-shrub, GorillaWarfare, Scope creep, and I dream of horses), who as far as I can tell have never edited that page. This was pointed out by I dream of horses on the article talk page ([112]) and discussed briefly on I dream of horses' talk page ([113]). Neither I dream of horses nor I are sure how or why those five editors were chosen.

Discussion continued between myself and the IP editor at the article talk page ([114]), where they accused me Wikilawyering over the various policy points that were raised at the discussion ([115]). My response was to direct the IP editor to this noticeboard if they felt as though either my or Softlemonades' conduct was an issue, making another request to cease making accusations of bad faith ([116]).

During this series of events, the IP editor has issued three warning templates on my talk page. uw-disruptive1 ([117])), uw-disruptive2 and uw-tempabuse1 ([118]). The use of these templates, when combined with the pointed commentary at the article talk page feels as though it is intended to produce a chilling effect, to discourage myself and potentially other editors from editing that article. This is not the first time I have faced such behaviour at that article, this AN3 report, as well as related discussions on that IPv6 editor's talk page ([119], [120], [121]) from June 2022 were also laden with commentary that I should leave the article be for a variety of reasons. I also suspect, though cannot decisively prove, that these two IP editors are one and the same, as they both have used the somewhat unusual phrase "don't whack a mountain out of a molehill" (IPv6 editor, IPv4 editor) instead of the far more common term "make a mountain out of a molehill", though I suppose the "whack" variant could be a cromulent variation. However even if they are not related, the chilling effect emanating from that article remains.

If there is an issue with my own conduct in this, I'll be happy to apologise and adjust how I approach these sorts of edits. Also while I will naturally notify the IPv4 editor of this thread per instructions, I'm not sure if I should also notify the five other editors who received a {{please see}} notice earlier directing them to the article talk page. I'd appreciate any clarification on this. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice to IP editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of going through WP:DRN or WP:DRR first you went all the way up here. That says a lot about you.45.136.197.235 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, here's my statement. I have a bunch of pages regarding Ukraine since the start of the invasion on my feed, and that one is no exception. The reason why I restored the content after Softlemonades' removal is not just because it make those less interesting and more boring for readers, but because it would cause the article to become out-of-date particularly when Softlemonades removed sections describing the further implications of his hack and his later activity, for instance the passages regarding Distributed Denial of Secrets and his activities during the invasion, the latter of which I've since restored) as they are sourced by Taiwan News which is kind of like a USA Today in Taiwan and it was one of the largest newspaper over there. WP:BLPRESTORE provides that Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than an all-out removal no matter the presence of parts worthy to be retained.

Even though there are small errors such as the use of primary sources and a preprint paper (which has since became an academic OUP entry), however the solution would be to remove those only. As for the rest, they also went into a nickel and dime territory where Sideswipe allege that tidbits like "the hacktivist wanting to be more like Justin Bieber" are unnecessary which is very much disputed given that IMO it's more like a MacGuffin for readers in terms of explaining the hacker's M.O. and the spurious allegation by Sideswipe that "Distributed Denial of Secrets group and Cyber Anakin was not made clear in that source" and "how or why it is in there is not made clear" which sounded more like nitpicking or "making a mountain out of a molehill"; the passage was meant to describe the lasting scope and effects of his data breach.

I saw the contributions of the original remover (Softlemonades) and feel that there's a wrong vibe given that he had engaged in other edge-case disruptive actions on other pages such as WikiLeaks; in fact it reeked of TenPoundHammer which was known to have engaged in far more disruptive and zealous removal actions until the point that he was topic banned.

Seeking to avoid WikiDrama and resolve it professionally, upon Sideswipe's advice I set up an ad hoc "third opinion" discussion on the talkspace and semi-randomly picked an admin based on past editing history of that page for him to preemptively break the deadlock provide feedback and to work on resolving the matter. Otherwise involving the original editors would risk running into loggerheads and become a disruptive drama.

I had let Sideswipe known about it and expected her to take the hint. She refused and put out an invite for Softlemonades, while pulling a lot of nickel and dime without any hint of how to progress and/or compromise on it. If she didn't appear like a ninja and interfere the page issues would have been fixed quickly or even by now without much fuss. Some would be re-phrased or rewritten, while non-salvageable contents would be removed.

In my experience of spectating editorial activities in Wikipedia, removals of well-written and sourced statement under spurious or pedantic grounds are at times viewed as disruptive and even vandalism; IMO they should have tagged the offending passages first and raise it at the talkspace, unless it's unambiguous vandalism, libel or doxxing. Instead of going through WP:DRN or WP:DRR first Sideswipe went all the way up, which is why we're here today. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. As soon as Sideswipe put a "Please see" notice on Softlemonades's talkspace there's the danger that it would come off as an unrepresentative or skewed consensus unless some people with experience in editing that article or BLPs in Internet culture in general are invited to have a say on it, so I invited about five people by random based on the article editing histories and involvement in relevant WikiProjects (Internet Culture and Cybersecurity in this case). That's all I've to say on that.45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

IP I don't think I can be bothered looking into this, but it's clearly not vandalism, and you suggesting it might be suggest is not helping your case. Indeed it can be construed as a personal attack which will lead to you being blocked. Also, there are various ways to seek additional feedback on a WP:content dispute but picking a specific editor/s even allegedly at random is not one of them, it's impossible to demonstrate you weren't WP:CANVASSING intentionally or not. If you need help from editors experience with BLP then WP:BLP/N is the way to go. If you feel editors from some Wikiproject can help, then post a neutral notice on their noticeboard asking for help. In the case of Wikiprojects, it's especially important that you put a notice on the article talk page that you did so, so all editors are aware of your request and can consider notifying other Wikiprojects if need be. BTW, especially in the case of BLPs, it is far more important that content is adequately sourced and does not violate any of our other policies and guidelines like WP:UNDUE, than it is up to date or not "boring for readers". Indeed an article being otherwise "boring for readers" is not a good reason to keep or add something, in any article, but it's an especially terrible reason on BLPs. I'd go so far to say that you should not be editing BLPs if you think it's an acceptable reason to add or keep content. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Given my concerns over the IP reasoning and other things, I've brought the article up at BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The WikiProject noticeboards at times can be very stale, see here and this. Regardless, thanks for pointing out to the right direction, to the BLP noticeboard.45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It's more important whether editors are paying attention then whether something is allegedly stale, and it's impossible to know the later without analysing whether posts on the noticeboard result in editor attention and even that will depend on the specific posts. In any case, if a Wikiproject is inactive then, an editor cannot be "involved" it in any meaningful way so it's especially silly to defend notifying editors based on their involvement in a Wikiproject when the Wikiproject is dead. The Wikiproject becomes irrelevant and you need to find other ways of looking for editors that does not violate WP:CANVASSING. Ultimately it's your responsibility to respect our guidelines and policies if you want to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd also note that this dispute seems to be about 2 days old and is clearly something which isn't timely or important to resolve quickly. So it's entirely reasonable to ask for help on some noticeboard, and wait a week or more before deciding this isn't working and moving elsewhere. It's poor form to expect urgency from volunteers for something which is very far from urgent. Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

While this specific dispute is around 2 days old, as I stated above there is a longer standing underlying behavioural issue relating to comments made by at least one IP editor (two if the IPv4 and v6 editors are not the same person) that seem to be phrased in a manner to discourage others from editing that article. I've tried (I hope), to make my comments solely about editor conduct and not article content, as ANI is not the correct noticeboard for a content issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, I have no comment on whether there are conduct issues beyond those I've mentioned (that the IP's notifications were inappropriate, that they should not be suggesting there was vandalism and that some of their stated reasons for adding or preserving content are wrong). My point on the urgency thing is that the IP seems to be justifying their canvassing based on the assumption they would not have received feedback if they've used appropriate noticeboards. But it's impossible to know this since they never tried, and even if they had tried, they did not leave enough time for their to be a response. Indeed, a big part of the current mess (whatever historic problems there have been) seem to be because the IP is in way too much of a rush to resolve this dispute which is a bad thing on this volunteer collaborative project of Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Aaah, yeah that makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, there are significant fraction of editing community like me who leans onto WP:YESDEADLINE. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, if you expect volunteers editors need to drop everything and resolve a dispute within hours just because it's something you care about, your editing career is likely to last much longer. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wanna point out theyre canvassing random users again and put a clock on their edits while the ANI is still open Softlemonades (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the editor whose edits were challenged here. Wanted to point out that when the discussion about my edits was started, the IP editor mentioned but didnt tag me. When another put a notice on my talk page to tell me about the discussion, the IP editor removed it. diff 1, diff 2

Also wanna mention that the Taiwan News RfC was never closed, but by my count the survey had 7 votes for "Generally reliable", 9 votes for "Marginally reliable or unclear", and 1 vote for "Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting". I didnt know about the RfC when I challenged the source, just that it wasnt WP:RSP, but the IP editor has been saying the RfC decided Taiwan News is "quite reliable" and I dunno where that came from.

For my edits, I did it in three parts because they needed three different edit summaries and because I wanted to wait and look at the article more before removing the biggest chunk. I havent edited the page since my edits were challenged. Softlemonades (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

When another put a notice on my talk page to tell me about the discussion, the IP editor removed it. Whoa. This is amazing (and not in a good way.) Jahaza (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoa indeed. I'm very glad you brought that first point up, because that is some absurd behavior from someone who is very clearly trying to portray themselves as knowledgeable of how to operate on WP. That is very plain and simply bad faith unacceptable. struck pending a chance at explanation GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That's because I mistook him as a difficult user after taking a quick glance on his contribs, like this edge case on Wikileaks and his talkspace's edit summary. I told Sideswipe at the time about the concern and the wish to skip to "third opinion" format. She seemingly acknowledged it, before backpedaled. Out of WP:DNFTT I reverted her notification just in attempt to avoid this needless drama today.45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless the editor was topic banned, there was no justification for the removal. It does not matter whether you think another editor is a difficult user or whatever the fuck. It's unacceptable to try to cut out editors from discussion of content they are adding or removing by removing legitimate notifications others have placed. I'm not going to read that essay, but if you feel you need to avoid a "difficult user" but they are editing an article which interests you, your only option is to stop editing that article or alternatively if the alleged "difficult"ity of this user is enough to warrant a site or topic ban, then to gather the evidence and open an ANI (or ARE if applicable) and get that ban. No one, other then uninvolved admins in AC/DS applies, have the right to personally decide another editor is not allowed to participate in some discussion because they are a "difficult user" and then from that conclusion, try to prevent them from participating. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. I'd note your advice and be careful in the future.45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that nowadays with partial blocking, an admin can partial block an editor from a specific talk page and prevent editing so I guess it isn't accurate to say it's only possible when AC/DS applies but in any case where the WP:Blocking policy does. But that's still very limited, and in a lot of cases unless there is edit warring or something else similarly clear cut, partially blocking someone from a talk page where AC/DS doesn't apply is likely to lead to community concern even if there was some mild disruption from the editor. And as I noted, even in AC/DS cases, it needs to be an uninvolved admin. In other words, even for someone we generally trust and in an area that is problematic, we do not allow people to be cut out of discussion just by people they are in dispute with. Although it is true that in e.g. the case of a severe BLP violation, an admin just removing the content would generally be seen as sufficiently uninvolved to take action. And technically it is possible for community to come solely from people already involved (but not just one or two people). Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

In lieu of my own follow up, thank you Nil. This hits the nail on the head. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yesterday Softlemonades, over the course of three edits, removed content from the Cyber Anakin article – For the record, that article needs a lot of content removed. EEng 07:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except that, now the zeal looks no different that TenPoundHammer's as it starts to disrupt the narrative story flow of the article, like this, especially the latter of the cause-and-effect aspects. This is fast degenerating into additionism/retentionism vs removalism which had happened perennially in this site as a whole, which to the best of my understanding has contributed to low editorial retention. From time to time absolutist rationales and stances to justify deletion/noninclusion of contents and even whole pages, which had sometimes contributed to Systemic bias; one of the long string of latest examples being Donna Strickland. It's easy to just sit down at couch and say "I don't know anything of that or that or that, let's delete it!" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, science, arts, literature, film, theater, food and drinking/restaurants, geography, astronomy, dance, music, sports, education and whatever all around the globe". It's also easy to remove "unimportant or irrelevant" information because of lack of familiarity or disinterest due to cultural differences. While you here might want a simplistic presentation, others like readers might want Wikipedia to be detailed and be like a Wiki rabbit hole.

  To the best of my understanding, the German Wikipedia underwent similar craze and as a result lost financial donors and contributors due to "purging trolls" activity. Because of that their publications has regularly linked to English Wiki instead of their native version. Note that I'm not advocating for an radically unrestricted of anything into this encyclopedia because some may violate copyright laws or otherwise misinformation, but it's no good either if you take the other side to the extreme.

  With the help of this word counter which I copied and pasted the text from the original version (before Softlemonades' removal), the word count stands at 1,321 words (including the section titles). This is far short of 6,000 to 10,000 words described in WP:SIZESPLIT which takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed.

  In the end additionism/retentionism vs removalism is a zero sum game which not playing would be wise. One possible middle ground is to use only reliable sources with Taiwan News, VICE and Heise as a minimum in terms of reputation and/or reliability, and move on after that.45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whatever. But pretty goddam sure the reader gains nothing by learning that the subject was a student "doing his math homework" when he first heard about the crash on Interfax (with math linked, for Christ sake), and other such crap. EEng 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  It turns out that a ruling by the Arbitration Committee from 2006 held that It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. Disruptive removals like that along with actually unsourced or all-out libel additions/modifications have been very commonplace in articles that are related to politics, i.e. Russia/Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan and Kurdish topics. In most cases they are swiftly reverted or otherwise dealt with. Due diligence should have been used in the first place (such as tagging the offending passages with Template:Unreliable_source? or so on to garner wider input on before going bold), while I regret that this hasn't been brought up earlier. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  God only knows what Arbcom meant by that 16 years ago, but if you think it somehow means that some ponderous process is needed before cruft about math homework and so on can be removed, you're very much mistaken. I'm not talking about unsourced, or not-reliably-sourced, material, but just plain material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, whether sourced or not. EEng 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was talking about the original removals by Softlemonades which was excessively wanton and affected even legitimate content (such as those that are cited with Taiwan News). As it's too indistinguishable with vandal actions which involved the usage of vague summaries to evade anti-vandal patrol I judged it as suspect and reverted it. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  That makes removing the discussion notice from my talk page an extra odd choice EDIT: I wrote this reply before the post was edited Softlemonades (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking of vague edit summaries now that their post was edited to talk about, IP editor restored content repeatedly removed and told there was "no consensus for" with the edit summary "fixing the side effect of out of date."

  Thought I should mention that for folks here at ANI Softlemonades (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  As a context, WP:BLPRESTORE provides that materials that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. They were "partial restores" in the sense that only Taiwan News and AsiaNews cited contents are restored while other contents that you removed remain in the dark.45.136.197.235 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  This was fifteen minutes after you were told there wasnt consensus on it, and the edit summary was vague and very different from the first removal. Can you point to consensus on the Talk page about your fix addressing concerns after you were told that it didnt in the edit summary reverting your first re insert and before your second re insert? I read it all at once so I mightve missed it Softlemonades (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLPRESTORE - If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

  There were "significant changes" by now, starting with the partial restore and subsequent improvements by other editors (i.e. this, this and this who weren't part of this discussion, although I had to revert one of them because it inadvertently affected the flow of story, while yanking a passage with an actually dubious source (internetua.com) myself. Perfection is desired, however sometimes it can be an enemy of good.45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The last diff you cited was from after all of that took place, so I dunno why youre using it to justify an edit that you made before that diff but back to the actual point and question.

  What significant changes were there in those fifteen minutes? Why was your edit summary so different from your previous one?

  Im not just curious about the re insert but the vague and different edit summary, because you made assumptions about me because my edit summaries were supposedly too vague. Softlemonades (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Before seeing Sideswipe's info about WP:BLPRESTORE, I was under the impression that your edits were probably disruptive because it removed a corpus of well sourced statements whose tones and by extend pertinence by most standards are good enough. That is normally one of the red flags by vandals or otherwise disruptive editors within politics-related articles, one of the M.O. being to denigrate or minimize individuals or entities out of spite (like "User: Eranshahr Eranshahr", two threads below away). So I reverted your edits under normal BRD cycle, with the summary of rv unconstructive and disruptive removal, see WP:NOTCENSORED and more note: his removal had cause the article to be out of date, while Taiwan News is judged to be reliable sourced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#RfC%3A_Taiwan_News. Then Sideswipe went in like a sudden ninja so I've reverted her under the rationale that another set of problems were created by making it out of date, especially when one or more of the sources were okay by standards, which is a little bit reminiscent to a silly WP:BIKESHED. Sideswipe then asked me to self-revert which I did, although I made the partial restore to make it up-to date again; you don't fix a problem by making two. In the interim there are small cleanup edits such as spacing.

  It was interesting to see that Sideswipe mentioned a previous dispute with other editor in the same field on the topic about "nested archives" so I dug further. Ironically Sideswipe said that Respectfully, there is being cautious in handling BLP articles with care, and then there's being overcautious. And in this particular instance, I believe and I strongly suspect others would believe that you're being overcautious to the point of disrupting how we normally cite our sources. In hindsight to the best of my understanding their nested archives controversy centered around potential outright doxxing of the BLP she could have make a procedural removal of the DOB (which the nested archive was used) like others did later for the time being. There is no need for her to be melodramatic by escalating straight up to AN3 back then and ANI right now. She could have made the procedural removal of DOB back then, and respect the spirit behind the intention of skipping to ad-hoc 3rd opinion per with an experienced editor/admin pursuant to WP:IGNORE since I initially mistook you to be "difficult users" like so many others in the field because of past edge-case edits on pages like Wikileaks and on your talkspace's edit summary, arguing with "difficult editors" almost always led to fruitless results, and abundance of caution is warranted although this luckily turns into a mistake, instead of fuss. WikiDramas obviously suck away editors' valuable time and perhaps she should get a bit of boomerang over that.

  There is also WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH but let's think with another perspective. The New York Times has stories by Walter Duranty which extolled Soviet values and whitewashed the Holodomor, and still hasn't retracted these and the Pulitzer Award to him. Despite having the that and other list of controversies involving The New York Times, did we go on the bikeshed to pick a bone from the egg and split the hairs like here?45.136.197.235 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  567 words to not answer my questions and invoke the BRD cycle after you removed the notification about the discussion from my Talk page. And you still cant point to agreement that your reinsert fixed anything 15 minutes after you were told it didnt and that you needed consensus on talk.

  You justified it by citing WP:BLPRESTORE If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. and saying "There were "significant changes" but

  It looks like the only difference between the two versions is in the intro, not in what you re inserted. So unless you got consensus on the talk page, there wasnt a significant change or any change at all Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please compare my initial restore, subsequent partial restore and the current version. Yes, there was a significant change, where "case by case basis" apply. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the Ukraine invasion section, the difference between the initial restore and the subsequent partial restore is the removal of the sentence fragments on the Kuril Islands dispute, Russian Antartic bases, enlargement of the UN Security council, Russian funding into Covid-19, the knowledge ark, a citation to a defaced website, and a slight tweak to accommodate the sentence ending earlier. The difference between the partial restore and the current version is the addition of a wikilink to the word Panerai. All other text remains the same in that section.

  For the paragraph on Cyber Anakin contacting Covid-19, the only differences between the text in your initial restore, and state of the article prior to the removals by Softlemonades on September 2 is a change in date formats, due to my date unification pass on September 2 being undone.

  These edits do not represent a significant change from the state of the text prior to Softlemonades removals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please don't misrepresent it. There's an interactive diff analyzer (accessible by Browse history interactively) which you can access upon going into one of the diffs. Scroll the yellow dot until the one with edit summary more note: his removal had cause the article to be out of date, while Taiwan News is judged to be reliable sourced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#RfC%3A_Taiwan_News and the blue one to cebap, the current version. You'll see that the Heise passages and the Justin Bieber trivia were gone as well.45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The compare I posted is of the two edits were talking about, the ones 15 minutes (18 to be exact) apart, where you were told not to reinsert the text without consensus on the talk page. The second edit is the one with the vague and misleading edit summary. Anyone can check the History page.

  Please stop trying to change the subject or talk about different edits to justify this one. Softlemonades (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ill do a timeline to make it easy

  20:27, 24 September 2022‎ IP editor adds text with summary "Restoring passages that were backed up by Taiwan News, which should be uncontroversial"

  20:29, 24 September 2022 Sideswipe reverts with summary "Undid revision 1112128963 by 45.136.197.235 (talk) No consensus for this has been achieved at the talk page."

  20:30, 24 September 2022‎ IP editor adds citation to head with no summary

  20:45, 24 September 2022 IP editor removes update template and re adds text from 18 minutes before with edit summary "Fixing the side effect of out of date."

  IP editor justifies by citing WP:BLPRESTORE and saying there were "significant changes"

  Compare of the two text adds show the only difference is the citation and a deleted blank line Softlemonades (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  A more accurate representation would be by comparing the following:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_Anakin&diff=1112087504&oldid=1112087106 (Initial full restore)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyber_Anakin&diff=1112132063&oldid=1112129299 (Subsequent partial restore)

  The edit of 20:30, 24 September 2022 was to re-add citation backing up the passage that "Cyber Anakin" also went by "cyberanakinvader", although in a very implicit manner as the word "dubbed" leads to the subject's blog with the latter username.

  The edit of 20:45, 24 September 2022 was more akin to a dummy edit; I was in a rush and neglected to put the edit summary into the original partial restore, no fuss is necessary on correct or clarify it later.

  While Taiwan News is described by the 2021 RfC as largely at best generally reliable and at worst marginally reliable, the news source provides their readers a way to conveniently fact-check their articles for WP:Accuracy by sharing links to the hacker's defacement page. Take for example this and scroll to The targets included the website for Russian heavy metal band Aria (archive), a hockey site (archive), a Panerai watch enthusiasts site (archive), a basketball team (archive), and an educational organization (archive). You'll see that the secondary source put the links to the raw defacement page along with Wayback Machine's archival link over there. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise.

  As to "government websites, agricultural management systems, coal mine safety interfaces, nuclear power plant interfaces, and satellite interfaces.", these are not immediately verifiable (aside from a picture of satellite system) given that no raw or Wayback Machine links exist for these system. However mindful of the 2021 RfC the previous editors had already done a good job by putting "According to Taiwan News" in-text citation, pursuant to WP:BIASEDSOURCES.45.136.197.235 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  "The edit of 20:45, 24 September 2022 IP editor was more akin to a dummy edit" Wow.

  "neglected to put the edit summary into the original partial restore, no fuss is necessary" The edit summary is part of why you said you assumed bad faith from me, so surprised at that stance.

  "as largely at best generally reliable and at worst marginally reliable" Thats an interesting way to word it since it was the other way around and largely described as "marginally reliable"

  So you were told by another editor not to re add specific text without gettin consensus on Talk, and then you re added exactly that text but it was just a "dummy edit" got it.

  I think were just spinning our wheels at this point so Ill let the admins take it from here but I hope they read this thread because I think the edits and your responses are interesting Softlemonades (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mistook you for a bad editor because of your edit summary in your talkspace that used pointed capital and rude tones against other editor (Cambial Yellowing).

  In the end I had to agree with you to let the admins or otherwise experienced editors to take it from here; in fact the discussion at the article talkspace was meant to be an quick ad-hoc third opinion with an admin who edited there as well, before Sideswipe made a scene out of it. Failing all that maybe the article can be given to Wiki Education Foundation to be re-written while giving those students a chance in learning how to edit? Have a nice day.45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The reason for my tone was I have a history with Cambial and have considered going to ANI over their behavior towards me for specifics better left out of this discussion esp. without them here. I often avoid Cambial entirely but this time I was matching Cambials common energy towards me.

  Not my greatest decision, but thats why I took a tone Softlemonades (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry to hear that. I heard that there is a procedure in Wikipedia to enforce a so-called "interaction ban".

  Regarding Wiki Education Foundation, there is also a caveat I neglected, that would meant arduous re-inventing of wheel given that it's already cumbersome for most of us to change things in Wikipedia due to heuristics of editing interface (especially source-editing which is still very common). Cheers.45.136.197.235 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  @EEng @Nil Einne @GabberFlasted @Jahaza Im sorry for tagging you, Ill only do it once but I thought this would get lost and since you already posted here I thought itd be ok.

  You might want to see my post above and IP editors reply, its near the end of the thread. The whole thread is long but the bottom line is in the last few posts, starting with the 17:51, 26 September 2022 one Im replying to here. Softlemonades (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The essays WP:BIKESHED and Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability comes to mind. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with EEng. The article is in a pretty bad state, with a rather large amount of unencyclopaedic and crufty content that should be removed. Unfortunately, with the IP editor's preference for long paragraphs that say very little ([122]), repeated baiting attempts directed at me ([123], [124], [125]), and their recent restoration of content crufty material because it "disrupted the story flow" ([126]), I am not alone in being extremely hesitant to try and make any improvements to the article at present. I fear that without some sort of intervention, frustration will drive otherwise productive and good faith editors away from the article in the form of "Let the Wookiee win" Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's bold for you to imply that consolidating many points and arguments which would take so many fragmented responses into one big paragraph is anything bad, given that Wikipedia isn't like Discord or Twitter where communications happen in real time and in tidbits. Some discussions can take a long time, often while editors are so busy in real life so that many things in their minds would've changed by the time they made the next comment or whatever else.

  For the record I apologise to Softlemonades for mistaking him as a difficult user; the reason of the false red flag being of his talkspace's edit summary which ironically was the result of yet another "difficult editor".

  You and I and almost certainly all of others have a different view of the definition of "unencyclpaedic" and "crufty"; therefore squeezing about it is gonna be a very zero sum game. Instead, there's a really quiet part on why there is a strong feeling against putting more content: UX/Readability.

  Presently when in long articles, it can sometimes be very hard to jump between sections because the navigational box is fixed at the top of the page which is gone the moment you scroll down. Even for me it's bit of a problem too. This usability issue was tackled with the release of Vector 2022 which I've tried firsthand and found that the box is readily available at the left which provides far more easier navigation between sections and should render removalist arguments based on this usability issue moot.

  Failing that I think that was an eccentric proposal to split English Wikipedia into en-gb and en-us; in the long run that could be the destiny and the best of both worlds as long as the zero sum additionalist-removalist game keeps being played. 45.136.197.235 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, this is the second time in a week I've seen this fairly obscure arbcom finding cited in an attempt to suggest that removing anything is inherently disruptive (the other was here). Since this is misleading so many, maybe a clarification needs to be posted? MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom does everything formally -- I doubt you realize the amount of time and trouble that would require. And that's not counting the gigantic debate that would ensue to decide on what such a clarification would say. Let's just let this strange little virus die out. EEng 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe had by now told me and others to go to a multitude of other wikis catering for intricate/narrative style of presentation. There's a huge problem with the notion; speaking from reader's perspectives, if you want to learn about a subject you don't know or otherwise obscure to you, would you prefer them to be presented at one stop in a trusted encyclopedia rather than going site-by-site? Because here's one thing; by hopping through different sites there's also a security risk because presently browser exploits like remote code execution are all too prevalent and even "legitimate source sites" can one day fall victim to such attack. As an example Over 47,000 Malicious WordPress Plugins Are Active on Nearly 25,000 Websites. Scan it with Malwarebytes, Virustotal or anything you can, but most of the time they don't catch zero-day attacks until it's late. Almost all the policies that we cite here are formed during the 00s or 10s, when these aren't so prevalent. English Wikipedia ultimately is among the top sites visited on the Internet and it looks so much like putting too many eggs in one place since the shutdown of Google Knol.

After all, it's going straight into the dead end per the Poe's law if we harangue on what constitutes "improvement" or "unencyclopaedic", so as Sideswipe claimed the problems now involve conduct issues here are a couple of questions for her, although Softlemonades can answer as well:

• If you can remember, what caused you to come to the article for the first time? It'd be helpful if you describe your feelings back then.

• Most importantly, you insisted on wanting to work on and improve the article, so what was your end goal? Let's do a thought experiment where suddenly you are the only active editor in Wikipedia while on that page. Imagine that Thanos had been resurrected and snaps everyone except you. More realistically, the sham referendums at occupied areas in Ukraine went through and Putin uses it as a justification ("threatening Russia's territorial integrity") to fire a tactical nuke at the Black Sea. Maybe Putin's crazier than we thought and sent the kiloton against Ivano-Frankivsk, Izmail, Lozova, Irshava Berdiansk, Tokmak, you name it. Instead of cowing the world NATO intervenes and destroy Russian positions throughout occupied areas resulting in a formal declaration of war by RU. A malfunctioning early warning radar falsely reported incoming missiles but there's no Stanislav Petrov this time. San Francisco is hit with a Bulava MIRV, as does New York City, Washington DC, London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Manchester, Moscow, St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Paris, Lyon, Marseille, and so many other cities, knocking off the Internet for good. You survived, hiding in a bunker or something. It turns out that you have a complete dump in a hard drive and deciding to edit that a bit to present to leftover future generations. What would that be for this page? To answer the question, put the page source in personal sandbox or rather WP:SANDBOX, edit it as if you're the only one doing that, and put the sandbox diff link of your finished work back here. For reference, this is my answer.

45.136.197.235 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

lol what?! Quandarie 16:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to let folks know, the IP has just been rangeblocked for being part of a colocation webhost. Looking through the page history, this isn't the first time an IP editor who was active on the Cyber Anakin article and a couple of others relating to Anonymous being rangeblocked due to being a proxy, at least two others are still active. Is it possible that because of this history of edits by IP editors behind proxies that this article meets the criteria for semi-protection? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I see your trying to game the system to remove an opponent from the topic area rather than engaging to reach consensus so you can continue to warp the article to your preferences. This is the epitome of battle ground conduct. Zero-sum removalism gets us nowhere. 31.192.235.50 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IP editor is back with a new IP, admits to editing with multiple IPs in the past and says theyll use "unlimited proxies" to edit because people need to know

"So what if I've used proxies. The article needs to cover fact of Cyber Anakin's activities lest readers look elsewhere. So it's not a threat it's a fact. I have unlimited proxies and we are legion, your efforts to game the process and control these pages with your clique will fail, and every elitist step taken merely hastens the day."

Diff Softlemonades (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

84.54.13.148 is another IP editor pushing Cyber Anakin edits and reverting removals, probably another sock and one of the "unlimited proxies" Softlemonades (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor made an alarming post:

`Hi there, former mod of /r/meanwhileonwikipedia here. Hope you're doing fine.

A BLP article (ends with a fancy name; not linking it here for now because they could find out through "what links here", searches and so on - hint: my previous edit on a timeline) is the center of a Reddit thread you linked in your user page. Even though the Redditor had passed away IMO, the deletionists he feared seems to at it again. This time they want to "trim" or rewriting it so badly perhaps putting it at another risk of AfD. If you can figure out the name of the article then you can go into its talk space to see what's going on.

Unclear of their intentions, maybe Russia or Chinese influence operation at play given the situation today. Modus operandi could be whitewashing, historical denialism or so on. Either way they had gamed all processes with the sole defending editor banned through "no proxies policy".

Can't believe they'll stop at that. If you want them to be kept in check and Wikipedia stays verdant, the time is now. Best way is to assemble some cabal, play dirty on them so much they'll simply back off. Unless it happens, cloak and dagger secrecy can be best in prevent geting foiled. Good nite.

Softlemonades (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, old good IP editor here. The IP ranges I've used has now been hijacked by a bad actor. The downsides of using open VPNs is anyone can use its IP given the right program. For the service I'm using I guess there could be hundreds if not thousands who might overlap these and that IPs. They can simply click "Contributions" at the top right to see what they or others had done. Notthing could be ruled out so far; it could be a simple case of trolls finding out the contribs and adding fuel to it "for fun", or maybe she's pulling a Count Dooku because she's rushing too, not helped by the fact that she now displays some unusual unusual technical knowledge like using the specialized IOT search engine Shodan. If you want some "intervention", it's as good as an all out WP:BOOMERANG in all directions and "actually leaving it to the admins" by admin-only page editing protection. Cheers! 185.70.92.9 (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this IP has also been banned for being a proxy. Turns out so was the IP that created the Cyber Anakin page.

Should say I submitted an SPI request about the issue because there are a lot of IPs. If its sockpuppetry or hijacking, theyll get to the bottom of it Softlemonades (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

While there is an obvious behavioural overlap with Bugmenot123123123 as pointed out at the SPI case by another IP editor, I would say that because the last set of cases for Bugmenot were four years ago, any information from those will be stale if not inaccessible, and that CUs in general do not connect IP editors to named accounts.

That said, between the attempted baiting I've mentioned previously, the implied Striesand effect from trying to clean up the article, the threat of "unlimited proxies" to continue disruption at the article and its talk page, the requested boomerang because I know what Shodan is and how to interpret its results, and a request for full protection of the article, I hope that it's becoming clearer to uninvolved folks who are reading this of the intended chilling effect those statements have and the resulting attempts to drive away editors from this article. While full protection of the article seems inappropriate per the table at WP:PPLIST, I would again suggest that given that the page has seen significant editing by at least one IP editor operating behind multiple proxies, that semi or possibly pending changes protection of the page seems appropriate.

Note, I say at least one because I still can't definitively work out from the behavioural information if this is one editor with many proxies, or several editors with a similar style pushing for the same content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Jean Dawson

Misuse of Admin tools

Today, I was harassed by musicAnimal while I was editing on jean Dawson. This person blocked me without warning despite my ip having no edit/block history. I am therefore reporting this here. 12.251.247.118 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You were using multiple IPs, as can be seen in the edit history. Nythar^T.C 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You're not blocked and there is no record of a block in your block log. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure a block evasion sanction is incoming.. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked. Obvious block evasion and disruption at Jean Dawson and associated AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruption from IP editor

IP editor has blatantly misunderstood the votes at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean_Dawson_(2nd_nomination) and ignored multiple attempts to explain both in edit summaries (see here, here, and here as well as the page histories of all of those pages) and at User_talk:QuietHere#Jean_Dawson. IP editor has also accused another editor of edit-warring despite multiple editors making the same reversion several times; IP editor is the only one in violation of WP:3RR so far as I can tell. QuietHere (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IP accounts are 160.72.111.130, 67.245.6.49, and 12.251.247.118 QuietHere (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal has already blocked 160 and 67 QuietHere (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve blocked 12. see section above. The AfD has been protected by Firefly. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@QuietHere: If you're up to it, I'd consider opening a sockpuppet investigation against this guy, too. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@That Coptic Guy does it even count as sockpuppetry if they're an IP editor? It's not like it's not obvious they're the same person, and unless there's some way to know if they manually switched their IP address then I'm not sure how to prove they did anything that SPI would sanction them for. QuietHere (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SPI  Clerk note: All-IP SPIs are generally discouraged. They can almost always be handled better at AIV/ANI, or by talking to individual admins familiar with a case. See also User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

IP persistently adding unsourced content and changing English varieties without discussion

For some time now, 116.86.7.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently changing English varieties without discussion, as well as adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to articles. I issued warnings on their talk page over the past couple of months for these but to no avail. Other editors have reminded them regarding MOS:ENGVAR but also to no avail.

• Recent unsourced content diffs: [127] (unsourced table), [128] (unsourced details regarding train type withdrawal; source originally provided does not support such claims), [129] (unsourced fleet numbers of scrapped trains, which were removed in a somewhat earlier revision)
• Recent diffs showing changes from Brit. English to Am. English: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

I don't really like posting here but I don't think I have much of a choice. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is awkward because the IP's edits seem good (if the added unsourced material is in fact correct and not a hoax). They have hundreds of edits to articles, one to a template, and no others (no talk). What is the convention for color/colour in Japanese train articles? While agreeing that changing style is very disruptive, I have a faint memory of seeing US spelling for {{convert}} (meter not metre) in Japanese articles and, if true, that would support the IP's edits although not their lack of communication. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:Johnuniq, this is about converting the British English spellings to American English in articles about Japan. However Japan tends to use American English spellings not British English (not a surprise given the occupation and continued presence of US forces); perhaps that needs to be discussed further in WT:WikiProject Japan.

The unsourced material seems innocuous - and I don't see an issue, unless the information provided is incorrect. If we start sanctioning people for not sourcing every detail, we'll have few left here. I don't see a pattern of them reverting these later on. Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) MOS:RETAIN can be summarised as - Leave the damthing alone!

That said, as a speaker of British English I can see a good argument for preferring American English in articles about modern Japan; but specific WP:CONSENSUS is needed to override the MOS. Narky Blert (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In at least one of the articles it started with 6 uses of colour and none of color, then 5 and 1, then 4 and 2 and so on over a period of over 1 year with a lack of consistency almost the whole time. In that case, after checking the original state I changed them back to colour with a note in the edit summary explaining why as there hadn't been a discussion about the change on the talk page. As in all of my edits I may be wrong but it seems like reverting to the original style is the way to go.Gusfriend (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2400:2200:4C1:F247:2556:6238:796A:EFAB, User:2400:2200:4C1:F247:5CA4:9920:2E1B:3358

• 2400:2200:4C1:F247:2556:6238:796A:EFAB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2400:2200:4C1:F247:5CA4:9920:2E1B:3358 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently, these IPs have vandalised my talkpage (User talk:DePiep) and pages I am working on (incidentally, Unicode related). They appear to work in cooperation. (ArglebargleIV kindly jumped in, but persistance). I suggest blocks. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Notifications: [135], [136]. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ping Mako001, who is cleaning up. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

2400:2200:4c1:f247::/64 has now been blocked by Zzuuzz, but leaving this open for a little longer in case they manage to get onto another range. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

• 2601:601::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

IP 2601:601:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been doing some disruptive editing for some time now, including some pretty nasty stuff. Sometimes they change sourced information without giving another source to back up their modifications (see [137]). Sometimes they add some unsourced, straight-up wrong information (see [138] and [139]). They also claim to be Judd Hamilton for some reason, and have been quite rude towards other Wikipedians, including admins (see [140] and [141]). They also seem to have pro-Somaliland leanings, judging by these edits: [142], [143], [144]. Lastly, they seem to have something against the band Mystic Braves, and have been accusing them of some really bad stuff (all unsourced, of course): [145] and [146].

So it's quite a weird mix, it almost looks like several people are behind this IP range (which is obviously possible). The whole /32 range is already banned from quite a few topics, but it isn't enough apparently.

Addition: there's some low-key racist stuff too! [147] BilletsMauves^€500 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit of a confusing filing. Almost all IPv6 /32s are more than one person, so if you look at them in aggregate, you'll always get an assortment of different kinds of bad edits, usually (although not always) alongside an assortment of different kinds of good and meh edits. Looking at my own /32, we've got a lot of unsourced edits, some block evasion, a touch of spam, a bit of talk-in-article, some sports trolling, some ranting at BLP subjects. To determine if sanctions are needed, we have to look at individual /64s, or sometimes a bit narrower if we can piece together subnets that someone's hopping through—outside those rare cases where either there's so many problematic editors on a range, or one editor so deeply problematic, that we block the whole thing. I don't think this /32 meets either of those criteria, but am open to being convinced otherwise.

As to the proximate concern here, this morning I blocked the maybe-Hamilton IP's /64 from Judd Hamilton; he'd been adding promotional content there since 2018 and not gotten the hint that it was unwanted. This whole thing is either someone trying to hijack the identity of a celebrity they share a name with (and doing so across multiple sites), or someone who picked up a side career in their 60s and it just hasn't gotten any RS attention. I lean toward the latter (plausible geolocation, among other things) but am not sure. If anyone determines it's the former, this should be made a siteblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sidenote, a few things about Judd Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) set off alarm bells. The combination of self-pub/user-contributed sources and a suspiciously low backlinks:claims-to-fame ratio is something I often associate with hoaxes. This isn't a hoax, but something about it seems sus, as the kids say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm discussing this on my talkpage with them. I doubt that the whole /32 is a problem, as Tamzin said, they are virtually always more than one person, and a /32 IPV6 is (as I understand) roughly equivalent to a /16 IPV4. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The actual range that they are theoretically able to access according to WHOIS is more like the /26, but the range that has been on Judd Hamilton is "just" a /44. (2601:601:D0xx/44) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so should I deal with them as several different /64s, and bring back the matter here if necessary ? BilletsMauves^€500 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be fine, just remember that not all users on the /44 are the same. There are probably several editors, just like any other big range. However, a /64 is usually only a single editor.

This can be closed off now, the editor this was really about, (someone who claimed to be Judd Hamilton) decided to complain to the WMF ("Wikipedia management"), and if they did actually do so, doubtless they didn't have much success. Oh, and they also aren't donating anymore. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Leonaardog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Leonaardog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a proven sock and was recently indef. blocked in the Pt.WP.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kacamata: Have they violated any enwiki policies? The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows overlap, which isn't great, but isn't obviously abusive either. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin This account is one of the several accounts created by the same editor. The master account (Noughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) is also active here. In some articles, they edited together in some articles (see here and here). There are several more accounts (see here (in Portuguese)). This is a LTA from the Pt.WP and spreading in other WMF projects Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 05:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kacamata: I am sympathetic to that, and believe in cutting very little slack to people caught abusing multiple accounts on sister projects, but the fuller EIA does not show anything closer to abuse. At most, as far as enwiki policies are concerned, this would seem to merit {{uw-agf-sock}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe)

Tamzin The account is now globally locked.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone close out this sockpuppet investigation and block the user?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The evidence is pretty overwhelming and the sock in question is just trolling everyone who will engage with them until the inevitable happens now that they've been caught, by making a wide variety of irrelevant policy citations and pretending not to understand the concept of block evasion. Major issues with WP:IDHT and WP:POINT in addition to being a very clear sockpuppet of a blocked user, WP:SPA that edits the same articles inserting the same POV pushing content and removing reliable academic sources. Checkuser was requested to find potential sleepers, wasn't necessary for the investigation.

• the original talk page
• diff claiming a consensus where none was reached
• diff claiming there is an academic conspiracy to suppress their viewpoint
• accusing the commenters on SPI of being socks without evidence
• the original SPI evidence, two previous noticeboard discussions on the same page they opened one on on Friday: one, two - car chasm (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To describe these as misrepresentations would be a massive understatement.

• First off, the CheckUser in your sockpuppet investigation found that "There existed no other accounts on IPs used by the...account." You've only been speaking to one account during our content disagreement. From both the CheckUser and my own activity it can be clearly seen that I'm not socking.
• Accusing me of "removing reliable academic sources" is perhaps the single biggest instance of WP:KETTLE I have ever seen on this entire encyclopedia. This began because you practically blanked the argument from authority page, with your reasoning being "carl sagan is not a reliable source anyway and his books are filled with factual errors". If I accidentally removed some reliable sources that had been put in there in the course of undoing the near-blanking, feel free to add those back in.
• I do believe a consensus was reached on the issue of Carl Sagan being cited on the page. Of the people previously uninvolved, virtually all of them said that he's a good cite there. If anyone wishes they can review the discussion for themselves.
• "claiming there is an academic conspiracy to suppress their viewpoint" is just...what? I was objecting to a particular statement by the essay you cited, WP:CHOPSY.
• I was plainly not actually accusing you of being a sockpuppet. I was pointing out that the line of reasoning used could lead to almost any two editors being linked as one another's sockpuppets, as I expressly said there.
• The two RSN discussions look similar because this appears to basically be a rehash of a discussion that took place several years ago.

Essentially your position amounts to "anyone who objects to getting rid of Carl Sagan's comment is a sockpuppet". Honestly you're blowing all of this way out of proportion and I think we've already seen improvements to the page based on our discussions on its Talk. I wish we could get back to a productive discussion there instead of crass things like this that just waste everyone's time. Honestly, and I mean this as feedback and not to be insulting, I think patience is something you could work on. Even here: you've already got a sockpuppet investigation and you've made your case there. But instead of waiting for an Admin to get to it (which they will), barely a day later you've posted here demanding to be catered to immediately. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser did not rule out a connection, and was not requested for this account. the interaction report is self-evident, this user started editing the day after the conclusion of the previous investigation. as multiple editors have pointed out, the posting style is also very similar. - car chasm (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is completely false. Look at the first edit, it was the 20th of June 2017 and that investigation concluded in July 2017. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, a month old account with only a handful of edits just happens to start editing the very same page the day after the investigation concludes to slowly start pushing the exact same POV...

I guess you did cover your tracks pretty well, considering you got away with it for over five years. But block evasion is still block evasion. - car chasm (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you even look at the edit? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lgaeglg

Could you please block Lgaeglg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the page Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Lgaeglg keeps trying to remove the fact that Phillips has an illegitimate daughter from the article even though it's a proven fact that Phillips is the father. Talk page messages and provision of multiple citations are ignored. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Indef p-block: User talk:Lgaeglg#Indefinite partial block from Mark Phillips. El_C 14:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuous harassment of others' after block

Since Veverve has been blocked—initially for one week before it being extended two weeks—they have WP:stalked other contributors with which they continue to dispute against. This fellow Wikipedian has gone back and forth with tagging them on their own personal discussion page, solely for the effort to continue disputing. Observing in quietude for a few days, I am beginning the effort to report this continuous harassment on the behalf of Spartacus007 and ILoveHirasawaYui. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen

Not an admin, but that user doesn't seem to be registered on the Wiki at all. A typo perhaps? — That Coptic Guy (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That Coptic Guy, I have corrected the issue. Thank you! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem :) - I also see you're active on a lot of WP:Christianity-related articles! That's also my primary area of interest, so I'm sure this won't be the last we see of each other! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me further add in revision, Veverve has also created this essay (WP:Unsourced information is not valuable) and brandished it on their personal discussion page as if it's an official Wikipedia guideline. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, more like they're linking it to explain their position further. WP:BRD is also frequently linked and not a guideline. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This was completely uncalled for on Veverve's part. To take potshots at other editors like that when blocked is quite appalling behavior, all the more so since it was quite a reasonable edit. StAnselm (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is WIKIHOUNDING, plain and simple. Veverve should at the very least be topic banned from calendar-related articles (seeing as they've been blocked for it twice and it's the beginning of this case), but an indef WP:NOTHERE block is also not out of the question. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have extended Veverve's block by two weeks and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've gotten more active in editing this year and I'm glad this series of incidents was the exception to an otherwise enjoyable experience. Spartacus007 (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I haven't reviewed this complaint, like at all, but did you see that Veverve's last edit to their talk page was three days ago? El_C 19:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

El C, yes I saw that. I would have extended the block then if I had known about it then. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, because I just noticed that they made two edits today (diff, diff), so the block wasn't in fact "extended," but rather imposed (again). El_C 19:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the two edits were made in the six minutes between the block expiry and the reblock. Talk about timing. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was reading their talk page and pondering where to do in that six minute period, and did not notice that the previous block had expired. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird, but 6 minutes, it's whatever. However, blocking 3 days after the user had stopped — that doesn't seem right to me, Cullen328. It looks retroactive rather than imminent (per WP:PREVENTATIVE). As you yourself say if I had known about it then. But if I'm the only one who takes issue with that, I won't press the matter further, especially seeing as there's been multiple recent blocks even prior to this one. Not to mention that I know the least about this out of everyone who has commented here. El_C 01:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

El C, Ververve was pinging their opponents and arguing with several of them for a week while blocked. That was behavior that clearly upset several innocent editors. You may think that no action is required because they took a three day break, but I see things differently. As far as I am concerned, editors who engage in misconduct on their talk pages during a block should have their block extended and talk page access revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what if any action is needed, but maybe it wasn't a break, maybe they decided to put a stop to it. Maybe you know which it is. Again, I don't. El_C 02:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

El C, feel free to unblock if you think my block was incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping ILoveHirasawaYui wasn't ran off by their lack of contribution since. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I'm still here. Thanks for reporting Veverve for me! I💖平沢唯 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely not confident enough to unblock, as I know next to nothing about... whatever all of this is. But I've reinstated TPA, again, solely due to the 3-day lag uncertainty. I've also instructed Veverve to limit themselves to an {{unblock}} appeal only and to only ping relevant admins (see User talk:Veverve#TPA reinstated). El_C 05:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What should come of this reverted measure on their own talk page, done by them? This revision history states the following before they removed it after acknowledging, "guess it violates the "Please do not discuss anything else" still": ...whatever I say or do lately, I am condemned. If I quote the rules and policies, I am told I am wikilawering and accusing innocent (said admin Cullen328 at ANI) users. If I try to discuss, I am called a harrasser plain and simple and WP:NOTHERE (said admin DatGuy at ANI). If I try to get people to stop using FICTREFs, I get permanently topic-banned. My stance is that defending people who wrong Wikipedia is wrong, but it does not seem to be the other admins' opinion. So, I will wait two weeks. Thanks for giving me the possibility of asking for an unblock here, should I want to. I honestly can't tell if that's passive-aggressive, or just now wrongfully accusing Wikipedia's administrators of some form of incompetence? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This is why removing TPA was probably the correct, preventative, measure. They knew they weren’t allowed to WP:SOAPBOX after having access restored. Did so anyway, knowing their self-revert would still be visible. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1182:3F67:2F9E:3B8C (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm jaded from what I see in the day-to-day, but as far as SOAPs go, it seems relatively mild tbh. Sure, I guess they found a way to say their piece, which admittedly I didn't quite understand, still, I think the best thing now would be to leave them be. Including here, in this very ANI thread, where they likely feel everyone is against them.

Anyway, time will tell if they'll keep to their word in the 2 weeks to come, since obviously they're not interested in an unblock appeal. Time will also tell if they can avoid an indef block, which is what the next block is likely to be. But beyond all that, there is a slippery slope in so far as concluding what a several days pause mean in such instances. Which was the main thrust of my argument and the basis for my action. El_C 14:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if my earlier comment appeared to be a criticism of your choice to restore TPA, that wasn’t my intent. Agreed that backing off for now is the best path forward. Thanks for all you do here. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1182:3F67:2F9E:3B8C (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all. Thanks for the kind words. El_C 15:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:DoctorWhutsup and "anti-Russia"? edits

I came across this user by chance yesterday when looking at the Latin exonyms page and found a somewhat bizarre edit. On closer inspection, I found that there were a few warnings on his talk page already, and that the overwhelming majority of their contributions are attempts to remove references (real or perceived) to Russia from various articles, mostly but not exclusively those who also have some relation to the present Ukrainian state, and trying to force-move others to either Ukrainian versions or to versions he conjured out of thin air. From this I initially assumed he was a Ukrainian trying to "fight" the war with Russia on the "Wikipedian front", which is something that happens quite often (in other words, I'm not suggesting he's sockpuppeting, which might be the case but I have no indication of it) and I find very annoying, but can understand up to a certain extent. Since I hardly, if ever, edit articles about current issues, I will not concern myself with his contributions to articles on the war in Ukraine. They may be good, they may be bad, but I leave them to other people to read. My issue is only with historical articles. Anyway, these are some diffs of the issues I found:

• Removal of Latin name for Moscow because Moscow didn't exist at the time of the Roman Empire (which is both true and irrelevant) [148]
• Trying to force-move Russkaya Pravda to Rus' Justice (I assume because it has "Russkaya" in the name) [149]
• Trying to force-move Vladimir the Great to the Ukrainian transliteration after having already edited the page and been reverted a couple of months ago [150]. Second attempt to force-move after being reverted the first time [151]

And here comes a second issue, which leads me to think it might not necessarily be a case of WP:RGW but a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or both). On the article about the Principality of Halych he removed an alternative, bolded name (Principality of Halychian Rus') because "it's very rarely attested in English [...] I don't see a reason why it should be here" (diff: [152]). In doing so he also removed the reference, a book by Larry Wolff, a specialist in the region. The term might not be as popular as merely "Halych", but it is also present in a few other recent works, and if we broaden the search to include "Galician Rus" (a transliteration derived from the Russian) then more results appear, perhaps even more than going with the Ukrainian-derived version. I will not argue for the inclusion of "Principality of Galician Rus" as an alternative name because it would probably lead to me being hanged, drawn and quartered by a mob angry Ukrainians, but at the very least keeping the version derived from Ukrainian makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense, and the reason why I believe it's merely a matter of taste for this user (he can't possibly object to the term Rus', which he himself is trying to force upon other articles), is that while he removed his disliked, but sourced, version, he left a weird alternative name, Kalieshi/Kialioshi (meaning 'The Key of Heavens'), a completely unsourced version that had been introduced in bizarre manner well over a year ago by an editor (who I suspect to be mentally imbalanced) that went around blessing random articles with new, invented names supported by inscrutable theories.

I'll notify him on his talk page as soon as this is posted. Ostalgia (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion to be quite entertaining.

First, I strongly urge to cite at least one example where I try to - how did you put it? - "to force-move others to versions conjured out of thin air". Because this is nonsense, since it did not happen once.

Furthermore, apparently, it is not me who has supposedly "anti-Russia" tendencies, but you who actually has anti-Ukrainian sentiments. I do not think that this kinds of language - "it would probably lead to me being hanged, drawn and quartered by a mob angry Ukrainians" - is something that impartial person would say.

So, if you are trying to find bias, I suggest you look for it in the mirror.

"Trying to force-move Russkaya Pravda to Rus' Justice (I assume because it has "Russkaya" in the name) [399]

Trying to force-move Vladimir the Great to the Ukrainian transliteration after having already edited the page and been reverted a couple of months ago [400]. Second attempt to force-move after being reverted the first time [401]"

Whatever I did or did not try to to do with namings clearly goes from my inexperience with Wikipedia and its policies at that time, and it is clearly seen in the discussion upon each case. You obviously have seen it, and yet you keep insist on this weird and nonsensual accusation.

"Removal of Latin name for Moscow because Moscow didn't exist at the time of the Roman Empire (which is both true and irrelevant) [398]"

The article in question is about Latin names for the places outside the scope of Roman empire that appeared about that time. The earlies mentions of Latin exonym for Moscow is dated in 14-15th century. If you are saying this is "irrlevant," I am seriuosly questioning your integrity as a member of this community.

"In doing so he also removed the reference, a book by Larry Wolff, a specialist in the region. The term might not be as popular as merely "Halych", but it is also present in a few other recent works, and if we broaden the search to include "Galician Rus" (a transliteration derived from the Russian) then more results appear, perhaps even more than going with the Ukrainian-derived version."

You have said so yourself. If you want to include alternative names, include "Halych", nobody is stopping you.

However, neither "Galician Rus" nor "Halychian Rus' are significant enough to be mentioned as alternative names. That is a fact, whether you like or not. Being "a specialist in the region" does not make this terminology necessary for inclusion. The rules for alternative namings are clear, and this one does not fit the definiton.

"What doesn't make sense, and the reason why I believe it's merely a matter of taste for this user (he can't possibly object to the term Rus', which he himself is trying to force upon other articles), is that while he removed his disliked, but sourced, version, he left a weird alternative name, Kalieshi/Kialioshi (meaning 'The Key of Heavens'), a completely unsourced version that had been introduced in bizarre manner well over a year ago by an editor (who I suspect to be mentally imbalanced) that went around blessing random articles with new, invented names supported by inscrutable theories."

I removed one version of alternative naming what I knew for a fact should not be here. I thought I deleted that "Kalieshi/Kialioshi" thing too, but apparently something went wrong with this. Anyway, you could I see I agree with its removal - I did not try to bring it back.

"I'll notify him on his talk page as soon as this is posted. "

Instead of manufacturing conspirasy theories, you could have just started a discussion about disputed edits, you know. And stop wasting our time. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have provided an example, which you, in fact, quote (Rus' Justice?). The comment about being hanged, drawn and quartered is a reference to what would be the expected (and understandable) reaction to someone using a Russian transliteration for a region that largely remained out of the Russian sphere. As for the rest of your reply, it doesn't merit comment. This is not a content dispute. Ostalgia (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You have provided none.

I have used the name that has been already present in the article, so it hardly qualifies as "conjuring out of thin air."

As for the rest of my reply, it merits comment perfectly, since you are deliberately presenting my content edits incorrectly to further your utterly absurd agenda about me being alledgely "anti-Russia."

In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you insist:

• Your "Rus' Justice" thing is merely an attempt to push a translation as the name of the article in order to remove "Russkaya".
• Your argument (which, by the way, is wrong - the article doesn't concern itself with places established at the time of the Roman Empire) for nuking of the Russia section of Latin exonyms doesn't stand to scrutiny. On that article, and not far from Russia, you'll find Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, with cities founded not only long after the fall of the Romans, but after the foundation of Moscow. You haven't touched the at all, because you have no interest in "improving" the article, but on getting one over "the bad guys". Even if you were wrong in your interpretation, one could assume good faith, but this was just blatant.
• Principality of Halych is literally the current name.
• I did not start a discussion because your talkpage literally consists of warnings and a DSN, and you have not replied to any of them.

You keep edit warring to preserve your edits, which make (and makes) little sense. I will not revert until tomorrow in the hope that some admin reads this. Ostalgia (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I do insist.

No, my "Rus' Justice" thing is NOT an attempt to push a translation as the name of the article in order to remove "Russkaya". This is simply your assumption - which, by the way, is wrong: if that was the case, I would have tried to force Ukrainian transliteration on the article. In this case, at first I honestly could not tell the difference between the "Primary Chronicle" case and this one due to my poor knowledge of Wikipedia policies at that time. Next.

No, my argument for nuking the Russia section of Latin exonyms actually DOES stand to scrutiny. By the way, suggesting that this article should concern itself only with "places established at the time of the Roman Empire" was NEVER my argument, you are once again deliberately trying to twist my position and my contribution in order to twist your agenda.

I haven't touched "the at all" precisely because there are too many of them and I have known for sure at that time only for Moscow. I was indenting to come back later and reorganize that whole article when I have more time - frankly, its a mess.

Again, your statement that I supposedly "have no interest in "improving" the article, but on getting one over "the bad guys" is nothing more than your assumption (which, by the way, is wrong). Sadly, you saying things does not automatically make them true.

Furthermore, I fail to see how my motivations, whatever they may be, affect the result. I did improve those articles.

Yes, Principality of Halych IS the current name. So what?

No, you did not start the discussion because neither one of your arguments have a leg to stand on, and you are perfectly aware of this.

Actually, no. YOU keep edit warring to preserve the content that should not be in those articles.

I also do hope that some admin reads this, I see no reason why I should deal with these ridiculous accusations just because I am new here and learn some rules as I go. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll need some outside help to solve this issue. Helloheart (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

May ask what the issue even is?

I fail to see how a mere fact of editing content - whether correctly or incorrectly - can lead to such a preposterous accusation.

True, my edits indeed seem to be limited to one specific area, but there is a perfectly fine explanation: I AM new here, and I AM Ukrainian. Loving history, its not surprising that the historical articles enticing me at first are the articles about the history of my region.

Trying to tie it up as some "anti-Russia erasing" conspiracy, however, is at the very least absurd. My argument with this user about the Principality of Halych has practically nothing to do with Russia (except for the shared geographical and cultural space). In the case with "Vladimir the Great" I was explained that even though I may be right about which version is closer to the original pronunciation, it does not matter within the framework of Wikipedia policies. So I backed off.

I mean, use all the help you need, if I somehow broke the rules, then so be it. Just want to paint a clear picture, one without unnecessary assumptions. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF exists, I feel like there should have at least been some attempts at talk page discussion before getting into this territory, which there doesn't seem to have been between the two editors. If you're both truly simply looking to improve the site, try and have a civil discussion based on policy and follow dispute resolution processes if needed. TylerBurden (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said the same thing to the other editor. He could have opened a talk if he really did find my edits inappropriate and/or wrong. If he would have presented a clear case, I would have agreed to rational arguments.

Like I said, I may be interested for now in this topic more than in the others (which is understandable), but this does not mean I plan to use Wikipedia as my personal playground. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's all good and well for a content dispute, which is not the case. I have provided diffs of edits that are baseless and counterproductive, not because I prefer my version, because I have not edited those articles at all other than to revert his edits and remove that bizarre alternative name of which I spoke earlier.

I do not care if he likes to edit stuff about Ukraine, that would be perfectly fine, but it's the way he does it that by itself disproves WP:AGF. Excluding current events, which I did not look at, literally his entire edit history (except for his first edit, on the TV show The Borgias) consists in criticism of Russia or attempts to remove real or perceived references to Russia (with bogus arguments or no arguments at all), and his talk page is literally just ignored warnings/DSA. What do you expect me to do, add a fourth warning? Ostalgia (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, since those diffs of edits you have provided were not baseless and counterproductive, it IS a clear case of content dispute. Moreover, you have done so EXACTLY because you prefer your version; otherwise, you would have provided more substantional argument than "seriously now..." .

Again, my entire edit history does NOT consist of "bogus arguments or no arguments at all.) You seem to act under the impression as if your position/opinion on my edits has any more merit than mine, which is not the case.

Moving further, I was not aware you are supposed to actually reply to warnings on your talk page in text. If that is case, I will reply.

What you should have done was to start a discussion on topic. What you DID was entirely dismissing my position as "bogus" without even trying to make a legitimate case. Then you have come up with THESE ridiculous accusations.

Some editor you are. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, if you are removing sourced, long-standing content and are reverted, you should state your case instead of trying to force it in. You don't walk into a house, piss on the sofa, and when asked to explain yourself reply with "no, you explain yourself!". I will not continue reverting the article on Principality of Halych because I do not intend not break 3RR, and it's not a hill I care to die on, but your targeted and completely irrational edits on Latin exonyms, in spite of the issue being explained to you in very clear terms, constitute obvious vandalism, and I will continue to revert as necessary. You are not here to contribute, you are here to pursue a personal crusade. Ostalgia (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact you made this statement and then 10 minutes later broke 3RR by reverting yet again, shows a stunning lack of awareness and prevents us from taking what you state as good faith, and is why you are now blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"I will not continue reverting the article on Principality of Halych [...]. [Your] edits on Latin exonyms constitute obvious vandalism, and I will continue to revert as necessary". I did exactly what I said I would, and I believe it was written in pretty clear English for anyone to understand. I will once again ask you to apologise for implying that a) I lied and b) acted in bad faith. Additionally, I would love to know how exactly what you did improved the situation in any way (spoiler: it didn't). Ostalgia (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I would have keep that in mind for further work, thank you for your advice.

As for the rest of your comment, it presents nothing but another batch of ridiculous accusations that, once again, are nothing more than your assumptions. Although you do seem to possess some kind of hostility towards me personally, I do not share this spite. If you want to engage in a pointless edit warring, that is entirely on you. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just blocked both these editors for edit warring. They continued to edit war and snipe at each other while this conversation and others were taking place. Both knew what they were doing and continued edit warring with each other. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Violations of BLP policy by User:Leesawkun9z

Leesawkun9z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Quite a large number of users have attempted to interact with Leesawkun9z in the past week. User:Bungle and User:WaddlesJP13 added some BLP PRODs 7 days ago to some unsourced BLPs and I sent some of the user's other unsourced BLPs to draft space in the hope that they might attempt to address the issues. Unfortunately, there has been a spree of these Thai volleyball unsourced BLPs and club articles since. Since then they have had multiple AfC declines from User:KylieTastic and one from User:Idoghor Melody. They have then had warnings recently from User:DoubleGrazing about cut and paste moves and User:Robert McClenon about creating unsourced articles. All of this seems to me to be WP:NOTLISTENING with a bit of WP:CIR. Their recent creation Kongkapan Thongkhao a few minutes ago is so egregious that they've even left a PROD and BLP PROD on the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the sheer volume of articles created until now and their talk page really speaks for itself (the irony being, they aren't talking!) There doesn't seem to be any engagement with any editor who has flagged these as being BLP-unsourced and no effort to remedy any article to this effect has been attempted. It does seem like they just don't care. I see an earlier article I sent to draft was recreated today in mainspace with the same issues too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Their recent unsourced BLPs from a few minutes ago Boonyarit Wongton and Wuttichai Suksala clearly show that they currently lack the skills to edit BLPs in main space. I would have no objection to them being allowed to continue editing in draft or user spaces until they can demonstrate that they can make constructive edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I say, at this point, they should just be indef'd. They've been warned several times and I think any more messages and PROD notices to them will just be a waste of time because, at this point, they seem to be WP:NOTLISTENING. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than leaping to an immediate indeff, might I suggest a short acting attention getting block of, say, 31 hours? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that a short block has to be worth a try Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It can always be reimposed and longer 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Spiderone: and Timtrent I disagree, an indef should be better, and they can be unblocked when they promise to do better. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody I suspect each of us views things differently and simply prefers a different approach. I favour the iron fist in the velvet glove on the basis that there is no deadline for any action here. I only possess velvet gloves, though, but I can smack someone very hard with them 😇😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I understand, but don't smack too hard😉 Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Too much warning already, an indef should be issued immediately. They should tell us why they should be unblocked on their talkpage, whenever they're ready to talk. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What they have done with Kongkapan Thongkhao is just weird. (It is as Spiderone says, but I had to see it to believe it.) They created a cookie-cutter copy of an unsourced BLP that was already tagged for BLPPROD, and only changed the name, so that the new article is BLPPROD'd in advance. This raises issues of competency. I agree with Spiderone and Fiddle Faddle that a short block is in order to see how they respond. Either they will request to be unblocked, or they will do nothing and resume editing when they come off block, in which case we know that they aren't listening. This is a weird competency issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruption, incompetence, and failure to respond to warnings (doesn't talk at all). The massive creation of nothing articles, many of which are already tagged as having no sources and with PROD, is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think indef was, regrettably, the right decision as this has more of a chance of making them engage with the reasons why things have got to this point, than simply waiting it out and continuing without regard for the wider issues (unless they continue undercover). Could these unreferenced stubs be CSDed under A7 to sort the issue quicker or shall we just wait for the 7 day BLP-prod to lapse? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question of User:Bungle, I think that the unreferenced stubs do make a credible claim of significance in saying that the individual is on the Thai national team. So I don't think that they are A7 candidates, and I think that the 6 days should be allowed to run. The user is blocked, and if we similar unsourced stubs created by another account, the other account can be plucked. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kidtommee

Kidtommee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently editwarred on the HIT Entertainment article (see its history) stating that HIT Entertainment is not defunct without providing a source, and instead stating that the cited sources aren't always correct, as well as saying I Just Don't Like It When People Think HiT Entertainment Died In 2016 on his talk page, and telling me to Calm Down! It's Exist Still! in this diff (of course I can't calm down since he's editwarring, and failing to cite reliable sources). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I Least Give Me A Source Kidtommee (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"Fulfilled" means getting what you want accepted. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Source Turtorial Link? Kidtommee (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I literally sent it to you on your talk page. Again, it's here. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners may also be useful. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, or I'd indef as a promotional editor/not here. At the minimum, needs a a final warning for disruptive editing aroung HIT and Xing Xing Digital. See also, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_The_Xing_Xing_Digital_Article_Gonna_Get_More_Details and the twice declined draft. Star Mississippi 22:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

also, edit warring Star Mississippi 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Kidtommee from the article for 3 days for breaking 3rr to reinsert unsourced content. I also have some WP:CIR, or maybe trolling, concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Now indef'd for CIR/trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be heading towards TPA removal... –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it might also seem too harsh to revoke his TPA. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was quite... whatever that was. El_C 00:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that photographic definition of "something else". Thanks all for handling Star Mississippi 02:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

IP consistently disrupting and personally attacking other editors

Days ago User:23.84.19.247 started a discussion on BLP (which later moved/extended to Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy) that was a clear moral objection to the content, and responded to disagreement with uncivility on several counts. The user's talk page (which they have since blanked) is further proof that they are WP:NOTHERE and several of their comments in the talk discussions crossed the line into personal attack. While the matter is mostly resolved now, the editor's conduct during the discussions is unacceptable. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of personal attacks. Blanking a page is not "further proof that they are WP:NOTHERE." It doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. El_C 03:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear - I didn't mean the act of blanking was proof of anything, I meant the contents of the talk page (pre-blank) were exemplary of it.

Diffs:

• personal attack in edit summary
• breaking 3RR
• first of many accusations of cyberbullying on the basis that a 19 year old is a child
• personal attack
• reiteration of above personal attack
• accusation of editor "out to get them" based on a user talk report
• deletion of warnings/reports on the basis of disingenuity and policy abuse
• accusation of being "obsessed with mentioning sex toys" on the basis that it doesn't add value to the article
• undue accusation of personal attack in retaliation to an accusation of the same

I think a clear picture is painted that this editor's only goal here was to push their own moral values onto other editors and, ultimately, the article, and no good faith interpretation was made to anyone who didn't agree with them during discussions. Their comments were unproductive and mostly disruptive. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:23.84.19.247#Block. Right, the rumor of cheating in Chess via a vibrating anal beads (bizarre!), I remember seeing Charlie mentioning it a few days ago. El_C 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced/poorly sourced information in biographies of living persons by Wimpyguy

I saw that Wimpyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed the birth year in Michael Stipe from the correct 1960 to 1954 for no apparent reason, with no sources, so I reverted and saw on his talk that this is a recurrent problem and that he's also editing other biographies (including of living persons) and changing key details like this. This is totally unacceptable and I can't tell what amount is incompetence, sloppiness, trolling, or sneaky vandalism. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:Wimpyguy#Block. El_C 03:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, Justin, I didn't notice it was you! Welcome back! El_C 03:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: thanks, C. Nice to be back. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Self promoter

Kevin Ferry Creative Director (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly adding self-promo to creative director. [153] [154]

• Got it. Incidental 3RR too, so he was gonna get blocked for that sooner or later. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Main page vandalism

Would someone look at the link on the main page to yesterday's "AotD" "First Battle of Newtonia." When I hover on the link the caption there is a homophobic slur in place of an actual description. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what javascript you're using to show stuff from that page, or what content it's showing, but it looks like some vandals have been blocked. I also protected the page for two days to stop autoconfirmed vandals from messing with it. They'll just go to some other high profile page and vandalize it, but at least it won't be linked from the main page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:AirFate was on a vile and nasty spree of vandalism and harassment, and has been indefinitely blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought that Featured articles that appear on the Main Page are protected for that day. Is that not the case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I opened a WP:RFC in June 2021 at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. I can't remember, or easily find, what happened afterwards (I was unwell later that year). Narky Blert (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a current 30-day trial of auto-semi-protection every other day for TFA to be followed by further community consensus to keep running. I think. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, Narky Blert, and Malcolmxl5: The article was semi-protected as part of the trial. The vandal just made 10 edits to their own userpage and then proceeded to vandalize away. Autoconfirmed is super-easy to game, ECP is probably a better idea. In a way semi is the worst of both worlds, page still gets hit by dedicated vandals, but doesn't get those random helpful edits from the internet at large. We already do preemptive ECP for the super-controversial arbitration related topics, not sure why that couldn't be extended to TFA. 2601:5CC:8300:7140:0:0:0:64F (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though I don’t think the community is ready for ECP of TFA. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Qexypnos adding disinformation to the articles

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

Please refer to the recent contribution. They did not react at the talk page warning. There is no consensus to add this info, as the topic above clearly shows. A swift block is needed. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They stopped after having made one revert, so may be it is not so urgent now.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack by Ентусиастъ

User:Ентусиастъ posted an insulting personal comment with racist overtones (“Ukroman”).[155] They’ve stated in advance that they won’t respond to my comments, so I’m bringing it straight here. The comment is offensive and should be deleted. —Michael Z. 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocking indef as an egregious case of WP:NPA. We have no place for people with this kind of conduct on a collaborative project, especially not in a contentious topic area. Prior contributions appear prima facie at least constructive, so I'm ok with an admin unblocking the user upon receipt of a convincing unblock request that makes it appear likely that such conduct will not reoccur. Sandstein 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:IntrepidContributor reported for Impersonation and Disruptive editing against myself and other editors

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

For the past several weeks, User:IntrepidContributor has been contacted regarding his Impersonation of my account, in his copying my edits and my signature in order to further his own personal edit objectives on Wikipedia as reported to Ermenrich here: [156]. He has been examined by both User:Ermenrich and Ymblanter who have tried to explain to him about Impersonation. He is apparently displeased with Ymblanter's comments and is currently making disruptive edits/personal attacks directed at other editors such as Slatersteven and myself on the Talk page for Talk: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine here [157]. This does not appear to be consistent with his understanding Ymblanter's successive attempts to explain Impersonation to him on his Talk page here [158]. He has made a long sequence of what appear to be disruptive edits against Slatersteven and myself here: [159], [160], [161]. User:Ymblanter has already notified his Talk page with warning messages here: [162].

Since User:Intrepid appears to have made related disruptive edits/personal attacks against Slatersteven, myself and now Ymblatter and Bbb23 here [163], I'm requesting that a neutral administrator examine what appears to be his disruptive edit conduct for over the last month. He has previously also apparently gone through an SPI investigation by User:Ermenrich here [164] for edits related to another editor on his Talk page who appears to know User:Intrepid from his editing under a different account name which he has chosen not to disclose. There appear to be a sufficient number of yellow flags raised concerning the edit conduct of User:Intrepid that Ymblanter has advised myself to post this on noticeboard here [165]. I've kept a record of most of the links about his editing if further diffs are needed here for evaluation in addition to the ones provided above, and have pinged the other editors involved with User:Intrepid's editing history and previous warning messages to him from Ymblanter [166]. User:Intrepid's Talk page has been notified of this noticeboard discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, if there's disruption, please highlight the most egregious diff. I'm getting the sense that you're trying to do too much with this complaint — less is more. But as for your claim of "impersonation" (diff), it isn't that. They just undid the archive and removed your comment to the bottom, which is something I've done myself countless times. Not saying it was the correct thing to do in this instance, but calling it impersonation is faulty. El_C 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The designation of “Impersonation” was made by Ermenrich and Ymblanter after they were contacted and they could add comments as needed. My own concern expressed at that time was that the edit conduct of Intrepid appeared to be alerted to Ermenrich’s indication that he was part of a prior inconclusive SPI investigation, and that he appeared to be making use of my edits by doing what the SPI page calls a piggybacking sockpuppet. The evidence appears to be growing that the SPI investigation can now be re-opened for a second phase of the sock puppet investigation based on the edit history of User:Intrepid which is now over 500 edits in his new account. Currently we only have your warning to him which you placed on his Talk page that he should be more careful about formatting his reverts of other editor’s archive statements.

The new account opened by Intrepid was made without his indication of his old account name. This is allowed rarely on Wikipedia in the cases where a humble and hard-working Wikipedia editor feels that they have become victimized by aggressive editors under their old account name, and they wish to have a ‘clean’ start under a new account name. At this point, there are now over 500 edits in Intrepid’s new account history which can be applied to see if his editing is consistent with a “Humble and hard-working” editor seeking the protection a second account being granted as a courtesy by Wikipedia to protect him from unfair victimization. His edit history is strongly pointing in the other direction, and he appears to be routinely placing numerous unfriendly accusations (personal attacks) against both administrators and other Wikipedia editors including Ymblatter, Bbb23, and myself. These include the following:

• His Accusation of Bbb23: “I have contested your administrator action in a two-party edit conflict where you applied policy to only one side. In accordance with WP:ADMINCOND, and pursuant to Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_("administrator_abuse"), I am expressing concern directly to you here. I believe a good resolution would be unblocking Jirka.h23 to enable all parties to continue the discussion in an orderly and civil manner. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• His accusation of Ymblanter on his own Talk page: “You're still not answering my question. Given that I had prepared a carefully worded response of my own, my revert of Ernest's hasty Wikipedia:Non-admin closure was entirely appropriate. Your assertion that your threat to use administrator action was "in fact" a warning, doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially since you admitted above that you misread my intention. Please either answer my initial question or apologise for threatening to block me based on your misreading of my edit, otherwise I will file a complaint about your conduct here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)”.
• His accusation of myself on the 2022 Russian invasion Talk page: “ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit history of User:Intrepid is not consistent with a “humble” editor requesting a new account without disclosing his old account name; his edit history appears to be to make aggressive accusations against multiple editors (personal attacks) and make disruptive edits on Talk pages for high page count articles such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with impunity. Under WP:Duck, “Administrators may take action against sock puppetry or meat puppetry if there are obvious correlations in behavior.” Looking at the long edit history of aggressive editing by User:Intrepid, he has now apparently gone beyond “obvious correlations in behavior” which can guide the comment that “Administrators may take action”. For example, User:Intrepid could be temporarily blocked until he provides a confidential email confirmation to an administrator of his old user account name in order to confirm that he was not himself previously blocked for these types of aggressive accusations which he has been making and repeating from his new account name. At this time, no one knows if he has previously blocked for aggressive accusations against other editors (personal attacks and disruptive editing). Administrative action following SPI and WP:Duck concerns about User:Intrepid appears justified. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I'll leave it to you then. Good luck. El_C 13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being the sock master? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Radosveta Evlog2

Since 29 September, Radosveta Evlog2 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring and trying to promote the dubious theory that the US bears responsibility for the 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks, refusing to use reliable sources, and engaging on soapboxing and personal attacks on talk pages.

Refusal to abide by the reliable sources policy:

• Special:Diff/1113042425: "Such accusations are so intensely moronic they are on the level of blaming Jews for the Holocaust. They are fringe disinformation not supported by any government except Ukraine. Perhaps those sources attempting to further this 'theory' should be placed under quarantine as reliable on all matters related to this wider conflict? The Telegraph etc."
• Special:Diff/1113232943: "Media in NATO countries is actively self-censoring and pushing nonsensical narratives ..."
• Special:Diff/1113250632: "Anglo-saxon media is largely just state propaganda on matters related to this conflict."
• Special:Diff/1113436195: "Anyways, we need sources other than rabidly Natoist whitewashing here."
• Special:Diff/1113887799: "The reliability of Fox news or Tucker Carlson is irrelevant ... and the fact that a well known former US government advisor is being systematically silenced by anglosaxon media makes it all the more important for his opinion to be on Wikipedia. See: WP:NOTCENSORED"

Personal attacks:

• Special:Diff/1113887799: "This sounds too much like WP:JDL based on political bias. It also is either WP:GAME (purpose misconstruing of Wikipedia policy) or a total misunderstanding of them. ... activist editors using any argument possible to delete the sources, including denial of reality."
• Special:Diff/1113888434: "Clear politically motivated disruptive editing"
• Special:Diff/1113889025: "I understand as a Ukrainian this is an emotional topic for you, reason for which you should not be editing Wikipedia on matters related to this conflict."

Kleinpecan (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• No personal attack involved Kleinpecan. Im stating fact. You are gaming the system purposefully misconstruing policy to remove all speculation on who is responsible for the Nordstream 2 incident other than your personal favorite "Russia did it". In a section on "speculation" you literally want the section to only point the finger at Russia. No doubt you will also want to censor Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs opinion "that the whole world knows the US did it" as well considering his statments non notable, original research or whatever nonsensical mental gymnastics you will use to push your POV. No doubt you will say that since there will be media silence on western media outlets regarding his words on Bloomberg, there is no reliable source. This is the pinnacle of gaming the system. Anyways here is vide of Sachs on Bloomberg. https://odysee.com/@TMSLL:6/sachs:b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radosveta Evlog2 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was in doubt given that not all contributions are obviously bad, but this response was a dealbreaker for me. The user is blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. We have enough user pushing conspiracy theories already, and they invariably end their editing career in the same way. We need less of these, not more. Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969

• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roads4117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past few weeks, Onel has been redirecting or deleting sections of road articles, especially the route section, because they do not have a citation. Last week, it was mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles, where it was ranging from "what gives" to potentially disruptive editing. Yesterday (26 September), they continued with their disruptive editing, doing the same thing on A1011 road. They were warned that if they are going to continue this, that they would come here, right away. Today (27 September), they have moved away from doing this on road articles, but are now doing this on everything else - Yoon Seok-hyun, Alex F. Yaworski, Gilera CBA, Guyana National Rifle Association and Mariano Llinás are just some of the names. Is this bannable, or is this a waste of your time? Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit in the linked article (A1011 road) is a good one, whats wrong with scrubbing a little OR? The only sanctionable offense would be adding it in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not remotely bannable, and appears to be a content/citation dispute. Star Mississippi 15:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone removing things like

"Continuing south parallel to the Underground and DLR track we now go under another set of bridges. These are the tracks for the District line, Hammersmith & City line and c2c services to London and Essex. Here is the location of West Ham station, a busy main station, and this part of the road can be busy during peak times for people picking up or dropping off passengers for the station."

should get a barnstar, not being reverted and dragged to ANI. Fram (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any issue with their actions at the time of that discussion and I still don't. They're adhering to policy by removing WP:OR and leaning on WP:V, a core part of Wikipedia. Can you point to what policy they may be going against? Cuz I'm not seeing anything.

Also, you're not being cyberbullied, Onel5969 is just a prolific new page reviewer who happened to sort through some pages that are relevant to a project you're a part of. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Respected and prolific NPP contributor follows policy. Why are we here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to the ANI case concerning Roads4117 just earlier this month. Roads4117, I advised you in that thread not to add unsourced content to our articles. I'll expand on that. The edit that Onel removed was full of content that looked exactly like original research. I'm personally not hugely fussed about stuff being cited to maps if all of the information can be verified purely by looking at the map. This wasn't just a route however, it contained various stuff about it being a quick link bypassing the one-way system, it being busy at peak times, and so on. I thought that you had agreed to stop adding unsourced content to articles? I'll add that it was also largely written in the first person ('now we go under a bridge...'), which is more like a tour guide than encyclopedic writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, I will try my best not to add unsourced material again. User: Roads4117 16:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading ...but are now doing this on everything else - Yoon Seok-hyun, Alex F. Yaworski, Gilera CBA, Guyana National Rifle Association and Mariano Llinás are just some of the names: I looked at edits to those pages, and the edit summaries mention reasons including WP:GNG and WP:COPYVIO. It was misleading to have those in a nomination regarding deletions related to WP:BURDEN. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MINREF, WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, and countless other policies contradict many of the above statements, and WP:BITE applies strongly here; nowhere is it stated that all text must be cited, just that it must be verifiable in some way. These are Start class articles (more like stubs), so content that can be further refined should be welcomed. NPP is a red herring, as these articles have existed for nearly a decade. The discussion at WT:HWY has generally been one of "Here's what you need to do" to Roads4117 (which admittedly they should be paying more attention to than bringing content disputes here, as WP:FORUMSHOPPING also applies). Both editors are in the wrong. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading the WikiProject discussion linked in the OP, I'm rather shocked to see the opinions expressed there. All content should be sourced--that's not debatable in my book. Also, looking at a map and writing in a Wikipedia article what the map shows is, in my view, a textbook example of OR: literally looking at a primary source (the map) and writing our own interpretation of it (what the map shows). That practice brings huge WP:NPOV problems: an editor should not be deciding which map details are significant for inclusion and which aren't. Heck, I don't even trust that an editor knows how to read a map at all. Road descriptions should be sourced, like everything else, to a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it should not be filled with editors' descriptions of maps. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

All content should be sourced--that's not debatable in my book: Everyone aspires for their own version of MOS:PLOTSOURCE ;-)—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, lol :-) That's the other example of rampant OR, with the same NPOV problems (an editor should not be deciding which plot details are due for inclusion). I didn't realize roads had the same problem. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Published maps are a secondary source. GIS data is a primary source. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Some maps are secondary sources, or contain secondary source information, but using Google Maps to describe routes is using a primary source. That map is a graphical representation of GIS data--it's the same primary source data displayed visually instead of by text. (Older maps, based on direct human observations, are also primary sources.) A secondary source is one compiled with analysis from multiple primary sources. So a thematic map, like a population heat map, would be an example of a secondary source map. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich Feel free to change/delete this citation. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

...And don't take my word for it, just Google "is a map a primary source?" and read any of the many, many articles written about this topic. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "Maps can also function as secondary sources because they may draw on information from other maps, data sets, or primary sources of information."
2. Librarian's opinion
3. Same, plus context is important. We make that clear in WP:MAPCITE
4. "A map can be a primary or secondary source. If a map was produced as immediate evidence of an area, then it is a primary source. If the map is just a symbolic depiction of a space then it is a secondary source."

I'm seeing a pattern though... context. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of primary vs. secondary sources, the policy is WP:V. The only material that requires a citation is quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Primary sources and uncited sources satisfy WP:V. That said, there is an obvious trend across the project, dating back more than ten years, which basically "challenges" all material's verifiability. If there's really a broad consensus that policy requires all material, no matter how uncontroversial or how easily findable a source may be (and I'm not saying all of the content in question falls into "uncontroversial, with easily findable sourcing"), needs a citation to a secondary source, it's probably time for a big WP:V RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is, time to put this "verifiable" business to bed, it's confusing editors and resulting in OR. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, it's not OR. There are a lot of people conflating "uncited" with "OR". What is OR about The road initially follows a course through north-west London via Harlesden, Wembley, Harrow, Northwood and Rickmansworth. During this stage, it is known as Harrow Road. It crosses the M25 at Junction 18 at Chorleywood, crossing into Buckinghamshire and then continues towards Little Chalfont and Amersham.? I'm not saying there was no OR to be found in these diffs, but a straightforward description of what's easily verifiable just by clicking the links/databases that are already on the page is not OR. That doesn't mean it should be in the article, but the reason is unrelated to V/OR (and more about e.g. NPOV/WEIGHT, TONE, NOT, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not right. There are only two options: it's either your research, or it's someone else's research. If you're not summarizing someone else's research, then it's OR. Verifiability is irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich is correct, its either original or someone else's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

True indeed, and doesn't follow "that's not right". What exactly are you disagreeing with, Lev? Using "research" instead of "published information" just confuses this. All V means is that content is determined by previously published information, so yes, if you add material based on what's already out there in a reliable source (which can include maps/databases), without adding your own claims/conclusions, it's not OR and V is satisfied. As NOR says: The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. Hence, "if it's verifiable, it's not OR". Again, that's a different question from whether there's a citation in the article. Again, whether it should be in the article for other reasons is separate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Original analysis of a primary document like a map or database falls under WP:OR. That is as basic as it gets: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Define "analysis". Is map reading an analysis or a basic skill lost on the internet generation? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Snark aside map reading is analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saying "it crosses this road" or "it runs north" is not "analysis or synthesis". Standard procedure has been summarized at WP:MAPCITE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:MAPCITE#Original research covers this quite well. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MAPCITE is an essay almost entirely written by just two editors, it has not been endorsed by the community in any way. It makes some excellent points and in places does summarize our standard procedure, but in others it branches off into tangents which are the author's own ideas and nothing more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What I object to exactly is any editing that isn't "forward" editing (see my userpage). There is only one right way to do it: you start with two or more reliable secondary sources about the topic, and summarize them. I object to any other method, including writing the prose first and then looking for sources that verify the prose (or not doing that second step, which is even worse). I object because it's OR. The only way it's not OR is if you're summarizing someone else's analysis (and the only way it's not plagiarism is if you summarize two or more sources). Levivich (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have your own philosophy, that's fine, but pardon me if I take someone literally saying "my way is the only one right way to do it" with a grain of salt when it conflicts (in its "only way"ness, at least) with norms/definitions developed over 20 years. It may well be that the future of Wikipedia is no unsourced content, erring on the side of deletion/omission in all things, etc., and I suppose it only takes enough people saying "that's just the way it is and it was never any different" for that to become the new reality, but I don't think we're there yet. I'm tapping out of this discussion, though. My objection is basing mass removals and proposing sanctions on rules and definitions that don't actually exist -- I don't even have a real problem with most of these removals, as there are some clear WEIGHT, TONE, and NOT issues (and in a couple cases some borderline OR). I think we should have high standards for content in mainspace, but that when it comes to noticeboard discussions involving conduct, we need to be working with the same basic rules rather than what people think the rules should say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not dispute that indeed such material should be cited (as it is on every road FA). What I have a problem with is this editor unilaterally throwing away the information without even bothering to look for a citation, and then revert warring over it. Pragmatically - we could throw away half the encyclopedia on those grounds. --Rschen7754 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And I likely would have brought this up to ANI at some point if this "bull in a china shop" mentality from Onel5969 had continued, as it is actively destroying the project and chasing other editors (including from underrepresented geographies) away. --Rschen7754 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It is very difficult and time consuming to source road articles, having tried I know, but as such lots of these editors who write these are not interesting in referencing. I've seen it multiple times during the last couple of months on NPP, during the last drive. I know from experience how difficult it is to explain even what the problem is. They are not interesting. For a lot of them it is a copy paste exercise. Regarding the page review, it is perfectly valid to remove content, per consenus and WP:V when its unsourced. It cannot be the fault of a page reviewer who is just following process and comes across a group who generally are not interesting in referencing. This is 2022, you don't have unsourced articles in mainspace. That is what draft and sandbox are for. I brought editor Roads4117 to this board regarding article A4421 road (Great Britain) which was unsourced and he made multiple attempts to revert from the redirect. That is the type of behaviour that is happening here. Lastly the three visits to Ani (described in the comment below) are mutually exclusive scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: I really wish you wouldn't paint all roads editors with the same brush. There are over almost 100 FAs related to roads, so certainly we had to take interest in sourcing at some point. --Rschen7754 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Scope creep: I'm sorry if I said I meant all of them; I didn't. There is a spectrum as in everything. Of course. I find the whole thing immesely frustrating. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tangential discussion on valid sourced content for road articles (Free free to continue at another venue)

On the wider problems of roads articles - My comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 24#Hate to be that guy, but road articles have serious SYNTH problems. My analysis of the GA U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina article is most relevant (some of what I complained about got moved to Special routes of U.S. Route 76, a even hotter mess of OR). I have a feeling that if we actually decided to do anything about it, a lot of those green pluses and shiny bronze stars would peel away. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC) This is veering off-topic really, but I find myself disagreeing with the first part of your thread linked above. A map is not in general a primary source, it is a secondary source in which the map designer picks out features of the landscape that they deem worthy of reproducing, while omitting others. A primary source would be a satellite/aerial image or some sort of reproduction that included everything rather than selecting features. Obviously, deriving info that isn't obvious from the map is OR, but even with that there'd be an element of WP:SKYISBLUE. You raised "The highway meets Hallsboro Road at a diamond interchange north of Hallsboro" as problematic, but if the map shows a junction that has all the features of a diamond interchange, and we can also verify what a diamond interchange looks like, then it's reasonable to say that it is one. The key should be the same as for MOS:PLOTSOURCE (a convention which is IMHO far more problematic than using maps for road articles) - if it isn't obvious, then it needs an explicit cite.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I think the problem is not so much that the information is verifiable, rather - is it important to mention in an encyclopaedia? For example, we don't have an article on Drover's Roundabout, Ashford or mention it anywhere on Wikipedia, even though it has coverage in multiple reliable sources ([167],[168],[169]) because these are, when balanced against everything else the news outlet reports, trivial passing mentions. To come back to the example above, "The highway meets Hallsboro Road at a diamond interchange north of Hallsboro" - why is this important? Has there been a prominent accident record at this location? Was the construction of the junction politically complicated? Is a diamond interchange a unique structure specifically worth mentioning? I think this gets to the crux of the problem with Roads4117's editing, and kind of goes back to what Fram briefly mentioned above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Textual information shows weight by explicitly mentioning certain details. Much of what is lifted from these maps do not have that benefit. The equivalent would be trying to write an article on a historical event with 2/3rds of your sources being diagrams and labeled pictures. No other area of Wikipedia that I know of operates like this. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC) I think this is an important distinction here. There are hundreds of thousands of roads throughout the world, are we to believe that, because it can be viewed on a map, it's notable enough to warrant inclusion and complete description of its route? That seems like the definition of an indiscriminate collection of information to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC) No, and we have myriads of discussions setting precedent on this. If a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor. You're getting into a whole can of worms on this, because any argument that applies to roads can just as easily be applied to railways, rivers, canals, or other similar transportation corridors or linear infrastructure. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Has this been applied to other transportation corridors or linear infrastructure? I don't think I've ever seen a railroad, river, or canal article built off google earth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Nor have I seen many highway articles do the same, outside of stubs in geographically underrepresented areas. Kind of like how many places have their own articles and the only reference is an actual primary source (a census). I just clicked randomly into Africa, here is an example. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Rivers and railways, far as I've seen, tend to attract a fair amount of literature, or at least far more than roads. So no, I don't think that's comparable. I see WP:GEOROAD supports your assertion that a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor, though I find the evidence for that utterly dubious, because if this were the case, the U.S. Route 76 in North Carolina article probably wouldn't have two thirds of its citations coming from maps... I do not see how "the government maintains it" magically translates to "there is probably SIGCOV in RS for this". To look at the "can of worms" from a different perspective, why are not all of the agricultural stations or rural health clinics (not full hospitals) in my state presumed notable? Surely because the state built them, they are important? Or is the real reason for this because there is not a constituency of agricultural station and rural clinic enthusiasts? We probably need an RfC on the use of maps and "visual" sources, and maybe another on GEOROADS. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC) That is an interesting case, and either scenario might be true. Regardless, I agree with your last statement. Floydian τ ¢ 05:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Your assertion: If a national of subnational government deems a road important enough to include in its national or subnational road network, it is almost certainly a notable transportation corridor. The GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm sorry, but those two ideas seem diametrically opposed to each other. Requiring sources and notability is how the project stops itself from becomming an indiscriminate collection of information. Existence does not confer notabiity. You say this is long established precedent, I ask if those who came up with that precedent have ever read the GNG? FrederalBacon (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Actually, WP:GEOROAD, which is a notability guideline, perfectly supports that view, saying International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. I think that's a bad guideline, and there's been a movement in recent months to bring more SNGs in line with the GNG, but Floydian is essentially correct in terms of what the current guidance says. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) The things one could do with tree maps and a willingness to disregard our most basic policies and guidelines... I see the temptation, but make no mistake it is a temptation to fill wikipedia with OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Even taking maps as secondary sources, most map use I've seen has been general maps in which the specific topic is included rather than maps of the topic. Appearing on a map is not significant coverage within that map source, whether it is primary or secondary. CMD (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I think there are two issues being conflated here: 1) are maps valid sources and 2) are maps alone valid enough to surpass GNG? But topics for another venue. --Rschen7754 01:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC) This is veering off-topic really...: The original AN/I concern is more related to unsourced edits and copyvio concerns. However, this here is a tangent on sourced edits and notable content for roads in general, not any particular editor. I'd suggest continuing this at another venue, and not conflating it with the ANI further.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given their addition and restoration of large amount of Wikipedia:Original Research to motorway related articles [170][171][172][173] I propose that Roads4117 be topic banned from motorways broadly construed or to see them properly trouted about until they understand the error of their ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Uncited text != WP:OR Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoa there, stop. Not everything that doesn't have an inline citation is original research. Also, the OP checked with the Roads project and got the impression that they were in the right, then came here. Sanctioning this user seems a bit unfair and over the top.

We do have special rules for plot summaries (they don't need citations); there is something to be said for using maps (but perhaps not always-changing map websites) to verify route descriptions (although there can be notability and undue weight concerns if the information is only found on maps). —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking their actions and tone into account I definitely think this sanction is unnecessary. They presented things pretty objectively, they kept it respectful, they even asked if this was actionable or if it was a waste of others' time. A trouterang is one thing, but I think an entire TBAN just for posting this thread is overkill GabberFlasted (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Roads4117 citation truth - it says on my userpage this user recognizes the importance of citing sources. This is true - I just need a little bit of help/guidance for which references to use for what etc. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• A topic ban would be a wild overreaction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is completely wrong. I do not endorse the edit warring, but this is a clear violation of WP:BITE and a very inappropriate proposal. --Rschen7754 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor Roads4117 was posted here on 6 Septmeber for trying to revert an unsourced road article from a redirect. The editor has no interest in sourcing articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what is being missed here is the larger pattern of Onel5969 mass removing content without even attempting to look for citations. --Rschen7754 18:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the responsibilty of any particular editor to look for citations. That is not what page review is and that is what they were on at the time. Every editor is a volunteer on here, and the idea of having to stop reviewing while in that reviewing flow (for what of a better word, which is hard on its own, which breaks you down and burns you up), to look for citations is preposterous. Paticularly on these types of articles in the grand scheme of life are not important. They are not the road to Rome filled with crucified victims that is described in every Roman history book for a millenia. As a volunteer you choose what you want to work on. But working on page review, is really important. It has driven the quality of Wikipedia article up immeasurably in the last 5-10 years. However, Wikipedia has only got product and that product is facts. Without sources, they are not that facts. It is not 2006, it not even 2010 anymore. Its not done to build articles with large section that are unsourced. The community doesn't want that. They want high quality articles. Onel5969 is really productive high-quality page reviewer. Please keep that in mind. scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay? But what about the editors who are chased away because their work is summarily reverted? After all, there are editors who need to add the facts, or there will not be any pages to review. Maybe an editor doesn't get it right the first time, and certainly my own first edit in 2005 was a bunch of unsourced content. If my work had been deleted without any help or explanation, I don't know that I would have continued. NPP is not the product here. Its purpose is to serve the encyclopedia as a whole. --Rschen7754 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117 has made 1500 edits, has a talk page full of messages about adding unsourced content, has been to ANI three prior times about adding unsourced content, has been explicitly instructed by admins to add citations for their additions and has repeatedly promised repeatedly to add citations going forward. This isn't some newbie who doesn't know better, this is someone who has received a ton of help and guidance but just doesn't seem to get it. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. I see no reason why this ANI report should've been opened. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

However the product is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also disagree with plee to WP:BITE, they have been here long enough, and have been brought to ANI enough, to get the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Please also see similar removals targeting a different editor in South Africa - [174]. --Rschen7754 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No targeting just the removal of unsourced text that must not be reinstated without an inline citation, once something is challenged policy is incredibly clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Which I see has been done, just as things should happen. Challenging unsourced text by removing it is a normal editorial process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the "bull in a china shop" rhetoric sidetracked Roads4117 from understanding their own responsibility to source their contributions, and misleadingly provided them a rationale to seek a ban here. —Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you mean the larger pattern of OR in road related articles against the explicit consensus of the larger community? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And again, please read my comments above. --Rschen7754 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I did, what you need to remember is that bad edits will be reverted... It might take ten seconds or it might take ten years but the problem isn't the reversion its always the original edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. There is no requirement or expectation for other people to search for citations for unsourced material added by others. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that WP:BURDEN section before. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Okay, but then a few sentences later - In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. --Rschen7754 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider is not the word required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's all about nuance. I can just block anybody that reverts 4 times on an article per policy, but that doesn't mean that is the right course of action and if I kept doing that I might get desysopped. --Rschen7754 01:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you blocked someone for not doing something that policy says is only something they need to consider, and left someone who didn't do something that is required by policy, then desysop would be appropriate. You haven't explained any nuance you talk off, only linked to perfectly acceptable behaviour. You need to start backing up any allegations you make properly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

More BURDEN WP:BURDEN also later states: If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. So an editor might believe that text is unverifiable, and delete it. It seems that we can concurrently 1) educate patrollers that basic map info is likely verifiable and 2) deter editors from chronically adding unsourced content.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I know I've (privately) invoked WP:BURDEN when I removed material that I doubt can be verified. --Rschen7754 03:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Whilst Roads4117 actually brought this to ANI, it was with encouragement from Rschen7754. IMHO it would be unfair to impose sanctions against Roads4117 without also sanctioning Rschen7754. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @John B123: Specifically, I advised him to hold off [175], but after six pings later and my not responding overnight, he apparently worked himself up into enough of a frenzy to come here. [176] *shrug* That being said, I am concerned about the overall pattern and if I saw it continuing, I would have raised it here. --Rschen7754 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly disagree with sanctioning Rschen with regards to Roads, even if they explicitly told Roads to bring it here (which they did not). FrederalBacon (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose completely inappropriate and heavy-handed proposal. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative mini-boomerang

I'm not sure that a topic ban from motorways (or roads in general, which is what we're talking about here - the A1011 isn't a motorway) is needed here. I think I could support a topic ban from adding content to articles if it is not supported by a reliable source - that's something we should all be trying to adhere to in every edit we make, it shouldn't be too onerous. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't support a boomerang TBAN. However, given the fact that this editor just a couple of weeks ago claimed that sources don't matter(the reason why I didn't add references is because references don't matter), it was explained to them that yes, sources matter, and they're still regularly adding unsourced content, some sort of sanction is needed. This seems reasonable. Add a source, or don't add the information. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon:, I am happy with this agreement. Roads4117 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Roads4117, I don't support any sanctions on your editing at this time. I don't come here very often these days as I'm pretty much retired, but I shepherded NPP for over a decade and wrote or co-authored most of its policies, guidelines, and tutorials, and created its user right. For the few weeks you've been registered and participating on Wikipedia, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I strongly advise you to learn all about NPP and the really massive part Onel5969 plays in it and familiarise yourself with our policies. Notability is one thing, but neutral language in the articles and and verifiability of the content is equally important. Please beware of the BOOMERANG before throwing around with threats of bans and blocks and other things you might not fully understand. Wikipedians are a friendly and supportive crowd and veterans like Star Mississippi, Fram, and me are here to help. - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I will try to familiarise myself with the Wikipedia criteria. Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, after three recent visits to ANI since July [177] [178] [179], two of which ended up in "I will try to do better" type comments, this does seem to be an unduly long familiarisation process. After all, this isn't difficult - you need to source your additions to articles. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support although as GirthSummit mentions, really all editors need to follow this guidance. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any formal sanction, however continuing to add unsourced content at this point would be quite stupid. --Rschen7754 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the copyvios I am afraid something might have to be done so I am striking my oppose. --Rschen7754 05:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This shouldn't require any formal sanction, if this continues after this point them they should be blocked for WP:CIR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Roads4117 wrote: I am happy with this agreement. I hope they adhere to this proposal anyways, whether or not there is a formal WP:TBAN.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bagumba Sorry to not be clear, I meant no citation, it gets reverted'. User:Roads4117 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: It's your responsibility to add sources for your edits. It's unfair to burden the community with reverting such edits of yours. —Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as being excessively heavy-handed at this point in time. If the issue continues it can be revisited. Of course referencing isn't optional, but what I will say is unreferenced information about the description of a road is quite different to, say, controversial information being introduced into a BLP. I'd personally argue the former is borderline WP:BLUE and can be easily cited to a map as a primary source in any case. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome to your opinion on this proposal being heavy-handed, but your comparison to controversial information being added to BLPs shines little light on this situation - if someone were doing that regularly, we would not be discussing a minor editing restriction, we would have long-since gone to indef site-wide block, probably after the second (or even first) incident. I personally have no major problems with someone saying that a road goes from point A to point C via point B being referenced to a map; when people start adding assertions about a road being a quick way to avoid a one-way system, or that it is busy at peak times, or whatever, we move beyond what can be verified from a map, and into what absolutely needs sources specifically verifying that information. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Given the below discussed copyvios (and admitted copying), there may be a different sanction needed here. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous block

It appears that this is not the first time Onel5969 has overzealously enforced WP:BURDEN: [180] In fact, that thread resulted in a previous partial block. This shows a pattern.

And again, to reiterate: I fully agree that the edits in question should have had sources, but I disagree with the heavy-handed enforcement of WP:BURDEN, specifically the considerations such as In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. that were ignored. I don't want to see any blocks or bans come out of this thread, but I think that Onel5969 should be advised to take better care. --Rschen7754 03:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It has never been acceptable to wholesale remove content that is likely to be verifiable. This comes up at WP:ITNC sometimes, editors nominate articles which are opposed on the grounds of uncited passages or sections and they respond by deleting large chunks of text without checking its status. We don't allow that, and usually such deletions are reverted and a {{cn}} tag applied. As you say, sources are needed, I'd never dispute that, but we give editors time and space to find them.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Removing unsourced content from mainspace takes neither time nor space away from any editor. There is no reason unsourced content needs to remain while someone looks for a source. There is a very good reason why it shouldn't: even if it's verifiable, it might not be NPOV. If it turns out to either be unverifiable or not NPOV, we've harmed, perhaps misled, every single reader who has ever read it. Why would we take that risk by leaving unsourced content in mainspace in order to "give editors time and space" to find sources? They should have found the sources before they added any content in the first place. I don't understand why we not only forgive this (adding content without sources) but encourage it (by leaving the unsourced material in mainspace) all while risking misleading readers. It's not a good trade-off. It's not in the best interests of the project. It's putting editors above readers. No content is better than unsourced content. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You're talking about two separate policies. If I catch NPOV material, that is usually the first to get reverted and on those grounds, not on BURDEN. --Rschen7754 04:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't know if it's NPOV or not unless you've read the sources (and it really doesn't matter if it's in two policies or one or seven, a bad trade is still a bad trade). Levivich (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is certainly not true in my experience of both patrolling and article writing. --Rschen7754 07:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this from the patrolling side of things and as an anti-vandal. It's pretty easy a lot of the time to call out whether something isn't coming from a neutral point of view. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not all NPOV problems are obvious NPOV problems. Indeed, the most dangerous are not. And, frankly, unless you've been audited, you have no idea how many times while patrolling you read something that wasn't NPOV and thought that it was and took no action: none of us know our accuracy rate. I think anyone who thinks they are accurate at spotting NPOV problems without having to look at sources is kidding themselves: they can only spot the most obvious ones. Levivich (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No content is better than unsourced content: You would need to get consensus to modify policies to that effect. That's not how they exactly read. —Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The caveat is that ITNC editors can sometimes be viewed as gaming the system by removing unsourced—though likely verifiable—text, merely to fast track a post. I don't believe there is a COI motive for Onel5969, other than the quality of WP. —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My intention was not to tar Onel5969 with the same brush by likening them to disruptive editors who deliberately remove material from an ITN candidate to get it over the line, and certainly I believe their edits alluded to above are made in good faith. But other than that, it doesn't really matter if it's COI or "gaming" the system, either deletion of material without doing any checks for its status is allowed, or it isn't allowed. My view, and the ITN/C convention backs this up, is that it's not allowed. After all, nobody would complain about removing material from an ITN candidate if you could demonstrate research showing that it was either untrue or not backed up by any source. It's the "delete on sight" mentality that I object to, at least without full community buy-in via a central RFC, because that's a big change from anything we've done before. And would potentially lead to enormous swathes of text being deleted from the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that previous ANI resulted in another involved editor receiving the same partial block. Both were edit warring. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• For those who might not be aware, WP:BURDEN is not some user essay or a simple guideline, it's a policy. There are no half measures in enforcing policies of this kind, it's not as if it's some vague abstract notion like the civility policy whose imaginary threshold is applied differently to whoever the user is. There is therefore no case of 'overzealous' enforcement of BURDEN - the policy reads well and is at least one of our policies that is not ambiguous. Currently Onel5969 is practically upholding the quality of Wikipedia single-handed in face of the fictitious number of 750 New Page Reviewers. Sanction him for just doing his job and like any self-respecting volunteer editor or admin, he'll just go away again. Ultimately, the problem lies squarely at the feet of the WMF who due to heir policy of 'Quantity of articles is more important than the quality of articles' refuse to allow the Product department to provide ways of initiating new users on what they can and can't write here. It's like ACTRIAL all over again. But that's another story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed that the policy reads well and is at least one of our policies that is not ambiguous, but that policy gives some pretty clear ways that removal of unsourced (and not unverifiable) content can be something like "overzealous". It says if you don't give people time to provide references they might object, but that's pretty flimsy wording. More relevant is where it says to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step, where it says removing content should be because it's unverifiable and not just unsourced, and where it says you're encouraged to provide a citation yourself, etc. It also says, in a footnote, "Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material." I think that's the issue here. For any quotation, anything controversial, any BLP, we should obviously remove unsourced content. For anything promotional/undue, we should remove it for that reason (not V). I have no problem with someone coming across content, saying "that doesn't look verifiable" and removing it (or, again, saying "that doesn't look WP:DUE" and removing it). The issue is only really when someone sets out on a mission to remove unsourced content, and does so en masse, regardless of how [un]controversial it is, with no attempt to find sources in any of the cases (as per that footnote written into the policy). It's really hard to draw a line, though, and I tend to agree that when these things are ambiguous we should err on the side of removal. I just wish removing unsourced content for the fact of being unsourced weren't a frequent hobbyhorse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  And has anyone shown, with diffs, any prove that anyone is on a mission to remove unsourced text en masse? It's interesting to have discussions about policy and how it should be interpreted, but this is the wrong place to do it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did block Onel5969 back in March, but it was on a single article List of Mixels characters and it was for edit-warring. I had no opinion on who was right and who was wrong. As I believe I have said in the past, I have disagreed with Onel over whether or not something meets a particular CSD criteria, but we have usually managed to come to an understanding, and found he's quite reasonable to discuss issues with, if you're polite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Muck racking rather than showing any actual breaches of policy, backed up by diffs showing those breaches, is nothing more than a low grade personal attack. This thread should be closed with prejudice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How else are we supposed to interpret [181][182][183]? --Rschen7754 15:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As policy based removal of unsourced content. The only thing wrong there is that editors who are restoring unsourced text without adding an inline citations (as per policy) are not being sanctioned. You need to show where Onel5969 is in breach of policy, not something that might they might have considered, but where they editted against something policy says they must or are required to do. You don't like what they are doing, but that in no way makes it wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Could've easily added a citation needed tag or similar rather than engage in mass removal of encyclopedic content that is uncontroversial and easily verified by looking at a map. For the record I'm not advocating for sanctions against Onel5969 or saying he violated policy but a CN tag would've been the most sensible thing to do in the diffs Rschen provided. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere in this mess, that is something that could be considered but is not required by policy, the only such requirement is that challenged text is not retired without a valid inline reference. It's something that's come up here a few times, there is no policy that says unsourced text can't just be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

likewise there is no policy that says unsourced content shall be removed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Theres a reason the body of WP:V opens with "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The assumption is clearly that unsourced material will be (and should be) removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

True but it is still a valid editorial choice. There's no policy that says editors must create new pages, but we do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. On one hand we have WP:5P which states that we are to perform the function of a gazetteer, but on the other hand we have largely operated in a grey zone, because for the longest time the focus was on coverage rather than comprehensiveness. If we focus on the latter, it becomes clear what topics deserve their own substantial coverage, and which are footnotes in a larger topic that is widely covered. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not at all what WP:5P states, "combines many features of" gazetteers =/= perform the function of a gazetteer. Those aren't even close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to the issue. Even during the production bof a gazetteer text might be added or removed ue to editorial concerns. I'm absolutely sure none where ever produce that an editor didn't remove something from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

My interpretation of those diffs is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the most basic levels of content policy and no understanding of the requirement for content to be verifiable, and as such are unfit to be an administrator. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That looks like the proper removal of strenuously UNDUE, unreferenced transcriptions of a primary visual source...? JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Any sanction, warning or "advise" on people enforcing common sense is bullshit. If you cite your shit like you are supposed to per policy, we won't get any problems like this. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth are we dragging a highly productive editor who does a great deal of thankless work on the quality control of Wikipedia through this whole rotten process? User:Rschen7754 in particular is apparently hegging for some sort of sanction because an effective New Page Patroller has taken a considered view of some long-standing OR/unverified/uncited content in articles and removed that content or sent articles materially based on that content to draft. That's what you do, BTW, at NPP - you filter the vast volumes of crud and mark as reviewed or draftify, tag or AfD/Prod articles. There's a lot of judgement calls to make - especially at the back of the queue, where Onel5969 tends to work (and where, when I have the energy, I do too). IF someone wants the content maintained/restored, they just have to find a source for it - ideally AS they add it to WP. It's that simple. NPP can be fun to do, but it can also take it out of you (I've stayed away since coming back from leave last month, just 'cos every time I look at the feed a part of me goes 'no, not today') and someone working as hard as Onel5969 deserves thanks, not talk of sanctions. Are mistakes made? Inevitably. In this case, I and clearly other NPP reviewers, don't think they have been made - these seem like perfectly reasonable calls based on policy. Can't we agree to drop this particular stick? We're so precious about biting the newbies, but I can't see why we allow dragging our established assets until they walk away. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyvios of Roads4117

It has been pointed out by @DanCherek: that Roads4117 has a number of copyvios. He found 3 but I also found [184] compared with [185]. Personally I would let this serve as a final warning before a short-term block, but given some of the past threads [186] [187] I would understand if another admin thought it was enough to block, maybe long-term.

I still have concerns regarding Onel5969 (as other editors' work was affected), however I feel this does need to be addressed as well. --Rschen7754 05:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've issue them the standard copvio warning too. At a glance, it appears that past discussion were about how to attribute other free sites or copying within WP. —Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that we need a broader investigation, I just found yet another copyvio [188]. Not sure what the threshold is for WP:CCI. --Rschen7754 07:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so is Roads just copying route descriptions from another wiki to here? I can't see the deleted edits, so I'm not sure how close it was. FrederalBacon (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: the above link looks like a direct copy of the SABRE roads page on the A584. It's not actually immediately clear to me what the licence status of pages on that Wiki is, my guess would be it's a GNU Free Documentation License similar to the one Wikipedia uses, but of course that would need an explicit link to the history of the page being copied from in the edit summary, similar to the stipulation made at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The chapter and verse from SABRE is here and it states "Copyright on all direct contributions to SABRE, including edits to the wiki, rests with the original contributor. However, by submitting their contributions to SABRE, they grant a non-transferable exclusive right to publish their contributions in perpetuity. Copyright on images is dependent on the original licence. Where no licence has been given, and it can be established that no other copyrights have been breached, the original contributor will hold the copyright to the image and grant a non-transferable exclusive right to SABRE to publish the image in perpetuity." ... tl;dr - it's a copyvio if you copy it here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that info. That's an interesting model, and it sounds like it could lead to some oddities in a Wiki-environment. If I copyedit something, am I the copyright holder for occasional words throughout the text but not the whole thing? I suppose for most practical purposes it doesn't matter. Anyway, it's clear that Roads4117 needs to take note of this, and desist from copying anything further from SABRE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was the History section that was generally copied, not the route section. --Rschen7754 14:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am happy for this to count as my final warning for doing major copyvios from SABRE Roads. I also propose to delete them all, if DanCherek hasn't done so. Roads4117 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem at this point, in my mind, is that we are starting to get into a WP:CIR issue. Originally it was thought that the issue was that you were simply conducting your own original research, and weren't sourcing it because there wasn't a source. Now it appears there is a source, and it's one you're just copying. That's even more concerning. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: In how many articles did you copy/paste from another source? Levivich (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: TBH I did it to quite a few articles. I will put a list up on my userpage. Roads4117 (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich Sorry to be difficult earlier. I just thought the list would be extremely long, and would block up this page. Turns out that DanCherek has only missed out one articles (the A433). I would also like to say thanks to DanCherek for cleaning up after me - that should be my responsibility. Thanks again, Roads4117 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: I didn't think you were being difficult at all! I agree about not posting a very long list here, and I'm glad you're helping with the clean-up effort. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What gets me is that in the past ANIs and warnings there were concerns about internal attribution and links, so at least in theory the "don't copy from other websites either" message should have been implicit. One can argue both ways on that. That being said, any further issues related to copyright (or arguably anything else) should merit an indefinite block. --Rschen7754 03:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A better response would have been: I am happy for this to count as my final warning for doing major copyvios from SABRE Roads, period. —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would have been uncovered much earlier, and addressed much more easily, if editors had had a citation to the source material from the start. Hmmmm... JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Though on the flip side, one could wonder how the copyvios got missed in the NPP process. I don't think this is an argument that would be productive. --Rschen7754 00:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP isn't magic, although it sounds now like it is working somewhat well if Onel5969 has been removing potential copyvio text. CMD (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I didn't see any instances where that was the case. A few times where it was the same article, none where it was the same text. --Rschen7754 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfection isn't a requirement, as it's not a possibility. Someone can not be held accountable for not spotting copyvio text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyway - I've filed a request at WP:CCI, just to make sure we really got all the copyvios. --Rschen7754 05:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: As an update, a full CCI case has been opened. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, we have more than 150 roads articles using the Sabre wiki as a reference apparently[189]. Perhaps the roads project can d a cleanup project to remove all these instances? Fram (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I thought I was allowed to use it as a reference, just not for a copyvio? Roads4117 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you need a project to do that, you can probably just do it. Similarly: if you sincerely believe a highway article does not meet the standards of inclusion, simply AfD it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the abuse people get when they dare to remove anything from a road project page, I thought it safer to let them handle it themselves. Things like A68 road, unsourced since its creation in 2003, just make me depressed. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fram FYI the A68 road now has a citation Roads4117 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but that source is a personal website, not really the best site, and doesn't really tell a lot about the A68, does it? Fram (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FramAfter all though, I have done what I have been instructed to do (add more sources), and people don't recognise it. Also, you were feeling 'depressed' because it hasn't had a citation for 19 years. Roads4117 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We are instructed to add reliable sources, not more sources regardless of quality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried looking for sources using Google Books just now and drew a complete blank. The A68 is best known for the Carter Bar border crossing and surrounding area, but trying to find sources that cover this specific term doesn't seem to have turned up much. The most promising source, the Maverick Guide to Scotland [190] just gives a trivial passing mention, and focuses more on the historic Scottish Borders battles that take place around the road.

If I can work out the names of the historic turnpike routes, that'll potentially give me enough to find some good sources and start expanding the article, as I did for A74 road and A82 road, once I found out they were notable as historic coaching routes dating back centuries and re-engineered significantly by Thomas Telford. An article that describes just the route, and missing out on the centuries of important British history surrounding it that reliable sources pick up on, is I believe violating our neutral point of view policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Stuck a couple of sources in for you Ritchie333. It's a very interesting road. John (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John. Roads4117 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO hostility towards outsiders is not unique to the roads and highways wikiprojects (see for example the longstanding issues with WikiProject Military History), what is unique is the amount of bad articles in the topic space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the hostility is not unique, given the number of NPPers who have been canvassed to this very discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Interesting discussions. [191]. I believe that this hostility towards new users is a real problem that needs to be addressed at some point. Even your their own guidelines say as criteria for revocation of the right: The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged (especially new users). --Rschen7754 18:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (slight change added later)

Was this put in the right place? I'm not a NPPer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither am I, and as I've said before this is hardly a new user. I seriously doubt you're ability to be anything near neutral in regard to the roads project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim perfection on behalf of myself or of others that I work with. I do take objection to when the same issues are not being called out elsewhere. And my INVOLVED statement has been on my userpage for quite a while. --Rschen7754 18:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please strike the claim both places its been made[192]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe that sometimes HEB can be a bit... forthright, but I have to agree strike that that comment it's not fitting of an admin and you should strike it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will go back and clarify. --Rschen7754 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, how does the fact that we are not part of NPP change your appraisal of the situation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just think that any accusations of "hostility" should be even-handed. That was the intent of my comments which I still believe in and endorse, however I regret that they served to be inflammatory and could have been made at a different time. --Rschen7754 00:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged (especially new users). Show where Onel5969 has done this, with diffs to back it up, or stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of that statement is to show that yes, a pattern is sufficient to remove the right. I did not intend to make a statement that Onel5969 has demonstrated an pattern, though he has done it once with the diffs from South Africa previously. --Rschen7754 19:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Three edits of one article about a single road in South Africa, using Google maps as a reference. Something where there is obviously some community disagreement, as shown in this thread. (I would say previously, but who knows with how tangled this thread has become). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Who was the new user in that scenario? Chils Kemptonian is as old as I am in wikiyears with a respectable edit count in the mid thousands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding concerns about new users, I followed the link above through to the WP:Highways talk page and saw that Roads4117 asked "am I allowed to use OpenStreet Maps" and was never answered, despite multiple other members of the project inputting afterwards. Perhaps if someone helped new users with policies such as WP:SPS, especially when they specifically ask for advice on the matter, they would be less likely to run into issues? CMD (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge of this particular discussion but the comment above this caught my attention. Even if those experienced editors on that project talk page didn't know the answers @Roads4117 was asking for had they directed them to other places where they might could get someone that could assist them like the WP:Teahouse, the WP:Help desk, or the WP:Reference desk then maybe we wouldn't be here at all. There are amazing editors there willing to assist and try to help good faith editors, both new and experienced, just like @Road4117. We also have the mentorship program where new editors can be assigned someone to assist them on their journey here. No one has to go it alone or figure things out for themselves and I believe most of us would rather help another editor avoid the pitfalls that lead to this point than wait for them to fail to bring them to ANI and/or up for sanctions. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Indefinite block of Roads4117 for extensive copyright violations

Okay, I have started going through the CCI and immediately found a bunch of copyvios, as have other editors. I don't really have any confidence that Roads4117 has understood the issues beyond simply saying "Okay, thanks", which he's previously said and yet still has turned up at ANI again. Given the precedent with ClemRutter and Martinevans123 over what we do with editors who have an active CCI that shows persistent copyvios, I think we should indefinitely block. However, I'd like to get an agreement first before doing this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support has not shown a change in behavior despite prior warnings, which means he'll continue to introduce copyvios that others need to clean up. Should be blocked as a preventative measure. Star Mississippi 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose an indefinite block at this time for the stated reason. Two days ago, I notified Roads4117 about copyright violations on their talk page (and Bagumba followed up with a more detailed message along the same lines), and to my knowledge this is the first time that they were warned on their talk page for something like this (discounting the unattributed merges, etc.). Copying from non-WMF wikis is something I see regularly from a lot of newer editors, and it's an understandable mistake – that if it looks like Wikipedia, then the licensing might be similar – and as there does not seem to be new instances of copyright violations from Roads4117 after these warnings were given, I don't see this as a preventative measure at this time. The CCI is designed for ensuring that problematic edits in the past are adequately handled; on the other hand, any sanctions should come from current or future behavior. I don't think this is directly comparable with other copyright-related blocks named above, which involved many instances of talk page warnings about copyright violations. DanCherek (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per DanCherek. The reason I left the aforementioned formal copyvio warning on their talkpage was that I only saw prior discussions for attributing from open license sites and copying within WP. It's conceivable that they weren't aware that attribution to other sites is not sufficient to avoid copyvios. Consider it a single-issue/final warning. Let me know if I'm missing something.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dan and Bagumba. Roads's account is only 3 months old; they got some poor advice (note that the last ANI did not have a definitive conclusion, and I think didn't communicate the proper message clearly enough); they've since received good advice (here), and seem to be responsive to it and following it, and I don't think the problems have been repeated since then. The other editors had much more experience; I would not impose any sanction. I would suggest closing this with a clear "reminder" about not adding unsourced content and not copying from other websites. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think there certainly is grounds for a indeff but given all of the information that has come out Roads4117 is also a victim here. They received bad advice and unless we're willing to consider sanctions against those who gave that advice (which includes a brace of admins) I don't think that any additional action should be taken. Obviously if they start up the CopyVivo again its an indeff on sight but I think that goes without saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: with respect to Obviously if they start up the CopyVivo again its an indeff on sight, are you thinking that this should be formalized in some way? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  TBH I don't, formal procedures like probation are for when things aren't obviously disruptive in their own right but only in the larger contexts of their other edits. Any copyvivo is disruptive, we don't need anything to tell us that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, given the amount of scrutiny now here a block would not serve a significant preventative function, with any further copyvio likely to be caught. Per many above, further copyvios could trigger a block but the opportunity should be given to demonstrate learning after this AN/I report. CMD (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I usually have little sympathy for copyvio cases, and think that ANI has been to lax in some past cases. However I agree with Levivich and HEB, and as ARoseWolf said above mentorship could be useful in this case (from someone uninvolved with this mess or the highway project). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support an alternative proposal that I've included below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per ActivelyDisinterested. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Copyright probation

Like Ritchie333, I've worked on the recently-opened CCI. The mistakes made seem to be all the sorts of mistakes that new editors make with respect to unattributed merges and copyvio from other wikis, so I don't think an indef is warranted, but the extent of copyright problems here is very extensive for a user with only around 1400 edits to the mainspace. The standard remedy of probation notes that a user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way. Construed for this case and in light of our policy on copyright violations, I propose that the editor be placed on probation as follows:

Roads4117 is placed on copyright probation. This means that any uninvolved administrator may block Roads4117 and/or ban Roads4117 from editing a page or set of pages if that administrator determines that Roads4117 has continued in their committing copyright violations and/or failing to properly attribute content copied from freely licensed sources, broadly construed. This probation may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard six months after its enactment, and once every six months thereafter.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The user is passionate about roads and, with proper adherence to copyright policies, will probably be a productive editor. As stated above, I think an indef is going to be overkill at this point given that these are typical new user mistakes, but I do think that something with teeth is warranted to prevent future damage to the encyclopedia should the user not adhere to copyright policies given the extent of their current copyright violations. Should the user show a consistent pattern of adhering to copyright policies going forward, this probation can be lifted via appeal at AN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• I guess. Personally I would just indef and move on if it happens again. --Rschen7754 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems bureaucratic without any real benefits. Given Roads4117's engagement with this discussion and on their talk page, I am fine with a warning at this point – and the message seems to have duly received – so I don't believe that this "probation" is warranted at this time. (Also per my comments above regarding prevention, first-time warnings, etc.) The standard practice of escalating warnings and then a block if continued copyright violations occur is fine; this does not seem to be an extraordinary circumstance that requires a tailored sanction. DanCherek (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply stated, the next confirmed copyvio should result in an indefinite block. Thinking further, if there is an unblock request, the unblocking admin or community can decide if there are any conditions necessary, depending on the situation at that time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as this already is standard operating procedures for copyright issues; a complaint has been raised, they've been warned and a CCI's been opened, further issues may fetch admin actions. If someone goes and adds more copyvio after a warning and a CCI, I think (and really hope) that an admin would levy some preventative blocks on them. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancillary issue

In the process of trying to improve A68 road which was rightly highlighted by Fram upthread as a lousy article without any proper references, I came upon what looked like a hoax which had been in the article for a long time. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Perpetration of hoaxes for more detail. Many road articles are dreadful hotchpotches of OR, copyvio and errors sourced to fan websites. The whole point of WP:V is to ensure that we follow proper sources, so we don't get things wrong. I don't think there should be any prejudice against getting rid of stuff that isn't verifiable, and that would also sometimes mean redirecting articles where there is no possibility of ever making them verifiable. John (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely with what John has said. I think one of the differences between me and Rschen7754 is that he thinks our road articles are pretty good, whereas I (and, presumably, John) think they're pretty awful, generally speaking. It is possible to improve the articles, but it's quite difficult, at least for ones in the UK - coverage in books is few and far between aside a couple of really good books I've got on London transport that were a key help in getting London Ringways and M25 Motorway to GA. In the interim, I don't see an issue with reducing some of the not obviously notable ones to a redirect with a list until somebody has the time and effort to dig out the required sources to write a decent-sized non-stub article on them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I edit road articles is because:

1. there isn't a lot of road articles espically for UK Roads and...
2. if there is an article, then most of the time, it is not in great condition

I do agree with John and Ritchie333 that road's articles about UK roads are not in great condition, however, if a few people work with each other on an article, then it would make the article much better. A great example of this is on the A68 road page - Fram mentioned it here on Thursday 29th September that the page hasn't had a citation since being created 19 years ago, back in 2003. I then added some sources to it on Friday 30th September, with John adding thirteen more sources on Saturday 1st October (thanks for that mate BTW). Afterwards, Ritchie333 improved the content of the page on Monday 3rd October. If it wasn't for us (especially John and Ritchie), this article would soon be on WP:AFD.

Sorry for the long message, just wanted to prove that it can be done. Thanks, Roads4117 16:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

While some of our road articles are good, I do not think I have ever said on the whole that our road articles are good. --Rschen7754 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Rosspotter reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive editing; misuse of Wikidata; see talk page, contribs Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced often out of date links with well utilized Wikipedia templates that pull from Wikidata Official website URL, where I have ensured that Wikidata URL is up to date. How is that in any way disruptive or misuse? Rosspotter (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of your edits are against the instructions for the infoboxes you are altering which indicate that the URL template should be used. Additionally Wikidata is risky to use as it can be easily vandalized and the changes not spotted as they will not appear on a Wikipedia watchlist notification. You have to read the article and check the individual field to spot the change. Additionally most of the URLs you are not changing, you're just altering to point to Wikidata instead of using a URL inserted into Wikipedia itself. Canterbury Tail talk 23:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

By this thinking, we should remove the 10 million embedded pieces of media on Commons. In fact, you can see edits to Wikidata entries on your watchlist here, so it's much easier to spot vandalism from Wikidata here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If I change something in Wikidata, it doesn't show in our watchlists here, the same way changing something in Commons doesn't show in a watchlist, or a transclude from another Wiki. I thought what you were saying may have been new functionality, but I just tested it out but no nothing appeared in my watchlist for a watched article. And there is a big difference between Commons and Wikidata in my view, Commons is heavily patrolled and has policies comparable to our own on many things. Wikidata in my experience is more of a free for all (ignoring the fact you can't even leave an edit summary there to indicate the reason for an edit.) Ultimately at the end of the day here there has been push back against Rosspotter altering everything they can find to point to Wikidata, there's no consensus for it, much of it is against the relevant Infobox instructions (which can be altered but consensus would have to happen there.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"If I change something in Wikidata, it doesn't show in our watchlists here" I don't know what to tell you: you just wrong. Go to Special:Watchlist and choose the option for "Wikidata edits". I don't know how you didn't see that, but it's been there for years and was turned on by default. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I had zero idea that option existed, never heard of it before. So okay, apologies today was a learning experience for me there. However I'm guessing that a lot of older editors don't have that as it seems it was introduced after they started editing and didn't auto turn on. Looking at the help file yes Wikidata is turned off by default, so most editors won't see such edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries: we're all learning something new every day. That's odd, as I recall Wikidata edits just showing up in my watchlist out of nowhere. But either way, that's the solution for patrolling vandalism there. It doesn't justify making a rash of edits against consensus, as evidently happened here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

An unfortunate thing with that filter toggle, it shows you if there are any changes on the related Wikidata page, not just changes that would be used by the Wikipedia page. But can't have everything I guess. Canterbury Tail talk 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, it's one thing to disagree or point to a policy issue. It is totally inappropriate to be passive aggressive and disrespectful to me by posting on my talk page about problems on Wikidata that have nothing whatsoever to do with what was reverted, and to tell me to spend my time dealing with those completely unrelated issues. Rosspotter (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Then people need to stop spouting the nonsense that Wikidata is so great. If it's that fantastic then why was I able to find problems? If you want Wikidata to be accepted here then fix the problems. But don't come here and make multiple edits against consensus. All you are doing is turning people off Wikidata. Frankly I think Wikidata could be useful, and shows promise, but it needs work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself.

• From Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles? Point 1, in part, says "It is appropriate to modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox". Wikipedia has an existing field.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 option 3 says "Permit use of Wikidata for selected infobox fields on specific articles with editor consensus." No consensus was sought.
• Closing summary at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion "There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia". It says "might" not "shall". (This last I got from Rosspotter who was, I think, using it to defend their edits)

Koavf. I've had that turned on to show Wikidata edits for a few years now. However, no Wikipedia editor should be required to do that. Every editor, no matter their home Wiki, should be able to to fully edit an article without having to to go to Wikidata and (possibly) edit in a foreign language. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Why so? So you're opposed to embedding media from Commons as well? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to media from Commons because I don't have to turn anything on here to see when someone makes a change to an article. If they add an inappropriate image to an article it is obvious but not with Wikidata unless you turned on the option. There is, of course, the language problem when following through a link. However, this isn't the place for a discussion on the merits and problems of Wikidata and Commons. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

But if someone changes the media to something inappropriate, you would not know and could not know from your watchlist. You could with Wikidata. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, Commons is heavily patrolled. If the media is changed to something inappropriate, it'll be caught quickly. So that argument is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Zynthetik on Greater Manchester articles (Specifically leads and short descriptions)

It has come to mine and other users attention that @Zynthetik: has been disrupting the short descriptions by constantly adding things like "An inner-suburb of Greater Manchester, England" instead of "An inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester, England" or when he went on a editing spree of calling places like Stockport, Oldham, Sale or Failsworth Suburban towns of Manchester or suburbs of Manchester. And argues Salford to them isn't a city but a suburb of Manchester and it was joke to make it a city. They seem to think Greater Manchester is a city and not a county. I think after the recent edits on Barton upon Irwell, Salford Quays, Greengate, Salford, Ordsall, Denton, Greater Manchester and Stockport among other articles. They should be given a topic ban on editing either the lead or short descriptions. He has been reverted by myself and others. I will leave this open for discussion but I be infavour of a topic ban on editing anything geographical related-to Greater Manchester, Salford or the whole GM articles. I have notified them of this too. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What you mean Diffs? It's already explained above. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Help:Diff. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that short descriptions should be 40 characters or less if possible (see WP:SHORTDESC). Of the 6 options below only the two with a ^ fit that requirement.

• An inner-suburb of Greater Manchester, England
• An inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester, England
• Inner-suburb of Greater Manchester^
• Inner-suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester
• Suburb of Salford, Greater Manchester^

By way of determining existing consensus, what do the reliable sources WP:RS say and has there been a RfC on the naming of suburbs in Manchester or England? Gusfriend (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend:, when the user edited Manchester articles like Barton Upon Irwell and Greengate. They added Greater Manchester and removed Salford despite these being in Salford. If you look back at a discussion on their talk page when I asked them. They argued it was in his and others opinions Sale for one is an inner city district despite the fact a river separates the town from Manchester and Salford isn't a city despite it clearly being one. But then they edited Stockport and Oldham to these: [193] and [194]. There was no concensus reached to change these leads and the editor was heavily reverted. I'll also share a list of his edits from August [195] and his talk with me on his edits here: [196].

There's a lot to read but even a few other editors have reverted them but they still persist. So I think a topic ban on editing leads short descriptions and geographical related things on GM articles should be enforced. They'll only end up doing these more and disruptive editing on GM articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an admin and my opinion is purely my own but there is a reason that I asked if there had been a RfC on naming in Manchester. Looking at the Greater Manchester page that calls Salford a metropolitan borough, mentions the Greater Manchester Built-up Area, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and more, each of which has their own role to play, is enough to indicate that there may be multiple viewpoints when it comes to how locations are presented even without arguing that the official region containing it, North West England, should be in there somewhere (which I personally think is probably not needed). Without some sort of general RfC (mentioned at WikiProject UK and possible the Village Pump) then you are probably going to have follow WP:BRD at each place as what holds for one locale may not match what holds at the one next door. Of course you should feel free to ignore my advice but I like trying to deal with the root cause of issues. Gusfriend (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Is front page neutral and abiding wiki policies in presenting the start of the Yom Kippur War?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the Wikipedia Front Page today, in the On This Day section, the fourth item states that Egypt started the Yom Kippur war when it attacked the Israeli Bar Lev line. "1973 – Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal (pictured) to launch an attack on the fortified Israeli Bar Lev Line, starting the Yom Kippur War."

On the face of it, this does not seem to be a neutral presentation of the facts and context of the event. Israel had previously occupied the Egyptian Sinai. The Bar lev fortification line was a line of fortifications the Israeli military occupation built on the east bank of the Suez Canal in the Egyptian Sinai, occupied by Israel.

As it stands, the text on the front page omits this crucial context.

To me, this seems to be very similar to the Ukraine Russia conflict.

If Ukraine was to launch an attack on Russian forces in Kharkiv, if that was to be presented on the front page of wikipedia I would think that the context would be included that Russia was occupying Kharkiv and that it was Russia that had initiated the hostilities.

If, some time after the 2014 Russian invasion and Occupation of Ukraine, Ukraine was to launch a counter-attack, one would hope that, if this was presented on the wikipedia front page, the proper context would be included. If the Wikipedia front page were to say "Ukraine attacks Russia" without context I would think that that would be very misleading.

I tried to bring this up on the front page errors page and on the wikipedia discord but hours have passed and there has been no response.Tttmaker (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keithgreenfan and Accountability software

Accountability software has had sourcing problems for some time. Recently, Wired published a piece on the topic, which happened to be quite negative. User:Sandstein made some edits, incorporating this source into the article. The new version has shifted the tone of the article a bit, but is (in my and a few others opinions) a fair summary of the independent sources. User:Keithgreenfan has been disagreeing quite strenuously, and has engaged in dispute resolution, which would normally be a good thing. First, we had a fairly repetitive discussion on the talk page. Then Keithgreenfan opened a WP:DRN discussion - which he then withdrew after a DRN volunteer opened discussion - no one else had commented, but the 48 hour comment deadline had not yet elapsed. Then Keithgreenfan opened an RFC instead. About four days later, having attracted one outside commenter (who weighed in against Keithgreenfan's position) Keithgreenfan closed the RFC with a note that they would need to determine a more effective and proactive way of resolving this problem.. I reopened the RFC and was reverted. Is this an appropriate early closure of an RFC? At what point does activity like this become disruptive forum shopping? More eyes on this situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoping indeed for more eyes on this. I view the current edit as a severe and plainly obvious violation of WP:NPOV. It gives greater weight to the recent Wired article, even though it’s covering a single case of abuse of the software category. Sanstein’s edit redefines the entire software category falsely rather than simply adding to the article by accurately describing the incidents of abuse. Worse, the lede rewrite manipulates the Wired article inaccurately.

The summation of my attempts are mostly accurate. Would have greatly preferred a discussion where we work through disagreements and come up with a reasonable solution, but instead all I got were instant reverts and ignoring of arguments against them. Some of their points were valid.

I view this as urgent and am trying to learn the right methods. Apologies if I’m making mistakes, probably am. I view the desire to keep the RFC open as a desire by MrOllie to not allow editing of the current version of the page, which to me would be a disaster. Anyone who’s ever used accountability software who sees the article as it stands will instantly discredit Wikipedia (unfortunately, justifiably so). Keithgreenfan (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: And [197], now edit warring with both myself and another editor to prematurely close the RFC. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this was a RFC I created. Realized it was the wrong approach and closed it. How can you edit war on a Talk page?? At any rate, if that’s a real thing then MrOllie is the one edit warring to revert my change. Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Keithgreenfan, care to explain to the community how three editors responding to an RFC became only one editor responding in your completely inappropriate close of said RfC? And yes you are edit-warring, being generally disruptive and doing a poor job of wiki-lawyering. Suggest you walk away from the page if you are not capable of working collaboratively and accepting the result of community discussion. Slywriter (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Slywriter, it is good to hear this confirmed by a 3rd party. I was concerned MrOllie was essentially ’gaming the system’ to get the outcome he wanted. And, considering I opened the RFC, I am eager to collaborate, just been frustrated that MrOllie and Sandstein have not.

I’ll reinstate the RFC but would love any advice on advertising it more. The reasons I closed was only 1 person responded, and realized there was a better way to handle the situation. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As the other editor MrOllie mentioned above, I agree that the decision to close the RFC prematurely seems to have been motivated by the fact it was trending against KGF, and that therefore it shouldn't have been closed. (I've closed my own RFC once before but only against the option I preferred and only in a WP:SNOW situation. And even then it was reverted.) Loki (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Loki. Wikipedia documentation can be confusing to someone new in a process like me. It seemed to say there are multiple reasons to close and there’s no time limit - yet now a time limit is being forcibly imposed. No worries, will try to ‘work within the system’. Keithgreenfan (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You should also be aware that as a general principle "there is no deadline" (see WP:TIND) which means that in most cases it is okay to wait for consensus to be found. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be WP:BOLD but when there is an explicit need for consensus to develop it is ok to wait. Gusfriend (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Gusfriend. I should note I was the one to open the RfC in the first place with this in mind. After I only got 1 response after 4 days I realized it was ineffective and closed it. Also realized there were better ways to handle. To me this is not a casual discussion but a case of obvious NPOV violation. One other editor this week called it vandalism, which I’ve tried to avoid saying. But in reality, that’s an accurate description. Sorry if I’m not following processes correctly, just trying to learn the system and eee if this can get handled with some urgency. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be frustrating to wait for a RfC to gain comments but they have a weight that general talk page consensus does not so it is generally worth it.Gusfriend (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block, but nobody has really posted any warnings to Keithgreenfan's talk page. So, I posted a warning to stop edit warring to close the RFC early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that the real problem here is that the subject editor, Keithgreenfan, is in a hurry and is rushing to find a method of dispute resolution that is quick and decisive (but Wikipedia is very seldom quick and decisive). As noted, he filed a case at DRN, and I began the initial steps of mediation, which consists of asking the parties what each of them wanted. The subject editor then requested to close the DRN case because they realized that the DRN process would be slow and deliberative. They then started an RFC. They then went to the neutral point of view noticeboard to publicize the RFC. They then decided to try to resolve the dispute by a handwave because the RFC was not being fast enough (that is, it was slow and deliberative). At this point I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Let the RFC run for 30 days and warn the user to let the RFC run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

While I think a block is premature given the lack of warnings on the talk page- I think a formal warning from an admin to stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with a side of WP:3RR. I'm not entirely sure yet they realize how much of a problem they are causing by their WP:DROPTHESTICK behavior. This is not how we operate. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have an observation, and that it is that this is an editor who completely means well but is being cluelessly disruptive without meaning to be cluelessly disruptive. They think that there should be a way in Wikipedia to resolve what they see as an urgent problem quickly; they just don't know what it is, and are trying to find it. There are two errors in their worldview. First, the problem isn't urgent. Second, content disputes never get solved quickly. The only thing that Wikipedia does quickly is to block users, and then only when they need blocking. We hope that User:Keithgreenfan doesn't make it necessary for us to block them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon and @Nightenbelle. Robert you summed it up perfectly :). Apologies as I was trying to read up on conflict resolution quickly and determine the fastest method, and obviously grossly misread how 'the system' works at WP. Didn't mean to cause 'disruptive editing'.

Why was I frantic? Imagine a WP article on the COVID vaccine that began "The COVID-19 vaccine is a hoax designed to control people." That's essentially what I'm seeing in the article in question. It's severe and consequential misinformation. But: I guess there's nothing I can do to treat it that way if WP admins don't see it that way, so I'll try to make my case in the RFC and hope for the best. Thanks for the help. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Keithgreenfan I think you have found the perfect comparison here. In your COVID 19 example- this is a topic that is life and death and affecting the entire world population. In that instance- a quick response is appropriate and necessary. While your article is important to you, comparatively- it is not life threatening. And any change or disagreement that is not life threatening- deserves careful consideration and discussion. Not a snap decision. That is what we are saying here- go slow, follow the process- and the article will be better for it. Very few topics get a quick response on WP- they need to be time sensitive and of importance to many people immediately. That's not to say your article isn't important- its just not time sensitive. Make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nightenbelle, you’ve been super-helpful and reasonable. With suicide rates and mental health issues skyrocketing, I’m concerned that the current WP article deceives readers into thinking accountability software is *designed* to shame you. It is literally the exact opposite: it’s designed to strip all shame *off* of you! Google ‘suicide rate porn addiction’ and you’ll see what I mean. In other words, WP is now deceiving people looking for a solution into thinking this tool will actually exacerbate the problem. So while it won’t directly kill people like COVID misinfo, it can dramatically affect people on the edge of mental health breakdowns or suicide.

Of course the abuse of the software by a church should be covered, and it’s even fair to quote the girl who felt shamed by their abuse (which I did in my edited version), but slandering the entire industry and deceiving WP readers based on one church’s abuse seems like pushing an agenda to me, and has real world consequences. No worries if you disagree, but I hope you at least get where I am coming from. Keithgreenfan (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This is why I feel a formal warning is in order- You still don't understand what a disruption your insistence on immediacy in this case is causing. Anyway- best of luck. I'm out. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Not insisting anymore, just trying to communicate the concern in the hopes someone understands it. Keithgreenfan (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We understand, we just don't agree. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least things are somewhat moving along nicely on the RFC, although it is super-slow and I wish there were more participants. But I’ll work ‘within the system’ to try to effect change and see what happens. Keithgreenfan (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Promotional sockpuppetry and harassment

• JohnEricHiggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.106.1.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For nearly two years sockpuppets have been repeatedly recreating an article about a non-notable entertainer "William Bishop", as documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armaghan_Muawiyah/Archive. One recent not currently blocked account who created a version of this article, JohnEricHiggs (talk · contribs), has today accused someone who voted "delete" in the latest AfD of "gaslighting" and other sorts of nonsense diff. There's been an open SPI for over a month Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Armaghan_Muawiyah involving this account that has not been closed. An IP 81.106.1.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also been recently active, making frivolous undeletion requests diff and noticeboard posts diff related to William Bishop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Notified both the user and IP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m very concerned about your behaviour on this website. It has been reported. Gaslighting is a very series form of psychological manipulation, used by many editors on this sight to try and alter people’s concept of reality. Bullys often don’t see a problem with what they are doing. You must stop, there are consequences in the real world.

Take Care,

NormaJeanGrey (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is a case open at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:William Bishop, AfC abuse, I'm not sure if we need all of ANI, COIN and SPI. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Dear Editor,

  This behaviour must stop, you too have been reported.

  I can recommend help if you need it.

  All the best. NormaJeanGrey (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we blacklist the article name? It seems at this point that should solve most of the problems here. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Which exactly name? William Bishop is legit. Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yeah, I had a feeling it wouldn't be that easy. A man can dream, though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 13:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have salted (in both article and draft space) every iteration of WB "writer", "performing artist", etc. Let me know if I forgot one. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Hang on, the title blacklist would work with a regex of William Bishop, wouldn't it? Without the extensions, it only blocks the creation of new pages, and the valid pages including William Bishop etc. already exist. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am not so sure. Imagine tomorrow certain William Bishop is going to be signed by Arsenal FC and instantly or at least very quickly becomes notable; would it be a good idea that the regex is blacklisted? Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:85.193.215.210

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 85.193.215.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.193.252.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.193.215.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vikom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, editing from at least the three IPs and the username linked above, makes edits which they claim improve readability. However, the changes they make are almost always unnecessary and are frequently harmful. They often seek to replace words on the basis of google search results, without heed to specific meaning or nuance. They have stated that they believe the English language is "illogical" and that they think editing Wikipedia is a way to somehow change this: "I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool." Their edit summaries often have an insulting tone, suggesting that other editors are somehow deliberately making articles hard to understand (this and other commonly-used edit summaries make it easy to see that the same person is behind the IPs and the account).

Some examples of harmful edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-tpv1&diff=prev&oldid=901564624
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-tpv1&diff=prev&oldid=903488081
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washingtonian_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1069512575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limelight&diff=prev&oldid=1074149759
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beryllium&diff=prev&oldid=1106453101
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Sakharov&diff=prev&oldid=1060165019
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFO_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1068284363

Examples of using google searches incorrectly:

• seeking to change "one kind of thing" to "one kind of things": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collective_noun&diff=prev&oldid=1067762349
• changing "as president" to "as a president": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir/Archive_3#%22as_a_president%22_or_%22as_president%22

In that latter thread, they even suggested that a user change their talk page post in a way which made it nonsensical. That is not the only time they have made such strange requests of other users: see also [198]

They have been heavily criticised, in their various incarnations, by a number of other editors. See for example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.193.252.19&diff=1067082486&oldid=1062716563
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.193.252.19&diff=1056848844&oldid=1051992482
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vikom&diff=906163886&oldid=901922680
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vikom&diff=906195695&oldid=906164046
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&diff=next&oldid=904868747

There are plenty more examples of edits they have made which changed meanings in ways that they clearly do not properly understand. While the harm of each individual edit may be minor, the fact that they have been pursuing this campaign of over-simplification under multiple identities over many years motivates me to raise the issue here for discussion. Individual editors have asked them to stop this campaign, and they have not. Should something be done about this? 86.187.235.123 (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have an obsession with me, but I am not a vandal. My dynamic IP does change sometimes, but without my will. I appreciate your painstaking scrutiny but, unfortunately, it was in vain. If your think that replacing "all but disappeared" with "almost disappeared" is somehow harmful to Wikipedia, and maybe to the whole English language, than you have a problem. Just because English is not my first language does not mean that I am incompetent in English. Unlike you I am competent enough to distinguish between syntax and semantics. Look at your unfounded revert that has been rereverted by somebody else. Why should I believe you, especially that you use sock puppets? My problems started when you made this revert, and then your sock puppets came to play:

• Lognomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eh!_Eh!_Aah! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Your (already blocked) sock puppets supported you and each other very consequently. And ironically, you accuse me of making harmful edits? How is it that Johnuniq, who is an administrator, called my allegedly harmful edits very reasonable? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of the diffs and they seemed very reasonable to me. Rather than shotgunning a bunch of links, please provide three which show an actual problem and briefly explain what that problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Thank you for your support, especially that you are an administrator! :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I provided a sample of seven poor edits, two extremely poor edits, and five examples of the user being criticised for their actions. The problem, as I said, is that they are seeking to simplify the English Wikipedia for their own benefit as a non-native speaker, and they have pursued this campaign over many years despite a number of users asking them not to. I wonder which of their edits you found reasonable? All the ones I highlighted were subsequently reverted. Sometimes, they do make useful edits, but mostly their changes are at best simply unnecessary, and they most commonly alter meanings to remove nuance. 195.224.241.178 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@195.224.241.178 "Two extremely poor edits"? Which ones? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. "One kind of things" is not as absurd as you suggest because it can be understood as "many things of a particular kind" while "one kind of thing" is like "one kind of individual thing", which does not make much sense. If you have only one thing, you cannot have neither one nor more kinds of it. For example, there is only one planet Earth so one kind of Earth does not make sense. You need at least two things in order to use the word kind of, but then only "kind of things" makes sense. But, maybe I was (and still am) wrong. So what? Sometimes I make mistakes, as with "as a president". But who does not? My mind is open and I keep learning. Native speakers also make mistakes and also learn their own language, especially that language changes. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

A look at some of this IP's contribution gives me the impression that there's no ill intent behind them, but a strange form of WP:RGW - the articles have been written in a complex language, and I must simplify it! This leads, in my opinion, to problems that are not merely stylistic in nature.

• For starters, I'd like to stress that I believe nuance to be important, and it is often lost when replacing a term such as minimal with low [199]. I assume the intention of whoever added that entry was to stress (rightly or wrongly) that vibration needed to be very low. The user also seems to have a particular obsession (6 edits in a row on February 2!) with the use of "all but disappeared", replacing it with "almost disappeared". This makes sense at times, but sometimes it just doesn't convey the same meaning (to me, at least, "all but" conveys the feeling that something disappeared in practice, with mere remnants or vestiges surviving, while "almost" could imply that a thing survived in a reduced, but noticeable way, or even that it was close to disappearing for X reason, but in the end didn't and stayed the same, for Y reason).
• At other times, some of the changes strike me as pure nitpicking [200]. "As" and "because" are often synonyms, as any thesaurus will attest, and both are common enough to not need replacing, and this is a feature of most of this person's edits - they are unnecessary, regardless of whether they're bad (some nuance is lost) or good (some clarity is gained). It's chasing these minor details that's perhaps infuriating to other editors - the user in question claims to be trying to cleanse articles of perceived pedantry, but acts in an even more pedantic way, devoting himself to changing minute details while leaving long, lecturing summaries about how he is making the language better, more logical, and why those who stand against him are just wrong to not use [what he considers to be] plain English.
• This leads me to my third and final point (other issues could probably be raised, but I've not looked at their edits in any depth): the claim that editors are doing a disservice to readers by not using the aforementioned "plain English", since Wikipedia should look to be as accessible as possible to readers and not make their access to knowledge overly complicated. While I understand where he's coming from, I do not necessarily agree - in fact, by merely using a more varied language we are also educating readers. Nobody is writing in Shakespearean English (fortunately, if I may add!), and most of the terms or expressions replaced are not particularly arcane (they're probably at a B2 CEFR level), so if a user whose native language is not English is "forced" to look a word up, then that is also a learning experience in and of itself (and learning by experience, outside a classroom, can be more useful than we think).

In short, it's almost as if he were trying to turn the English Wikipedia into the Simple English Wikipedia. Perhaps his efforts are best directed there. Ostalgia (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(OP here on a different network) I very much agree with your analysis, User:Ostalgia. Indeed, other editors have pointed this person towards Simple English Wikipedia (eg [201]; I recall seeing others more recently but can't find them right now). WP:RGW seems apt; they have explicitly stated that they want to change the English language by editing Wikipedia ([202]). The problem is that they regard many widely-used phrases as "illogical", and their sole metric for "readability" is google search results, which often leads them to absurd conclusions. Examples of that include their proposal to change "one kind of thing" to "one kind of things" ([203]), or their suggestion to a user that when they said "as much of English does", they should have said "as much as English does" ([204]). The whole basis for their editing is their belief that "more common" = "more readable", and so they will always seek to remove nuance. The harm of many of their individual edits might be fairly minor, and a minority of their edits are actually good, but the fact that they have been pursuing this campaign for many years in many guises despite many requests to stop is the reason I have raised this here. 195.224.241.178 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ostalgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You look like another sock puppet of Kzqj, and you are currently blocked. Yes, I have been pursuing my good campaign for many years, but unlike you, I have never been blocked.

I am often accused of using Google as a linguistic tool. But by all means Google Search can be used as a linguistic tool. Especially the language in Google Books is quite reliable. After all, most of them are scanned paper books (more than 40 million titles as of 2019). Of course, to interpret the results correctly is not always easy. I also use specialized linguistic tools like https://books.google.com/ngrams/ or https://www.english-corpora.org/iweb/, where you can check almost everything, including punctuation. As for "one kind of things" - I did make this edit but I was not very obstinate, and never rereverted it. It is not as absurd as you suggest because "one kind of things" can be understood as "many things of a particular kind" while "one kind of thing" is like "one kind of individual thing", which does not make much sense. If you have only one thing, you cannot have neither one nor more kinds of it. For example, there is only one planet Earth so one kind of Earth does not make sense. You need at least two things in order to use the word kind of, but then only "kind of things" makes sense. But, maybe I was (and still am) wrong. So what? Sometimes I make mistakes, as with "as a president". But who does not? Native English speakers make lots of mistakes because they acquire language mindlessly, just by listening and repeating. After all, logical thinking in little children is very limited. And this is the reason that for natives everything in their language is natural and logical. Yes - by definition - it is natural, but sometimes very illogical, hard to understand, ambiguous and misleading. Dangling modifiers are the best example. Most of my copy-edits are very well explained and do improve articles. For example here, where my edit summary was: It sounds like: "Only REVERT (a bad edit), but do not go any further, e.g. never insult anybody". Are misplaced modifiers so hard to understand? If you "only kissed her" you did not have sex with her, but if you "kissed only her" you did not kiss other girls, and who knows what else you did with her ;-). Another example and its explanation: The sentence does not reflect the intended meaning because the word "ONLY" should refer to "GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS", no to "PREVENTS". You can emphasize the verb "PREVENT" in sentences like: "Fire education ONLY prevents a fire but does not extinguish it." or "Vaccine ONLY prevents illness but does not cure it". Note that this time I am not restoring my reverted edit when (ironically) I placed the modifier in a different (but still wrong) place. To sum up, the real reason for your reverts is the mere fact that I (a non-native speaker) have the audacity to copy-edit and change words. But the English language is as yours as mine. I feel discriminated. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and fair with my previous message, but seeing that your reply is a mixture of victimisation and attack (which I would find offensive were it not laughable) and that I'm not in a particularly good mood today, I'll be a bit blunt:

• I would congratulate you on not getting blocked if I cared. Unfortunately, I don't, but since you seem to, I will let you know that falsely accusing people of being sockpuppets will get you blocked eventually, no matter how much you brownnose the admins, so you'd be wise to take that back, particularly since I have no clue about who the guy you mention is, and I have never interacted with him, or with you, on any article, ever.
• I will bless you with the knowledge that I am not a native English speaker, that I have no English (or English-speaking) ancestry, that nobody in my family spoke English, and that I have never lived in, or even set foot on, an English-speaking country, and still stand by everything I wrote above. Your baseless ramblings are irrelevant to me. If you insist on claiming discrimination and going out of your way to get offended, by all means, do, but it's entirely a you problem, and I could not possibly care any less.

Cheers Ostalgia (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ostalgia Please, read carefully what I wrote: You look like another sock puppet of Kzqj, which means that I only suspect it because your profile is very fresh, you never had any interactions with me, and now you are very engaged and analyze my contribution as a potential threat to the Wikipedia as such. You are accusing me of brown-nosing some admin. You are wrong. Start using pure logic when assessing my contribution and I will appreciate your critique. But your arguments are far-fetched. Your theory that "all but" is a stronger version of "almost" is only a figment of your imagination, and your reasoning leaves much to be desired. You wrote: "all but" conveys the feeling that something disappeared in practice So "almost disappeared" means that something disappeared, but not in practice? If last year I saw 100 pigeons in the park, and now I see only 5, then I can say "They almost disappeared", but if their number reduced to 2, I should say: "They all but disappeared"? This is ridiculous. Besides, every time you accuse me of changing the intended meaning you assume that the new meaning is further from the intended one. What if it is closer? The very idea of creating Wikipedia articles is describing something based on what was written in sources. But editors cannot do it by a simple copy and paste operation, they describe something by using their own words, which means the inevitable interpretation, which is subjective by definition. As for Simple English Wikipedia, there is a huge difference between basic English used there and plain English promoted by me here. Sometimes I edit there, but it is not a serious alternative to me. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"a handful", "a few", "some", "several", and "a lot" have meanings which may overlap and which do not correspond to specific numeric ranges. Similarly with "all but" and "almost". In so many of your edits, you seem to be seeking rigid rules which do not exist in English, or probably any language. And once you identify what you think is a rigid rule, you will apply it in ways which are unnecessary, harmful, or even nonsensical. You have something of an obsession with misplaced modifiers, but I've never seen you fix one that is actually misplaced. Instead, you change the cases where the meaning is completely unaffected and only the tone of the sentence changes. Like pointlessly avoiding split infinitives, it only makes the sentence sound stiff and awkward. I've seen you replacing "off of" with "off", which in the majority of cases is a good change, but you've also changed it incorrectly, without any regard to the meaning of the sentence, just rigidly applying what you think is a rigid rule.[205]. And doing things like changing the word "docile" to "mild" because you think it is more "readable" is just preposterous. All languages have quirks that are hard for non-native speakers to grasp, but I've never before met a non-native speaker who believed that a language should be changed for their own benefit. The majority of your edits are harmful, and although the lack of activity on this thread makes any action unlikely on this occasion, I would certainly argue that you need to be blocked if you cannot restrain yourself from attempting to change the English language for your own benefit. 86.187.173.125 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First a of all, I do not want to change the English language for my own benefit. All I want is to improve readability by using plain English when possible. As for "docile" versus "mild" - yes, I was my mistake. Don't you make any mistakes? Of course you do, but what is worse, you make harmful reverts on purpose. Here is a good example, fortunately your version was rejected by @User:Headbomb. Of course, the only reason of your revert was me. By the way, you wrote: "you need to be blocked". It makes no sense. I need to eat, sleep etc. but not to be blocked. You could have written something like: "you should be blocked". Ironically, you accuse me of language incompetence although you, as User:Kzqj cannot even understand the difference between syntax and semantics, which means that you do not understand the role of grammar in language. But believe me that the sentence Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatically correct. You certainly are not a linguist and (judging by your reasoning) not a philosopher either. If you were even an armchair philosopher, you would certainly understand basic concepts in language. To sum up, I hope you will eventually be blocked, like your sock puppets. Besides, calling me names like zealot is not nice. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, the 85 IP needs blocked for repeated WP:NPA violations, as well as being WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:HandThatFeeds Did I make repeated personal attacks? Please, show me one of them. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations with no evidence are personal attacks. In addition, we have:

• Unlike you I am competent enough to distinguish between syntax and semantics.
• Don't you make any mistakes? Of course you do, but what is worse, you make harmful reverts on purpose.
• Ironically, you accuse me of language incompetence although you, as User:Kzqj cannot even understand the difference between syntax and semantics - this is an insult and sockpuppet accusation combined.

And again, you are here to try and push your preferred form of English dialogue, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You simply do not belong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive User

Seepsimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I was going to report him to the edit warring noticeboard after he broke the 3rd policy and engaged in an edit warfare with two users including me but I've came to the realization that this user is not really here to be productive. For example, he removes a full-stop at Al Worthington article. [206] He vandalizes C.W. Henderson article by adding another letter "S" when it's just one magazine. [207] At Sool article, he forgets to add a reliable article: [208] He's been warned countless times to stop vandalizing articles. [209] This is just a brief history of this disruptive user. The user seems to be new but doesn't seem to be following the repeated warnings he received.

I updated the population census of Somalia from 2014 to 2022 and added other references not related to the census. This disruptive user pulls up, undo all my revision and makes a big accusation that I vandalized the article and provided unsourced content. You be the judge here. [210] I warned him and told him to properly review the references before you make such bold edits. [211] He just randomly undo someone's revision and then make a false accusations. Another user noticed this and undo's his revision and let's him know that it wasn't vandalism and that he just committed Bad Revert. He then undo's his revision too making claims [212] "Restored revision. You are removing reliable sources with out additional references" not realizing the updated census of Somalia includes Somaliland and forgets that I've included other references not related to census. He could've only removed my specific addition but no, he commits Bad Revert. I've warned him for his edit-warring after undoing his revision the second time which was almost two days later. [213] He doesn't care and breaks the third policy almost within 24 hours. He copies me and posts the same thing not once but twice within one minute. [214] Ayaltimo 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ayaltimo It seems like you have not informed the user that you are reporting about this ANI discussion, although it is noted above in red and in the editing page, so I have done so for you this time. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 I was planning to but I see you beat me to it. Thanks anyway. Ayaltimo 09:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ayaltimo You are so smart enough. You are the one who is vandalizing, and at the same time you are the one who is reporting me here. You are removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what you wants. How many reliable sources you have removed at once there, it isn't one nor two but around 7 reliable sources. I didn't add or remove anything, I only reverted the last reliable sources you have removed before and this isn't vandalism or bad revert Please stop making violation on the wikipedia page. Plus don't take as evidence my mistakes that I have made when I was new to wikipedia. Now I am advanced wiki editor. I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Seepsimon Again, please don't don't lie and learn the term Vandalism on Wikipedia. Please explain how my sources are unreliable? It's from the UN estimations and how is this source unrelated to the population section? I was updating the 2014 census to 2022 census. I removed only one source related to Somaliland because the Somalia's updated census also includes Somaliland. Don't know where you got seven from. You've also removed two other references unrelated to our dispute. You did a bad bad revert without discussing it on talk page but instead you think it's okay to engage in an edit war not with one user but two. This is why I reported you because you're not being honest and mature with your reverting. Ayaltimo 05:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive User

Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user is vandalizing. He is removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what he wants. I didn't add or remove anything, I only reverted the last reliable sources he had removed before and this isn't vandalism Please stop him from making violation on the wikipedia page. And now he is reporting me here to you that I am the one who is disrupting wikipedia. He is so smart enough. At the end, I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law and I am here to guard the wikipedia pages that I have created and the wikipedia pages that is vandalizing by such disruptive users. Thanks for your review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks and serious incivility

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

User Donco is consistently issuing personal attacks on another editor. Even their user page is used solely to insult said editor, as here. The user, in this edit summary, attacks the same editor. In another edit summary, Donco again makes a hurtful and extremely rude comment.

Following an entirely respectful and reasonable request on the user's talk page to refrain from being so unCIVIL, the user simply insults the same editor again, here. Further correct and CIVIL attempts to ask this editor to cease have been met with similar personal attacks, as here.

It seems clear to me that this user is unwilling to be CIVIL. Using your own user page simply to insult another editor is surely egregiously inappropriate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reverting the edit Donco made to their own user page as it's an unambiguous personal attack and not what user pages are there for. Further action should be taken in relation to their other attacks. — Czello 13:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure the message has got through. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1113983426&oldid=1113838782&title=User:Donco NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the diffs above, while unacceptable, are not recent. I'd wait on action unless the attacks continue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Fostera12

Fostera12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is the second time in less than a month that I've seen Fostera12 making personal attacks against other editors. Earlier one, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Jayanthkumar123 and Fostera12 (in short a content dispute quickly escalated into personal attacks by Fostera12 [215] [216]). This time against @Explicit and @DareshMohan [217] (and to a little some extent myself [218]). It is quite unfortunate that they both had to endure this and DareshMohan was quite upset being attacked and notes he might want to leave WP [219]. I saw DareshMohan contributing great content and new articles. The first time Fostera12 attacked Jayanthkumar123 on my talk page [and others' talk pages], I was not of much help as I just returned back and still reeling in. This one just crossed the line way too much that I can't ignore without reporting. I believe Fostera12 is making it quite toxic and uncooperative environment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont have any issue with anyone. Kindly put me out of this discussion. My only issue is about simply deleting new articles created by me without checking the wide notability associated with those articles. I never attacked this user DaxServer. I only had discussion with him on Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy as DaxServer was vandalising the page by manipulating the meaning of the text about the politician's embezzlement charges. And he says "I saw DareshMohan contributing great content and new articles", so what about me ? Am I not contributing to great content and new articles? just check my contributions. Dont just personally attack me and corner me. Just because i disagree with you. I did not cross any lines. In fact user Jayanthkumar123 is known for his edit wars in Telugu articles, and shoutings at fellow users, by deliberately typing messages in capital letters. Fostera12 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fostera12, please be in your limits. Stop judging or making wrong statements against other users. If I had made any mistake or really started any edit wars, I would be warned or blocked, but both the times (Pan-Indian film and Cinema of India) you have been wrong. I have never make fun of others like you. I am not like you to remove the negative comments or messages on talk page to make everything look positive to others. Do you at least know that DareshMohan is a autopatroller, which means he have basic understanding of page reviewing and related stuff. Please try to respect others. DaxServer, this is to inform you that Fostera12 was once blocked from editing. Even then, this user tries to create nuisance targeting a particular user. Nobody here are manipulating anything, everything is sourced. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Today I am speaking in support of "DareshMohan". Because the allegations made by the above user on him. [220] everything is wrong. It is "DareshMohan" who always guides new users like me. "DareshMohan" is one such user who tries to find 25 / 30 years old source and add it to the article. Making such false allegations against him is absolutely baseless. PravinGanechari (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not say anything about Daresh Mohan in this chat. My issue is regarding high notability of an article Sarigamalu that I created. Please check above Fostera12 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is about your approach to communications with other editors when they disagree with you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh really. Then who is this calling others "half brain". [221] Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Depends on other person's approach also, if any article has notability issues, it should be moved to draft, there is something called as assume good faith, not reckless deletions done by DareshMohan just because he is auto patroller doesnt mean he misuses his authority. Furthermore the person with whom I had initial discussion with user explicit, that user had no objections with my messages but Daxserver had an issue. Daxserver had this issue with me since begining.Fostera12 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would anyone waste their time by targeting a single user, instead of doing their work. Why did you created the article again without a proper reason, as it was already deleted. Your nature of communication and doing improper things is the major problem Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123 , I dont know why would any one waste their time, request you please ask them, and kindly do not interfere as you have equally attacked me previously. Thanks for your co-operation please. I am responsible for the article's notability which is now established. I am responsible editor.Fostera12 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Then why did you used my name in the second paragraph (1st reply to Daxserver). You are the one who have always bullied me on every single talk page, the same happened here. Kindly, please stop suggesting me when and where to interfere. Anyone can comment here. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey please stop commenting wrong things. Am I the one who started attacking in the both the cases (Pan-Indian film and Cinema of India). Because of your edit nature, you were blocked in the first case. For the second time, you are the one started everything without understanding the context. You clearly know what had happened in the second case i.e., Cinema of India. The content removed by you was again added. Don't you understand the reasons why the article was deleted. The article lacks two sources regarding it's critical reception. Previously too you made the same mistake, at least follow the regulations and rules. Hope you get it. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

He (1st reply to Daxserver) was praising you needlessly, that is why I used your name. From now on I dont use your name. This issue is about one article that i created and its notability, it has nothing to do with you okay. Kindly dont interfere in this discussion okay, please can u stop. Can you delete the needless information about pan indian film here. Why are you over reacting, Im telling you its not you, please delete the unecessary accusations, and link u posted in the above paragraph. This is not related to you. Hope im clear. Please dont reply to me on this. Why are you abusing me and personally attacking me here? can you please stop attacking me. The article i created is not deleted, it is established now. It is notable, and one admin has already reviewed it. Dont interefere it is not your business to tell me about notability. My sincere and kind advise to u is to follow rules and regulations, and correcting your mistakes. I have made the best contributions here. Another thing is it was me who corrected the content issue in Cinema of India, it was me who suggested the updates, and added corrections which was agreed by fellow editors. I have not removed anything, In fact, I have added additional info over there, please follow that entire discussion. The issue over there was writing an article like an advertisement, either promoting an actor or director or film industry which you normally do. Please understand the concept of tone of an article.Fostera12 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The content I added is purely on the basis of sources. Yeah I agree that you have made contributions on the article, but you were the first person who removed the entire line. Then, when other editors preferred/suggested adding the line with few alterations, you have started suggesting. Until then, you have only aimed at completely removing the line citing it as "advertisement". The nature of above comment clearly states that you are frustrated. Can you give me one reason from the discussion which made to say you like this "Why are you abusing me and personally attacking me here? can you please stop attacking me." Please don't exaggerate the things. This line ---"Dont interefere it is not your business to tell me about notability." indicates your level of respect you give to other editors. Let me clear this line---- "The article i created is not deleted, it is established now." The article was already deleted, but you have re-established now, that doesn't make everything alright. Stop using such ("over reacting") abusive/hatred words against me. Please don't limit/stop/abuse me in commenting here. Thank you. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please dont attack me here. How many times I should tell you that the article I created is about notability not right or wrong or mistake or alright or re-establish. Just notability I repeat its notability. Let us stop it here.Fostera12 (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

AndrewTheWikiEditor

AndrewTheWikiEditor has been using multiple IP ranges to remove sourced content from articles. Can someone open a sockpuppet investigation on this? 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We can look at this here if you will provide provide links and diffs. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. They're on the same page. 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know.

I look at your first diff and see AndrewTheWikiEditor adding the word 'songwriter' on 1 August to an article about a musical artist, T-Pain; I look at the history of that page and see nothing untoward, some edit warring with a sockpuppet but no IP editing (it has been semi-protected since 2019).

I look at your second diff and see AndrewTheWikiEditor rearranging the words 'rapper', 'singer' and 'songwriter' on 8 September on an article about a musical artist, Swae Lee, their only edit to that page; I look at the page history and see an IP meddling with dates, no indication they are the same person.

I look at your third diff and see an IP adding the word ‘songwriter' and making a couple of minor copy edits on 2 April to the Swae Lee article, no indication that is related to AndrewTheWikiEditor's edit on 8 September in your second diff.

I look at your fourth diff and see an IP removing the words 'and rapper' on 30 September from the The Instrumentals (T-Pain album) article; AndrewTheWikiEditor has never edited that article.

This is very thin gruel. I don't see any basis for any action here. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, especially as songwriter, singer, rapper, dancer, and other such labels are constantly edited by IPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

He restored and change "rapper and singer" to 'rapper', 'singer' and 'songwriter' when another IP said to look at Artisty section. 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:2583:27B1:5453:3A42 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So? That's not evidence of anything other than a very mild content dispute weeks apart.

Your diff - 8 September : AndrewTheWikiEditor changed text from 'singer, songwriter and rapper' to 'rapper, singer, and songwriter'.

Your diff - 1 October : IP 2601.196 changed text from 'rapper, singer, and songwriter' to 'singer, rapper and songwriter' saying 'look at Artistry'.

There's nothing actionable here. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

But Andrew obviously removes sourced information and adds genres that are on the sidebar of AllMusic pages. [

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources this page] even says that "AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided." [222], [223] 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:E167:952:EA4D:47E8 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before I begin this report, I will take responsibility for any potential uncivility on my own end and for my violation of WP:3RR as I'm certainly no angel in this matter and if WP:BOOMERANG applies to this report, I'll concede. With that being said however, Fowler&fowler has been repeatedly been using bad arguments on both my talk page and on the article talk of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Arguments include: threats in edit summaries, personal expertise, article ownership, just voting, refusal to come to a compromise, and uncivility. Fowler also initially refused to discuss this at all, claiming that in this revision that I have to specifically start one despite giving him the offer to discuss the change and thus, refusing to abide by WP:BRD. This wasn't the first time he's outright refused to further the discussion as I've previously offered him to talk in the British Raj in these edit summaries. User has also outright lied in his arguments such as in this revision where he claimed that I added flags of "a dozen-odd combatants" despite the fact that in my only edit in the article involving flags was this one where I restored the flags and even in this revision, not all states in the infobox even had flags.

Now I wouldn't be reporting this if it weren't for the fact that this isn't an isolated incident. In a previous ANI, Fowler used the personal expertise argument, claiming that because of his prior experience in Wikipedia and contribution in Featured Articles that User:Snow Rise has "no say in the matter". The major rabbit hole of Fowler's consistent uncivility is within Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka. Despite initially being relatively civil with this discussion, he begins to exhibit hostile behaviors towards such as in this revision where he accuses User:पाटलिपुत्र of xenophobia with his reasoning being because he "despises your POV". He doubles down on this, mentioning it again... even when the discussion was about something completely different and his remark was completely irrelevant. Fowler also personally attacks him here, stating पाटलिपुत्र "abuses it by turning it [Wikipedia] into a blog of your solipsism, whether on a talk page or on regular pages". This wasn't the first time as he has also engaged in personal attacks as early as July 21. Further examples include this and this. Fowler also displays a lack of addressing all the points made on him, leaving short responses in otherwise large comments and tends to ignore almost all points made on him, choosing to only nitpick certain elements of the argument. This can be displayed in both the Lion Capital of Ashoka and Indian Rebellion of 1857 talk pages. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SuperSkaterDude45, this lengthy report is poorly organized and is simply too much for an outside reviewer to parse. Now, I'm not sure whether a BOOMERANG is called for as I only looked at the first diff you provided, piped in "threats in edit summaries" — but this what that edit summary actually looks like:

Revision as of 10:57, 27 September 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank) Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs | block) (→‎top: not famines between but in its wake (ie immediate aftermath or as a consequence)) (change visibility) Next edit →

Care to explain how that's a "threat"? Did you link the wrong diff? Anyway, you're trying to do too much, less is more. Recommend you submit three [recent] diffs which you consider most egregious along with brief summaries for context. El_C 18:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, in this diff cited above ("xenophobia"), you respond to a seemingly innocuous comment about sources with an incendiary:

This is not the first time I have opposed your abuse to promote WP:UNDUE views of ethnic or historical subnationalisms on WP, which in the India page have veered to xenophobia. No interest at all. You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV. So go to RS/N and tell them I've given you permission to present your case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What is going on here? Why do you go to such lengths to be so unpleasant to this user instead of responding dispassionately in a matter of fact way to the material in question? This is not an acceptable manner for a veteran editor to conduct themselves, especially for a page that falls under the WP:ARBIND sanctions regime. Also, they don't need your "permission" to present anything to WP:RSN. I'm genuinely baffled. How can any editorial work happen when this is how you act? Respond briefly, please. El_C 18:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this is from July. I mean, it's highly problematic, but maybe it has been addressed already? SuperSkaterDude45, again, this report is too difficult to parse. Can you cite anything recent that you deem egregious? Barring one exception, it simply is too difficult to tell from your report what was said when. It isn't reasonable for you to expect an outside reviewer to go through your links and diffs one by one to figure that out. El_C 18:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Certainly and I'll summarize all of my main arguments:

1. Fowler consistently makes disruptive arguments whenever he's presented with a debate even when he's warned not to do so. He most commonly uses his prior experience as a scapegoat to any opposing arguments. This can especially be seen in my personal talk page 2 days ago and in the other ANI discussion.

2. Fowler engages in personal attacks and threats whenever something doesn't go in his way such as this which was written today. I also just discovered he actually threatened an IP at User talk:117.197.86.219 5 days ago.

3. Fowler also makes disruptive edit summaries such as this one where he threatens someone for merely fixing the grammar of the article and this where he is openly hostile towards anyone that adds flags in the infobox.

Also my apologies for the wrong diff, for the threats section of my original report, I meant to link this one where he personally threatened me as he was going to "take me into the wiki wood shed". I also only cited older examples to show that this isn't a new behavior as Fowler has been doing this for months now. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: My RS/N remark had nothing to do with asking them to seek my permission. It was in response to their endlessly pinging me and asking me to have a discussion with them on that talk page when I had no interest as their sources were not reliable nor were they DUE. I said to them, "Why don't you take your sources to RS/N and have a discussion with the folks there?" They replied, "I cannot because RS/N requires that a full discussion be first conducted on the article's talk page." It was in that context, I said, "Well, tell them that you have my permission, meaning that I do not object to their taking the sources to RS/N." They replied again, I cannot as "RS/N requires a full discussion ..." This it turned out was not true. In the end I took user:Pat's sources to RS/N myself. The the responding editor SamuelRiv said that the using those sources would be UNDUE.

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Mauryan_Art_(unpublished,_1952)_and_Flickr_picture Later they told user:Pat that the plastic surgery they were doing on images by pasting one set of images on another could not be done on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, understood, that makes sense, then. Thanks for clearing that up. That definitely looked weird out of context. Sorry about that. El_C 01:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

1. How would SuperSkaterDude45 whose only interaction with me is on the British-era-related pages British Raj, Company rule in India and Indian rebellion of 1857 (where they typically add flags and flagicons in infoboxes) know about my interaction with another editor on a relatively obscure page Lion capital of Ashoka in July where I mentioned xenophobia? In other words, SuperSkater's disagreement with me has nothing to do with my remark about xenophobia.
2. As for the British era pages, not just I but RegentsPark also has long maintained that those flags that SuperSkater keeps adding to the infobox don't belong to these pages as there is no scholarly evidence that those flags were used by the empires; in main part this is so because the empires were unions of regions ruled by the British and those ruled by Indian rulers who flew their own flags.
3. As for the "xenophobic," the first time it happened was much earlier, as a matter of fact in August 2020 on the Talk:India page in this thread Talk:India/Archive_49#Glaring_inadequacies_for_a_Featured_Article of August 2020 by a user who uses an Indic script name but calls himself Pat in English.
4. A year before that, the India page had a TFA on Gandhi's 150 anniversary on October 2, 2019. I spent three months revising large parts of the article in plain view of many seasoned editors, including at least four admins. I wrote new sections on Cuisine and Clothing. The clothing section was sourced to two of the major sources, Emma Tarlo's Clothing Matters and Roshen Alkazi's article on Central Asian clothing in ancient India. They discussed four main types of stitched clothes: Shalwar, kameez, pajama, and kurta. For the kurta image, I used an image which had been in the Kurta page for 12 years. It was a picture of our son, who had modeled the different styles of kurta specifically for Wikipedia in 2007 when he was 15. Those different-styled kurtas had been purchased specifically for the purpose of illustrating the styles on Wikipedia.
5. Anyway, as you can see, user:Pat suggested that "an actual Indian" replace the picture of our son, even though none of the alternatives he suggested were wearing a kurta! He then objected to the picture of a Muslim praying in a mosque (because it did not represent a majority-Hindu India); he also objected to a Featured Picture of a church because that too did not display Hindu India. It was in that context that I called him "xenophobic." It wasn't just me, later in the same thread admin Vanamonde93 mentioned that those kinds of edits are what he would normally ask sanctions for. I mean India is a secular republic. In the Indian interpretation, secular means religiously pluralistic. That is what the Constitution of India states, what Gandhi and Nehru stood for, and what we say in the lead. It is only the Hindu nationalists (the Hindutva types) who don't like that notion of India. Look at the alternatives that Pat suggested: all Hindus everywhere!
6. I'm sure if I had the picture of a Jewish synagogue in Cochin or a Parsi (Zoroastrian) fire temple in Bombay, they would have the same objection. It is pure xenophobia. I have over 4,000 edits on Talk:India and over 2,000 on the FA India. If I were routinely abusive, the objecting editors would not have appeared out of the blue 13 years after my start on Wikipedia. I'm reasonably sure they trade notes, as they all have the same diffs of mine. Who they are I have no idea.
7. SuperSkater's admission that they might have violated 3RR is the result of my post on their user talk page warning them. This is their first acknowledgement that they actually did violate 3RR
8. There is a very dangerous trend in the works in Wikipedia. POV-pushing editors endlessly bait editors who create NPOV-content. They then begin an RfC where the POV-pushing "friends" appear. When that doesn't go anywhere, they go to ANI. The dangerous trend is that they are proposing that relentless POV promotion is OK on Wikipedia as long as it is politely done. If on other hand you have created reliable NPOV content in FAs and you lose your cool at endless baiting, it is not OK on Wikipedia.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a reply to @El C: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I don't know how you expect me to follow all of that. Even if you were to provide pertinent diffs rather than links to lengthy discussions, it would probably still be too much. I simply don't have countless hours to put all these pieces together. I doubt you'll find an admin who would, though you're welcome to try. But I'm gonna say this: every time you lose your cool and attack other contributors, you lose precious ground in claiming WP:STEWARDSHIP over WP:OWNERSHIP. And you are doing it way too much, which is not sustainable in the long run, and the sooner you realize that, the better. You simply cannot continue to browbeat, insult, and even threaten other users, especially when they engage you dispassionately with sources and sourced material.

So, you need to will yourself to dial it back. Report what you perceive as disruption to a conduct board (like here, WP:AE, etc.), don't use article talk pages for that; and use the content end of WP:DRR (WP:RFC, WP:RSN, etc.) to figure out what the given consensus is for whatever. If you assert that there's WP:CANVASSING or something akin to it, that would also be a conduct matter. But, again, out-the-blue attacks, or any attacks for that matter, those needs to stop, like, immediately. The only reason you're not facing sanctions of considerable severity right now is because you've had a good track record in past years. But the good will that has bought you only goes so far, and I submit to you that you've used much of it up at this point.

SuperSkaterDude45, it doesn't help matters when you edit war against multiple editors to get your version to stand, especially when you do it to the point of it breaching the WP:3RR bright line rule. As for this latest dispute, I'm logging a warning to both of you, though as a courtesy, I'll go the WP:ARBINFOBOX2 route rather than the WP:ARBIND one. To sum up: improvement is expected from both of you, but Fowler&fowler I'll reiterate that you, especially, are expected to refrain from further NPA and even just CIVIL vios. So please, both of you, try to be patient, make use of DRRs when you feel a content dispute calls for it, report misconduct to the appropriate forum, and above all else, if you're able, bring outside input to disputes (sometimes, even a simple 3rd opinion or a neutral notice on a Wikiproject could do wonders). Good luck. Be well. El_C 01:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• This seems pretty straightforward to me. SuperSkaterDude has been trying to get flags into this article, against consensus, for a while. He edit warred in October 2020 (cf. [224] et al); November 2020 ([225]), January 2021 (cf. [226]). At this point, realizing that he wasn't going to go away, I started a discussion on the talk page ([227]) where he did not get any traction and showed an inability to find good sources. Regardless of the fact that he did not get consensus, the behavior started again (without discussion). September 2021 ([228]), October 2021 ([229]). And now, without discussion, knowing full well that there was consensus against their edits. All these edits and two discussions, none started by SuperSkaterDude (one by me, one by SlaterSteven). Now we have him complaining that Fowler is being mean when, frankly, we've all been overly patient with them.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, had I known that, that'd have made things simpler, at least wrt to the infobox dispute. That is to say: I'd probably would have gone with an WP:ARBINFOBOX2 TBAN of some sort to SuperSkaterDude rather than just a logged warning. But it wasn't articulated cogently like that for me to gain that understanding. The explanation was too confusing and disjointed (numbers/bulletpoints notwithstanding) and sort of expected some familiarity with the overarching dispute. That said, Fowler&fowler's NPA and CIVIL lapses go beyond this infobox dispute, and have been for some time, so I do stand by having something on the record on that. And I hope they heed my advise to self-correct. Which, I'm cautiously optimistic they will. El_C 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Alright so here's why this is all completely irrelevant. First off, the October 2020 incident occurred when I was just recently starting my account as it was not even a month old at the time and thus, didn't understand the policies that well back then. Second, the November 2020 incident had a very poor "reasoning" for the exclusion of the flags as Fowler made the argument of "No time to fly flags". Fowler continued to revert regardless by January 2021 despite my offer to discuss in the talk page. Third, the discussion you started up failed to reach a conclusion and again, the fact you cite it as consensus when it was pretty clear that the discussion was never completed and thus, failed to reach consensus. (And still applies to the current discussion as you fail to give a response as of now)

Even if your point was correct, hiding behind consensus isn't a good argument to make considering it can change over time. It's also funny that you cite October 2021 as "edit warring" when in that edit, the Union Jack was already in place by that point and I simplified it's name from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to just the United Kingdom. It's also nice how you omit that right before I began making a compromise with the confirmed flags, Fowler proceeds to claim that the BEIC "doesn't have a flag" in his next message (even though it's listed on a 1851 flag chart of maritime flags). It also doesn't help that right as you were writing this message, Fowler made a massive revert at the History of Pakistan article of 6 months worth of edits and cited "consensus" from 15 years ago, ignoring the fact that Fowler doesn't seem to take WP:PRIOR very seriously. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45 and El C: Consensus can change but edit warring to change it is disruptive. Generally, when an editor uses edit warring to do so, it means that they are obsessed with the need to make that change but lack cogent arguments that would convince other editors. Your continuous returning to edit warring after a gap rather than raising the issue on the talk page is a poster example of that sort of behavior and I believe that an infobox ban, or even a complete ban from referencing flags anywhere, is the only way to deal with you. Finally, much of your response above (he said this but..., I did this but..., etc. etc.) is tendentious and continuing to engage with you is becoming an annoying waste of time. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Again, it's pretty ironic you state that you need a discussion but you've so far given absolutely no response to either of the two discussions on flags, even after I've offered to make a compromise 2 times in the recent discussion alone and instead wanting to immediately get me infobox banned (Even though most of my edits come from article creations) while also conveniently choosing to not comment on Fowler's actions at all nor at the very least, concluding the ongoing talk page discussion. Not to mention outright lying about my supposed edit warring in October 2021 isn't a good look for your argument. Also do you really think that I want this discussion? This could've literally been resolved a year ago had you chosen to respond in the previous discussion rather than just ignoring it only to later give the justification of "edit warring" when no conclusion was reached. It also doesn't help that I had a problem with Fowler's edits because of his indiscriminant editing and removing flags that were there for over a year with 0 consensus before the topic diverted to yet another discussion about flags that'll go nowhere. I would say more but it's pretty clear you're adamant on deflecting or ignoring any arguments I make so really, any further talk will pretty much go nowhere. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, feel free to act as you see fit. I have no objection to you doing whatever. El_C 16:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

SuperSkaterDude45, you're right about October 2021, you were merely changing a reference to an existing flag, my bad and my apologies. However, picking one erroneous diff out of a series doesn't change the fact that you've edit warred 20 (+-delta) times to insert your changes despite knowing full well that it was against consensus. In a sense, picking that diff is symptomatic of your strategy - deflect, delay, and annoy. Unfortunately I can't issue a ban (@El C:) since I'm involved but, imo, the right thing to do is to ban you from any references to flags, broadly construed. Otherwise, if I may quote the great sage, it will be deja vu all over again. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, oh, sorry, I didn't realize. Personally, I'm wary of converting a logged warning into a sanction without there being a new discovery that's truly egregious. Though, if the problem is that persistent, I suppose it won't take long before it resurfaces again. If and/or when it does, feel free to contact me. But I'll also make it clear, since this is an WP:ACDS matter, that any uninvolved admin should feel free to act as they see fit, including imposing a TBAN or any other sanction. El_C 15:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Lapses in civility are stress markers, and in dealing with them you need to identify who's causing the stress. I mean, "bait the other side til they say something mean and then get them blocked" has been the single best way to win a Wikipedia content dispute since long before that cartoon about sealions was ever published. Fowler&fowler is not the oppressor but the victim here.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is not a good argument and oppressor is not a good descriptor, regardless. And lapses in civility, while also problematic, are not the same as lapses in NPA. Anyway, if it was just about this one infobox dispute, that would be one thing. But there's been a steady descent into NPA vios and casual incivility involving multiple editors, not just SuperSkaterDude45.

I know this because Fowler&fowler has pinged me to several of these incidents himself. Mostly, I haven't attended to his own misconduct in some of these either because initially I thought they were an outlier, or I've been too busy and the disputes looked too complex and daunting, and/or, I just wanted another admin to deal with it, as I've had a good relationship with him over the years and he frequently is the first editor I call upon for India-related advise, an area which he's obviously very knowledgeable in. But at a certain point, something has to give.

And I think that largely due to the complexity of the disputes and the language barrier, it's likely that these problems would just continue on and on. That is, until at some point they'd reach a critical mass much worst than this. So best to nip it in the bud and better late than never, even at the risk of our longstanding collaboration, which obviously I'm hoping can remain in the same good terms as they had been throughout these many years. El_C 02:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself: Mostly, I haven't attended to his own misconduct in some of these [...] — what I mean is that mostly I haven't attended to these at all, largely due to that. I remember a few times where I was actually going to intervene in an incident he'd ping me to, but then I saw that there were also NPA vios by him. Thus, I chose to do nothing because I'd also have to take him to task for those, which I didn't want to do. Thus, I preferred leaving it to someone else.

But there is no someone else, it seems, and also, the misconduct has gotten more acute. For example, I've never seen him say something as egregious as: Please don't do this again; otherwise you're looking at a trip to the woodshed (diff). So, I think, if anything, I could be criticized for being too lenient. But, you know, I'll take the hits from both sides, that's something that in general I'm already rather accustomed to. Though, F&f himself has always treated me with utmost respect, including in this thread. And I hope the feeling is mutual. El_C 02:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• El C and RegentsPark It was just some weeks ago on Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka where Fowler was dividing participants into religious conflicts and treating the page as a battleground and discouraging opposing voices by making unwarranted bigoted comments such as: "Buddhists that remain in India are the untouchables who converted to Buddhism in the 1950s: their daughters get raped quite commonly by the Hindus in rural India" (diff). Now that this poor behavior is being observed this often then surely there is a big problem here with Fowler. Agletarang (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• This is a dreadfully messy report, but I've waded through enough of it to come to the following conclusions. F&F does need to moderate his language, because dealing with POV-pushing and OR is an inherent part of editing in the area, and you cannot fly off the handle every time you encounter it. That said, SuperSkaterdude's behavior leaves a lot more to be desired, because they're ignoring consensus, edit-warring, and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus-building and WP:ONUS (which is policy). Their behavior with respect to flags and infoboxes is particularly bad, and I endorse El C's idea of a TBAN above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde, by all means, go ahead. As mentioned above, I'm just personally uncomfortable in "converting a logged warning into a sanction without there being a new discovery that's truly egregious." But by no means should that prevent you from doing so with immediate effect. El_C 15:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Did you give them a logged warning for this incident? I may have missed it, if so. I wouldn't overrule you in that case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde, yes, but at WP:AEL#Civility in infobox discussions rather than at WP:AEL#India-Pakistan-Afghanistan. Though, I wouldn't view you imposing a TBAN as "overruling" me, so take from that what you will. El_C 16:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Ah, I see. In which case I'd rather wait and watch. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe

I recently saw that User:Moondragon21 created some problematic articles, noted this at User talk:Moondragon21/Archives/2022/September#Issues with your creations, and pinged User:Joe Roe as they had given them the autopatrolled right, which I thought should be revoked. Things went downhill from there, with Joe Roe completely missing the point and making false claims for rather unclear reasons. Today they warned me that "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place." (the editor created unattributed, machine translated versions of articles from other wikis: no idea how to find this and see if e.g. a CCI is necessary without going through their edits). Joe Roe also reverted a draftifying I made of an article by Moondragon without bothering to solve the issues that lead to the draftifying in the first place, and then blocked me from that page when I redraftified it, which seems like a clear WP:INVOLVED issue. They also history merged another Moondragon21 article I had draftified (Murder of Natalia Melmann, a problematic unattributed translation), without bothering to indicate that they put an unattributed translation back into the mainspace in this way.

Can someone please tell Joe Roe that such WP:INVOLVED blocks are a big no-no, and that making false claims to protect his granting of autopatrolled isn't very good either? Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think I "missed the point" that Fram was trying to make with regards to Moondragon21's edits (he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is). I just disagreed that it justified revoking autopatrolled from his account. Fram is of course welcome to ask another admin to review that decision. Afterwards, Moondragon21 pinged me asking for help resolving a split page history after Fram moved one of his creations to draft while he was editing it. I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy, noting that Liz had just done the same thing a few weeks before (User_talk:Fram#Draftifying_articles). Fram immediately reversed that move, so I issued a partial block to prevent further move warring. All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity, and the only reason I saw any of this was because Fram pinged me to ask me to take an administrative action, so I don't see how I have crossed WP:INVOLVED. I'm happy to hear others comments on whether any part of this sequence was in error. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for showing that you indeed missed the point. The issues I raised about Moondragon were unattributed translations, very poor machine translations, and "fake" referencing (taking the first source from the original article, and putting it at random somewhere in their translation, thereby e.g. using a 2018 source to reference a 2022 fact). "he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is" He has since edited a lot, and has not tagged even one of his creations as an unattributed translation, despite requests to do so from me and from Joe Roe. "All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity": I criticized your repeated failures to actually see the issues, and the false claims (e.g. "The notices about articles nominated for deletion or moved to draft were there before I granted autopatrolled") you made to defend your lack of action. To then go and revert a problematic article back into mainspace and then block your critic is clear WP:INVOLVED admin tools abuse. Fram (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, you are criticising my administrative actions. That's fine, happens all the time, but it does not disqualify me from taking further administrative actions involving you. We'd be rather stuck if that were what WP:INVOLVED means, because someone could just declare that they think all admins are idiots and become unblockable. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • No, I am discussing your competence and your false claims in defending your lack of action. About the edits of one editor, with a few articles as examples: and you just happen to then block me from one of these articles, and claim you are not involved. Comparing this with an extreme example of slippery slope is a very weak attempt at defense. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

      Oh, and your attempt to stop me from looking through the creations of someone who produces poor, unattributed machine translations. You seem to have your priorities here absolutely wrong. Fram (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both the Fram block and this ANI thread popped up on my watchlist at the exact same time, so I took a look at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert. I have no dog in this fight, and have no opinion on whether the block or other actions were WP:INVOLVED. But having checked three of the four citations in the article, I had to remove those three as not verifying in the least. I believe that Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert should be returned to draft, and Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked. And MurielMary should be far far more careful in accepting AFC submissions. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edited to add: Yngvadottir has now fixed the sourcing issues, so I now believe the article can stay in mainspace unless the subject lacks notability. That said, I believe Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked, and Fram unbanned from the article now that it is sourced and unlikely to be moved-warred over (he may have something to contribute to the article). Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I edit conflicted with you after working on Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, and had previously looked at Murder of Natalia Melmann. To be frank, neither looked like a translation to me, they were both so inadequate in their coverage, while the German articles are distinctly fuller coverage of the subject. I was disturbed by the point to which Fram drew attentions in their edit summaries at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert—an obviously misused reference—and it's a BLP, so I rolled up my sleeves. I believe it's better now. I don't think Moondragon21 should be doing any editing here requiring understanding German, let alone on BLPs. Türkeli-Dehnert is not a politician, she is a civil servant/administrator, and the article contained several inaccuracies. It didn't bear the hallmarks of machine translation, but this editor's work based on German sources, at least, needs to be draftified until it can be checked. In short, Fram's right and since I have now made the article much closer to the content of the German article, I'm going to put the translation template on its talk page, but I don't think the editor has been translating, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • To clarify, I don't think I indicated that this page was a translated one (if I did, I messed up). The ones I indicated as unattributed translations were Julia Hamburg (a near-straight Google translate of the intro to the German article, and Murder of Natalia Melmann, which was a badly mangled straight Google translate of the Spanish version: e.g. the text in the enwiki article, "Later skills link five involved since in the analysis of the young woman's body five different genetic traces were found" is exactly the same as what you get with a Google translate of "Pericias posteriores vinculan a cinco involucrados puesto que en el análisis al cuerpo de la joven fueron hallados cinco rastros genéticos distintos" from here. Fram (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support removal of the removal of Moondragon21 autopatrolled permissions given the issues mentioned here and on their talk page since they have been given the permissions. They had an AfC rejected due to using wikiwix.com as a source for Mariama Sarr in August.

  As an aside, whilst I am aware that it is a personal preference and not policy, I do not like signatures that do not display their username. As such I am disappointed that an administrator would have a signature that says "Joe" when their username is actually "Joe Roe". Gusfriend (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps it's a misnomer, but WP:DRAFT is marked as an "explanatory essay". In that context, was this extreme enough to 1) warrant a block 2) require an admin to revert the move back to a "preferred version" in lieu of editors organically resolving this (preferably through discussion).—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  That particular part of WP:DRAFT is just an explanation of how WP:EW, a policy, is applied to moves-to-draft. This was a partial block from editing one page after I had attempted to get Fram to stop himself; I didn't see it as particularly "extreme". – Joe (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Trying to stop me from something not disallowed in policy but just in an essay, and without even attempting to get a) why I redrafted it, or b) to correct these issues on that BLP yourself? And then blocking me, again based on that essay, while we were in a dispute over your handling of the autopatrolled right of that very editor? Fram (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    We weren't "in a dispute", Fram. You asked me to do something, I said no. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    And misrepresented my comments, and then started lying about what happened, and then as a completely unrelated action (right?) lectured me about draft moving one of the articles from that discussion, lectured me about going through the creations of other editors (because, of course, we want more disastrous machine translations and we don't want anyone to find out), and then pblocked me. Totally normal behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I really have no idea what you're talking about with half of that. Let's let others weigh in, shall we? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy...: Those actions that you described are you as an editor, not an admin, and you cited essays. A revert would rarely be an admin action, save for a policy violation (BLP vios, unsourced, etc) or reverting to "preferred version" only after applying full protection in an edit war. This is a content dispute of sorts on what should be in draftspace or mainspace. Discussion would have been the preferred action at that point, not adding to the warring yourself. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    This is both: reverting a (conduct) policy violation and reverting to the (policy) preferred version. I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. I have no opinion on whether the article ultimately belongs in mainspace, only that the process is followed. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • You are using an essay to support your edit warring and blocking over bringing a BLP into mainspace while the issues that have been pointed out with references not supporting the claims (with e.g. a 2018 source for a 2022 fact) have not been corrected, and claim that you are reverting to the policy prefered version somehow? And that's still ignoring the involved action of it of course, but then again, you "have no idea what I'm talking about" when I describe your own posts, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'll defer to others on whether DRAFTOBJECT is a de-facto policy or just an essay, as I'm not too active in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking at the new pages recently made by Moondragon21 and noticed that since 23 September Alexis Izard, Elenore Sturko (politician), Finnish gun politics, Paul Midy, Zorlu Tore and Midy have all been created without a talk page template plus pages created with only a single primary source and needing other tags. As I mentioned above I do not believe that they should have autopatrolled permission. Gusfriend (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

They also don't add the redirect templates like {{R from alternative name}} when they create new pages which are redirects. Gusfriend (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not seeing this as an involved problem. If someone moves a page back to article space, don't just keep move warring back to draft. If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved. If there are other issues and you aren't making progress on various talk pages, bring them to ANI. Present a sample of articles, describe the problems they have, and suggest revoking autopatrolling or some other sanction (or postpone such a proposal if the person understands the issues). I will say, though, that as usual, coming in hot with a "look at all the ways I found that you're a screw-up. can't you do anything right?" [paraphrase] followed by a bunch more notifications as you go through a bunch of their edits with the effect of angrily dropping a stack of papers on someone's desk, isn't always the most effective approach at getting someone to change their behavior and is going to lead to the wrong kinds of arguments.
  It looks like some of the this thread has become about Moondragon21, though. Perhaps that should be separated from the involved question. Moondragon21, as several people have said now, you do have to attribute translations, and will need to go back and do so for past translations. You are also responsible for the quality of the translation, and for making sure the articles meeting English Wikipedia policy requirements. That doesn't mean everything has to be perfect, but it does mean e.g. ensuring that text is verifiable in cited sources and, ideally, that the sources collectively justify a notability claim. As is often the case, Fram is correct on the merits (just not on the approach). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  "If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved." is a strange way to describe this. People are involved because they have a dispute, not because they move a page. But if you move a page and then block an editor while you are already in a dispute with that editor (about, among other things, this very page and the seriousness of the issues seen here and on other pages), then that makes it an involved action. Fram (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - so this was the status of the page when Joe moved it to mainspace the last time. "In October 2021, she became State Secretary for Integration in the First Wüst cabinet in North Rhine-Westphalia" is sourced to this source which is clearly dated 23.02.2018, but is sourcing a statement regarding 2021. When Fram moved the article back to draft with this edit, Fram's edit summary clearly said "A 2018 source to support a 2021 event? This is the exact same problem that led to drafitfying in the first place." I would have expected someone to read the reason why it was returned to draft. Also, I'm very unimpressed with citing two essays for the block ... and worse, calling them "policies" (see "Clear policy violation, and I'm not remotely involved"). And that doesn't even begin to get into the fact that you were the one reverting Fram in all this ... which *I* would consider involved even if there is some wikilawyering way of saying "no I wasn't" ... the appearance is very important with involved situations - always better to err on the side of not doing something. On the other hand, Fram, it might have been best to do as Softlavender and Yngvadottir did and just FIX the issues rather than move war ... you may have been on the side of protecting the encyclopedia but it does look a bit like you were being a bit of a pain in the behind rather than just fixing the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I can get a bit vexed when people move things back to mainspace without bothering to fix the issues (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Pandya (AWGP) for a similar one, not involving any of the people here though). Fram (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I have already said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is an explanatory gloss to WP:EW, a policy, as is WP:MOVEWAR. I could have cited WP:EW directly, but that would have just made things less clear, and I wasn't writing with eventually having to defend my action at ANI in mind (though given that Fram was involved, that was stupid of me). I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved. How else are admins supposed to deal with other types of move warring? Or regular edit warring? Or just vandalism? This is not wikilawyering, it's a core element of WP:INVOLVED: one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:MOVEWAR is an essay (and is about page names, not about namespaces, to boot)... anyway, you weren't involved because you reverted me, your reversion and block were problematic because you, the involved editor, made them. Fram (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    For me... the way an uninvolved administrator solves a move warring issue is move protecting the article or blocking someone for move warring. What makes you involved in MY mind is that you got down in the trenches and moved the article/draft around, thus becoming an editor rather than an admin. An admin works to stop the problem without having to make a decision on the content (or in this case, the namespace location of the article/draft). Like I said above, there may be a "wikilawyer" way out of being "letter of the wikilaw" "involved", but for my own actions as an admin, and as a way of staying above the fray and NOT getting into situations where you're "looking bad" - it's better to not make those "content decisions" like reverting a move before making a block. And I'll say - both of you should let other folks weigh in here, rather than doing a big pile of back and forth that doesn't make either one of you look like sensible people who are ready to collaborate and compromise. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Are you saying Joe should've blocked then reverted rather than revert then block? Or that if you block someone for repeatedly inappropriately moving a page, the page must stay at the location in was improperly moved to until someone else comes along? That doesn't seem ideal. It's not like a content dispute where there are two valid interpretations of policy and an admin isn't supposed to choose between them -- pages just aren't supposed to be moved back to draftspace like that. i.e. the next step is AfD, ANI, or some other mechanism to resolve problems with the content/creator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth said that as an admin Joe should have either move-protected the page or blocked for move-warring, and should not have move-warred himself. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Softlavender: What would be the point of blocking or protecting the page if it remained in Fram's preferred location? – Joe (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm summarizing Ealdgyth, so you'll have to ask him. But you might want to check out WP:The Wrong Version (when there is an edit war or move war, an admin should not choose their prefered version [involvement] and then lock or block), and remember that Ealdgyth gave you two options to choose between, and page-protecting was just one of them; blocking Fram for move-warring (or even just move-protecting) would have allowed other editors to decide (for instance via talkpage consensus or whatever) whether the page in that form should be in draft-space or mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC); edited 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• • I don't see re-draftifying a BLP that is known to have fake sources as edit warring. Moving a BLP draft to mainspace without fixing the issues that have been pointed out is bad. Then blocking the messenger is also bad. Joe, can you unblock Fram from the page and accept a trout so we can close this? —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    No, because I don't remotely see a consensus for that. From WP:EW: an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. – Joe (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Considering that I reverted once on the 23th, and once on the 27th, and you reverted my moves twice on the 27th, it seems as if that line applies more to you (who broke 1RR) than to me then? Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Is there a policy-based reason to continue blocking Fram from that page? As it is unlikely that they will edit the page, the block currently only seems to serve as a scarlet letter punishment. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    I would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. They haven't, as far as I know, so I have no reason to conclude that it is "unlikely" that they will edit the page. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Are you aware of the reason why Fram moved the page to draft space and also that Yngvadottir has fixed that issue? Why should Fram move or edit the page now? —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know why Fram would move it in the first place when we have an age old process for building consensus for deciding whether articles should remain in mainspace. Anyway, Ritchie333 has decided to unblock and pseudo-close this thread. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    Because draftification is a policy-suggested alternative for deletion, i.e. something which should be considered instead of starting an AFD; because AfD is not cleanup; because draftification gives them 6 months instead of 7 days, ... I don't understand, on the other hand, why you would move articles back to the mainspace without making any effort to address the issues with them first. Fram (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    If you are citing WP:EW, there is no situation when it's an administrative role to add your own revert to an ongoing dispute. There was no WP:3RRNO exemption applicable. You became an editor at that point.

    An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

    Then Fram reverted you, and you invoked an INVOLVED block. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• If I protect a page after it's seen BLP disruption (for instance), I will usually revert to the status quo after protection has been applied. This is standard procedural practice, and doesn't make a person involved in any way. The involvement is a red herring here. The issue is needing to acknowledge and deal with BLP problems in the content. And draftification isn't a solution to that: the page may be less prominent, but BLP very much applies in draftspace, if there's content violating BLP, it's still an issue. If someone had the time to fix the issue, that's obviously preferred, but blanking, not draftification, is the appropriate second choice. Edit-warring over a draftification is genuinely pointless. As such I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. Joe's block is within policy, but it's not really addressing the meat of the issue. Fram's edit-warring was pointless, and can't even claim a BLP exemption, because he wasn't removing the content. I know I'm likely pissing off everyone here, but can we de-escalate a little, appreciate what Yngvadottir did, and recognize that something similar is what's best done next time? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Striking: had not seen the second revert. Inappropriate block, per Amakuru below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the endorsement, Vanamonde, but going over a translation to find and fix problems is lengthy, demanding work; notice that my initial fix edit conflicted with Softlavender, who saw the problems with the sources. I dropped everything; Fram may not have had time (and may not have the German reading skills needed; I'm not sure I rendered the bureaucratic titles well myself). There are a limited set of editors capable of checking and fixing bad translations, and WP:PNT is perpetually snowed under. Joe Roe didn't examine these articles closely enough, nor did the AfC reviewer who passed the one I worked on, and Moondragon apparently can't read the original languages well enough to translate accurately; at least draftification removed the article from passing readers and from Google indexing while the problem with Moondragon's articles based on foreign languages could be addressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Yngvadottir: I do recognize that, hence my appreciation. Lacking the time to do that, though, the next best option is blanking the BLPvio, not move-warring. Moving it to draft may de-index it, but it's still a BLP violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you Yngvadottir and others for doing the important thing and fixing the article. But I still think that, as an admin responding to move-warring and bad draftications, it isn't my job to wade in and decide who's "right" about the content dispute or try to deal with complex content problems. That would make me involved. – Joe (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that Julia Hamburg was an unattributed translation of the first paragraph of de:Julia Hamburg; I've just fixed that, so now it's an attributed translation. It might or might not be a machine translation. I can't see any of the usual smoking guns for a machine translation but there isn't enough text to be sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Yes, that was what I wondered about at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert; it didn't show the garbled syntax indicating a machine translation, but instead had plausible wording but serious omissions and inaccuracies of content. I've now looked at Julia Hamburg and the German; Fram sees a machine translation of the intro (which is itself a mark of a bad translation), but it's full of omissions of what is an almost quintessentially difficult German summary. I don't have time to work on it for several hours, and it in any case it begs for a rendition of the entire article. Meanwhile I've asked Moondragon21 what exactly they have been doing. Fram has pointed out a passage in another article that was clearly machine translation, but these two German ones make me wonder whether the editor is using some other intermediary text. The combination of plausible English and serious inaccuracies makes me think of those shady news sites that are populated with translations, maybe AI-mediated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I wouldn't attempt an idiomatic translation of the German article. I'd write a fresh article in English based on the German-language sources, which would take me about half the time. Might have a go at that.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You stated above: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. After various comments, I'm interested in your current perspective on admin actions w.r.t. DRAFTOBJECT. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante. Move warring is doubly disruptive because of how annoying it is to revert, and move warring in draft space even worse because WP:CSD#G13 makes it a functional slow deletion. Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays, or said that I should have dealt with the content problems myself. I have more sympathy to the latter point of view, though my general philosophy with admin work is that if their are editors actively working on an article, leave the content issues to them (because WP:NODEADLINE), and just focus on making sure that everyone is getting their voice heard fairly (because WP:BITE is a big risk with draftification). – Joe (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To summarize: I reverted once the 23th, and once the 27th. Joe Roe reverted me twice(!) the 27th. Hardly a blockworthy edit war in itself. "Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays" Uh, I do believe that if the justifications for a block are two essays, one of them not even applicable to the case at hand (WP:MOVEWAR, as already said above), then this is not a technicality but an indication that your block is not supported by policy. Joe Roe not only went immediately to an indef block (which again is not what policy suggests at all), but refuses to undo the block even after all these things have been pointed out, they have been asked by others to undo the block, and the issue leading to the reverts has been resolved anyway, making the block pointless in any case. Fram (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have a lot of respect for Joe Roe, but they've clearly made an error of judgement here. Using an essay as a rationale for blocking someone, and on an issue affecting a BLP too, in which they were already INVOLVED, was not correct. I can AGF on that, we all make mistakes sometimes, but it's worrying that Joe seems to be doubling down on that now, instead of apologising.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Joe Roe, that line about draftification being bitey and amounting to slow deletion is usually mine. Just the other day I was schooled here that it's perfectly ok to move a draftified article back after fixing its issues, it doesn't have to go through AfC unless there's a COI or some other specific reason. I'm not sure I 100% believe that, but there's that to explain why some NPPers are so casual about it ... However, in this instance Fram had drawn attention at least twice in their edit summaries to a major problem with the referencing (2018 ref for 2021 occurrence). Doesn't BLP policy add urgency? I'm surprised you ignored that point. Would it really have been kinder to Moondragon21 to blank the article, or reduce it to an unreferenced stub? (That was the only reference the first time Fram draftified it.) In any case, I note that Moondragon21 hasn't edited for more than twelve hours; I was hoping they'd have resumed editing and come here by now; but based on the examples in this thread, I too request you rescind the granting of autopatrol. There are too many problems in their articles for them not to be looked at by NPP. Not just the failure to attribute translations, but inaccuracies and faulty referencing; I understand that you were unaware of these problems before this thread. And yes, it's not my place, but IMO you should reverse the pblock on Fram. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Literally all I asked Fram to do was stop move warring and start an AfD to get consensus. It has never been our policy that if a BLP has problems, major or not, it should be immediately removed from mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay. So what is it I should apologise for? The first time I was asked to reverse the block was today, and I have just said I am happy to do so if Fram does not intend to move the page again. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I take your point, and I don't think there is bad faith on your part, but unfortunately I don't agree with your interpretation of policy here and I also think it's fairly clear that your (good faith) actions weren't in line with policy. Your initial explanation for the block of Fram was that they had violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is probably true, but that is demonstrably an essay, not a policy. It explicitly says at the top, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Now you're saying you blocked Fram for edit warring, but if that's the case then it's an edit war you also participated in, with both of you moving the page twice. That's WP:INVOLVED by most definitions, and you should have instead sought an outside opinion if you felt a block was necessary. Many others have said the same thing above so I think it would be good for you to accept the wet fish recommended by Kusma above, and then we can move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a problematic BLP, that was moved to draftspace; Joe moved it back to mainspace, on the basis of his reading of the relevant policies, and then blocked the other party in this dispute. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's the definition of an involved block. Whenever we have edit wars or move wars, both editors claim to be enforcing policies and, yet, they can be blocked (subject to very few exceptions) and, anyway, if they happen to be administrators, they are considered involved in regard to the controversy at hand. You don't get to revert your opponent, because you think they misunderstand policy and then block them, unless it's very clearly vandalism or another type of blatant disruption, which wasn't the case here. The best way of approaching this would have been to ask another administrator to determine whether Fram should have been blocked in this instance, since you had already reverted his move. Separately, after skimming over Moondragon21's talk page, I also think that it would be a good idea to review whether his autopatrolled permission really is warranted. Finally, I have to also say that Fram is not entirely blameless in this; for my money, his approach continues to be somewhat antagonistic, and that makes it more difficult to solve the issues that he correctly points out. Salvio 09:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unblocked Fram, as I count four admins (Salvio, Bagumba, Kusma and Amakuru) who have opposed the block, along with several other editors, and none that have explicitly supported it as a good block. I am also doing this to de-escalate the situation, and agree that everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and just agree to disagree on this issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't remotely de-escalatory, Ritchie333. You reversed my action minutes after I said I would be happy to do it myself with minimal conditions, and pre-empted the consensus here by calling it a "bad block" in the log, when in fact at least two participants (Vanamonde and Rhododentrites) have said that it is within policy. But whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers and remain unblockable because "four admins" are willing to defend them. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Five admins. Would I call it a "bad block", though? Perhaps a "suboptimal" one. However, it's a block I wouldn't have made. Meanwhile, I don't think the identity of the blocked editor is actually that relevant here, apart from the fact that it inevitably ended up at ANI and became more visible. And I think it is unhelpful to say they were "bullying" article writers when there's quite a lot of agreement here that the article, as it stood, should not have been in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that I did not think the block was helpful, and would think my earlier points kinda made that clear. So make it six. (Sorry, I had some ... off-wiki issues come up yesterday and did not get a chance to revisit this until this morning). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to just leave this thread as "agree to disagree" when Joe's interpretation of WP:INVOLVED vastly differs from mine. From their comment above: This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? AFAIK, an admin should never revert, have another editor revert back, and then proceeding to block that reverting editor. They seem to be confusing this with some (rare) situtations when it may be OK to revert to a longstanding version after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to see a wider discussion about that, because I am quite confident that my view is aligned with broader community consensus. And per Rhododentrites: what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert? I did both within minutes of each other here. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

...what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert?: Before a block, you are making an editorial decision on which version is "right", who had the onus to start a discussion, etc. Worse, you would only be adding to the warring—repeatedly overriding each other's contributions—not de-escalating the situation. After a block, it's merely an administrative action reflecting community consensus, where an admin presumably does not have an editorial preference. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So, if an admin reverts 12:00 and blocks at 12:01, they made an editorial decision and added to the edit warring. But if they block at 12:00 and revert at 12:01, they have merely made an administrative action reflecting community consensus and do not have an editorial preference? This is your understanding of the consensus view? It seems nonsensical to me; like it couldn't possibly matter which order those two actions were taken, they are, for all intents and purposes, taken simultaneously. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I can find no fault in Levivich's logic, those are for all intents and purposes functional equivalents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Except your hypothetical scenario was not what happened. Joe reverted the move at 6:36 27 Sept. Fram reverted again at 7:36. Joe then made the block at 7:48 Joe's revert and block are spread out, and separate decisions, not one minute apart with an arguably interchangeable order.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is if an admin reverts at 12:00 and also issues a warning at 12:00, and the editor then re-reverts at 1:00, and the admin blocks at 1:12, then it's not an admin action, it's an editorial decision, and the admin is involved? Levivich (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Any editor, not just admins, can make certain reverts to enforce policy (e.g. WP:3RRNO), which would be exempt from being considered part of an edit war. An admin should not revert to enforce non-policies like WP:DRAFTOBJECT or even WP:BRD, though they can do so an editor. Issuing a warning about basic courtesies to avoid an EW is at least an attempt to educate and diffuse the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's use your example: I see an edit that I think violates WP:UNDUE and revert it; it's obvious that I think I'm enforcing policy, but that's not an administrative action, in this case I am acting in my capacity as an editor; it would be the same if it was you who reverted that edit – you are an editor, but you think you are enforcing policy –; subsequently, the author of the original edit reverts me and I block him, then that's a bad block, because I'm involved. It may be warranted, because I Was right all along, but that does not change the fact that I was involved. In this case it's the same principle: the same person, first acting as an editor and then as an administrator wants to ensure that his interpretation of policy prevails. In this case, we're not even talking about a policy, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, Joe may be right on the merits, but that does not change the fact that the block was in violation of WP:INVOLVED
Yes, there can be exceptions: WP:BLP is an example, in my opinion, WP:COPYVIO is another, but, as I said, these are exceptions, they should not be interpreted broadly. In general, the letter as I interpret it or, at the very least, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED is that an administrator should not use the tools to make sure that he has the upper hand in a good-faith dispute, such as this one. Salvio 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad unblock. Could've at least said "it was involved, but don't do that in the future". Fram clearly sees it as validation that the guidance we have about moving drafts (which is part of Wikipedia:Drafts -- the page which describes how/when to use draftspace, regardless of the tag at the top) and standard processes to follow to address content issues are just things which get in the way of Defending The Wiki™. This was a page-level block; there was no urgency. Sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I would like to see the context of this quotation "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place". Can someone provide a diff please? I am not sure whether is somewhere on the policies or the guidelines, but it is common sense that if user X makes a methodological error continually, you have to check his edits. Or if you spot lets say 3-4 same manner errors, it is reasonable to think that this might be something a broader issue, and it should be checked. Checking ofcourse should be always polite and civil, aiming to help the other editor, not to frustrate him, but anyway, this is another discussion. Checking each other's work should be welcomed. Sorry for not commenting on the central theme (WP INVOLVED), but I would like to clarify this issue first. Cinadon36 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: WP:FRAMBAN and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Fram arbitration case did not provide any useful clarification on the "hounding" issue whatsoever. But what should Fram (or anyone else, really) do if he notices a problematic editor whose edits do not improve after friendly communication? (A) Ignore it (B) Continue to point out mistakes or (C) Go straight to ANI? —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

When did the "friendly communication" happen in this case? Levivich (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention of letting the abusive T&S ban restrict me from doing the necessary legwork to find problematic editing patterns, as is necessary for e.g. the CCI's I started, the SPIs I started, or the Arbcom cases I started since the Framban. Without going through some of Moondragon's earlier creations, the highly problematic "murder of" article discussed on their talk page would still be in the same sorry state it was when it was created (and not seen by most NPPs as they have autopatrolled status...). Fram (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: as it is related to the ongoing discussion, I was looking at some of their edits and noticed the article Murder of Natalia Melmann without realising that it was the page being discussed (it has been a long day). Of the 6 references for the article, there were 2 pairs of references that were the same but on different sites. I fixed it by combining the references down to 4 from the original 6 and left a note on User:Moondragon21s talk page.Gusfriend (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page. I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. At the same time, it seems extremely unfair to have discussion of his creations tangled up with this inside-baseball drama. He is a prolific contributor who deserves a fresh discussion and broad consensus, not one or two editors standing in judgement. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Surely before MD21's autopatrolled right is pulled, the first resort would be to deploy the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval on his talk page? I mean, Fram's attempted something of the kind, but, well, not terribly successfully. Let's say that while Fram has many excellent and admirable qualities, gently coaching others about how to change their behaviour in a mild, engaging and de-escalating way is not one of them.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• What's weird about this is that autopatrolled isn't really a right. It doesn't let you do anything you can't do anyway. It's really a kind of tag that causes your creations to bypass NPP. It's a way of taking load off NPP when the benefits of that reduced load outweigh the risk of bad stuff escaping review -- not a way of making the editor's life easier or something. If there's any doubt at all about whether an editor's creations need review, even occasionally, then autopatrolled should be pulled. Holders of autopatrolled should have impeccable records. EEng 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• To be very clear about what I meant, since I've been mentioned above: I do not think this block violated INVOLVED, because Joe's revert was to the status quo. That doesn't make it a good block, only a block within the letter of policy. INVOLVED isn't very relevant here; we ought to be discussing how we should have dealt with the BLPVIO. I would not have blocked Fram in these circumstances, but then I wouldn't have moved the draft multiple times either. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Striking per comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is not the way the policy works. "Reverting to the status quo" is not a reason to edit war. WP:EW says in the top paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." So by reverting Fram twice, whether it was the right or wrong action, Joe entered into an edit war, in dispute with Fram. They then went on to block Fram from the page on which the warring was taking place, which again is in black and white at WP:INVOLVED - "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved". This was a dispute, Joe was involved, and they took administrative action on it. It was clearly done in good faith, but I don't see that there is a single possible doubt about this. Being "right" does not vindicate you from being involved. As I said above, I expected Joe once the facts were laid bare here to issue an apology for this this morning, or at least accept a WP:TROUT, given the facts of the case. Then we could have closed this thread and all moved on, but instead I see that he's "disengaged". I'm sorry but I do find that very disappointing.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I had not realized Joe moved the page page twice. That is indeed quite poor. I do believe the principle of my point stands, though; reverting once to the status quo is not involvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  For full page protection, the WP:PREFER policy allows admin discretion to reverting to a stable version, but only after full protection, not before. I assume the community supports a similiar action for blocks, reversing actions for which there is obviously no consensus, but again presumably only after blocking. —Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. It wouldn't have been difficult to say "yes, I made this block, but I can see how it could be seen as incorrect given the situation, and I won't repeat this". But, nope. Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  He disengaged per the advice of the admin who unblocked Fram so as to better allow uninvolved editors to come to a consensus on what was correct here. I dont think it is really fair to castigate him for following that advice. As to the merits, I think you either play the role of admin or editor, and the reverts are that of an editor. Once you pick editor then you cant then also do admin things. nableezy - 21:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Timeline To be clear, Joe chimed in here multiple times before they chose to disengage. The rough timeline was:

  • 08:04 27 September ANI thread started
  • 11:30 Joe's statement on enforcing DRAFTOBJECT as an admin: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate.
  • 04:22 28 September Joe stands by his actions: Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante.
  • 10:36 Joe reiterates that he is not INVOLVED: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay.
  • 14:28 Joe posts here: I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page.

  Joe is not a newbie who is blindly following the advice of an admin to disengage. They are an admin, responsible for their actions and the advice they choose to follow. They are no more obliged to follow the advice of "the admin who unblocked Fram" than they are to other admins' and editors' advice here. They can—and have—picked and chosen who they wish to listen to. —Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I can understand Joe becoming defensive about his actions because Fram has been sniping at him relentlessly for a few days. Let's face it, Fram, your bedside manner is poor and you have failed to de-personalize the situation in your comments on this thread. (That said, Joe's bedside manner was quite poor when he wrote "I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place" on Fram's talkpage a day and a half ago.) In any case, I hope after the dust settles after a few days Joe can reflect on what has been said by uninvolved admins and experienced editors on this thread. Choosing a side in a dispute and then repeatedly enforcing that side and then blocking someone about it is generally considered an involved admin action, and is only acceptable in cases of major vandalism and drastic BLP violations (even then it's often good to go to AN and state what happened and ask for a block review). Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The way I see the complaint, there are two substantial claims of there being issues with Joe Roe's actions:
  1. Claim 1: Joe Roe was WP:INVOLVED and blocked Fram in order to restore their preferred location of a page.
  2. Claim 2: The sanction issued by Joe Roe was not warranted even if Joe Roe were not involved.

With respect to claim 1, it is crystal clear that Joe Roe was involved, which is to say that Joe Roe was actively engaged in a dispute with Fram regarding the proper location of a particular page. Joe Roe moved the article from the draftspace into the mainspace, was reverted by Fram, and then moved the page back into the mainspace and blocked Fram. There was very clearly a dispute between the two editors regarding where the page belonged and Joe Roe clearly blocked an editor who had explicitly opposed him in that dispute and chose not to utilize WP:AN3 or another noticeboard to seek someone who was clearly uninvolved to take a look at the situation. Joe Roe, meanwhile, has stated in this thread I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved.

With respect to Claim 2, the arbitration committee has previously stated that any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct—a move that Joe Roe supported. It is quite surprising, then, that Joe Roe decided to outright indef Fram from that article outright and it's a bit odd; typically first offense edit warring sanctions are 72 hours and, checking through Fram's block log, they don't appear to have been blocked for edit warring before. Why did Joe Roe think that an indef from the article was proportional to the risk disruption, rather than the standard 72 hour block? I don't quite know, and I can't put words into his mouth. What I can say is that Joe Roe stated above that he does not believe the indef sanction to be extreme and that he would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. But to say that Joe Roe would be happy to unblock Fram if he could extract an unblock condition in which Fram would pledge to leave his preferred location of the article preserved is not justifiable in light of Joe Roe's being WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute.

Moreover, this whole saga raises the spectre of issues with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, especially if Joe Roe persists in claiming this sort of behavior is justified. Joe Roe arrived here by outright denying that any sort of dispute had been going on ([230]) and multiple times repeating the clearly erroneous claim that they were in no way WP:INVOLVED because their actions (which included their repeated page moves) were not anything other than administrative actions ([231] [232] [233] [234]). Moreover, Joe Roe's response to the unblock performed by Ritchie333 bordered on a personal attack in writing whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers; if Joe Roe truly believes that Fram is a bully, Joe Roe should provide strong evidence of a widespread pattern bad behavior in this thread rather than resorting to diffless name-calling. And, if Joe Roe still disagrees with Richtie's unblock, which Joe Roe describes as pseudo-close of this ANI thread, then there is a place to review miscellaneous admin actions where Joe Roe could seek dispute resolution and broader community reflection on whether that action was appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the comment on Joe Roe's talk page that labels Fram as just single-minded raises some additional concerns for me in light of the conduct described in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Good analysis, @Red-tailed hawk: I'm also concerned that Joe Roe hasn't taken the feedback he's received with open ears. Instead he's "disengaged" and that's it. Every response was met with a rebuttal instead of a realization. Oh well —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that WP:ADMINACCT explicitly states that Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Joe Roe initially attempted to do that, but the problem is that the justification was erroneous. If problematic behavior in making WP:INVOLVED blocks/admin actions continues (or pre-dates his block of Fram), then this would be something worth discussing. Does Joe Roe have any history of making contentious WP:INVOLVED admin actions, or is this a one-off? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the Red-tailed hawk's analysis. I sympathise with Joe's choice to disengage, given the tone Fram set in the discussion at Moondragons talk page. However, It would be good for Joe to briefly re-engage and acknowledge that their view of WP:INVOLVED is likely not the majority's view and allow this discussion to close. Femke (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Support. I would also say that if you give someone NPP with your comment starting with Hmm... tough one. ([235]) and later on several editors mention that they think that the NPP permissions should be removed then you should probably start a discussion about it somewhere. Gusfriend (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps be less concerned about their own scoreboard: I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

...what on earth are you talking about? What scoreboard? I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right because I do not think it should be pulled. – Joe (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider. It has become abundantly clear throughout this thread that Moondragon21 should not have autopatrolled. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Femke. Thanks for drawing my attention back to this discussion. I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened. As I've said above, I'd welcome a broader discussion on the question of reverts as administrative actions, because I simply do not see how it is logically possible to enforce WP:EW (and by extension WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT if admins cannot revert editors who breach those policies. As for the rest, ANI is for incidents requiring urgent action, and any need for urgent action ended with Ritchie's unblock. The context for why I would advise Fram not to hound or bully another editor will be abundantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with either of our editing histories. From my point of view, there's no reason why this discussion couldn't have been closed days ago. – Joe (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. Levivich (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving the discussion at his point seems WP:FORUMSHOPpish. WP:XRV says It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct..., while it seems this ANI was opened exactly to seek comment on the user's conduct. ANI is perfectly suitable to handle this. While it didn't necessarily have to be opened here, it is already here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I said If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. If people want to hash out Joe Roe, they can do so here. 🙄 Levivich (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Admins are expected to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. With respect to I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened, dismissing the good-faith concerns brought up by the community here and continuing to outright deny that there was any sort of problematic involvement—rather than to offer any sort of apology or expression of regret—is quite disappointing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm making a new sub-section because the issue of Moondragon21 having the autopatrolled right remains unresolved. As highlighted above by Gusfriend (who refers erroneously to NPP), Joe Roe granted the right on 18 June at the request of Schierbecker with a comment noting that there were troubling talk page messages about Moondragon's articles. Users calling here for the right to be removed have included Softlavender and Lepricavark as well as me, Gusfriend had already said early in the thread that an examination of their recent articles indicated their work was not up to the standard expected, Salvio giuliano said their holding the right should be re-examined, and EEng also made a comment suggesting the right should be pulled, but S Marshall disagreed, instead calling for a stern message on the user's talk page. (Forgive me if I have left someone out who made an argument on the issue; for some reason Firefox refuses to let me search on this page or even in just this section.) I have been troubled by the quality of the articles I have examined. Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, created on 22 September and the primary locus of the strife between Joe Roe and Fram, had major sourcing problems highlighted by Fram, and its inaccuracies suggested to me that Moondragon had not adequately understood the German Wikipedia article or the sources. I asked the editor on 27 September about this and their translation process (noting also that the issue of attributing translations, which we also expect an autopatrolled editor to be in compliance with, had been raised with them more than once), but they have not responded either on their talk page or here, which I consider a failure of accountability. (They have also not responded to the talk page section started by Softlavender at Talk:Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert on whether the article should be AfD'd, after I went back and tagged it for notability issues; I'm assuming they saw that on their watchlist.) I have since worked on two other articles they created since becoming autopatrolled, both of which rendered material from the introduction of a foreign-language Wikipedia article with a single reference from an official source, a hallmark of editors using machine translation and that usually, as in both these cases, produces articles far below acceptable standard: Julia Hamburg (highlighted by Fram) and Paul Midy (in a group highlighted by Gusfriend). On 28 September, Joe Roe stated I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't, and argued that the editor deserved a proper discussion of whether the right should be pulled. On 3 October, he instead said I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right because I do not think it should be pulled. I believe enough doubts have been raised about Moondragon21's article creations, by enough seasoned editors, that their continuing to be kept out of the NPP queue should be discussed, with the editor's unresponsiveness being an additional concern for me personally. Myself, I believe Joe Roe's granting of autopatrolled was a generous gesture that has been shown to be wrong; their new articles need to be checked, as most editors' articles are, and Moondragon21 should have the autopatrolled right withdrawn. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing Moondragon21's autopatrolled status, since it's very clear they are submitting very problematic articles. I also support any number of editors, and that includes Fram, going through all of Moondragon21's article creations and doing whatever is necessary about the problematical ones. In fact, if need be, an independent thread (not a subthread annexed to this thread) can be started about them. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated above.Gusfriend (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Quoting myself from PERM: On the one hand, there are a lot of notifications about deletion nominations and draftifications on [Moondragon21's] talk page. On the other, very few of these seem to have stuck. Extending AGF, we could assume that the high number of articles he's created is magnifying the normal 'error rate' (on his part and on reviewers'). [...] This user also a legitimately "prolific" article creator so granting autopatrolled is going to help the NPP backlog an appreciable amount. I think that assessment still stands and that is why I don't support removing autopatrolled at this time. His creations occasionally have problems, but with more than 2000 creations it is a low error rate overall, and attempts to remove his articles from mainspace rarely succeed, indicating they're generally in adequate shape. Granting autopatrolled is always about balancing risk (of a user creating bad articles) against potential benefit (in this case, removing thousands of articles from the NPP backlog). The only thing that has really changed since Schierbecker requested autopatrolled on Moondragon21's behalf is that Fram started hounding him and then it got tangled up in an inside-baseball dispute about WP:INVOLVED. Given that, and that he never asked for autopatrolled in the first place, I do not blame him for not responding – especially not here, in a thread with my name at the top. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Joe Roe, I have not hounded anyone, please retract this. Per policy, "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (That's actual policy, not some essay linked from a policy page). Fram (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Joe, MD has been pinged multiple times, it’s a (concerning) choice that he hasn’t engaged. Maybe he shouldn’t be creating articles at such a prolific rate since he’s not willing to address the community’s concerns? This is solely a preventative concern. Your accusation above against Fram is completely out of line, and frankly, unbecoming of an admin. Why are you so unwilling to just accept the aforementioned trout and move on with life? The earlier advice that you step away from this thread may have been sound. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A8A4:DB15:A100:14DA (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Why are you accusing Fram of hounding? That's not true at all. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am not sure that I am comfortable with the use of the term inside-baseball as part of this discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the issue is. That's a fairly common term: Inside baseball (metaphor). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled. As the user sometimes creates articles with atrocious sourcing, hiding those from NPP is bad. —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• I feel we should have a conversation with the editor first.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Autopatrolled is meant for editors who have shown they don't need to be checked. In this case I don't believe that this is the case, to many concerns have been raised.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Hello it's Moondragon21 here. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a couple days because I took a mental health break, and to return to see this makes me feel sad. I did indeed feel hounded, and within such a short space of time was overwhelming for me. I feel Joe Roe has been accurate throughout, and I resent to see him treated the same way. I didn't even get the time to respond to defend myself, and I never even used the rights "Autopatrolled status" gave me. Because of this, I am seriously considering leaving the website all together. It is what it is. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022

Autopatrolled user right revoked

Since Yngvadottir has expressed her concerns to Moondragon21 a week ago, but they have not responded and continued editing up to until 2 days ago, I've revoked the perm. Obviously, there are concerns from multiple users, as well, but that last one really seals the deal for me. El_C 16:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Good revocation. Autopatrolled is not a badge for writing lots of articles, it is meant to reduce the workload of NPP by removing from the queue creations by editors who have an excellent track record of creating articles without any major issues. It should not take a thorough ANI discussion to have AP removed from someone who has had multiple problematic articles. Moondragon21 can still create articles just the same as before, only they will be checked in NPP by a reviewer. Joe Roe's persistent refusal to even entertain the idea of removing AP from someone who is doing unattributed translations, misrepresenting sources, and refusing to communicate, is very concerning and unfortunately makes me question his judgement at PERM. Someone creating a large number of articles is not an excuse to sacrifice quality. It means they need to slow down and take more care in their articles. Removal of AP is not a major sanction and should not be treated as such. It should be removed at any indication of issues in a user's page creation beyond a one-off mistake. When editors who shouldn't have AP get it, we end up with things like Doug Coldwell's 200+ GAs which are likely all filled with copyvio. We need to get AP right, the costs of letting things slip by NPP are too high to just give it out easily. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The very last thing I'd want to see in an admin is IDHT when their actions are contested. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Joe Roe is doubling down on over here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Question in Archived WP:ANI About Our Lady of Medjugorje

I was just pinged by a post by User:Red Rose 13 in an archive of WP:ANI, which I know is an archive, and so is supposed to be read-only except in unusual situations. I don't think that this is an unusual situation, but good-faith confusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102&type=revision&diff=1114078231&oldid=1109723808&diffmode=source Red Rose 13 asks me to clarify the nature of the topic-ban and/or interaction ban. It appeared to me that the thread about User:Red Rose 13, User:Governor Sheng, and Our Lady of Medjugorje was archived without final action on or about 11 July, so that there isn't any topic-ban or interaction ban. If the would-be parties avoided the topic and avoided interacting with each other for three months, then I think that the community can resume leaving them alone. But I am posting this here because I think that it reflects good-faith ignorance of how an archive is used. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, regarding Red Rose's input, my thinking was we were both banned until January, not June 2023... Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And yes, the ban was voluntary, so to avoid any official sanctions as far as I recall. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me that your reading of the thread is correct, Robert McClenon – there was no formal closure and I can see no sanctions against either Red Rose 13 or Governor Sheng logged at WP:RESTRICTIONS. Both editors agreed in principle in that thread to avoid editing Our Lady of Medjugorje until after 23 December this year, and it would probably be a good idea for them both to stick to that – I imagine it wouldn't go down particularly well if they ended up at ANI again due to not following that suggestion! – but as far as I can see they are not formally either topic banned from Our Lady of Medjugorje, or banned from interacting with one another. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for responding. What Slp1 wrote is what we originally agreed to. Copied from discussion. "I am glad that this might work for you both. It certainly would be best for you if it works out. I want to be very clear that you would both be promising not to edit anything to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina after 1970, broadly construed. It is not a good idea to name some articles: the onus is on you to understand that anything related to either topic is off limits for 6 months. That means no edits to any articles or talkpages even faintly related to the topic, no posts to noticeboards about the topic, no asking other people to intervene or take a look at edits, no emailing others. Nothing. Take the pages off your watchlists and forget about the whole area. You are also strongly recommended to promise to avoid each other on Wikipedia: do not to follow each others edits, do not follow each other to other articles and topics, do not comment or make complaints about the other. Again nothing. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)" and then she suggested, "How about January 7th 2023? I am sure you would both like to get through Christmas etc without worrying about what would happen if you both start engaging again?Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)"

So I still agree to this and that the date it ends to be 7 January 2023. Banned from editing on Our Lady of Medjugorje and related pages and to avoid each other on all pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The IP reverts my every edit and calls me a zealot

• Lognomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• Eh!_Eh!_Aah! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• 46.208.131.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.187.235.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.187.173.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (current)

This user, editing from the IPs and usernames linked above, keeps reverting all my current edits and clearly wants to revert my every edit I have ever made. They accused me here in another section of making harmful edits. Here is a good example of their unfounded revert, fortunately rejected by another user. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this is WP:LTA/BKFIP. Handy comparison: CU-Confirmed sock. Recent festivities. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow I felt like a cornered animal. So your positive response makes me feel much better.

User:HandThatFeeds in already closed section claims that this is me who should be blocked, for repeated personal attacks.

First of all, the user Kzqj certainly does not understand the difference between syntax and semantics, look here. Several participants in our discussion tried to explain to Kzqj the difference between syntax and semantics but their efforts were in vain.

Besides, Kzqj insulted me many times, for example:

I note that the Polish IP that started this thread has posted in several locations recently with silly questions about straightforward English usage link

You have not understood the meaning of the words in the sentence. You are evidently not capable of understanding them. link

It so happens that the user Kzqj reverted my edits many times, then they got blocked, and then all of a sudden a new IP (86.187.235.123) appeared, and started to do the same. I am not equipped with administrator's tools, so I can only guess. But when the IP 86 accuses me of being of a sock puppet of Vikom, everything is okay? This is double standard.

But let's suppose that the only IP86 is 86.187.173.125. Here is what they wrote:

You, personally, are unable to properly understand why one would choose to say "all but" instead of "almost". That is not because of any inherent problem with the phrase; it is because of your level of English. [...] link

Again, thank you :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.215.210 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, BKFIP is community-banned. There's no need to debate if they're right or wrong this time; that would be playing their game. I didn't even read that whole thread; it's all fruit of the poisonous tree. The IPs you reported are a bit stale so an individual block would probably target the wrong person. Blocking 86.187.0.0/16 might slow them down, at the expense of some collateral damage. So there isn't much else to do right now. Please report their next IP (if it's "fresh") or account to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. They'll be back sooner or later, but hopefully will have moved on to a new obsession. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is my new discovery (reported to Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP):

• 195.224.241.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user reverts all my edits in the same distinctive way. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The user who has edited as User:Vikom and from the IP range 85.193.0.0/16 is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE. Removing "all but" and replacing it with "almost", specifically because they as a non-native speaker of English find "all but" to be "illogical", is ludicrous. They might as well be replacing "fifteen" with "fiveteen". Repeatedly reverting every editor who disagrees with them is also highly disruptive. Seeking to protect this person from criticism, on the basis that you believe one of their many critics to be a sock puppet, is deeply misguided. If you are here to build an encyclopaedia, then you should be defending the integrity of the encyclopaedia against any threat to it, not defending certain abusers because you hate another supposed abuser more. 86.187.232.176 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Lokanath Swami

Not sure what to make of the recent edit history on Lokanath Swami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• BlueQuetzal47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added sourced content, possibly an undue amount, regarding a legal case against Lokanath Swami.
• Loksanga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removed that content with an ES of "libellous action"

I did revert Loksanga's removal once. Should the content be removed, left in place, or c/e? Adakiko (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I doubt that this person is notable, and several editors expressed that opinion on the article talk page. There is no legal case. The dispute regards an internal disciplinary process carried out by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Lokanath Swami is an ISKCON guru who was disciplined for child sexual abuse that took place about 30 years ago. For some reason, this was all investigated again recently. All of the references are documents published by ISKCON. The level of detail in the disputed content is excessive, and consists of lengthy quotations from various ISKCON documents. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this person in any reliable sources that are independent of ISKCON. in my opinion, deletion of the article is the best solution to this dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that both of the editors mentioned in this report are single-purpose accounts dedicated to edits about Lokanath Swami. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the same. I've wasted a half hour of my life looking for reliable, independent sourcing beyond namedrops, and coming up short. I'll take it to AfD. Ravenswing 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokanath Swami Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Long story short, the molestation case involving Lokanath is a classic religious authority sex abuse scandal. He was caught and has subsequently admitted to repeatedly touching a female child in an inappropriate manner of the course of about one week. The first authorities within ISKCON to find out were a small circle of his long time associates who tried to minimize and cover it up. As details regarding the abuse have trickled down over the years, more and more followers within the institution have become vocal about their disapproval of his current standing within the institution. I've simply tried to update his Wikipedia entry with some relevant information regarding the scandal. My apologies for any hassle and inconvenience updating this article has caused. I wouldn't be upset if this article were deleted, however, if it is not, I will most likely continue attempting to update the article to reflect his history of child sexual molestation. Thanks for your time. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

On the first part, ISKCON just is not an acceptable source about the misdoings of one of its own gurus. On the second part, the lurid degree of "information" you've sought to include is not remotely relevant. Never mind that your quote names the victim, which is such an egregious action I would not hesitate to support you being indeffed.

And actually, why don't I do that now? You have made no edits other than to this article, and it is plain that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I advocate an indefinite ban for you. Ravenswing 14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Excessive details removed. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the misconduct of one of its own gurus, you commented, "On the first part, ISKCON just is not an acceptable source about the misdoings of one of its own gurus."

How was that decision made when ISKCON is the only source that describes the account of sexual abuse in detail? In a broader sense, yes, one might argue that institutional authorities frequently take measures to conceal and protect their leaders and misconstrue allegations of this nature. While that has occurred here, to some extent, other authorities within this same institution have also made palpable contributions to hold Lokanath Swami accountable for his own actions; actions which he has confessed to in writing as a result; there is no question of "allegedly" at this point. The quotes and source material I utilized in my most recent round of revisions include details of the actual abuse that are undisputed by any of the parties involved in this case.

Second, I've attempted to edit this page in the past; those edits didn't name names and were removed within hours. I received a blanket statement stating that my edits had been removed in whole or in part because they appeared to have added copyrighted content without proof that the source material is in the public domain, and I was also given a number of additional possible reasons that I needed to review, as well. I've tried my best to use "official" sources that are protected by the public domain. To say nothing of any other intersecting criteria or articles that one should review before changing any article, the article JUST addressing guidelines for biographies of living people is at least a 45–60 minute read in and of itself. I came across the following passage while reading the part labeled "Privacy of names" on the page or article titled "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons":

“Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.”

What you find irrelevant may be valuable or meaningful to someone else. Particularly in situations where spiritual authorities abuse their positions of influence, specifics are crucial. By this time, everyone who is even vaguely familiar with this case is aware of the victim's name. It has been extensively shared for a long time, which is why it appears in the panel's report which is available in the public domain. To be completely honest, the learning curve that you appear to expect people to follow IS feasible, but when combined with the severity of penalties for minor or dubious offenses, it just comes together to form an unrealistic expectation of editing proficiency. I feel as though I'm exposed to a wide range of actions or threats depending on the individual preferences of the administrator assessing a given edit, from having edits revoked for countless, nebulous reasons to having an indefinite ban imposed for spurious infractions. Despite the fact that I personally haven't said anything to the effect, you seem to presume that I have absolutely no interest in contributing to any other pieces on this website. And in a broader sense, you're indirectly but blatantly paving the way for a cycle of violence to continue, one that includes maintaining the reputation of an admitted child molester for the sake of some flimsy pretense of official record keeping, rather than taking the initiative and making suggestions in a simplified, straightforward and reasoned way. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ISKCON is the only source that describes the account of sexual abuse in detail – If that's the only source, then the account almost certainly doesn't belong on WP at all, and certainly doesn't belong on WP in all that detail. EEng 12:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

After my initial edits were removed, I decided to leave the entire text in as the quotation out of a generalized concern that some of your fussier admins may consider removing my edits for altering the content from the source or accuse me of content manipulation by omitting details in favor of a more generalized, unquoted narrative of what happened. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I presume that you have absolutely no interest in contributing to other areas of the encyclopedia, seeing that over the three weeks since you started editing, you haven't done so. Yes, Wikipedia does have a learning curve, and we not only expect newcomers to undertake it, we expect them to welcome correction and move on from there. I would have withdrawn my call to indef you had your reaction been "I'm horribly sorry, I didn't realize, I won't do it again" instead of doubling down with your belief that it's okay to out 11-year-old sexual abuse victims as long as ISKCON did it first.

Beyond that, I reject with as much contempt as I can muster the premise that combating sexual abuse and violence requires describing the events in lurid detail, outing underage victims and only taking the word of an organization with a stake in the outcome for any of it. Your infraction here was not "spurious" -- it was grave, your edits were so egregious that an admin needed to revdel them to prevent people from seeing them in the future, and nothing reinforces my belief that Wikipedia would be better off without you so much as your inability to get it. Ravenswing 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

But don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. EEng 14:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I would contemplate replying further if I didn't feel so sorry for you. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than build an encyclopedia and are doing it in a way that causes me to support an indef or other ban. Gusfriend (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why can't building an encyclopedia go hand in hand with presenting a more detailed image of a person who has admitted to assaulting a child? The fact that Lokanath sexually assaulted a child is not in dispute by any side, including Lokanath himself, so if his biography does not mention it, his biography is inaccurate.

I appreciate that the belief at Wikipedia is that information published on Wikipedia should not be presented until someone else has done it first (mainstream media, credible publishing houses, etc.), but ISKCON is substantial, with a million adherents and over a thousand temples worldwide. We're not just a bunch of gullible sycophants in tracksuits drinking Kool-Aid by an outhouse in the middle of the forest. We are capable of having impartial parties perform internal investigations and reporting the findings in a fair, logical manner. The minority party conclusion in the report I cited was composed by individuals with doctorates in educational psychology, legal degrees, and postgraduate degrees in education. They possess the knowledge necessary to conduct impartial, professional research and present their opinions. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over isn't doing you any favors. Wikipedia doesn't have a "belief" that information needs to emanate from reliable, independent third-party sources -- it is a fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia. This cannot be set aside. Period. Full stop. Nor can we ignore your obvious bias as a member of this organization. (And frankly, what manner of credible "internal investigation" could your outfit possibly have conducted where your findings were not brought to the appropriate law enforcement agencies?) Ravenswing 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've already expressed a disinterest or desire to no longer communicate with you. You come off as equal parts abrasive and ineffective in communicating without even the slightest personal connection. You've taken it upon yourself to respond when I had directed my communication at another individual. You keep up like this, I'll start to wonder why you find the need to go out of your way to deal with me so stimulating and fulfilling.

On the charge of a credible investigation, I've clearly inundated you with so many lurid details and specifics about the sexual abuse that if you don't have the initiative or intelligence to investigate the account and figure it out yourself, I don't know why you'd expect me to do you any favors. And I'm sorry you don't see the connection between beliefs and requirements, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it. This urge of yours to vehemently pick hairs, or demand an interchange of related words and definitions, is just another reflection of your severe, hollow, overreaching delusion. BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, building an encyclopedia and righting great wrongs are not always compatible. Building an encyclopedia is about what can be supported by independent reliable sources in a neutral and appropriate manner but righting great wrongs is often at odds with that and someone who is here to RGW will fall afoul sooner or later. To some extent the best editors on Wikipedia are those that have an interest in a subject (or just an interest in knowledge) but no strongly held beliefs about the area (or at least no strongly held beliefs that have not been published in a scholarly journal, newspaper, etc.) I suggest that you read WP:COI about editing in areas where you may be seen to have a conflict of interest. Gusfriend (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I respect your concern over what would seem to be an evident conflict of interest, however I believe that this worry only takes the bigger picture, i.e. potential/apparent conflicts of interest, into mind. Upon closer examination, this concern seems to be rather unfounded in light of my particular circumstance. Again, it seems to me that if someone has repeatedly and openly admitted to sexually abusing minors, their biography need make note of it. This is the underlying premise upon which I base my actions. It would be wrong to keep this out of Lokanath's history because no one disputes the fact that he sexually assaulted a child—not the victim, ISKCON the organization, or even Lokanath himself.

I was wondering if the following links would be considered to be "independent" and "reliable" considering that there still appears to be some room for debate on the existence of Lokanath's article. Both websites briefly reference Lokanath's sexual abuse, but neither is affiliated with ISKCON. Although I think Rediff just copied and pasted information from the Cult Education website, I wanted an admin to check these pages before I even attempted to submit edits to Lokanath's article citing them as sources.

https://culteducation.com/group/1016-iskcon/12193-out-of-the-closet-with-child-abuse.html

https://www.rediff.com/news/1998/nov/02sex.htm BlueQuetzal47 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

One is obviously a cut-and-paste from the other, but whichever site is the original, the provenance of the article might have borne examination. In any event, such a casual namedrop cannot be used to bolster the notability of the subject, and with the AfD having run seven days now with a unanimous consensus to delete having closed and the article now deleted, the point is moot. Ravenswing 07:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access of 134.122.36.70

The IP in question keeps making the same offensive edit on their talk page, for example: [236]. I would like their TPA to be revoked. Thanks. --SunilNevlaFan✨ 15:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Already  Done. firefly ( t · c ) 16:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)