Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124

Misbehaving school IP

We've gotten a lot of vandalism from 199.87.1.253 over the years; I just had to go through all the contributions and revert the ones that went unnoticed. (See User talk:199.87.1.253 for the litany.) It's registered to the Pennsylvania College of Technology; is some sort of block usually applied in these types of cases? -- Beland (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy linking 199.87.1.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As stated at the top of this page, AN/I is for urgent incidents. If you want to report routine vandals, I might direct you to WP:AIV, our vandalism intervention board. But before you do, consider the IP hasn't edited since last September, and only made 5 edits in all of 2022. I'm not even sure what action you're calling for with this thread.

As an aside I'd caution you about trying to construct a wall of shame, especially if you have to go back 5 6 years to get enough brick and mortar. Sporadic vandalism from school IPs is nothing new. Students come and students go. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

AN/I is usually a good choice when discussing long-term disruption; the header also mentions "chronic, intractable" problems. This is because of the ability of others to answer and discuss, and due to the ability to create a report that is longer than just one bullet point. AIV for the really urgent cases of obvious vandalism.

As 199.87.1.253 hasn't edited during the last 5 months, there currently seems to be no need for action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Beland, I've been a bit blind it seems, sorry. To answer the actual question, {{anonblock}} and {{school block}} are frequently used with year-long block durations, but only in response to recent new disruption from shared IP addresses with a years-long history of such disruption. So if that happens again, {{school block}} (only anonymous editing, block account creation) is what you're probably looking for. Example: [1]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool, that's exactly what I needed to know. I'll make a note; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User: Bill Williams

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.

---

Based on edits shown here https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Bill+Williams&page=Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act&server=enwiki&max= which received complaints here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act#Recent_edits_2 as well as extensive evidence of political WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the user’s talk page, I would like to request an investigation into this user’s fitness to be on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Who's going to do the investigation? There's an expectation that you come with diffs pointing to a problem for this sort of thing rather than, effectively, "this person made a bunch of bold edits and somewhere on his talk page there are battleground comments... have at it".

It does look like most of Bill's edits are to remove criticism from various people/topics associated with the American right, but there would need to be evidence of a pattern of bad or POV edits along those lines (or edit warring, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My edits aren't targeted towards any specific political spectrum, but it doesn't take much inspection to see which articles have the vast majority of UNDUE criticism in the lead. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is too much of a hand-wave at a problem for ANI to deal with. You're going to need to lay out a case with specific diffs if you want ANI to really look into a problem, given you're the one alleging there is a problem, the burden is on you to demonstrate you're right, not to make us sort through a lot of diffs. Courcelles (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot even remember seeing this person a single time, I have no idea why they just targeted me out of the blue to claim that I have an issue which they never brought up with me. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Rhondendrites, you basically just admitted the editor in question has a POV problem. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You've missed the point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

In that discussion, Bill Williams is who you're worried about, rather than PoliticalPoint? See:

• lengthy soapboxing ("hateful and genocidal (at worst)") about living politicians, diff
• extremely long comments with bizarre copy/pasting of arguments across comments (many examples, but see these "synecdoche" comment: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4) or even copy/pasting within a single comment (see diff1, diff2)
• repeated insertion of some of the most egregious WP:SYNTH I've ever seen. See for example diff1 and diff2, whole paragraphs about the bill's supporters' entire history of LGBT-related statements and actions, despite the sources not mentioning this bill at all (many were published before the bill even existed).
• OWN-like behaviour: frequent reverts of others' edits citing BRD and STATUSQUO (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8) yet the contentious materials were inserted by PoliticalPoints themselves just weeks ago (diff), so logically, the status-quo would be before PoliticalPoints' insertions
• Poor understanding of sourcing (for example, we can't say a demographic group opposes the act because an organization claiming to speak for that group has opposed it. We instead need to attribute organizations' views to these organizations, and if we want to bring up support/opposition among demographic groups, we need to cite reputable polls).

I can make a guess about BilledMammal's political views, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the same doesn't apply to PoliticalPoints ten times over. Why single one out, if POV is your complaint?

To be clear, I don't think either merit sanctions, unless there's a deep and sustained pattern; I believe in reform above all else. DFlhb (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please open a new topic for @PoliticalPoint if you are making accusations against them.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

See the last phrase of my comment; and I do apologize to PoliticalPoint for mistakenly pluralizing their name. DFlhb (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I see that you were making a comparison between what both of them have done.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that I see that I kind of would like to see both sanctioned. They’re both extremely combative and POV-motivated editors, which is NOT a good thing in politics or BLP. Since I took this to ANI partially based on PoliticalPoint’s concerns I feel opening a proxy-WP:BOOMERANG in this thread is acceptable and probably should be done. Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the only person who is combative and POV motivated is the person randomly targeting me when I don't even remember interacting with you a single time in my life. Zero criticisms of any of my edits, instead just vaguely claiming that I have issues without even stating what they are. Bill Williams 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: I think I basically just stepped into the middle of a mundane content dispute, mistaking it for a serious and urgent issue. PoliticalPoint responded hyperbolically to recent edits, I saw that you did most of them with dismissive edit summaries like “this is irrelevant babble” or something like that, then I saw that you’d been in like 50 other heated content disputes about stock right-wing POV gripes. I jumped to conclusions, basically. An admin can probably close this as non-actionable/withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You had zero interaction with me and went straight to "Is an ANI request for a block in order" so I think you should apologize for your behavior. I did absolutely nothing to you, and everything I removed from the article was for a specific reason, not "stock right-wing POV gripes," considering you can't even list a single reason why anything that I deleted belongs in the article. Bill Williams 22:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, this thread was a mistake Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's okay I understand why looking at some of my past edit history you can find some battleground behavior, but I have not been involved in an edit war in a long time and I don't just delete things without reason. If you disagree with my reasoning, I understand that and would be happy to discuss on the talk page, I just didn't appreciate you immediately going to ANI without talking to me. Bill Williams 22:41, 28 March 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:PoliticalPoint

At Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, user PoliticalPoint has soapboxed about living politicians ("hateful and genocidal (at worst)" diff), and repeatedly added terribly-WP:SYNTH-y BLP material (whole paragraphs these politicians' entire history of LGBT-related statements and actions, despite the sources not mentioning the bill at all, see diff1 and diff2). PoliticalPoint has displayed OWN-like behaviour by reverting others' edits citing BRD and STATUSQUO (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8) despite the fact that this "status quo" material was inserted by PoliticalPoint just weeks ago (diff), so logically, the true status-quo would be before PoliticalPoint's insertions. The main point of these reverts seems to have been to reinstate poorly-sourced statements that were being discussed on the talk page (for example, attributing organizations' statements to various demographic groups rather than to the organizations themselves, when it would have been easy to instead find reputable polls if we wish to encyclopedically discuss demographic groups' viewpoints). PoliticalPoint has defended this improper sourcing with very lengthy comments featuring bizarre copy/pasting of arguments, either across comments (see the "synecdoche" argument: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4) or even copy/pasting within a single comment (see diff).

This is a dispute I was only loosely involved in, but two users have suggested that sanctions may be merited, so since I had already compiled the diffs, I'm offering this for community review. DFlhb (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Reasoning of the accused aside, I don't think this specific complaint has merit. This seems to me a mere content dispute that has escalated. The accusation of soapboxing refers to a comment made on the talk page of an article; this comment centers around the dispute in question. Five words in a thread of thousands do not soapboxing make; we editors come here with opinions about content; that is why we make edits--to correct, to add, to adjust--and that is what I see here in the diffs. As for the stable version of the article, when PoliticalPoint first made the edit, it was not challenged in any substantive form in the history for over two weeks; that makes it stable to me. The fact that it took so long for a challenge to arise leads me to sympathize with PoliticalPoint's reasoning on the stable version.

I suggest referring this to WP:DRN. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS violations by HungNguyen19181945

HungNguyen19181945 (talk · contribs · block user) has repeatedly added flags to infoboxes, in violation of Template:Infobox weapon, and added easter egg links, in violation of WP:EASTEREGG, as seen here: [2] [3] [4] [5]. They've been warned for this behaviour countless times, but have shown zero interest in communicating, either through talk pages or edit summaries. Loafiewa (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

HungNguyen19181945 has also been repeatedly adding ratings graphs by ignoring the general consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35#Ratings graph proposal which has a clear general consensus. The general consensus is not to include the ratings graphs if they do not show any significant viewership trends and/or cause accessibility issues. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Ratings graphs again and the general consensus remains the same as in nothing has changed. This editor is still refusing to get the point. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This editor has never used a Talk page or a User talk page despite editing for about 10 months. WP:Communication is required, and it's a definite red flag when editors don't. I would suggest at least a short block to get their attention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

AMomen88 topic ban violation

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.

---

AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was topic banned earlier today. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina

They are now canvassing for an editor to make changes on their behalf to the article. See User talk:TimothyBlue#Sheikh Hasina 2.  // Timothy :: talk  03:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Indeffed That was a pretty brazen violation of a topic ban and given their previous blocks, I think it's time to say enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:20, 31 March 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.

QarryMotter

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 some concerns about the user QarryMotter. On their userpage they make it clear that they don't like Wikipedia, which on its own would be fine (if a user wants to edit here while hating the very thing they're editing that's fine by me). The issue is, they've created 4 pages in the Wikipedia namespace. 2 humorous essays, 1 essay, and 1 humorous page. Their edits have mostly consisted of disruptive talk page edits, either questioning the notability of a clearly notable article without any evidence, or just plain disruptive. This brings me to the conclusion that this editor is incompatible with the encyclopedia and is causing more harm than good. I've already attempted to ask the editor what their intentions were after nominating one of their humorous essays for deletion for being unfunny and frankly quite disruptive in my opinion, to which they blanked their talk page without any response. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's as clear cut a case of WP:NOTHERE as I can see. Blocked, not worth wasting time on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 31 March 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, refusing to edit collaboratively/discuss, etc. from User:KyleJoan

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:KyleJoan is engaging in persistent, uncollaborative, uncivil and disruptive behavior on Taron Egerton, its talk page and another user's talk page.

Please see the following progression and escalation:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]
6. [11]
7. [12]
8. [13]
9. [14]
10. [15]

First, it must be noted that this user has a significant history of blocks for edit warring, from 2016 to 2019, many for rather long periods. The longest being over a month, at 34 days. Yet here we are again. For the same thing.

Second, but the user's past experience has been useful in avoiding 3RR - which is why this isn't filed there. But the 2RR, wholesale revert of 6 RS edits here and here; coupled with a refusal to discuss or edit collaboratively here and here; ignorance of the common use of the abbreviation "ce" for "copyedit" in edit summaries here, here and here; and the "report me, I can't wait" attitude here, are disruptive enough to merit a report and response. Here.

Third, this user seems to have forgotten the lessons learned from a nice little block. But given this user's warring history and the fact that the user is a veteran who obviously knows better, sadly it appears that it's time for a reminder. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure what you two are really going on about, but KyleJoan's correct that (contrary to what you seem to think) "ce" doesn't include adding a sentence and a source. So his complaint that your edit summary(ies) was(were) misleading has some validity. EEng 11:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• KyleJoan was doing okay in this content dispute. The reporter didn't follow WP:BRD and used an inaccurate edit summary. He was also not respecting that many editors voiced an opinion that the actor should be simply described as Welsh (in an RfC that wasn't closed), and that the article has been describing him as simply Welsh for quite a while. That passage of time doesn't make consensus weaker, it makes it stronger. This should not have gone to ANI. Reporter should have sought a third opinion. He is generally wrong and KyleJoan is generally right, and generally civil too. —Alalch E. 12:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• This report has no merit whatsoever. KyleJoan made a single revert, and was civil throughout the talk page discussion; this is a commonplace content dispute, in which the OP has taken it upon themselves to edit against the obvious talkpage consensus without any attempt to form a new one. Consensus can change does not mean that consensus does change whenever a single editor decides that it should. Trout to the OP, no admin action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry - KyleJoan made 2 reverts, which is less than ideal obviously, but X4n6 was the first to ignore BRD and reinstate their preferred version, so yeah - still trout for the OP and no action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Safe to close

-EEng

• Safe to close and move on. —Alalch E. 12:57, 30 March 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.

N1C4T97

N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

• [16] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
• Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [17]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
• Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [29], [30], [31], [32], edit-wars in another article [33], [34].
• According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [35], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [36], [37], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
• While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [38], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [39]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [40].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my report.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [41], [42], [43]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.

Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.

For example:

1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.

2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [44]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?

3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[45] [46], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.

In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What an appalling display of collaboration we've witnessed! Three partisan pro-Armenian editors relentlessly pursued a new pro-Azerbaijani editor in an attempt to force him out of wiki. At this stage, it's hard to tell whether Rosguill is oblivious to the fact that said pro-Armenian editors are ganging up against a newcomer or if he is consciously supporting their efforts.

  @Rosguill:, I have been closely monitoring your administrative actions within the Ar-Az area for a long time now, and I've noticed you regularly back up pro-Armenian editors and treat pro-Azerbaijani editors unfairly and harshly without distinction to the merit of either side's arguments. In the latest incident, you opted to ban a new user who was clearly being targeted by a group of editors. You banned them immediately for not complying with an extended-confirmed restriction even though they had ceased editing in the area as soon as they had become aware of it, despite that, you arbitrarily decided that a site ban was an appropriate measure.

  How could you immediately site ban a beginner user when it was evident that they was being targeted by a group of editors? Have you forgotten about the principles of WP:NEWBIES and WP:GOODFAITH, or do you choose to ignore them selectively? Did you not consider the fact that the people who reported him were edit warring with him, and none bothered to offer them any assistance or engage him in a dialogue about how Wikipedia works? Strangely, you did not resort to the usual excuses of "content dispute" or "lack of discussion" this time. Did you even bother to read his response, which clearly exposed the bad faith intention of the poorly crafted report, or do you simply not care?

  I implore @Callanecc, Wugapodes, SilkTork, El C, Moneytrees, Nythar, Izno, Beeblebrox, Starship.paint, CaptainEek, Guerillero, and Stifle:, to investigate Rosguill's clearly biased and partisan adminship in the Ar-Az area and to take necessary steps to eliminate any and all disruption caused by his prejudiced and partisan actions, which he seems unable to control/identify. 85.249.29.84 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above and in the block log, this block was the result of additional investigation. I'm happy to share the details of the investigation with any admin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I have no experience at all in Ar/Az, and also, I’m not an admin. starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure why I have been pinged but this area is not one with which I am acquainted or in which I feel competent to act. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Boomerang for Kevo and Rosguill for mendacious lawyering. Fistagon2.0 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Is this a sock? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    @LegalSmeagolian Yes, it's the same vandal from here [47]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

SeanMcCann1

SeanMcCann1 (talk · contribs)

His talk page is a long history of warnings for various incompetencies, and I blocked him in April 2022 for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs. He continues to add unsourced content to BLPs. I think a longer block is in order. GiantSnowman 21:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit shows that they are capable of adding sources to BLPs. I'm not sure why an experienced user like Sean is still doing unsourced edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Solana blockchain article

• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're seeing an uptick of brand-new editors on this article (which falls under the cryptocurrency community sanctions) who aren't very happy about how it is following the (mostly negative) independent sources. This is apparently because Solana's head of communications has been complaining about it on twitter. I recommend a preemptive semiprotect of the article under the GS, and if some folks wouldn't mind keeping in eye out on the talk page that would be helpful as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Having worked with MrOllie on the article talk page to try and explain our policies to the new editors, I am certain of meatpuppetry. I am especially worried with the linked tweet's explicitness that there is a concerted effort to impose a POV upon the article; I think a short-term protection is necessary. I'll add it to my watchlist to ensure long-term protection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've invoked the general sanctions to impose an indefinite ECP. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: At the risk of WP:OUTING, I don't want to share the posts here but I have definitive evidence against multiple editors who have made public posts regarding their SOAPBOXING and POV-pushing on several articles related to this. What is the right course of action? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Offwiki stuff like that? User:Arbitration Committee, email that account and let ArbCom take a look. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send all of the relevant details there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone on Reddit is claiming the article is "being manipulated", and is canvassing there. The tweet you referenced is linked in that Reddit post. Michael60634 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael60634: I scanned the thread but couldn't find any evidence of any specific account associated with these would-be POV-pushers. That said, the thread does make for some funny light reading—particularly the insistence Wikipedia is becoming editorialized (they've been saying this since before I could read!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm chiming in as an uninvolved editor (and one who is not a fan of cryptocurrencies): I think what is happening here is a vicious cycle of crypto people getting frustrated at what appear to be at least plausible NPOV/UNDUE issues, and responding in extremely aggressive and very bad ways, including attacks on good-faith efforts by e.g. Mr Ollie, which in turn has set the stage for a sort of interminable gridlock. The aggression/meatpuppetry/canvassing is a frustrating factor that requires additional effort on our part to sift through, but underlying claims of NPOV/UNDUE issues may still be valid. I've made a few changes to that effect and will try to work with others on the talk page to continue to do so in the coming days. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New evidence of coordinated efforts

After I saw the now-blocked Nona phase gleefully admit to meatpuppetry, I went looking for further evidence. There's a significant number of discussions occurring on both Twitter and Reddit regarding this canvassing—see an example here and here. I'd really appreciate if an uninvolved admin could take a peek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack from C. A. Russell

Russell has accused me of nominating Selflang for G4 to make a point because I apparently did not recover well from my (self-reverted) G4 of the redirect Primus sucks because it (indeed) does not apply for that redirect (which, by the way, is at RFD now).

Russell's personal attacks, both as cited above and as shown at the RfD, runs directly contrary to AGF and should be met with the strongest reprehension, especially since it is far from their first time making them. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:NotReallySoroka's mention of personal attacks at the RFD are not backed up by facts. What can be found are multiple messages that, ironically, assume bad faith on my part. Additionally, the user raising the complaint about this incident did—again ironically—accuse me there of accusing someone else of something ("you accuse the nom of all those stuff"—their words at the RFP); however, no "first-order" accusation exists, User:NotReallySoroka didn't respond there to a request for clarification about what accusation he or she is referring to and has already been asked to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists" besides.

Since the complainant here has done so while simultaneously raising the issue of working in good faith, I'd like a clear statement from User:NotReallySoroka actually is working in good faith—i.e., that the nomination to delete the Selflang redirect referred to here in this noticeboard entry was coincidental, was not motivated by interactions in the RFD that User:NotReallySoroka refers to, and did not begin with an attempt to look at other pages on the basis that I was involved in their creation while hoping to find one that could be put through a speedy deletion process that would (hopefully) be free of defects unlike the prior failed nomination.

I have not sought User:NotReallySoroka out. The opposite doesn't appear to be true; the interactions that are the subject of this noticeboard entry are as easily avoidable as simply not trying find fodder for conflict. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am ostensibly "assum[ing] bad faith on [your] part" because I see your eight interrogating questions over at the RfD as badgering - and that's a charitable assessment, especially when coupled with your quasi-formal "(Please answer yes or no.)" stuff. I meant my "all those stuff" comment at your eight questions, as well as your constant badgering of the RfD nom as if they have an agenda behind nominating your redirect. Also, if you can ask me to "stick to the discussion as it actually exists", I would like to invite you to do the same by refraining to overread the RfD and stick to what the nom actually wrote.

Also, you are setting a false equivalency between me being in good faith and your what you think it is inside your head (i.e. the whole "that the nomination to delete... prior failed nomination" rambling). I can act in good faith and still G4 Selflang because the criteria - including the fact that previously-speedied pages cannot be G4ed - are met. "Good faith" on my part does not protect you or your redirects from being speedily deleted.

Moreover, "I have not sought [NRS] out" is simply untrue when you go beyond simply rebuking me, and instead falsely allege me of bad-faith editing, like you did above. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) I don't see that this rises to the point where it needs administrator intervention. How about both of you just agree to stop interacting with each other, stop talking about each other, avoid editing the same pages, and go find something more productive to do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An iban is grossly out of proportion compared to whatever fault I had. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a fuckin' awesome recommendation. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I do believe their behaviour at that MfD was inappropriate and confrontational. The good faith nominator has now withdrawn their request because of the "mess this has become". Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina

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.

---

AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently I closed an RFC at Sheikh Hasina dealing with the lead, which followed a go-around at DRN and significant edit warring. After I closed the RFC it was pointed out that the article had not returned to the status quo on my talk page. I did some investigating, and prior to the major outbreak of the dispute and edit warring, there seemed to be a reasonable status quo to return to. At that point, I recommended that the article return to the lead from October 27th at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#Status quo.

Since then a clear consensus of editors, most importantly editors uninvolved in the original dispute such as Seraphimblade, Vinegarymass911 (sorry to pull you two into this crap yet again), and myself have identified the late October lead as the status quo ante from before the dispute. Two editors, A.Musketeer([48][49][50]) and LucrativeOffer([51][52][53][54][55]) have refused to accept that consensus, and are continuing to edit war their prefered lead from the RFC into the article. It takes two sides to edit war, and AMomen88 is also edit warring back to the consensus status quo version, though I am less conerned because there is a clear consensus for the version they're reverting to and they're not reverting to their preferred RFC outcome. It's certainly not ideal, which is why I'm seeking some resolution here.

I think a clear statement from the community that they need to stop edit warring and accept the consensus about the status quo on the talk page should take care of the disruption. If they don't accept the consensus, and the edit warring continues, they should be subject to partial blocks from the page starting at a week and escalating from there. I am specifically not interested in any discussion on the content here, only on the editing against consensus. The content can be hashed out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. Apologies if I do not understand anything correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish could you please tell us how Vinegarymass911 is an uninvolved editor when it was already pointed out to you that he had previously engaged in edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version? Also, could you please tell us who first introduced you to the October version as the status quo and how you came to the conclusion that it is the status quo? LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 made a single edit to revert to what they saw as the status quo before that particular edit war broke out, asking you to take it to the talk page, and then made no further edits to the article and made a single edit to the RFC, and did not contribute to the DRN. I would say that there is a shade of involvement in the months long back and forth, but it seemed they were trying to head off the edit war. Their making a single edit, versus the absolute shitload (I stopped counting at a dozen, but that was still in December) you made isn't exactly engag[ing] in an edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version. Seraphimblade and myself are entirely uninvolved.

As I linked to above this is when it was brought up on my talk page by AMomen88, providing a version from October 28th. Looking at the history, it is clear that this edit on October 28th was the one that began the dispute about the lead, and the lead was more-or-less stable before that. So looking at when the lead was a) changed in a way that led to a dispute and b) reasonably stable, I determined the status quo.

Seraphimblade (who supported the lead you supported in the RFC), Vinegarymass911, AMomen88 (who's edit to the lead is not included in the status quo), and myself agree that this as the status quo. A.Musketeer and yourself do not. At this point there are two uninvolved editors, one editor that is barely involved, and one editor that was involved in the dispute agreeing, and two editors who were involved disagreeing, and edit warring to keep the version they supported during the RFC, which was never a stable version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So in summary, you came out from your earlier position that Vinegarymass911 is an "uninvolved editor", to "barely involved". It also appears that AMomen88 is the one who introduced you to the late October versions of the article as status quo and you immediately agreed without consulting the other side of the dispute.

Here is my observation - Sheikh Hasina is a controversial topic and has always been in dispute. It was also pointed out to you by A.Musketeer that the article was a battleground even in October, showing diffs of edit-warring in that month, which makes the late October versions unstable. Yet, you kept arguing it to be the status quo. There was no edit war in the article between 15 January and 10 March, the duration of the RfC, which makes the version at the end of the RfC to be the most stable. The dispute began when AMomen88 started to remove contents that are critical of the subject, hence, I am not surprised he proposed the late October versions as status quo to you since they are devoid of those contents.

In my opinion, ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled about the nature of the dispute which also impairs their judgement about the consensus forming in this case. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: the statement above shows LucrativeOffer understands this is a controversial topic and instead of following guidelines and policy to resolve disputes, they have decided to POV edit war and are doubling down on being "right". We all make mistakes, this look intentional and repeated.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not much has changed in the past two months. The two principal editors came to DRN. After trying to act as a neutral moderator, it was my opinion that at least one of them, and probably both of them, were trying to game the system by appearing to be on the side of the moderator. I failed the moderated discussion, and started the RFC. It appears that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has picked up where I left off, and made progress by identifying the status quo ante version of the article, and found that there was no consensus on the lede, and now the principals are again trying to game the system and appear to be on the side of the moderator (who isn't on a side). The community should thank User:ScottishFinnishRadish for his efforts. I think that the partial blocks proposed by SFR are a minimum remedy at this point. I would support any length of topic-bans at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a question, although it need not affect the resolution of the dispute. Is Bangladesh within the scope of the India and Pakistan contentious topic? It isn't necessary to answer, because I think that the community will be able to handle this dispute by partial blocks and topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it's own nation, and isn't explicitly called out in WP:ARBPIA, so I'm not sure. It feels like it should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for about 25 years but has been independent for over 50 years, and they're over 1,000 miles apart, so WP:ARBIPA wouldn't normally apply. In this case, the article's subject wasn't prominent before independence and the disputed lead doesn't mention Pakistan or, her date of birth aside, the pre-independence period. NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Beyond NebY's comments, simple proximity shouldn't matter ... or do we lump in Bhutan, say, as well? The measure should really be rather simple: is there a history of edit warring over Bangladeshi articles, above and beyond the normal run of partisan politics? (No doubt, for instance, we can find a controversial political article or three from damn near every country on Earth.) Ravenswing 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant more along the lines of Poland being in central Europe, but being part of the EE CTOP, and WP:GSCASTE covering Bangladesh makes it feel like it might be covered. As Robert says above though, we're more than capable of handling this without fancy sanctions, so input on the issue at hand is still very welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled as to the nature of the dispute, but there may be an unsuccessful effort to mislead SFR as to the nature of the dispute, an attempt to misuse the services of a moderator, but it appears that SFR has seen through that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading the deliberations, I have to say it is impressive the extent of the chicanery being resorted too. User:LucrativeOffer is aware there is no consensus for their soapbox lead and as a result they are clutching at straws attempting to use ad hominin to question the integrity of editors. I do not want to relitigate but for the record, the dispute began when LucrativeOffer reverted my edits calling them "promotional" without evidence, this was reverted by User:Vinegarymass911 who urged them to avoid edit warring and discuss, a plea which was roundly ignored. They then proceeded to insert their own lead and ignored calls to refrain from edit warring. I recognise the fact that the lead I produced has no consensus, which is why I have refrained from inserting it, I do not understand why LucrativeOffer and User:A.Musketeer are incapable of doing the same. The lead of 27 October which I support as the status quo contains content which is critical of the subject, I reverted LucrativeOffer's edits not because it contained critical content but because it was poorly written blatant politicking which made unsourced claims, it has no place on Wikipedia, such a lead would be better placed on Medium. I was attempting to revert to the status quo which has been recognised as such by quite literally everyone involved in this discussion including supporters of Lede A, Lede B and uninvolved editors, only two partisan editors who want to insert their preferred lead oppose this. To date all of the bans which have been enacted against me have been as a result of my endeavours to insert this status quo version. LucrativeOffer in particular seems to have an insatiable zeal to edit war whether its on Sheikh Hasina or 2013 Shapla Square protests where they added their opinion without citing a source and continuously reinserted this biased POV content despite multiple reversions from different editors, they were rightly banned for this misconduct. Proportionate measures should be taken to deter such disruptive behaviour, an ascending Tban is perhaps an appropriate option.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• LucrativeOffer has quite thoroughly summed up the dispute and I have nothing much to add here. I have shown my concerns about the proposed status quo by ScotishFinnishRadish but for some reasons they were ignored by him. I will stick to my assertion that there is no evidence of any consensus regarding which version is the status quo. I do not recall any incident where I have been uncivil in this dispute, neither any occasion where I edited against the policies and guidelines in this dispute. I have faith in the community and will accept any decision taken here. I just have one confusion here. The allegation against me is that I edited against consensus and ScottishFinnishRadish has shared my diffs from 03:01, 11 March 2023. But the discussion on the status quo itself started on 17:47, 11 March 2023. How can you reach a consensus before even starting the discussion?

Robert McClenon which two principal editors are you talking about who gamed the system? If that includes me and since you are a proposing a topic ban, can you show some evidence with diffs where I gamed the system? I was invited to discuss in the DRN and I responded. All my statements were civil as far as I recall.

Before any decision is taken, I would urge the community to also shed light on AMomen88's conduct which has been testing our good faith for several months and have been appalling to say the least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct by AMomen88

Edit Warring - AMomen88 has violated 3RR straight three times on this article with no consensus for his poorly sourced POV edits in last December to January for which he was blocked thrice within a month. [56], [57], [58]. The article's history clearly shows there has been no change in his behaviour and he continues to edit war without consensus. The DRN also became stalemate when he started edit-warring as the discussion was going against him.

Casting aspersions - Leaves an edit summary: "it is clear the editor has a vested interest", besides, numerous other personal attacks against other editors.

Canvassing - Every time a discussion takes place he would make no delay to leave inappropriate messages to editors with similar POV to support him in the dispute and keeps on forcing them until they respond. For instance, when the RfC started and Solomon The Magnifico expressed his disinterest to participate, AMomen88 reminds him of previous favors in an ANI discussion. AMomen88 keeps on pursuing when Solomon The Magnifico remains uninterested. Finally he expresses his "disappointment" and calls Solomon The Magnifico "disingenuous". All these despite repeated suggestions to not engage in canvassing, [59], [60].

It is quite amusing to see him still allowed to edit with such level of disruptions, misconduct and competence issues. If a topic ban is being proposed against me for editing against an invisible consensus, I guess AMomen88 doesn't deserve anything less than an indefinite ban at least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban Three Editors

I propose that the situation be resolved by topic-banning User:A.Musketeer, User:LucrativeOffer, and User:AMomen88 from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, for three months, and that they be partially blocked from the article on Sheikh Hasina.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as the three of them make the article uneditable for other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The inability of these editors to resolve their strong but superficial disagreement about the lead section, which is just a summary of the body, only shows how they are not currently making any substantive improvements to the article, while making it more difficult for others to get involved at the same time. —Alalch E. 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - The only action I have taken is to restore a status quo version which has been recognised as such. If restoring the status quo is worthy of a Tban I am dumbfounded. I am a regular contributor to Bangladeshi Wikipedia, an area often neglected in what can be a Anglo/European centric community. LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer are both inactive users, this is not my opinion but a fact based on their meagre contributions. The few contributions they have made have been of a poor quality and heavily skewed, something for which they have both been blocked on multiple occasions. This report was made in response to the disruptive behaviour of two editors, LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer, who edited against overwhelming consensus, I do not know on what grounds I was added to the report.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Can we get some more eyes on this section? Edit warring is continuing, and is taking place elsewhere in the article now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Massive time sink. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support an indef topic ban, actually, not just three months. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, and a warning that further edit warring elsewhere will quickly result in further bans/blocks. After looking at article and DRN, I don't see any scenario where these editors could work on this article productively, or even a hint of being willing to LISTEN regarding the topic. This has been an enormous time sink. Looking at DRN, I think Robert could have found a consensus, but the participants were not willing to work towards one in good faith. Given the edit historoes at [61], Talk:Sheikh Hasina, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 226#Sheikh Hasina they should be blocked. // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment LucrativeOffer is again editing against consensus and attempting to insert their version of the lede despite overwhelming consensus against it. They have inserted poor quality POV content which includes unfinished sentences, you cannot seriously place their actions in the same league as mine.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, AMomen88 gets the idea that adding any content he doesn't like is going against consensus. I have started a discussion three days ago on the article's talk page but AMomen88 has no intention to discuss and kept edit warring. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If this had been posted to the EW boards, bans would already be in place and this would be over. I have no idea why this has been allowed to continue for so long (months) and continue today. This is clearly an active unrepentant long term POV edit war.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per discussion. Mehedi Abedin 01:27, 29 March 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.

Promotional account

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:Nsb001, frequently adding his blog's links to various articles inspite he once warned for doing so. He should be blocked indefinitely from editing. Evid-[62].Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked one week Told user they need to stop adding links to their blog or whatever. I see JBW blocked then unblocked. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify the block at their discretion. A ping would be nice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 31 March 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 PaUZz LYte

I'm not sure how to proceed with a newbie, PaUZz LYte, who has repeatedly removed content at Codrus, claiming that it is sourced to another Wikpedia article rather that the actual source, which is here. Here are the reverts: [63], [64], [65], [66]. I've tried to reason with this editor on their talk page ([67], [68], [69]) and on the article's talk page ([70], [71]). I would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wanted to add my latest comment on the matter:

Yep I read it again, not seeing anything about Aristotle having an alternative view on what happened specifically however. Only more confirmation of the original story as a matter of fact. I like this bit on the first page: "it is now generally accepted that the current manuscript (MS.) is not the work of Aristotle but very likely one of his students"

PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@PaUZz LYte: Why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article? If you want to challenge the actual source, you first need to restore the material that is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, then take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of repeatedly removing the content with the false claim that it is sourced to a Wikipedia article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the original poster of the claim did not source it the way you properly did. This all came about when you began putting up, the very clear at the point, false information repeatedly. I assumed it was sourced and cited the same way as the original poster did and for that I apologize

but hey now we can both move on considering how fals, as I clearly proved, the information is. I'm sure we can both agree we want what's best for the page correct?

hatT PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation was clearly to a source external to Wikipedia. All I did was to provide a link. The original editor who made the citation may very well have viewed the source in a library. Citations do not have to be to web pages. Again, why did you repeatedly claim that the source is another Wikipedia article and make multiple reverts with only that excuse? Sundayclose (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite this being irrelevant at this point; Because again, the original poster included no links what so ever but regardless someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards. PaUZz LYte (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, citations do not have to be to a webpage. The citation was legitimate. Your repeated removal without discussion was edit warring. Why did you repeatedly claim that the content was sourced to Wikipedia rather than the actual source instead of taking your concerns to the article's talk page? Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is perfectly valid, and books are definitely a 'legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards.' We do not require all citations to be available on the internet. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now that were asking each other irrelevant questions, why did you repeatedly add and citate information ive proven you havent bother reading yourself? You mean you didn't even read the source you kept trying to claim was true? And you even redid the revision I made where I clearly state "it says nothing of the sort". Wait, so you added information without even checking to see for yourself if it's true or not? That's how misinformation gets spread around young one, through people such as yourself apparently. Have a good one! PaUZz LYte (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the source, which is why I reverted you. The only thing you have disputed is the authorship of the source, not the other content that you repeatedly reverted. And you didn't dispute the authorship until you finally glanced at the first page of the source. You should have taken concerns about authorship to the article's talk page rather than removing everything cited to the source. I'm finished here. I'll leave it up to administrators to decide what to do about the edit warring. My apologies if we have wasted administrators' time here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

someone claiming they read something in a book so therefore this or that should be changed or added etc is not a legitimate source in Wikipedia's standards

This is blatantly incorrect. The entire point of citing a book is that people can find said book (purchased, at their local library, or online) and check the cite themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:MrOllie#So_I_can_just_claim..., where PaUZz LYte is doubling down on the 'books can't be used as citations' argument. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nordisk Plus

Nordisk Plus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes ([1][2][3][4]). The first time around included the leaders of the yellow vests in the infobox; I reverted it as background. The second attempt referenced the convoy protests for no apparent reason so I reverted again as inappropriate. By the third instance, I had noticed the copy-pasting and posted a notice at the article talk page and a warning at Nordisk Plus's talk page. I removed the content the next day. What followed was the latest infobox transplant, this time including the French Army as party, which it isn't. Nordisk Plus has never posted to discussions. RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

On Healf of Nordisk Plus, I decided to remove copying content from the Yellow vests protests infobox to 2023 French pension reform strikes to avoid block from editing. We can't reports of Police Brutallity or looting in France for Now. So Thanks for your help. Nordisk Plus (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I assume 'on behalf of' is what was meant to be said. Nordisk Plus, is this an account with multiple contributors? Please clear this up immediately, because accounts are not allowed to be shared among a group of people. Nate • (chatter) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reiterating the above, @Nordisk Plus:, please declare if this is a shared account or not (the use of 'we' rather than 'I' also concerns me). Ignoring this thread is not going to make any scrutiny disappear, and your response is very lacking in any detail. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will clear this now, for accounts are unallowed to shared among groups. The French military will not mobilized as of yet during that pension strikes. Nordisk Plus (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just keeping this updated: Nordisk Plus reverted the self-revert, and then partially self-reverted after this last reply. RAN1 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

Based on the above response (which feels like it went through a translation mill) and going through their past edits which have needed cleanup from other editors, I feel like N+ has a low level of English proficiency, or has someone assisting them, though poorly, and N+ should disengage from editing until they have a better understanding of how to edit en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Fostera12 - incivility and personal attacks.

Editor was upset over the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhodhayam, left several messages containing personal attacks:

1. On User talk:DaxServer, see User talk:DaxServer#Learn to help fellow editors and User talk:DaxServer#Half job done by you on crucial discussions.
2. on User talk:Mushy Yank, see User talk:Mushy Yank#Unconstructive edits by @User:Star Mississippi
3. on my talk page, see User talk:Onel5969#Subhodayam, as well as User talk:Onel5969#Independent sources - Subhodayam

User began recreating the article and refusing to abide by the consensus of the AfD. The discussion is at DRV, which they have been counseled to take part in, but have refused. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have dropped Fostera12 a note saying I'll block them for disruption if they carry on screaming in bold all caps. That'll suffice for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And then they just dropped this in their edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Not very civil or collegial. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a troll. Well, at least I'm not an ogre, which is much worse, they'll make a soup from your fresh skin, and squeeze the jelly from your eyes. (Actually it's quite nice on toast....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not interested in this discussion of open abuse of the afd process by @User talk:Onel5969 and ignoring other editors votes or comments in the afd discussion panel, and other editors views on proper independent sources on Subhodayam. It is sheer abuse of the system by @User talk:Onel5969. No personal attacks made on anybody by me. All attacks were made by @User talk:Onel5969 during the afd process and discussion was closed without reaching consensus. Fostera12 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks by Onel5969 in that discussion, and it's not clear how anything here is an abuse of process. Unless you can provide diffs substantiating these allegations, you should retract them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is making personal attacks on anyone, it's you, @Fostera12. On Onel's talk page, you called him a STUPID FELLOW, accused him of wasting everybody's time as well as manipulating processes and policies for personal gain. If anything, Onel's interpretation and implementation of the relevant processes and policies are correct and fair. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and full protected Subhodayam for one week with the reason being edit warring. That will stop the revert war while the DRV takes place. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ahh yes, our colleague who said I disagree with your nonsense, and manipulation, why should i go for deletion review. As always, happy to have a close reviewed, but that was not productive.Thanks @ONUnicorn for the protection. Star Mississippi 00:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

oh and they're also creating it at alternate spellings to evade AfD. Wonderful. Star Mississippi 00:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit deeper, I see Fostera12 has been brought to ANI a couple of times before for temperament issues: here and here. They continue to call other editors trolls as they're deleting material on their talk page. I don't think that Wikipedia is for them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Fostera12 for two weeks for incivility and inability to edit collaboratively. After all that has been written here and on their talk page, they have again dismissed the good faith edits of others as trolling.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure they know they've been blocked. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish they know, they just don't consider notifications of value. Apparently. Star Mississippi 16:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I missed that somehow. Thanks Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good block. Fostera's behavior has been genuinely appalling. The examples I had posted were wrong (wrong diffs) but I feel my point still stands. Hopefully they'll conduct themselves better after their block. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Related issue

Would someone more familiar with Indian cinema have a look at Three weeks in the life of Prime Minister Nehru and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Prime Minister where we have major verification issues present? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (added by Lampyscales (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC))

The reference that I could see in both articles (Three Weeks and Our Prime Minister) did not in any way support the statement made, and was cited with an incorrect title. The actual title of the cited work is "India's Growing Might", presented title is "Nehru", article is about the history of animation in India. Neither documentary is mentioned in it. I saw similar issues with the deleted article with altered reference titles. Deceit? WP:CIR? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm afraid of, and they have a few articles still live which makes me worried about a larger issue. Thanks @Catfish Jim and the soapdish Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look around their article creations and most seem okay-ish. They appear to be writing an article about some old film they've seen then trying to find references to demonstrate notability. Some are evidently more difficult to find references to than others. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That makes a refreshing change from the huge number of stub articles on Indian films (many of which have been around for a decade or more) apparently written in the hope that someone or other will do the research that proves their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Both AFD'd Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring by Beyond My Ken

Over at Nazi symbolism Beyond My Ken is edit warring to restore poorly sourced material [72] [73] [74] as noted by Bloodofox at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nazi_symbolism_article,_cardcow.com,_liveauctioneers.com,_symbols.com,_etc., the sources that were removed were clearly unreliable. BMK has made no attempts to actually justify the credibility of the sources, simply saying that they were "sufficient" and there was "no consensus" [75] for the changes, despite the fact that nobody aside from BMK actually objected to the removal. BMK has been blocked 10 times by admins over the years for edit warring [76] and has been subject to previous ANI threads on the issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond_My_Ken. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Full protected for 48 hours - multi-party edit war. Get consensus on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• You protected it in the wrong version!! Just FYI, I've backed away from the article entirely, removed it from my watchlist yesterday. Bloodofox's refusal to discuss their edits and get consensus for them, combined with Hemiauchenia's blanket reversion to the non-consensus version along with a PA in their edit summary (that after 18 years and almost 300k edits I have no idea what "consensus" is -- which is certainly possible, but seems somewhat unlikely), were sufficient to drive me away. My congrats to them, well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given your long history editing Nazi topics (and wide experience overall) your participation there would be more helpful than walking away, and I'm sure you'd agree on cool reflection that the existing sourcing was thoroughly inadequate. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism in List of films featuring dinosaurs

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 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. The mentioned page is vandalised, with several users removing properly sourced content. I gave the most detailed explanation possible here and there's also a discussion here but the user still removes content because of the personal opinion, while not caring about official and third-party sources. Please, help. --Дейноніх (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute does not constitute vandalism. Administrators, please close this ridiculous complaint. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you crazy? Is there no way this vandalism can be stopped? Why is everyone so toxic? Дейноніх (talk) 20:36, 31 March 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.

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:2A00:23EE:14F0:5DFB:8E53:5021:EB2B:3535

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.

---

Me and two other users, User:Parrot and User:Star11308, have gotten very intense and vulgar messages and threats from 2A00:23EE:14F0:5DFB:8E53:5021:EB2B:3535. I am very confused on why this user is so upset and messaging me and other users this type of content. I would really apricate if I could get an Admin's attention on this user, thanks. RileyXeon (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks. -- Whpq (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. RileyXeon (talk) 03:22, 2 April 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.

Promotional account

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 who did this edit [77], have same name the website ex link he added have.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems like User:Canterbury Tail blocked this user. Next time you can report to WP:AIV for quicker response.👍 Carpimaps (talk) 10:40, 2 April 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.

Editors are whitewashing

I've noticed a lot of racist whitewashing going on all over wikipedia. 97.120.147.168 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything more specific than this? — Czello 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• IP blocked for one week for WP:LOUTSOCK. They are obviously User:Nottodaymisinformation, who is probably headed for an indefinite block if they continue the way they have at Ruby Ridge and Waco siege. If someone more familiar with the Waco siege article could look at it, there have been some significant changes in the article since Discospinster's edit of March 25 that have been done by the IP and their named account, as well as other IPs and some experienced editors that need some scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NorthDowns and nuclear power

NorthDowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has an objection to nuclear power on some rather, unusual, grounds, and despite multiple warnings, doesn'tseemto begettingit. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, CIR--I answered them on the talk page; let's see if they'll listen. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Continued personal attack after final warning for talk page abuse

User 2A02:A463:2848:1:4BC:593E:62BB:D398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly aka Weaky3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave me thispersonal attack after a previous warning ([78]) for personal attacks ([79], [80], [81]) over a name spelling spelling quibble at Talk:Van Cittert–Zernike theorem and on my user talk.

User seems to show the same pattern of edits and abuse as user Koitus~nlwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indeffed for similar behaviour on the same matter — see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#Koitus~nlwiki. - DVdm (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed Weaky3 for personal attacks. They may be a sock of Koitus~nlwiki, but it's been a year and I didn't feel comfortable blocking them as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Ok, thx. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are articles like Thermodynamic system so bad? That lead, the many unverified paragraphs--STEM may pay more, but English is fundamental. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) If you think that a STEM qualification is the route to a well-paid career, I have a bridge to sell you. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Narky Blert, my wife teaches high school English. If she were teaching STEM, she'd make $20 more per year... Drmies (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A comparatively broad scope leads to people adding bits and pieces over the years, with nobody wanting to tackle a top-down reorganization. Some text on technical subjects dates back to the early years of Wikipedia, when sourcing requirements were much looser, and people who knew or thought they knew the subject just brain-dumped about it. Nobody wants to take the time to do the conscientious thing: look up multiple textbooks, find what they each have to say, write a neutral summary of them all, provide footnotes with page numbers at the end of each paragraph, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated WP:OLINK violations by IP

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

Can an admin please warn or take additional action against this anonymous user, who has repeatedly disrupted multiple articles with repeated violations of our manual of style against overlinking well-known topics, i.e. countries, languages, etc.? Thanks in advance! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking is a trivial violation of the Manual of Style, JalenFolf, which is a guideline not a list of mandatory policy dictates. I understand that overlinking irritates you, but at its core, this is a content dispute that simply does not belong at ANI. Continue trying to do your best to communicate with this editor as I see that you are trying to do, and use the wide range of Dispute resolution mechanisms available to you and all editors, instead of escalating this matter to this drama board. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Self promotion by Orlando Telates

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.

---

Orlando Telates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I observed this user creating an article about themselves, Orlando Nell, and repeatedly removing an A7 speedy deletion tag from the page, as can be seen here. There are now two other IPs editing that page; all seem to be the same person. I think we need a quick block here. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by Cullen328. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 05:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to almost certainly use some AI program to try writing a self-promotional autobiography. We need to be tough and unambiguous about this nonsense, and swiftly block any editor who pulls such stunts. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The article has been oversighted. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 06:02, 1 April 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.

The Swan Princess vandal

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.

---

There has been a very long push on The Swan Princess to add a fan comparison to the article. See edits from [82] current /64 range that they've been using for a while, and [83], [84], [85] for some examples of prior edits. Multiple articles have been put on semi-protection for an extended time ([86], [87], [88]) and several IP's are still blocked ([89], [90]). They've returned and are pushing the same material the same /64 range they have used in the past. Past 3RR, they have made a single post on the talk page, but not responding since then, just reverting. From the past history, The Swan Princess needs to get semi-protected for an extended period of time (and probably The Swan Princess (film series) and The Princess and the Frog which they tend to push as well, especially if only one protected. A block on the /64 would also be helpful. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Blocked I've blocked the /64 range x 3 years and protected the page x 3 years. The other two pages you mentioned don't have recent history of disruptive editing. If that changes drop me a line or post a request at WP:RfPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Will do, and thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 13:56, 2 April 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.

Larrymoney21

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.

---

Larrymoney21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, in spite of multiple warnings. The only edits are self-promotion, including vandalizing Template:Article templates/Music album and recreating the same page after deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You can add sockpuppetry to the list of offenses. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Larrymoney21. -- Whpq (talk) 23:33, 1 April 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.

09limbua continuing to create placeholder 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.

---

09limbua, despite only coming off of a 31hr block for creating placeholder articles five days ago, has created another article in mainspace with very limited content and a "Coming soon" notice [91]. Since they expressed their desire to work on the article, I draftified it (rather than CSDing), but this is clearly part of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior which needs to stop. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:41, 2 April 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.

Special:Contributions/172.58.204.15

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 don't know what the heck this IP is doing/trying to do, exactly, but they seem to be just making random edits to the sandbox and flooding the edit filter log. Seems like WP:NOTHERE, though that doesn't usually apply to IPs IIRC. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Admins cannot block me. I'm free. Also, I am WP:HERE and WP:NOTNOTHERE. 172.58.204.15 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to what you choose to believe, admins most certainly CAN block you. Just a heads-up. Regards,   Aloha27  talk 

I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for repeatedly triggering the edit filter, repeatedly posting gibberish in the sandbox, and for disruptive editing in general. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 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:همام الشيميمي

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 has made many personal attacks against me after I removed extensive unsourced material at Al-Hilal Club (Omdurman). Highlights include:

• Man Return page to what it was before your vandalism Don't be stupid and donkey and ask me about the source All this information is from Wikipedia itself
• for nothing but hate, hatred and racism this hateful racist man has vandalized all the information I added ... and this man who carried out the sabotage must be held accountable (twice)
• Why did you vandalize the page again The sources are Wikipedia itself It seems that your problem is personal with me What did I do to you to destroy everything I do Its from update
• Do what you want to do again by sabotaging with hatred and hatred It seems that you want to insult me ... May God hold you accountable for what I say You have the source, Wikipedia itself, only I highlight it, and then you vandalize it So the topic is not only an update, but hatred and hatred

and the somewhat unexpected conclusion

• Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia Wikipedia doesn't belong to your mom or dad To ruin everything I add Fuck you to hell

I think some sort of WP:CIR, in addition to the obvious violations of WP:NPA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked الشيميمي for personal attacks, harassment and a general lack of competence to edit this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 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:66.231.115.67

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.

---

Disruptive IP keeps on making inappropriate/incoherent unblock requests on their talk page after being blocked for vandalism on The David Pakman Show- user does not explain why their content additions should be added despite administrators' efforts to explain why they added the content.

[92][93][94]- examples of inappropriate talk page use by user

[95][96][97][98][99]- Diffs of user's disruptive edits which lead to their block

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 23:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thus, I think this user should get their TPA revoked. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 23:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That IP seemed to have fallen for an April Fools' Day joke,[100] so I explained that to them. There's obviously a serious WP:CIR problem here, but for the time being, it's whatever. El_C 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But then, said IP keeps on making inappropriate unblock reqs on their TP.... I just don't want them to cause any disruption. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 01:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine for now. Now they know, so I guess we'll see. El_C 01:26, 3 April 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 talk:JalenFolf and User:Mako001

I made an edit to the Sable (heraldry) article to remove a subsection with redundant information that was given undo weight. The information was already found in the infobox to the right of the page, and remained there with my edits. User talk:JalenFolf reverted my edit and falsely accused me of removing information and templates from the article, of disruptive editing, refused to start a discussion on the talk page, and made three reverts to my edits. I asked JalenFolf to explain his accusations, but he refused and demanded I answer his questions instead.

User:Mako001 then arrived to accuse me of edit warring and threatened me with a ban after making two edits. JalenFolf made three reverts but got no warning or threat. Mako001 also accused me of being disingenuous in my edits. I asked him to explain, but he did not. He then accused me of not attempting to resolve the issues raised. This is not true, as I did ask JalenFolf to explain himself and start a discussion on the sable talk page.

I believe Mako001 may be friends with JalenFolf, it would explain his sudden appearance on a niche article like sable and why he refused to act against JalenFolf. It also explains why he didn't bother to investigate or start a dialogue with me, but chose to take the side of JalenFolf without question. Even going so far as to make baseless claims against me as JalenFolf did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giltsbeach (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Giltsbeach perhaps needs to step back at this point and start to actually listen to what people are telling them, instead of reading 1/3 of it and launching their next "shot" based on that. I don't intend to defend myself here, since I think that this is likely to end with a WP:BOOMERANG or CU block anyway. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of "disingenous editing" because I moved information from a stub of a subsection to an infobox. An infobox that every other heraldic tincture article uses, mind you. You threatened me with a ban, but not the other user who refused to engage in dialogue with me. I don't think you'll be happy until I step back off a cliff. Giltsbeach (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate JalenFolf admitting his mistake. Mako001, on the other hand, refuses to admit he made a mistake and refuses to apologize. He made false accusations that I deleted content, that I didn't attempt to address JalenFlof's concerns, and that I never left an edit summary. None of it was true, though. He also made disparaging remarks about me. And he threatened me with a ban as soon as he entered the chat. He didn't even try to talk to me or ask what was up. He straight up threatened me and said he didn't have to actually wait for me to break any rules to ban me. This isn't appropriate behavior. This is straight up bullying. And for what? All I did was move information around on the article page. Anyone that looks at the article before and after my edits would have quickly seen that all the information was still there. This shouldn't have escalated this far. Giltsbeach (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Giltsbeach: I don't see why you chose to escalate the issue here when I have already clearly pinged you here in the start of a Talk page discussion. Your edits clearly show an unexplained removal of a sourced section, not a template, which has been explained here after the fact that it had violated WP:WEIGHT. Had you used the edit summary to explain this, this drama post would not be happening.

As for the claims against you regarding edit warring, it's only a violation of WP:3RR if a user goes beyond three reverts without claiming WP:3RRNO, which I cannot claim here as the edits are not vandalism. You have clearly tried to remove the same section four times without clear explanation, the first of which being the initial edit, which also is not a violation of 3RR. Mako is correct; you really do need to step back and read your messages very carefully instead of rushing to accuse others of wrongdoing. Consider improving your editing based on what other editors tell you instead of attacking others over it. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No information was removed form the article either. Both accusations are wrong. Giltsbeach (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just had another look at your attempt, and you're actually right; the removal of section plus addition of single sentence in replacement is the equivalent of no gain, no loss. However, in respect of 3RR, it would probably be best to allow a neutral editor to review the situation and pick a side instead of the both of us continuing the back and forth war. Thank you for replying on the article's Talk page. I will respect your reasoning and back down from the issue at hand. My sincerest apologies for unintentionally allowing this situation to escalate here. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into it. I appreciate it. Giltsbeach (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editing on numerous pages about antipsychotic drugs

User:Materie34 has been busy the last couple of months editing articles about antipsychotic drugs, including haloperidol, ziprasidone, and a bunch of others. These edits are not literate - full of misinformation as well as grammatical, spelling, and word usage errors. There are just too many to undo/revert. For example, an entry by this user on the haloperidol page read:

• Haloperidol possesses through its behaviour as inverse agonist some little differences, for example, triggering a response though it is negative having different negative efficacy, where pure antagonist just bind at a recepter locking it without interacting possessing 0% efficacy at any time.

As a scientist in this field, I can assure a casual reader that the foregoing is gibberish, and I reverted the page on haloperidol to undo the damage. However, there are many others, for example, the current page about ziprasidone reads in part:

• First, it must be setted a disclaimer that this may work just theoretically and caution is advised taking serotonergic substances like mdma together, ziprasidone, with its very strong 5ht2a bindings, its moderate supressing of other serotonergic pathways by acting as a partial agonist and its weak ability to block Sert and Net transporters, somewhat possess a complementary receptorprofile to mdma being a candidate for an antidot. This is because it can block Sert and Net transporters acting in reversal through mdma initializing activity inside a neuron reducing the neuronal release to some extend (this only makes sense with mdma dominating the transporter and with a relatively weak blocker, amisulpride serving in this regard). Also through its inactivation of the 5ht2a receptor and its partial supression of other serotonin receptor subtypes acting as an antagonist/partial agonist it can compete with mdmas agonist activity, as both, antagonists and partial agonists reduce binding.

The foregoing is also gibberish, and there are too many of these for me to correct. Something must be done to stop these entries at the source. Verytas (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not gibberish. The first for example is obviously trying to explain the concept of a reverse agonist. This is likely someone with substantial knowledge of pharmacodynamics, but not English. It will probably be better for them to operate by requesting others to make edits, or at least proofread them. Sennalen (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The concept is more properly called an "inverse agonist", but no matter. The pages prior to editing by Materie34 were fine (and I had nothing to do with writing them), but these edits contain statements that are errors well beyond a language problem. I've been teaching this subject to graduate students in pharmacology for many years and it would be a shame for the Wikipedia entries to be so badly mangled. Verytas (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Materie34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Verytas: We are supposed to discuss issues on article talk pages, and if that fails, on the user's talk. I have to go elsewhere at the moment, but I understand that topics like this might not get much love and I'll have a look and ensure that proper procedures are followed, although I might need a reminder. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I sought initially to contact Materie34 by email, but could not find an email address. It's certainly appropriate to discuss "issues" on article talk pages, but these are not issues for discussion. Materie34 was systematically mangling every article pertaining to antipsychotics, and had just recently started doing this. If one were to refine the language and correct the simple errors of fact, it would be clear that the topics were perfectly well covered prior to the edits by Materie34. Verytas (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We discuss things in public on article talk pages, not via email. It's best to provide a public explanation that others can review now (to see what should be done regarding whether editor conduct is a problem), and that future editors can review to understand why certain text was accepted now. A clear explanation provides information for other editors now and in the future. We assume good faith and act as if other editors merely need a reminder of what sources say. Bear in mind that, for example, I have no knowledge of the topic and would need a clear explanation in order to sanction another editor, and there would need to be plenty of opportunity for that editor to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to be a pharmacologist (I'm certainly not) to see that the first extract above is, in terms of English, complete gibberish. Yes, you can probably work out what it is trying to say, so it's good-faith and not vandalism, but the editor should really be cautioned not to try to add large swathes of content if their English skills are so poor. Having said that, they've only edited three times in the last three weeks, so I don't think there's any urgency here. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

hei here is the Autor. I don't have bad intentions Im just not a native. Im very interessted in antipsychotika and it made fun to edit. Thank you for making me aware of my obviously lacking english skills!😊 If I have a desire to edit in the future, I will drop it in the discuss Page and will not Post it, until its proof read. By the way its much, what if edited but its concentrated in 6-7 articles, so if someone wants to delete the worst edits its not much to do for someone. Again, thank you for making me aware! Materie34 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, you should probably stick to your native language's wikipedia. Im not trying to insult you, but your english is terrible. 71.233.63.157 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

hmm I wouldn't say terrible, it depends on how I feel and whats my state of mind at the moment. Also Im not that bad in reading and understanding so in my megalomania, I thought it would be mostly correct what I wrote😄

But it seems I still have to work on my englisch skills🙂 Materie34 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If an admin would like me so I can copy my edits in here with a quick description where they can be find Materie34 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• would like me to do so

Materie34 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Materie34, no hard feelings. If you find deficiencies on a page related to pharmacology, I would be happy to help you change them. Meanwhile, I will try to revert the problematic edits sometime this weekend. Verytas (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Moxy at Talk:United States

In discussions about mentioning the death penalty in the lead of United States, User:Moxy has been engaging in disruptive WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS style behavior to advocate for its inclusion. This began in July 2022 (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4), where their comments quickly became WP:FORUMy and moralizing in nature, including one that was just "WHAT'S AT STAKE" in all caps with a link to an article of the same name.

The issue was raised again recently, and Moxy has again engaged in forum behavior, arguing about the death penalty itself and WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, accusing people who disagree with them of being "turned off" by the topic, trying to "sanitize" it, or attempting to "down grade" the article. (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Normally, I would say that the next step would be to leave a message on their talk page in the hope that this can be resolved, but their most recent reply of "LOL" has convinced me that they are not interested in such a conversation. Moxy has been here for a while, so I'm hoping that they just need a reminder about WP:Talk page guidelines, but it seems we've gotten to the point that conduct issues are going to continue until a warning takes place here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not going through all the diffs, because the first one already--if this is a forum post, then so is the post they responded to. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the part after "because" explains the part before it. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Undoubtedly some personal opinion there, but nothing unusual for the AP2 space. That said, at a quick skim Moxy appears to be the only editor who has brought up any sources at the current RfC. We definitely shouldn't sanction a link to a source quoting the name of said source. CMD (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The above diffs do sum up what I said with "some" of the sources I quoted. My position is clear....the long standing content should be retained in some form. The removal that started the RFC. Not sure how discussing my inclusion criteria with sources is a problem... I'm guessing too many rebuttals....my bad. I was hoping to see rebuttal sources too. Discussing country specific human rights concerns is something we do with most country articles even Canada . Why American scholars still discuss this is somewhat outlined here. Moxy- 02:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, this looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Thebiguglyalien, you might want to review the suggestions at WP:RCD.  — Freoh 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Pbritti

Several days ago, I started a survey over here. I did so because previously, Pbritti had made some major changes with which I strongly disagreed. Asking editors whether they agreed with rolling back to a stable version and implementing big changes via consensus seemed the best approach to the matter. In my opening message, I pinged four editors, three of whom ended up participating. I selected them purely in order to broaden the range of opinions. I did not know how they would vote, and indeed one of the three only partly endorsed my proposal. One of the editors is the main author of the article, one actively edited there recently, another edited a while back and the fourth is among the most active Romanian editors. To be honest, I didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about the pinging: I just notified a few names that came to mind, never expecting any sort of controversy. I fully believe my actions were in line with the spirit and the letter of WP:CANVASS.

Pbritti did not take the survey well. From the first, he began relentless accusations of canvassing. He immediately referred to “blatant canvassing”, dismissed the opinions of the other editors and said I was trying to bulldoze him. He says other editors apparently have not read the article — including the article author! He then says we are editors “who regularly coordinate”. Not only is this evidence-free assertion totally false, on the rare occasions I’ve interacted with the pinged editors, we’ve had vehement disagreements. User:Barumbarumba then pinged the exact same people I did, to which Pbritti responded with another canvassing accusation, placing us both “on notice” for “both the canvassing [and the] failure to engage”. He issued the alleged canvasser a warning, which he’d done for me as well.

Moving on, after I notified a WikiProject, the one I saw as being most relevant to the discussion, he reiterated the canvassing accusation, alleging a consensus to be “impossible”. After I explained the reasoning behind my ping, he rejected that outright, saying I “clearly canvassed twice, first opting to ping only editors you hoped would support you in this discussion… later only raising the discussion on one WikiProject page (the same WikiProject that you drew upon to garner support)“. Yes, that’s right — now my WikiProject notification, a good-faith attempt to remedy any concerns about canvassing, was itself construed as canvassing! Determined to remain above the fray, I responded by notifying another WikiProject, the only other one at the top of the talk page. Pbritti’s response? Not good enough, I need to start a new survey.

The latest episode involves this surreal discussion between Pbritti and admin User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish, who politely told him that my ping was not canvassing. Pbritti, invoking a fictitious “working relationship” between me and the other editors, replied that the ping was “definitionally partisan”. Advised to drop the stick, Pbritti shot back: “You clearly don't understand the discussion, what occurred, and presume things of other editors. Take your own advice on AGF”.

The above diffs speak for themselves. Pbritti has consistently violated WP:AGF: told repeatedly that there was no malicious intent on my part, he insists on a story of conspiracy and coordination, and scorns all my attempts to alleviate his concerns. He’s interacted with five editors during this saga, simply lashing out at all of them or dismissing their views. He also breaches WP:CIVIL with his superior air and prosecutorial tone. His all-or-nothing mentality goes against WP:BATTLEGROUND, while he disregards WP:CONSENSUS. For good measure, his single-mindedness earns WP:STICK and WP:ICANTHEARYOU a mention. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, to be fully transparent, Biruitorul emailed me for advice, which led to my brief interaction with Pbritti. I advised Biruitorul that the correct forum to raise their concern was here rather than off-wiki.

I can see issues on both sides here. It would be good for Biruitorul to have a read of WP:WALLOFTEXT. Not policy, but rather an explanatory essay, but it does sum up what I felt seeing the above text.

With regards to the alleged canvassing, if there was any transgression in what Biruitorul did at the talk page in question, it was relatively minor. You would expect interested editors to have that talk page in their watchlist, but it could be seen as an attempt to WP:VOTESTACK. I am not familiar enough with the subject or editors in question to know whether there was any partisan selection of editors, or whether there is any history of similar behaviour, but per WP:AGF I would be willing to put this down as a mistake. If it genuinely was an attempt to unfairly votestack, it was extremely clumsy, done with full clarity on the talk page where the discussion was made.

With regards to Pbritti's reaction... from what I can see of the interaction, it appears excessive. It comes down to whether this is a WP:CIVIL matter. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

BOOMERANGish As noted by Catfish above, the issues come down to a combination of votestacking, canvassing (I stand behind this, Catfish disagrees), and a question of AGF/civility (towards both me and Biruitorul. As someone who has been repeatedly pinged in an attempt to canvass my participation in other discussions, I'm familiar with the methodology employed by canvassers. Biruitorul's case is no different, with their choice to ping multiple editors uninvolved in this dispute and sometimes with no prior editing on the article—all without notifying me, the person that Biruitorul disagreed with. I directly pointed this out at the very beginning of the discussion (what I'm presuming is a difference in time zones complicated things further by meaning the pinged editors had already votestacked).

Catfish has questioned if my acknowledgement of the canvassing was in keeping with CIVILITY and AGF; I would say yes on the basis that 1.) Biruitorul failed to ping the editor they disagreed with, 2.) pinged other editors with whom they had a working relationship (not fictitious, despite their claims) and later only notified the WikiProject they all shared, 3.) misconstrued the contents/rationale of my edits as either in bad-faith or unexplained, and 4.) is an extremely experienced editor who necessarily has awareness of procedure. I don't see reasons to invoke sanctions here, except to close the votestacked discussion with the expectation of a new one on the talk page or another space. I can provide details and diffs as necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, as to Biruitorul claims towards my discussion with Catfish on my talk page: Catfish came to my page and left a note I found very passive-aggressive (whether they meant it as such besides the point, as an experienced admin knows how to leave a polite message). If they wanted to contribute more fruitfully, a more sound way would have been to place their sentiments in the original talk page discussion and to engage there. When Catfish failed to elaborate on their reasoning and started making presumptions to justify Biruitorul's bad behavior, I replied with a disagreeing but not uncivil message. Catfish and I have no other interactions I'm aware of and they seem like a fine (and notably patient) admin in other matters—I just disagree with their judgement here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Therein lies one of the purposes of WP:AGF as a behavioural guideline. It can be difficult to judge intent from text and there was no negative motivation in my posting at your talk page. Likewise, your reply could be read in several ways, but I wasn't invested enough to find out more and chose to take it in its most positive sense. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And, as far as interacting on the article talk page, you're right... I don't understand the subject particularly and am not interested enough to get involved. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: I was trying to be polite, but since you provided more detail I'll be more frank: you opaquely accused me of not understanding policy in that first comment to my talk page. I challenged that assessment, and you demonstrated you didn't understand the background to the discussion and why I had made my comments. In retrospect, I should have been more firm with you on my talk page: you were acting as enforcer for another editor without acknowledging that fact. As an admin, you did not AGF on my part and seem to have allowed another editor to take advantage of your position to intimidate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You found my messages intimidating? I really need to work on my writing... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Never said your was intimidating, but "piece of advice" messages tend to be template-less notices or warnings which do convey more than just the "advice" within them. Calling upon admin intervention outside the standard channels is a not uncommon means of strong-arming. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to intervene, I was asked for advice... and I gave it (post here). I did warn them about WP:ADMINSHOP, not because I thought they had that intent, but because contacting an admin off-wiki could be construed in that way. I'm a firm believer in transparency. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: did you mean to link a diff in (post here)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, what I meant was to post at ANI as this is the correct way to deal with disputes of this nature. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, to review your actions: you were contacted off-wiki by Biruitorul after they were accused of pings other editors to acquire support, you felt the need to mention ADMINSHOP to Biruitorul in your reply, and then posted a notice on my talk page. First off, if it was merely advice you were asked to give, why did you warn them of ADMINSHOP and post to my talk page? Second, if you're committed to transparency, why did you not mention that private messaging in your notice to me? I have some serious qualms with your actions here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

More evidence towards ADMINSHOP by Biruitorul. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I will not deign to respond to Pbritti’s desperate attempts at deflection, because I have nothing to hide. I asked one administrator what he thought I should do about Pbritti’s behavior; he declined to answer. I asked another, who answered. The idea that this is some massive revelation is preposterous. The problem here is with Pbritti, who violated a host of policies and exhausted all my alternatives. (I really dislike coming here.) This complaint has finally led to him barely mollifying his accusatory tone, but as his latest bad-faith comment shows, he still has much work to do before we can say his editing approach is truly in good faith and respects consensus. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of previous experience at ANI, Biruitorul came here almost exactly two years ago, pinging Super Dromaeosaurus. In 2009, Biruitorul was accused votestacking with "friend" Dahn, another editor pinged in this recent survey. There's even a murder fantasy against a fellow editor in the mix (2007 vintage, don't quit your day job). Clearly, Biruitorul's claim No, we have not “edited together” is an outright lie. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, now we get into the 16-year-old material, because Pbritti is, of course, unable to substantiate his original claim, namely that the five of us are editors “who regularly coordinate”. We have not “edited together” (still unclear what that means), we do not “regularly coordinate” — outright, unproven, unprovable lies. This is still more desperate deflection by an editor constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith and being civil, His behavior on this board, now verging on harassment, is becoming downright disturbing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just proved my initial claim: you contacted editors who you felt would support you because you are familiar with them. I just demonstrated is that you lied in saying you had never edited with these people–if you can't parse out "edited together", I can't help you–as well as lying in claiming you weren't aware that they all shared a WikiProject. You've edited alongside these people in the same subject area for over a decade and established a familiarity with them in discussions. Not only that, but you've done the exact same thing this week as you've done before in calling on supportive editors to back you in discussions. As for harrassment [...] downright disturbing, you not getting indeffed for that threat all those years ago is perhaps the most damning thing I've seen against the early years of the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Apart of the fact that getting into 2007 and 2009 discussions is pretty strange and pointless, I was pinged on the discussion regarding KIENGIR because I interacted heavily with him, I both agreed and disagreed with this person many times. I deem the notification of his report to me very appropriate. Pbritti's intepretation of such past report as evidence of canvassing is purely based on distrust. By the way. I'm pretty sure that what Biruitorul means by not knowing who is in that WikiProject, is that he does not know the list of members by memory, and that he did not select members based on it. Which is really not that mindblowing. Super Ψ Dro 00:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than address his inability to assume good faith and behave with civility, with every comment he posts here, Pbritti displays a failure to grasp why he ended up here in the first place. Shifting from his imagined roles as prosecutor and police investigator, he now plays the psychologist, pretending to be able to read my mind. Of course, he could just accept my repeated explanations, but that would involve assuming good faith, something he is simply unable to do. He continues to claim the editors I pinged and I have “edited together”, which is a lie — no such thing ever happened.

Further enjoying his assumed role as psychologist, he says I lied when I said I didn’t know all the editors in question shared a WikiProject. Not only did I not lie, I still, as of this very hour, have no idea who is in that WikiProject. The only reason I announced it was in order to involve more people. Which I already said, but again, listening to me and accepting my explanations would involve an assumption of good faith, impossible for Pbritti.

What Pbritti fails to mention about a discussion from two years ago (!) is that I pinged ten involved editors. This is what pinging is for: notifying without going to the trouble of messaging. There’s nothing sinister about it, no matter how hard he tries.

This latest reply evinces further harassment on the part of Pbritti. Not content with diverting discussions with baseless claims, he now performs meticulous research deep into the past and repeatedly claims to read my mind in ways directly contradictory to my own statements. This goes beyond mere lack of good faith, and the community should take note. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You've been an editor for over a decade, format your replies properly, please. You lied, we’re caught in the lie, then split hairs about knowing who's in a WikiProject (of course I don't mean the actual roll, I mean the subject area). You try to bludgeon other editors you don't agree with with votestacking or ANI (contrary to your claims, you come here quite a bit). I've said my bit. Anyone else can ask me a question here or on my talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, Pbritti is wildly distorting the record. He asserts that I “come here quite a bit”. As anyone can check, since August 2016, I came here three times in 2021 and that’s it. It’s a last resort, but it had to be done due to Pbritti’s relentless lack of good faith, incivility, aversion to editing by consensus and battleground mentality.

He accuses me of lying, something I repeatedly demonstrated is itself false, but cannot bring himself to admit due to his lack of good faith.

He bizarrely takes issue with my notification of a WikiProject, but of course fails to note that I a) eventually notified another WikiProject and b) invited other editors to notify any other WikiProjects they could think of.

He once again (for probably the 20th time) brings up bad-faith allegations of vote-stacking, despite my repeated statements to the contrary: a glaring lack of good faith.

But this report isn’t about me, it’s about him. And I think this hostile series of responses, completely devoid of introspection or humility, more than demonstrate the editor’s serious shortcomings. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As we can see from this reply, Pbritti continues the same problematic behavior that brought him to the attention of this forum. He now reveals that his accusation of canvassing is based on previous unrelated interactions, something for which I bear zero responsibility. He ignores my repeated disavowals of canvassing, a blatant breach of WP:AGF. He complains that I failed to ping him, but does not note that it took him all of two hours and eleven minutes to vote, and that it was clear from the page history that he was closely watching the page. He reiterates the fictitious, malicious and unproven allegation that I had a “working relationship” with the pinged editors. He randomly mentions we all shared a WikiProject, something I had no idea about. He closes with an absurd demand for a new discussion, something entirely unwarranted, merely because he has been unable to make a convincing case to anyone.

Pbritti once again demonstrates bad faith and incivility (by continuing to claim canvassing despite a lack of evidence and explicit statements to the contrary), a battleground mentality and rejection of consensus (by showing no willingness to edit collaboratively), and an inability to drop the stick and listen to what others are saying. These are not the qualities of a model editor. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You pinged editors that were part of the same WikiProject–which a simple check of the interaction tool shows many of which you edited with regularly–and failed to notify me. You screwed up and vote-stacked. You shouldn't have done that, but it isn't a big deal. I'm disappointed in your actions, and I'm also disappointed that you called on Catfish to act as muscle in a private manner. Catfish should have acknowledged that in their initial message to my talk page, but I think mentioning it here is adequate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, rather than Pbritti acknowledging his serious conduct issues, we see deflation based on imagined misconduct. No, I was not aware the editors in question belonged to the same WikiProject; I selected them for other, more intelligent reasons, as outlined above. No, we have not “edited together” (whatever that means), that is an outright lie. No, there was no vote-stacking but a simple attempt to broaden the discussion; unfortunately, Pbritti appears constitutionally incapable of assuming good faith. No, I did not call on anyone to “act as muscle”; I asked for advice. AGF, CIVIL, CONSENSUS, BATTLEGROUND, STICK, ICANTHEARYOU: the violations are stacking up as we speak. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• No action. Pbritti is right to have concerns about manually selecting four editors from the same project (intentionally or not—there's subconscious bias!) and summoning them to a talk section in order to invite them to the reporter's non-neutrally worded complaint. Of the four pinged editors, three have edited the article, but have never seen it fit to themselves make changes along the same lines as the reporter's disputant. They have contributed to an implicit consensus behind Biruitorul's preferred, stable, version. This is not guaranteed to mean something, but it's about a probability of their preferences. There's also a thing called familiarity bias. This is not "real canvassing", but it's also why we have WP:3O—and RfC, which are based around not being able to manually select participants to a discussion, and introducing fresh pairs of eyes, which is better. Biruitorul's notifications were not truly WP:INAPPNOTEs, but when the "Survey" was met with disagreement, it was necessary to accept that there is a better alternative. Pbritti was a bit wrong to allege canvassing so strongly, in the exact way that they did. Biruitorul then got sidetracked in trying to counter the canvassing allegations, instead of concentrating on resolving the content dispute by switching to an established process. It was highly predictable that notifying a single project to which all of the pinged editors belong, would not be met with agreement from Pbritti. Overall, Biruitorul is more in the wrong: This editor made a misstep, which was correctable, but was unable to find a way out without outside help, got sidetracked, and came to ANI to post a serious wall of text that isn't proportionate to the severity of the problem, and doesn't move things forward. There's no urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem, and I suggest that this ANI discussion be closed with no further action. Maybe close Biruitorul's "survey" as too strongly contested of a method to be able to lead to consensus. Maybe editors should try DRN. Maybe an RfC should be started. The editors should probably figure it out themselves. —Alalch E. 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I can accept Alalch E.'s position here. Since they and Catfish think I was wrong in calling the initial survey pings "canvassing", I'll defer to their assessment and apologize for describing Biruitorul's contributions that way. I maintain it was vote-stacking, but will defer to the judgements of both Alalch E. and Catfish that it did not rise to the level of canvassing. I also agree that this could have been at RfC, but I wanted the initial discussion closed or at least an agreement to put it on ice before unilaterally taking it there (I've been begrudgingly dragged to RfC before and it's not pleasant). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for you input Alalch... it would be a little premature to close this right now, I feel. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Per Alalch above, no action save for a ceremonial {{trout}} for Biruitorul, for making a mountain out of a molehill they started to dig in the first place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User: NickCT

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

Any help with the repeated insults and other uncivil comments from NickCT would be appreciated. On various occasions, I've asked him to either stop or to strike the comment, and to focus on the topic being discussed. After one comment, he suggested I come here to report it. So, how do you deal with an editor who continually makes comments like Sometimes smart people say dumb things (which is why I figure you could be smart despite this conversation.)[101] and And there I was thinking that if anyone would be good at identifying a loser, it would be you.[102]? Stoarm (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@NickCT I trust we don't need to drag this out. Put a lid on the snark. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User:John Cummings

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [103], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

[Disclosure: I know John Cummings, having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• @US-Verified: You have yet to provide any evidence of a conflict of interest or that he has an undeclared financial incentive. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a personal attack and potentially blockable. Please substantiate your claims or strike them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm _Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've put an asterisk on "I won't hound him" with if the community decides that their work is not problematic. IMO you've alerted enough people here; leave it to someone else to take action if necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [104]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [105]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[106]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[107]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[108]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [109]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [110]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [111]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  As you said, On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. This fits well in your case. You created the article on Pocket FM on 14:12, 20 January 2016 (diff: [112]) and then decided to reach out. A donated photo was uploaded by you on 25 January 2016 (diff: [113]) that means it took around five days which is reasonable. Now, take a look at the case already mentioned. QWSTION was created by them on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and but they started uploading photos on Wikimedia Commons before that. Around four photos were uploaded by them (exactly on 19:41, 14 April 2022) before the article creation. The photos uploaded are: 1) [114] (Text: Freunde von Freunden Qwstion Company Profile Zurich) 2) [115] (Text: "QWSTION holdall design process") 3) [116] (Text: "QWSTION minimal collection cutting pattern"), 4) [117]. All uploads on that day [118]. This is not normal. How can they be so sure — by uploading them earlier than the article creation itself — that the company will donate these photos, if they create an article — not one article, but two articles, other one is about the company's product — about them. Also, this odd editing pattern is only visible on a few articles only. Your example of a new user above makes more sense. Anyways, the community deserves a satisfactory answer from them. Let's wait for their response on this. US-Verified (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. If you go through this discussion, then you will find multiple editors who concur with me (partially maybe). If we post any of above mentioned articles on WP:COIN (blind test - not possible though), then you find it clearer. WP:COI issue is not addressed yet - merely rejecting it is not enough. I'll expand on my rationale as I said above. US-Verified (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  You've posted evidence that John has created some problematic articles on potentially non-notable subjects but that is not, in itself, evidence of a conflict of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not one single editor has agreed with you that there is a "COI issue". There is no COI issue to address, because you have provided not one scintilla of evidence of COI. And yet you still keep casting unfounded aspersions. This needs to stop, or be stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)~

With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the issue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was John paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's orthogonal. No, a number of unexplained reasons is not convincing for a very rare user perk. CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from John (and less from Andy) about John's connection with the article subject, if any. I disagree with Harry; an editor creating a WP:PROMO page about a company does, in and of itself, raise reasonable questions about WP:COI, and this looks like a product advertisement. I don't think I've seen a Wikipedia article that looks so much like a brochure before. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: for a new editor or one who has only shown an interest in a narrow range of topics, sure. John has ~17k edits to a variety of subjects. Looking at his last few hundred, it looks like he writes/edits about subjects he sees elsewhere (like the news or a social media feed or in the street) but without the deep knowledge of encyclopaedic writing and notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of asking OP to strike, we should be thanking them for bringing this important matter to our attention. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this alleged conflict of interest, but there seems to be some original research going on here. For example, take a look at this diff of Manila hemp that adds a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process (the same material is also present at Bananatex and Abacá). Four citations are given: [119] [120] [121] [122] (I've fixed the last link, which was incorrect in the article). There is also this YouTube video embedded in the last two sources. As far as I can tell, none of these citations except the first one describe the manufacturing process in any detail (and the first source only supports the first ~6 images in our gallery). The YouTube video does briefly mention turning the fibers into paper and then into yarn, but it does not give a description as detailed as that given in our article. Am I missing something?

Also (and this is just something I happened to notice), so far three separate users have added the {{advert}} tag to QWSTION, which is not really a good look. Shells-shells (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• The QWSTION diff is really bad. That revision potentially qualifies for G11, and shows a major misunderstanding of what our articles are supposed to look like (too many images), what tone to use for our articles (absolutely should not be hyping up a company/product), and what sources to use for articles (use of neutral sources would probably have avoided the tone problems). The Bananatex diff seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In this user's defense, they haven't created any articles this year, and they have created a lot of species articles (which benefit from autopatrol) in the past. Overall, I'd lean towards removing autopatrol because of the QWSTION diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've pulled autopatrolled. COI or not, this is blatant spam that would disqualify any other editor from that user right. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good move and having no autopatrol is no big deal. Just means that their new articles will get a second set of eyes. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Autopatrolled is really the only "user right" that we have that having it or not changes nothing about your own editing, it just manages review queues. Sending this editors pages through NFPP seems a reasonable choice for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I had almost pulled it myself earlier, but decided to wait to see how this discussion went. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether or not we can determine a COI is somewhat irrelevant. Any editor creating blatant advertisements and spammy pages, as Cummings is doing, is in violation of our policies, whether he was paid to do it, or whether he has any connection besides he thought it was interesting. Frankly, the idea that US-Verified should be sanctioned for failing to assume good faith when the most obvious possibility here is an undeclared COI is ridiculous and smacks of shooting the messenger because someone's wiki-friend is the one being discussed (and haven't we had enough of WMUK protecting their buddies from well-deserved sanctions to last a lifetime?) AGF is not a suicide pact, and I applaud US-Verified for bringing this up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm quite disturbed by the initial response to US-Verified's comments by a couple of users. It's pretty clear there is a problem here. Number 57 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Number 57, Levivich for your comments and calling a spade a spade. Andy's above comments are not helpful and I'm feeling disturbed reading them. US-Verified (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those who find these edits disturbing, to say the least. US-Verified may have made some errors in presenting this report, but that doesn't invalidate it; there's definitely cause for concern here. If I'd seen this tagged as G11 I'd have deleted it without the slightest hesitation. So here's a plain question which just needs a plain answer: John Cummings, were you paid to create the truly awful page you made at QWSTION? I'm sorry to hear you're not well, but please take the time to answer anyway. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the archiving of this thread, given that John has long COVID and his ability to respond promptly to questions might be compromised. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both: Justlettersandnumbers and Cordless Larry. US-Verified (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the details of this specific ANI report, but there's a broader, longstanding problem with UNESCO and COI that I've raised before - most recently at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues and meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO are exempted from WP:COI? Asking for my understanding - cause, John has edited/created multiple UN-related articles. In my opinion, this should go though WP:AFC process like other COI editors. US-Verified (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still astonished that a Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, in receipt of funding from the WMF, would think creating an article looking like Special:Diff/767682017 was appropriate, and to refer to it "as example for training on reuse of open license text". Judging by their acceptance of the report I linked to above, the folks at the WMF don't seem bothered though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply by John Cummings

Hi all

I'm recovering from long covid and taking an extended break from work and going on the computer in general so haven't seen this thread before.

COI

I have already said (as US-Verified acknowledges above) I have no COI with regard to these articles. Nor am I paid for any of my editing, other than as previously declared as a Wikimedian in Residence. I would guess maybe 5-10% of the 100s of articles I've written are about organisations or products, I mostly write about the environment/sustainability/plants, I think I've maybe had 1 article deleted as not notable in 11 years of contributing to Wikipedia (about a man who saved people from a mass shooting).

US-Verified

After no one replied to this post for only 10 minutes US-Verified added COI and other tags to many (I counted 18) articles that I've created and nominated 7 for deletion in about half an hour. Like others here have already said, I have experienced this as hounding.

Previously I have replied on my talk page to them explaining users must provide information on why they think there is a COI, but they have not and have continued to accuse others of COI without explanation e.g ByHours, CarSwap, Guildhawk, Jurga Žilinskienė, Relief Therapeutics and nominated a large number of pages created by others for deletion. They've nominated so many articles for deletion they've had to be asked on their talk page to slow down because they're overwhelming the system. On Thursday they sent me a message on my talk page saying I don't have a conflict of interest... so I am quite confused by their behaviour. I'd really appreciate if someone could provide US-Verified with some guidance on rules around COI because they're continuing to accuse people of COI without providing evidence which cannot be pleasant for the editors. Also to assess the article tags and nominations for deletions they've made.

Article

Regarding the article about QWSTION I agree the tone could be much better, I asked the people who put the tags on the article to clarify which parts were problematic (on my talk page) but received no reply. I'll work on the article again taking this feedback into account when I'm physically able. Please add your comments on how to improve it to the talk page of the article rather than here so they don't get lost.

As others have said I've asked companies/organisations for photos to include in articles I've written, something I'm pretty experienced in guiding people through given my day job. We usually don't have any open license photos for products, or just poor quality ones, but articles for more masculine products like cars, trains, planes, military equipment etc often include images of every product eg Ferrari, Boeing 747. I don't think including every model of a plane or car for a company would be described on Wikipedia as advertising but I understand why it could be seen as this for articles that don't usually have so many photos available. Again if people have ideas of which images to include please add them to the talk page.

Responding

I hope this answers your questions, I will check again next week some time for any replies. I would appreciate if users could @ me in the messages if their questions are directed at me, it's a lot of effort for me to read all this text currently.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm hoping you get better soon. I don't think this answers the questions asked above. RE e.g.:

• CarSwap was created by User:Isingness who is blocked for advertising
• ByHours, when I discovered this article (btw, I tracked your articles, this article, all other through reverse search using press release or spammy website link) it looked like this. A few problems I noted were use of press releases, ref bombing, and way the awards section was written clearly suggest someone with COI edited it. I was right about this and found that a single-purpose account User:Oneal Rock created the article.
• Guildhawk and Jurga Žilinskienė are interlinked, much like QWSTION and its product Bananatex. These two articles, Guildhawk and its founder have been edited by someone (User:Paxlife) who is sort of maintaining these two for a year now and the tone of their edits suggests that they haven't declared COI yet -- I have sent them a message to declare it. I'm glad you brought these two here so there is a chance we can cleanup its contents now.
• Relief Therapeutics is cited mostly with primary sources (i.e. press releases, company links, and others), edited recently by User:WaterfordWhisperer. Thank you!

US-Verified (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RE hounding: As I said, I tracked your problematic article QWSTION through reverse search and was the reason that I checked your editing history and found more articles that were not compliant with WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (I just nominated them, so we can discuss). I've just seen your editing history for a few times and this was done for a "good cause" (as described on that guideline). US-Verified (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

TheFinalBabylon

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

My good faith is all lost on them when shortly after I reverted their changes again on Babylon's Fall, they dropped this one hell of a bombshell edit summary accusing me of being a troll and a vandal, citing April Fools Day. Before this, after I've made changes to that page complying with WP:VGMOS, they've reverted me in 4 separate edits without providing any reason. OceanHok reverted. When I try to discuss the edits on the article talk page, and calling out their unexplained reverts, TFB doubled down. I make mistakes then and sometimes still now, but they should be indeffed for these uncalled for attacks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) edited 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My edits have remained on the Babylon's Fall wikipedia page without any problems for the last six weeks. During that time, the page has been viewed by thousands of people. Late yesterday and today, on APRIL FOOLS day, you have been vandalizing / deleting all of my edits which have been around since the last six weeks without any problems (again, thousands have viewed that page during those six weeks and have never had a problem). I have looked into your history and I have noticed that you keep deleting other people's works in an unfair way. See the message someone left on your talk page for an example. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia has no deadline. Whether someone sought to edit the page 6 weeks, 6 years or 6 minutes after is not relevant. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  04:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

ALSO, edits removing photos was undone since I had added the pictures under Fair use rules (under the highest resolution allowed under fair use, something which I explained in some of my more recent edits). Six weeks ago I uploaded the pictures at a higher resolution but a bot corrected those uploads by placing the pictures under fair use and lowered the resolution so it would be under fair use, but still very clear enough to see. Those pictures have been on that page for SIX WEEKS without incident and with THOUSANDS of people viewing the page (see the page views for details) for the last six weeks and no one had a problem. Other edits I did recently were to the three quests and I added the two major events from the now deleted Special events section (which did have a story, especially the Festival of the Sun event which contained the closing epilogue story. If you had actually played the game you would have known this) . However, I did NOT get a chance to add back in the important characters section (which you deleted) where I briefly explained the back stories to each important character (which related back to the overall plot) despite you removing that section despite it being up for SIX WEEKS on the Babylons' Fall page. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheFinalBabylon, why haven't you discussed any of your proposed changes at Talk:Babylon's Fall with the editors who object? Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This complaint is in regards to theinstantmatrix . My Wikipedia user name is TheFinalBabyon and my edits have remained on the Babylon's Fall wikipedia page without any problems for the last six weeks. During that time, the page has been viewed by thousands of people. Late yesterday and today, on APRIL FOOLS day, theinstantmatrix has been vandalizing / deleting all of my edits which have been around since the last six weeks without any problems (again, thousands of people have viewed that page during those six weeks and have never had a problem). I have looked into theinstantmatrix history and I have noticed that they keep deleting other people's works in an unfair way. See the message someone left on theinstantmatrix talk page for an example. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Diffs of recent edit warring by TheFinalBabylon: [123], [124], [], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131].  // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  In regards to what you wrote above and what you wrote below, I have made several revisions for that plot section for the Babylon's Fall page. My first draft, which was around mid February 2023, contained tons of information, but was considered too long. When I had the free time, I eventually LISTENED to critique and edited and completely revamped it later in February 2023. That time greatly shortening the plot explanation (leaving out a lot of information, but keeping the main points of the plot), but adding in a section for characters and a brief bio for the important characters (and I have seen character sections for other video game related Wikipedia pages as well as in Wikipedia pages for other media which have been up for years) and also adding a Special Events section to briefly add info for various important events and side stories and epilogue stories within those events that happened in the game. I also had the "Datbot" revamp the original pics which were added, reducing their size so they would fall under "Fair Use" rules, but also keeping the pictures very clear as they are allowed to be. All of this along with most of my final revisions and additions was finished a few days BEFORE February 28th (the day the Wikipedia Babylon's Fall page received it's most views, as seen in the view statistics). I added a few more tiny additions afterwards regarding the final day of the game and a few facts about some characters I had remembered as I played the game during the final days and by March 1st, 2023 I was finished with everything I wanted to add. Granted, I wanted to add a gameplay GIF to the gameplay section which I have and another pic of a story scene with dialogue for one of the events mentioned, but at the time I was finished.

  For SIX WEEKS (since late February where I added the second revision with the plot section, important characters section, and special events section and the three pictures on the Babylon's Fall page) I had no problems, no incidents, and no objections to anything that remained on that page for SIX WEEKS (which was viewed by thousands of people).

  Now, here we are on APRIL FOOLS day where the important characters section (which contained a lot of information) and special events section (which also contained a good amount of information) both are "Thanos snapped". Now, I decided to LISTEN and let those two sections stay dead (I didn't even bring them back), and now on APRIL FOOLS day I am now forced into a third revision, but I am trying to salvage what's left of that plot section. Two of the events I had mentioned in my second draft (especially the Festival of the Sun event, which contains the epilogue story) should be mentioned. I'm also trying to reword the three main quests. Also, the pictures should not be taken down. It's bad enough that the original captions I had for them, which had CITATIONS for some of their information, were erased and I had to replace them with very basic information (and I would like to add back in my original captions with all the original info since they contained important info). The first picture of Sophia and Sylvie is as clear as it is allowed to be under the fair use rules which the DATBOT contributed to and I don't see anything "horrible" regarding these two characters (despite claims of that picture being considered horrible and unclear. I don't see anything horrible about these closeups of these two characters, who are the top two major characters to the game, aside from the main character which the player creates). Same goes for the other two pics (one which shows the rare Babylon's Fall art book page of a character next to a screenshot and another showing an Arwia action figure / doll in front of a screenshot). I've already had enough of my contributions erased from this Babylon's Fall page on APRIL FOOLS day and it makes no sense to continue to delete my contributions any further. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  ^^^ Perfect illustration of my points, unfiltered straight from the source, delivered on a silver platter right to ANI: WP:IDHT WP:CIR. Placing their comment right smack in the middle of mine is the cherry on top of the WP:CIR sundae. // Timothy :: talk  03:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  This will be my FINAL reply to you. My comment appears in the "middle" of your comment because the "reply" button (which automatically places my comment between your reply) is in the middle of your entire reply. With that said, on this APRIL FOOLS day, I am trying to protect what remains of my contributions (most of which had been up on the Babylon's Fall page for SIX WEEKS with no one objecting to them and no one having a problem... till today on APRIL FOOLS day. Please read my entire long post that I spent time typing to you, which you did not read. I already explained everything that I had to explain in that post). I don't know if this is all an April fools joke for you, but I do not find it funny to have things I worked on and had stay up for SIX WEEKS without any incidents or objections suddenly become vandalized / erased by people and then for me to be put on "trial" on an administrators page during April fools day for trying to stop any further vandalism from individuals with highly questionable motives on APRIL FOOLS (a day known for people trying to mess with others). No one deserves this type of unprofessional treatment. Not me or any other Wikipedia user. None of us are getting paid money to do this, all of us are spending their free time to supply information for various things out of personal passion and interest. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue: I'm not sure what you want TheFinalBabylon to do here. You literally placed your sig in the middle of your reply. Please also note in WP:CIR: It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to people about required competence. Rude and uncivil comments are discouraging, and can raise psychological barriers against recognizing one's mistakes or improving one's skills. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  04:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  @TheFinalBabylon:, can you explain why you think Wikipedia:Edit warring doesn't apply to your edits?  // Timothy :: talk  03:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

TheFinalBabylon edit history [132] shows problems with CIR and LISTEN. eg edits and edit summaries [133], [134], [135], [136]

PA in edit summary need to be addressed: [137]

Edits are largely OR and SYNTH: eg (see edit summaries also) [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]  // Timothy :: talk  03:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

An edit isn't "fine" when it isn't removed for SIX WEEKS. An article can still be sent to deletion after several years. This logic is extremely flawed. OceanHok (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I am officially done with Wikipedia and your treatment of me for the last seven weeks has been easily the most unprofessional behavior I have ever witnessed on any website. The icing on the cake being how today you called the picture of Sophia and Sylvie horrible and unclear. That picture was as clear as day. And horrible? It's a picture of two female characters from the game (a game which I have no idea why you decided to patrol it's Wikipedia page when it's clear as day you don't care about the game). A close up of their two faces in that pic. It doesn't show violence, it doesn't even show their bodies. It shows their faces, very, VERY clearly. I don't know if you find the picture horrible because of their gender or because of their skin color, but I was very offended by your highly unprofessional comment.

What happened today (on April Fools day) is easily the most unprofessional set of events I have ever experience on any website. I had been warned by SEVERAL people in real life to not contribute to Wikipedia because of the huge trolling problem present on this site. I even saw several Youtube videos warning people not to contribute to Wikipedia because of the huge trolling problem on this site. I do not want to type up anything for this site when there are several other websites (other wiki sites, streaming videos sites, etc, etc) which I can contribute to and not have to be treated in this way. Like I said in my previous post, I am not getting paid to do anything for this site. I am legit using my own free time to make contributions for free. Yet, sites which do pay me actually treat me so much better than this. So yes, I am 100% finished with this website and I will be documenting this set of events that happened today for other websites. TheFinalBabylon (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the screenshot is "horrible" because it is weirdly framed and seemingly cropped (bizarre aspect ratio). The background is awfully unclear as well. We never put a screenshot of cutscenes in video game articles. You can rant all you want, but it is clear that your edits are not appropriate when three different editors who have never interact with each other before all reverted your edits. OceanHok (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Curious, that. I've been improving some stuff on Genghis Khan recently which has been up ten years and viewed by tens of millions of people. And not once has anyone used the rationale "It's been up for a while, so it stays I guess?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: Seems to me that according to this, TheFinalBabylon has called it quits. I therefore no longer felt the need to recommend an indefinite block to them (though that's ultimately still up to the admins to decide), but I'll reiterate that it's still wrong for TFB to call people vandals and trolls in a content dispute, or bring up their past behavior when it's no longer occurring, when things don't go their way. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to the China-Taiwan articles

Proposal: Extended-confirmed restriction for all articles related to Cross-Strait relations

I am no admin but I have proposing an idea to impose community sanctions that covers all articles related to China, Taiwan and East Asia. There is no sanctions related to it before (hence "the topic area")

Extended-confirmed protection: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.

2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.

C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Do you support or oppose the idea? 174.89.100.7 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. This is scope creep. ECP for all articles relating to China, Taiwan and East Asia is frankly ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many articles will that fall under? It will only serve to worsen ideological and geographical bias on Wikipedia. The status quo is adequate. 175.201.38.36 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons as above, the cross-strait related topics are largely dependent on political stance and personal value and ideology, which have no exact right or wrong answer to sanction a broadly satisfied result to appease everyone. I know what your motivation is, but you certainly underestimate the complexity of the Project that would involve. LVTW2 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That would go against WP:NO-PREEMPT, so I don't think you will get consensus for this. Case-by-case WP:RFPP is the routine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t know how general sanctions work, but can you explain the process? The supporters of Taiwanese independence, Kuomintang and pro-Beijing are frequenting the articles on a daily basis. 174.89.100.7 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As Gråbergs Gråa Sång implies, we would need evidence that such sanctions are needed before implementing them. There is little doubt that there is a problem, but you need to show that this is the solution to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I will let you know when I find them. 174.89.100.7 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And I don't think that any discussion here can impose such sanctions. If you want to pursue this then possibly the correct place to discuss it would be WP:VPR, or maybe someone else can think of a more specific place. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Community GS are usually discussed and instituted at AN. That procedural point aside, it would probably be better if this were first discussed at WP:VPI before making any concrete proposals. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, 174.89.100.7 has been engaged in ROC POV-pushing for at least a year now through (at least) the following IPs:

• 76.68.77.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Mar 2023)
• 174.91.109.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Mar 2023)
• 142.112.239.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Feb 2023)
• 184.147.23.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Feb-Mar 2023)
• 184.145.53.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Jan-Feb 2023)
• 174.95.137.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Oct-Dec 2022)
• 76.68.77.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (July-Dec 2022)
• 142.112.227.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (June-July 2022)
• 142.112.224.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (May-Jun 2022)
• 142.112.224.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Apr-May 2022)
• 76.68.77.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Apr 2022)
• 142.112.227.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (April 2022)
• 142.112.236.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (March-June 2022)
• 76.68.77.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Jan 2022)
• 184.146.39.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Oct 2021-March 2022)

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Vandalized Preview Pop Ups for American cuisine and a Large Number of Related Articles

Moved from Talk:American cuisine

 – FormalDude (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the pop-up preview for this article along with a number of other articles, mostly pertaining to food and/or pertaining to the United States of America or Canada possibly also Korea and Italy seem to have been vandalized with one specific image of what appears to be a fly on feces. I have no idea how those are edited and I have had no luck searching for how to do so. These are the instances I have found from looking at previews of pages that link to the pages for American cuisine and Canadian cuisine look at the first two pages of 500 instances for the American cuisine article and the first 500 instances for the Canadian cuisine article and they show that this problem has a surprisingly-large scale.

A list of the pages I have found thus far that have been vandalized in this manner:

Neapolitan cuisine, Lunch, Music of the United States, List of cuisines, Roman cuisine, Cinema of the United States, Cajun cuisine, Soul food, Technological and industrial history of the United States, Canadian cuisine, Chuckwagon, Cuisine of the Pennsylvania Dutch, Cuisine of the Southwestern United States, List of reptiles of Canada, Cinema of Canada, Cuisine of New England, Greek Canadians, Oath of Citizenship (Canada), Cuisine of Philadelphia, New American cuisine, Cuisine of North Dakota, Culture of Dallas, Lists of populated places in the United States, List of foods of the Southern United States, Cuisine of New Jersey, Tlingit cuisine, Cuisine of Omaha, List of Korean Dishes, Culinary Revolution, Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies, Indian ice cream (Canada), Barbecue in the United States, Cuisine of the Western United States, South Korean cuisine, List of soul foods and dishes, Venetian cuisine, Barbecue in Texas, and Timeline of United States inventions (1946-1991)

I would have worked on fixing this vandalism myself, but I have no idea how to edit an article's preview pop-up and can't find any resources for learning how to do so. Also, the apparent scale of the problem is systemic and, as such, I feel that I must call attention to the problem so that people with more technical know-how than me can try resolve the problem. YIMBYzus (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying this here, I see the same vandalism but I'm also not sure what is causing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Ch.megacephala wiki.jpg is the image being used, if that helps. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

When you see this type of complaint, it's usually template vandalism, and that was indeed the cause here several hours ago. Check recent changes in the template namespace. After Special:Contributions/Rustyrivet, I suspect we're looking at caching issues somewhere along the line. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I was able to reproduce. Steps to reproduce: 1) make sure Special:Preferences gadgets navigation popups is turned off, 2) make sure Special:Preferences gadgets reference tooltips is turned on, 3) hover mouse over some of the above articles that haven't been purged recently.

The fix: WP:PURGE the articles individually.

The cause: My guess is some template vandalism that got reverted already, but is still lingering in caches. Would be interesting to see what template it was, and possibly block the user. Do these articles have a template in common? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It was this: Special:Diff/1147464621. See the above contributions link for the remainder. —Alalch E. 08:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - For the record I just blocked 86.180.182.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for making the same exact edit on other templates. - Aoidh (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also blocked an editor who edited a single template in the same manner, so it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye out for similar transclusions. - Aoidh (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be better to protect the affected templates? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't really limited to any specific templates; there have been problems like this all week as people have figured out how to put this sneaky vandalism into the pop-up previews. See here for example. I don't know how to fix this beyond playing whack-a-mole or disabling pop-ups altogether. --Jayron32 16:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone want to try adding the image File:Ch.megacephala_wiki.jpg to MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, with an exception for the article Coprophagia? I think the vandals are transcluding the whole article Coprophagia, so I am not 100% sure this works, but might be worth looking into. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do that, but also realize that it's just whack-a-mole. There's thousands or even millions of images that are currently in commons of likely objectionable (gross, or prurient, or otherwise widely objectionable to many people) that can be used in this kind of vandalism attack. It takes someone literally seconds to find a new one to keep doing this with. I mean, yes, add it to the list for now, but don't think it's going to stop the wider problem. --Jayron32 17:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Perhaps an edit filter to disallow new users transcluding articles in templates? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like a lot of the preview images are hanging around in cache long after the vandalism is reverted. I figured out how to save on clicking and purge all the pages transcluding a particular template using the ApiSandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=purge&format=json&formatversion=2&generator=embeddedin&geititle=Template%3ATEMPLATENAME&geilimit=max. Just change the template name in the "geititle" field and click "Make request". Note that if you're not an admin you will be only be able to purge up to 50 pages, admins can do 500. the wub "?!" 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• This issue seems to be broader than just American cuisine – it's also (still) on Hi-Line (Montana) (I've tried to purge but it still shows up) and formerly on GPT2 (but fixed by manual edit)
• This seems to be very easy to repro on the iOS app

Strangefeatures (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party as I usually am, just a note that I indef'd Rustyrivet for this behavior on 31 March. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotional external links

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 user adding his website's external links of articles just like he did here [143]]. His user names resembles with the website, which is violet WP policy, I know you'll block him from editing but don't forget to mass undo his all edits because manually it's very hard to undo them.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for promotional username/promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 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.

Repeated removals and resubmissions of AfC declines

This appears to meet the WP:ANI guideline of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. User:Sameeee1990 has repeatedly removed AfC decline notices. Examples include [144], [145], [146], [147].

User has been repeatedly warned about this behaviour, both in edit summaries ([148], [149]) and in increasing warnings on their Talk page ([150], [151], [152]). In spite of this, they have failed to take heed, and, subsequent to the final warning (and an additional warning by another AfC reviewer), have repeated the behaviour. Greenman (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I blocked for 36 hours, hopefully that allows them to find their talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Canyounottalktome123

• Canyounottalktome123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been persistent issues with this editor for some time. This editor clearly has seen talkpage posts and edit summaries because they use words like "announced" on transactions in edit summary but still doesn't seem to have an understanding of what constitutes an official announcement despite multiple edit summaries on reverts and multiple talkpage posts. The most recent example seems to be right after this edit which I reverted here and reiterated the rule, this editor changed the number for an NFL player here despite no official announcement from the team or the player that he has changed his number. While it's not a violation of username policies, the editor's username appears to show an unwillingness to discuss anything with a name that includes the phrase "can you not talk to me".--Rockchalk717 16:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It happens every off season and some users listen to feedback, improve, and stick around, and then there's the users who make changes before they're official, based on unconfirmed rumours, and don't listen to the feedback given to them. This user appears to be one of the latter. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by 145.255.0.0/21

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

---

I'm reporting a user from the IP range:

• 46.191.232.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for block evading the IP range 145.255.0.0/21 which they previously used to disrupt articles like the following:

• Television in Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cartoon Network (Scandinavian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For example, compare these two diffs: diff 1 on article 1, diff 2 on article 1 and diff 1 on article 2, diff 2 on article 2.

Please look into this.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: the latest involved IP from this range, 46.191.232.243, has been blocked for two weeks by ToBeFree for disruptive editing. Turns out a rangeblock wasn't needed, as there is very little, if any, IP hopping going on here. I'll update this or make another report again if they evade this block. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 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.

Page protection request for CGTN Spanish

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.

---

Since March 26, 2023, the page has been getting spam links added by either a spambot or an LTA. It was protected before, but the protection time may need to be increased. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

May also need to protect these page as well:

Radio in Paris

Georges Fontenis

Union communiste libertaire

Porro (surname)

Mass media in France

Talk:Turin

Talk:Campodarsego

Here are these sockpuppet I just manage to caught:

Ici et Maintenant ! hic et nunc ! Une radio lcomme Radio Gamma 5, 94FM Campodarsego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ici & Maintenant ! hic et nunc ! Une radio comme Radio Gamma 5, 94FM Campodarsego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kaseng55 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Kaseng55: In the future, it'd be best to submit protection requests at WP:RPP/I. You could also add to the existing sockpuppet investigation case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piermark. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

CGTN Spanish, seemingly the main focus of their spam, has been protected. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 April 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:NCdave

User is currently POV-pushing while affected by a COI [153] at CO2 Coalition [154]. Users at WP:FTN suggested a warning followed by a block. However, a quick look at the user's talk page reveals that they have already received several different final warnings in various editing disputes as well as a number of temporary blocks for edit warring and POV pushing. I suspect the reason heavier sanctions have been avoided so far is that the user has been mostly inactive since 2008. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bunch of issues here. They've clearly got a COI and their arguments otherwise aren't convincing. The repeated bludgeoning and walls of text. The unwillingness to accept that the consensus of reliable sources is that the CO2 Coalition's position is fringe, and their attempts to use WP:OR to argue otherwise, along with ignoring everyone who has repeatedly told them they need to rely on WP:RS.

Given their refusal/inability to understand the many attempts by various editors to explain to them what they're doing wrong, and their repeated misstatements about policies, I think they're either WP:NOTHERE or it's an unfixable WP:CIR problem. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This post by NCdave defines them as having a COI with CO2 Coalition, a COI that is cemented by their repetitive, tenditious, POV-pushing efforts here, here, and especially here. The clear COI, when combined with the examples of bludgeoning and failure to accept consensus as reported above, indicates that NCdave merits a topic ban from CO2 Coalition, broadly construed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This guy is violating our NPOV guidelines. He needs to be banned from not only the CO2 Coalition article but all global climate change topics, broadly construed. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The "number of temporary blocks" happened 14+ years ago. Mentioned diffs are of talk-page/noticeboard posts, and if they're too long can be ignored without need to bring up the bludgeoning essay. WP:COI says twice that an external relationship "can trigger" COI, not "does trigger", determining for disclosed unpaid group membership might reasonably be brought to WP:COIN but instead the accusation went to WP:FTN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Re COI: The user referred to the CO2 Coalition as "our organization" on the CO2 Coalition talk page. On the FTN they identify as "a member and unpaid volunteer" (one of 107 members apparently) and refer to the organisation as a "very worthy charity".

Re FRINGE: The reason that @Hob Gadling has taken the issue to FTN instead of COIN is probably that they were more concerned with the user's pushing of fringe theories than their COI. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes NCDave disclosed being a member. Yes Hob Gadling said "whitewash" as well as "WP:COI" when starting the WP:FTN thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Accusation went to FTN and then here because, the primary problem is that they were for edits that reflect their organisation's viewpoints on the page for their organisation, and said organisation happens to fall under WP:Fringe's purvieuw, so that's coincidentally the first noticeboard that picked it up. It should probably have been brought to COIN as well but I don't necessarily see how the noticeboard involved makes a difference here. as for the 14 year gap in their activity, yeah, there was one. I brought up their long list of warnings and blocks from before the ban because it looked a lot like the user was starting to return to the behaviour they initially got their temporary bans for.

That being said, NCDave seems to have ceased editing after people started talking about ANI, so I would not be opposed to closing this discussion for now with a note that it can be resumed if the problematic behaviour resumes. We're not here to punish, after all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as @Orangemike and behind the idea of an indefinite broadly construed TBAN on climate change, first appealable after six months. Ideally, I'd like to see editors learn from their mistakes on the site. A TBAN with a 6 month appeal is best when it comes to editors like this, as it's preventative while not punitive through the enablement of the 6-month appeal. While many of us know this, I find it important to mention a TBAN enables NCdave to edit on other areas of the encyclopedia constructively, such as maybe on movies, technology, computer science, tipflation, and taxes. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User: 49.190.240.37

49.190.240.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't really get into much disputes but I guess it is going to be expected when you make over 100 articles.

Talk:Battle of Fakashan
Talk:Battle of Laoshan

Basically doesn't like the content on the page so starts just throwing disruptive comment and even managed to throw WP:PA at me predictably. Short edit history shows rather high anti-China bias and rather hostile mentality.

Most likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Possible WP:SOCK

Edit: Seems to be the case with this

Please advise

Imcdc Contact 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even a personal attack. Know the definition. Stop trying to deflect and self victimise yourself, and you are now accusing me of being a sock because you want people to be banned whenever someome challenges your opinion and references. Your sources are unreliable and are one sided. Third party sources are widely unavailable to those articles. Your sources are very pro-China bias, as evident from your history. Also, those were done on the talk page which didn't affect the article in anyway, just a discussion as to why the sources are unreliable in nature. And now you are WP:PA on me by accusing me of being a sock because your sources were challenged on the talk page.49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is WP:NOTHERE. Qiushufang (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Qiushufang, the revert you did is unacceptable. First of all, the source is not rs

because it is an American newspaper agency done

about after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased. Second of all, it doesn't say which "analyst" or "analysts" specifically quoted "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" or "it was a Chinese victory". Which is already not rs. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

it is an American newspaper agency doneabout after the American withdrawal from the Vietnam war and is biased

This is just absurd, and basically says that any cite that originates in a nation cannot be a RS for reporting on said nation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am talking about the date which said quote was presented. After the American withdrawal from the Vietnam War, they did not admit their defeat, and during the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, the Americans supported China. Sources pertaining to so called American "expert abalysts" (who?/doesn't even quote any specific "expert") is already not rs in nature. The newspaper was also made in 1979, 4 years after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. It wasn't until 1995, that the Americans started to lift the sanctions and embargo, and another 10 years for relations to finally become stable, and Americans did not have good relations with Vietnam at that time, why would their media and political entities not admit their failure in Vietnam, and would support and favour China especially in the media and political discourse, rather rhan Vietnam during those time periods? I would not take any quotes from some random nobody (if there even was one in the first place)/biased entity saying "they beat the hell out of the Vietnamese" seriously. It just seems like an effort to POV push by some chinese wikipedian nationalists by finding an obscure and unreliable source.49.190.240.37 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your entire argument is that an American newspaper can't be a reliable source because it made in 1979, 4 years after the Americans withdrew from Vietnam. You're going to have an uphill battle proving that this excludes the source from being reliable.

And with this comment: It just seems like an effort to POV push by some chinese wikipedian nationalists by finding an obscure and unreliable source.

It seems you came here with an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I already listed WHY it's unreliable, yet you didn't read the full argumentative point. You just picked two point headers but didn't see the explanation for it. The quality of wikipedia for topics like these is just abysmal. People are quick to skim bits and pieces here and there without reading the full entirety of its context. Thanks for a whole lot of nothing. EDIT:using cellular data, hence the IP.120.21.31.232 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

To me at least, this diff by the IP is near-blatant racism against Chinese people, alleging that all of them are CCP supporters. This should be grounds for some sort of sanction, likely a block. I am not invested in the situation enough to offer a further opinion on sockpuppetry, but I would encourage anyone who does find the necessary evidence and necessity to open up an SPI. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mmk9890 and their various sockpuppets

• Mmk9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a concern regarding a user that has been disrupting articles across the Ancient Egypt topic space. This report will probably require a CU-check and I suspect that at this point it rises to the level of an LTA.

This user first came to my attention at the article Wepwawetemsaf initially under the IP: 2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 in August 2022. I wasn't involved in that particular incident at the article, though it was brought to my attention later via my watchlist resulting in this post. That was in response to User:Crybabywaaa (the IPs first sock puppet) posting this. Take note of the word ego. Now direct your attention to User talk:A. Parrot#Why should I take it to a talk page and note the editors second reply. The editor has a few noticeable habits, complaining about egos and bullies and invoking the wrath of the Egyptian pantheon. The user returned to the Wepwawetemsaf article on February 22, 2023 under a new IP. Their edits there are relevant to the sockpuppeting, but it's their edit history that I want to draw attention to as they had edited a single article prior to that one: The Contendings of Horus and Set. Specifically I want to draw attention to this and this edit to a user talk page. These display that second editing habit (actually, come to think of it, coherence is another issue). This leaves the present incident which has prompted this thread: there has been a new edit war at Horus instigated by the IP editor that left the remarks on A. Parrot's talk page and whose identification with the IP and Crybabywaaa is established via their talk page messages to Iry-Hor. This really leaves the need to tie Mmk9890 and the IP together and the key word here is 'bully' (shame and dishonour are also hints). Compare the edit summary left at 00:30 April 3, 2023 on Horus with the first talk page message left on A. Parrot's talk page at 00:35 April 3, 2023. The manner of writing between these users and IPs is much the same. That is, these are all the same individual.

For editors to know where to look through additional evidence: edit history of Wepwawetemsaf, comments left on user talk pages (A. Parrot, Iry-Hor, LoneStar and any others), edit history at Horus, talk page and edit history of The Contendings of Horus and Set. The main evidence is the manner of writing and the overlaps. I don't have time for more, hopefully enough for a start.

I'm pinging a few other editors that have had a history with the user and might be able to tie more threads here: A. Parrot, Iry-Hor, and Sirfurboy. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; Mr rnddude has apparently seen more of this sockpuppeteer's behavior than I have. But I was pretty convinced that this is a sockpuppeteer and was trying to figure out what to do about it. Mr rnddude's admirably thorough summary has saved me the effort. A. Parrot (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: Mmk9890 has been blocked for two weeks for edit-warring and incivility by Daniel Case following an AIV and AN/EW request to intervene. The unblock request on their talk page is written in the same style employed by Crybabywaaa (I mean they quite literally do an impression of a crybaby saying 'waaa') and the incivil 'being judged' post beneath it is reminiscent of the invocations of divine wrath placed on the talk page of the Contendings of Horus and Set. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets can generally be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. See the collapsed box "how to open a case". I would do it for you but I have not seen all of the above, and would basically just have to copy and paste from your evidence. Mmk9890  Looks like a duck to me, and maybe an administrator will do the honours, but for a proper investigation, perhaps with checkuser evidence, you need SPI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well unfortunately some editors do not want to be constructive, only disruptive, and there is clearly nothing can be done to reason the user behind all these socks (I agree with the diagnostic that all are one and the same person).Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of SPI this morning – Sirfurboy is correct that that's the most appropriate forum – but with the account now indeffed I'm not sure if an SPI is necessary, or if I should leave it unless or until a new sockpuppet appears. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Zzuuzz and Tamzin are already on the case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh hello. If one wants a name in the future, start here, and say that I said so. No comment on the IPs of course. Mostly they can probably just go to AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of cosmetic edits to get ECP

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.

---

Mixmon on 27 March made about 289 edits, nearly all of which were cosmetic,[155][156][157][158] in order to get ECP.

This WP:GAMING is a clear abuse of editing privileges to gain ECP. >>> Extorc.talk 19:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that against the rules? I was follwing suggested edits section on homepage and its Quick Start #2 mentions that - "To make a difference, you only need to make one or two small corrections. You do not need to work on the entire article. You also don't need to have any special knowledge about the topic." Mixmon (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Having a look at [159] and Mixmon's talk page. This clearly appears to be a bad faith request related to the content dispute discussion going on Vikram Sampath's talk page. WP:BOOMERANG might apply. Razer(talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all of this. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A cosmetic edit makes no change to the display of the content. Those diffs are not cosmetic; even minor punctuation fixes, including dashes, change the display of the content. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule again constructive editing, despite that it might seem at first. WP:GAMING would be making an edit and removing it over and over again. This is not gaming. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be just gnome edits. I don't see any issue. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose formal warning per WP:BOOMERANG

Extorc is warned by the community not to report users with whom they are having a content dispute with to ANI on unrelated matters. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  02:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Or, you could both bury the hatchet like grown ups would.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Mistakes happen. Sometimes a trouting really is the most appropriate solution. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair. Editorkamran also had some interesting things to say on my my talk page that may be relevant here as well, so I'll withdraw the proposal. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  12:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think at least a trouting in in order for Extorc for harassing and making bad faith accusation on mixmon ( Who is a fairly new editor ) not only on ANI but also on his talk page and various other forums. Razer(talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I am fairly aware of history of Mixmon and I find your accusations to be baseless. Accusation of "harassing" are serious and they cannot be posted without supporting diffs. Which "various other forums" are you even talking about? If anyone is "harassing and making bad faith accusation" at this stage, then that is only you. Editorkamran (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

[160] , [161] . Are comments like - " Your own history on this page shows you have been attempting to push a POV here. Can you describe why you are pretending to be an arbitrator all of now " not in bad faith and are attempts to discourage a user from participating in talk page discussion  ? Razer(talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So no "various other forums" exist. The quote you presented can be observed in the context that this edit summary clearly shows Mixmon pretending to be acting as uninvolved party despite he made his first edit ever on this talk page,[162] while their 2nd page was a spillover of same dispute. I don't think it is any attempt to "discourage a user from participating" but an attempt to urge the user to be more honest about their contribution. Editorkamran (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no Idea about your moral or ethical standards but threatening a user whose account is barely three months old and made a constructive comment on article talk page with - [163] "You are too late to the discussion" , " Your edits are disruptive " and then hounding him on his talk page - [164] by making allegation of pushing a POV and finally opening a frivolous ANI thread against him count as harassment to me.

You might wonder what kind of comment did Mixmon made to deserve such hounding, Well you will find that he made a simple comment - [165] stating - " Why is an edit war going on here when there is clearly no consensus on proposed changes "? I guess it's been happening for several weeks now." and suggested that the issue should be taken to DRN

Razer(talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"three months old" account with talk page full of warnings for various offenses such as copyright violation, outing, canvassing?[166]

"such hounding"? Show where WP:WIKIHOUNDING actually took place against Mixmon? Editorkamran (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I'm going around in circles now; I will let others to offer their views here Razer(talk) 14:46, 3 April 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.

New socks of User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123

Socks of Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 (talk · contribs) like to target the article Old East Slavic and now it looks like they are now making new accounts to restore previous edits and using the same troll-ish edit summaries. Probably the socks need to be blocked and there needs to be temporary page protection. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, I've done a bit of spring cleaning of the old WP:SOCK drawer. Feel free to let me know if it turns out I've missed any pairs. —  Salvio ^giuliano 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure if removing that clear honeypot from their list of editable pages is beneficial, though. Perhaps we shouldn't force them to be less obvious about their sockpuppetry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

True. It seems they have decided to stop making new accounts for the time being anyway so it looks like there is nothing else that needs to be done. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible IP LTA’s

14.138.48.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 14.138.50.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1.219.65.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 202.14.90.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Take a look at their contributions. Must be some LTA’s…

These IPs have been giving warning letters to some random users. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kaseng55 this is highly likely to be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gweilo60. The sockmaster is probably pissed at their RMs being closed contrary to their expectations. – robertsky (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear

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

Three days ago, Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) made a comment on an article talk page during a content dispute that included personal attacks and aspersions against me (Diff). The following day, I followed this up on their talk page and attempted to better explain myself, thinking that their outburst was due to a misunderstanding (Diff). However, the explanation I received was I responded in the manner in which you spoke, so do not act like I did not. (Diff) The discussion ended shortly thereafter (Permanent Link). The aspersions remain on the article talk page and Kansas Bear has shown no indication of remorse or awareness of wrongdoing on their part. It's concerning that an active editor of nearly 17 years feels comfortable making such remarks on article talk pages. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any aspersions or personal attacks against you in the diff you posted.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. If that's the diff you intended to post, Golden, then there's nothing to see there. —  Salvio ^giuliano 13:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Oh, well since we are stating what we have observed, I noticed Qizilbash arrived to support you on Timurid Empire talk page, it is a pity they can not tell the difference between culture(Persianate) and ethnicity(Persian). Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC. (emphasis not mine) & I am sure. Since we both know who will arrive. (Referencing the user Qizilbash from first quote). These are clear accusations of off-wiki coordination. Per WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Per WP:ASPERSIONS: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." These accusations were made on an article talk page and remained there, even after their problematic nature was pointed out. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether these accusations lack evidence - when Kansas Bear gets here, I would expect him to provide some.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call those "clear" accusations, myself. They're pretty murky. Ravenswing 19:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Do we really need someone to spell it out and say "X is working with Y" for it to be a problem? By the way, neither the user Qizilbash nor the RfC on the Timurid Empire talk page had anything to do with what was being discussed on the Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi, where the personal attack was posted, nor were either of them mentioned prior to Kansas's comment. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, I agree that personalising a dispute is not helpful, in that it makes it harder to achieve a satisfactory resolution and I can't tell you that you are wrong to view those comments as suboptimal. However, in practice, a bit of, let's call it, rough and tumble is tolerated when editors are discussing content issues. It's probably a matter of law in books vs law in action, but, generally speaking, unless there is a clear pattern of incivility or clear personal attacks, no action is going to be taken and, in this case, you haven't alleged there is a pattern of incivility and those comments do not rise to the level of clear personal attacks. —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Right. So, if similar comments keep coming up, then it would be actionable? Did I understand that correctly? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Golden, if there is a pattern of incivility, then the editor in question may be sanctioned. I say "if" and "may" because experience has shown that what is tolerated when it comes to incivility and what is sanctioned is difficult to predict accurately, because it's very situation-dependent. It's no coincidence that Arbcom has had to deal with multiple cases concerning civility... —  Salvio ^giuliano 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. It appears that Kansas Bear won’t be arriving anytime soon to present any evidence as Ermenrich had expected (unsurprising), so I’ll consider this matter closed for now. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "unsurprising"
• "bad day

Unnecessary snide remarks made, even following me to my talk page to say one. And Golden wants to speak of civility?

As for the "observed", Golden themselves used that term to cover their comment of "Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region?".

• "I am simply stating what I have observed." --Golden

I responded by in the same reference, "I have observed...". I neither stated Qizilbas was in contact with nor was told by Golden to vote in a particular manner. However, I find that Qizilbas' arriving to an article they have never edited, to vote on the article talk page quite intriguing(aside from the fact they have clearly never read the article!). Thus my follow up comment, "Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC.". Meh.

Also, Golden has a problem of reading what other editors are saying, picking and choosing, as illustrated here, what was said.

• "Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region?" --Golden

I gave a link of Alihd23's spamming "Persian" edits(See here). Golden was not satisfied stating, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist."

And there you have the real reason why this is at AN/I. To remove an editor that is removing "Azerbaijani" ethnicity from the Lead of articles. Golden admits that the term did not exist in history at-that-time. Just to give everyone a better idea of the article in question:

• 1."Seyid Ali Imadaddin Nasimi (Azerbaijani: Seyid Əli İmadəddin Nəsimi, سئید علی عمادالدّین نسیمی; c. 1369/70 – 1418/19), commonly known as Nasimi[a] (Nəsimi, نسیمی), was a 14th and 15th century Hurufi poet. He is regarded as one of the greatest Turkic poets of his time and one of the most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

• 2."Seyid Ali Imadaddin Nasimi (Azerbaijani: Seyid Əli İmadəddin Nəsimi, سئید علی عمادالدّین نسیمی; c. 1369/70 – 1418/19), commonly known as Nasimi[a] (Nəsimi, نسیمی), was a 14th and 15th century Azerbaijani Hurufi poet. He is regarded as one of the greatest Turkic poets of his time and one of the most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

The second example is what Golden wanted. An anachronistic term(attested even by Golden), used at the beginning of this article(language) and in the first sentence(ethnicity) and in the second sentence(language). This I believe is a case of wanting to right great wrongs. Golden's outburst of "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist.", shocked me. The simple removal of Azerbaijani(ethnicity) from the first sentence makes Golden thinks other editors are here to make the Azeri people "not exist"?

As for Golden's comment, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist.", I am not sure what should be done. To me this indicates an inability to edit neutrally in the area of AA2 and well as bad faith on their part. Considering I have already notified another editor of Alihd23's POV pushing, I find their comment unacceptable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for the "observed", Golden themselves used that term to cover their comment

Right, and here's how I used it: I am simply stating what I have observed. [...] However, I have noticed that many major poets from the Middle East have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead of their articles. This practice seems to be removed only for Azerbaijani poets (if you have recent evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it).

And here's how you responded to that: Oh, well since we are stating what we have observed, I noticed Qizilbash arrived to support you on Timurid Empire talk page, it is a pity they can not tell the difference between culture(Persianate) and ethnicity(Persian). Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC. I have observed you complain about edits towards what you label Azerbaijani poets insisting that since they wrote their majority of their works in Azerbaijani that you should be allowed to violate MOS:Ethnicity. I guess majority works only applies to the Azerbaijani language? But not about an empire that wrote the majority of its works in Persian. Got it. The fact that you still think tones of these comments are the same shows that you are having a hard time understanding what's civil and what's not.

• I neither stated Qizilbas was in contact with nor was told by Golden to vote in a particular manner. However, I find that Qizilbas' arriving to an article they have never edited, to vote on the article talk page quite intriguing(aside from the fact they have clearly never read the article!).

Right, but why did you bring it up to me in an article that had nothing to do with our topic of discussion? Surely you can see how that would have been interpreted.

• Also, Golden has a problem of reading what other editors are saying, picking and choosing, as illustrated here, what was said. I gave a link of Alihd23's spamming "Persian" edits(See here). Golden was not satisfied stating, "Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist."

Seriously? Are you really going to misrepresent what I said? My statement about the term's non-existence was in response to another question of yours: I would ask why Azerbaijani is being liberally used over multiple articles, when clearly it is NOT a nationality(during this time period).

To which I responded with: Your question would be better directed to scholars such as Gerhard Doerfer, Canan Balan, and Kathleen Burrill, who all use the terms "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" to refer to the poet. Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist. You can't even try to claim that my response was to your linking of reverts of Alihd23 because I clearly indicated what I was responding to.

Every single scholarly source in the article refers to the poet as 'Azerbaijani'/'Azeri' or a similar derivative. To think that saying the poet is Azerbaijani is an attempt to 'right great wrongs' is beyond me. I guess the nine scholars cited in the article were also trying to right great wrongs? (What each source says) This follows the precedent set by other poet articles from the Middle East area, where the poet is introduced by their nationality. I simply followed this precedent. And I found it odd that this guideline was only applied to Azeri poets (out of all the other poets from the region), which is why I asked you whether there was an actual explanation for this. However, you interpreted my question as a challenge to your neutrality and responded with a threat (Continue to make insinuations about my neutrality, and you will not like where it ends up). I even agreed to keep ethnicities out of the lead after a proposal by HistoryofIran to do the same for all poets (Diff).

Kansas Bear seems to have difficulty with communication. They tend to assume bad faith too quickly and are unwilling to let go of that assumption even when the other user shows a willingness to cooperate and clear up misunderstandings. The above comment, along with the ones I've posted before, provides evidence of this. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Kansas Bear seems to have difficulty with communication."

Another snide remark?

You chose to make that comment personal, just like you chose to ignore my recent edits to remove other ethnicities from the Lead of articles. Your personalized comment of "Azeris not existing at that time" is unacceptable and I do not appreciate that comment directed at me.

• "They tend to assume bad faith too quickly and are unwilling to let go of that assumption even when the other user shows a willingness to cooperate and clear up misunderstandings."

After the insinuation of removing Azerbaijani ethnicities exclusively, yeah my good faith is pretty much gone.

• "I even agreed to keep ethnicities out of the lead after a proposal by HistoryofIran to do the same for all poets"

Then why bother me on my talk page? I had left the conversation, which is still ongoing on the article talk page and you still arrived at my talk page. To instigate something you could run to AN/I with? Perhaps you should think about that. You were upset because Azerbaijani was removed once from the 3 times it is mentioned in the first two sentences of the article. And it spiraled out from there. Which is reflected by your "Azeris not exist at that time", comment.

Also, the current discussion on that particular article talk page appears to refute your comment about renown Azerbaijani(Iskander323's comment) and whether they were known as Azerbaijanis(LouisAragon's comment).

FYI, my nationality comment directly deals with MOS:Ethnicity, nothing to do with whether a group of individuals existed or not. You spoke of Azerbaijanis/Azeris and how you felt they are not represented. That is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• You chose to make that comment personal, just like you chose to ignore my recent edits to remove other ethnicities from the Lead of articles. Your personalized comment of "Azeris not existing at that time" is unacceptable and I do not appreciate that comment directed at me.

What? You mean the edits you made an hour ago? They were not there when the discussion at Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi started, so my observation about MOS:Ethnicity not being applied to other poets was correct at the time.

• Then why bother me on my talk page?

Because you made a comment on an article talk page that could easily be interpreted as an allegation of off-wiki contacts. I also realized that you thought I was challenging your neutrality with my comment. So, I reached out to clarify and said this: Nowhere in my comment on that thread did I question your neutrality. My question about the lack of application of MOS:Ethnicity to other poet articles was a genuine one, directed not just to you or your contributions, but as a general question for which I thought there would be a reasonable explanation. I then commented about your random remarks about Qizilbash and Timurid Empire RfC to tell you: I would urge you to take any concerns you have about those issues to the relevant noticeboards rather than bringing them up during content discussions on Wiki articles I had no intention of bringing you to any noticeboard because I hoped that you would realize your comments were unnecessarily rude. However, after your last comment on your talk page (Diff), I felt I had no other option.

• You were upset because Azerbaijani was removed once from the 3 times it is mentioned in the first two sentences of the article

Bolding your claim doesn't make it any less absurd. I wasn't upset; I was confused, as I've stated numerous times. I hadn't seen any removal of ethnicity from other poet articles. When I expressed this confusion, you responded with a threat. [see last quote in my previous comment]

• Also, the current discussion on that particular article talk page appears to refute your comment about renown Azerbaijani

Did you miss the next comment where Iskander323 agreed that the academic consensus and a good compromise would be to use 'Azeri Turkic' (an alternative of 'Azerbaijani') (Diff), to which I agreed? (Diff)

• You spoke of Azerbaijanis/Azeris and how you felt they are not represented.

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth again. I genuinely believe that you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying. It's not helpful for us to continue going back and forth without properly comprehending each other's points. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Golden has been editing for ~ 3 years on Wikipedia, with a very keen interest in WP:AA2. In these three years, they have been blocked twice for socking,[167] found to be votestacking in this highly contentious topic area,[168] has denied wrongdoings in the face of CU results,[169] and has been topic banned twice from this topic area.[170]-[171] As we speak, they are still in fact topic banned from all conflicts related to AA2. As recent as 18 March 2023, they were placed under yet another sanction, as they were put under "indefinite probation" within the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area.[172] If we divide 3 years by 5, that means every 0.6 part of a year, they have been sanctioned due to illicit editing. That's simply astonishing.

A wise man once told: "It is very easy to make good edits on obscure subjects. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to make deliberately bad ones, to knowingly insert content ranging from distortions to blatant lies to make the articles follow an agenda. And it is easy for that faulty content to remain there because of the obscurity and specialization of the subject." User:Golden is making both sort of edits: his editorial pattern is bad not because of his history of socking (picking out one example), but because of his editing aims revealed through his content additions. Hence here we are, with said user trying to shift the blame on user:Kansas Bear, a veteran user with 17 years of clean editing.[173]

I might add that this is not the first time that Golden has tried to accuse others of incivility in passive-aggresive fashion. As recent as 6-7 March 2023, without me having even mentioned them by name, they hounded me to my talk page on Commons to accuse me of "bad faith" accusations despite me not even mentioning them by name.[174] Looking at the compelling evidence put to light in the past and at the present, I believe they are not here to build this encyclopedia. Its time to stop playing around with AGF ropes that said user cut off themselves a long time ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Bolding your claim doesn't make it any less absurd. I wasn't upset; I was confused, as I've stated numerous times. "

You almost make it sound as if you don't have a long-standing track record of disruptive editing within this topic area. You are very well aware that the term "Azerbaijanis/Azeris" constitutes a very contentious label prior to the 20th/19th century, to the point that its basically an anachronism at least as far as ethnicity is concerned.[175] Also FYI; a user who "doesn't care/doesnt get upset" simply doesn't get topic banned and blocked numerous times within a short period of time. It just doesn't add up. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Given "yet" another attempt at wasting the time of the community, and a long track record of disruptive editing, I propose an indefinite block for user:Golden. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support the dispute itself is rather petty, but an editor who has already been blocked for socking twice, and casually violated a topic ban over something so petty, should not be editing in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: The sockings are from two years ago. Nothing in this thread is a violation of my topic ban, which has a much smaller scope than the general AA2 topic-bans: conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. There's no conflict here. In fact the recent AA3 Arbcom Case found that Since their most recent sanctions, neither Grandmaster not Golden have engaged in additional misconduct. The report above describes a personal attack. Anyone can agree that, at the very least, the reported comments were 'suboptimal', to quote Salvio giuliano. It is ridiculous to try to get someone indefinitely blocked for reporting a personal attack against them. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like that you’re dancing around the edges of your topic ban, over such a minor dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve struck my vote after clarification, but I still would recommend Golden avoid the topic ENTIRELY for the same reason people convicted of making opium shouldn’t be growing poppies. Dronebogus (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to violate a topic ban per se in order to be violating WP:TENDENTIOUS. But that's the whole point; as outlined above, Golden's editorial pattern shows that they've been trying to manouvre their way around rules and sanctions basically ever since setting foot on Wikipedia. When confronted (and sanctioned), they appear to try deny and belittle any sort of wrongdoing. That's what contributes to making an editorial pattern "WP:NOTHERE", and what has resulted in said cat and mouse game, various on-and-off sanctions, and the involvement of various drama boards and admins for some three years straight. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here are two recent topic ban violations on behalf of user:Golden, in addition to the material that has been outlined above. This diff from 25 March 2023 shows user:Golden removing/reverting the Kurdish transliteration from the Kalbajar District article, a district heavily involved in the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On the same day they removed a similar transliteration from the Lachin District article, another district heavily involved in the ongoing conflict. Their topic ban clearly states "conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed". Pinging Tamzin, Guerillero, SilkTork, Barkeep49 and Callanecc who appear to have been the primary admins at the AA3 case. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For users inexperienced with this region: Kurds have had a prominent presence in Lachin and Kalbajar and its surroundings for a long period of time, and have been victims of the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. See also (Battle of Kalbajar, Kurdistan uezd, Kurds in Azerbaijan). The Kalbajar District article literally contains sections (Kalbajar District#Armenian occupation, Kalbajar District#Return to Azerbaijan) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. WP:BANEX therefore clearly doesn't cut it. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As a sitting Arb if you or someone else wants my opinion in that capacity I'm found at WP:ARCA and I generally leave ANI to those who aren't on the committee. That said, From my quick read of this situation it feels like this is potentially an WP:AE situation and so perhaps Tamzin or Callanecc will take action here. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The admin who topic banned me, Tamzin, specifically stated in my ANI report that Golden is still able to edit both of those articles (Flag of Azerbaijan and Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan), with the exception of a few sentences in either that deal with military conflicts. Indeed Golden can edit most articles about Azerbaijan. Reverting the addition of Kurdish transliteration in the lead paragraph does not deal with military conflicts or any other type of conflict. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 06:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Flag of Azerbaijan" and "Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan" have nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh/Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In fact, these articles don't contain a single word about it. Lachin and Kalbajar however, as demonstrated above, appear prominently in articles related to the conflict, and the respective articles even contain sections about the conflict. Once again, the Kurdish transliteration that was removed does not pass WP:BANEX either, as the Kurds have had a prominent presence in Lachin and Kalbajar and its surroundings for a long period of time, and have been victims of the ongoing conflict. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see any evidence to support a block. In fact, it seems that Golden is the aggrieved party here by virtue of the personal attacks which remain on the article's talk page. Daniel222potato (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Long Term Edit Warring on Vikram Sampath

let me give a brief overview of the situation.

• [176] . Dympies made this comment on the talk page arguing that because he has read some news article regarding the controversy surrounding the subject. The person no longer deserves to be called a Historian and should be changed to "Biographer". Interestingly he mentions two article in which he claims that anyone who reads those two article will agree that sampath doesnt deserve to be called a historian. Even those two articles although critical of sampath mentions him as historian.
• After having a long discussion with him where I tried to explained to him that it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make judgement calls on a person and we will have to use the term that is most widely used by reliable sources.
• Even a cursory glance on the discussion on the talk page will give a clear picture that even after I patiently gave dozens of sources, tried to explain to him about the various policies ranging from reliable sources, WP:BLP, and WP:MOS. Dympies and Extorc continued to edit war over a this ridiculous argument that the subject can not be classified as a historian because "They" feel the subject doesn't deserve it.
• Franky this whole incident has been annoying as hell because first they have completely refused to understand any logical argument or wiki policies and secondly they think they can brute force their way through such a major change without any proper consensus.
• The discussion on the talk page - [177] and the article edit history will give a more clear picture.

Razer(talk) 12:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• You are a case of WP:1AM here and you are whitewashing a pro-Hindutva writer who aims to promote a non-existing "Hindu genocide" and falsely claims "80 million Hindus killed".[178] But I am not alone with reverting you. 2 other established editors like Extorc,[179] Shahinshah121,[180] have also reverted you. See WP:BOOMERANG. Dympies (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I will briefly repeat what I have tried to explain you in the talk page. If the reliable sources widely state sampath as a "Historian", We will have to go by that term. You can use the article body for the controversy or other allegations but you cant change the lead from historian to biographer because you feel like it. There is no consensus on talk page. Razer(talk) 18:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated bad faith accusations by Dympies

While I have avoided any personal attacks and for more than a month now tried to maintain the discussion on wiki policies and guidlines. Dympies has been going around making bad faith accusation against me for whitewashing and promoting an "Agenda" not only on ANI on an Admin's Talk page - [181] and other noticeboards - [182] and as for Extorc , his harassment of a new editor mixmon can be seen by the ANI thread opened by him [183]. Razer(talk) 13:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm missing something, but how is that second diff any kind of accusation against you specifically? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

struck off that diff as it is indeed about something else and not against me specifically. Razer(talk) 15:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven - WP:NOTHERE

This user seems to have nearly two full decades of sporadic, but long-term uncivil behavior just on English Wikipedia, with no apparent change at all. Since they post sporadically and on few places, it's easy to pinpoint all the places they've been targetting. I'll be going to focus on the most recent incidents:

• Talk:Croatian language:
  • #Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023: suggests another user to "educate" themselves, for which they proceed to link a well known ultraconservative and nationalist organization website, Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće (HKV), whose president is no more no less the screenwriter of Jasenovac – istina, Hrvoje Hitrec, and which is also the publisher and online host of Hrvatski tjednik (a neofascist-leaning weekly newspaper). Here in particular, in accordance with HKV's far-right rhetoric, they call SIL International "simply a group of uniformed zealots", apparently for granting Chakavian its own ISO code.
  • The section right above contains a whole lot of link spam to WP:OR YouTube videos and 'sources' that were used for those videos. Archives from 2010 and before contain more and worse examples of this. And checking their contributions log, spamming talk pages is virtually all they've been doing on English Wikipedia, since the articles they've been edit-warring on for so long got protected.
• Talk:Serbo-Croatian:
  • #Political Context is Unclear: links a pro-Herzeg-Bosnia forum for a "more reliable" overview of the topic... and complains that "Wikipedia warriors made ‘Polish writer’ Isaac Bashevis Singer Jewish again" in an attempt to 'prove' unreliability of Wikipedia. Interesting pattern...
• Warnings, sanctions, blocks...
  • User talk:Mir Harven: speaks for itself; just search these keywords: "Serbian sickos, psychos, trolls, moron" when politely warned not to do that.
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Mir Harven from 2010.
  • the rest of appearances on Administrators' noticeboard.
  • their block log.
  • not sure what initiated deletion of these diffs but it is worth looking into them.

Clearly, a WP:NOTHERE WP:SPA. –Vipz (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Come August 8th, it'll be exactly two decades of this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed

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.

---

Airlangga Yudhoyono.Tni-Mil.Example-Mailer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Spamming their talk page with nonsense ever since they were blocked. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 7 April 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.

Message from a banned user W200/176.156.172.83/2001:861:4C00:9180:E177:5305:8245:336C

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.

---

W200/176.156.172.83 (banned from fr:wikipedia and global blocked as 176.156.172.83 because of his harrassment against me) have send me that message here. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

/64 blocked one month by Kinu. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 7 April 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 / edit warring on Korea articles, possible block evasion

Pages affected:

• Geomungo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Haegeum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Durumagi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hanbok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wonsam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved in the disruption:

• 182.225.106.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.197.207.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 211.109.6.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 185.225.191.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User involved on the other side of the disruption:

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

Coming across this multiple article dispute between User:John Yunshire and the IP editors listed above, I warned the latest involved IP (124.197.207.30) about edit warring (link), and also left a message on John Yunshire's talk page suggesting to follow WP:DR or perhaps report problematic users to an admin noticeboard when in a dispute, instead of constantly reverting their edits back (diff). There has been no response or further reverts by the IP(s) since I warned the latest involved one, but User:John Yunshire has replied back to me on my talk page saying that the IP editor is a "disruptive blocked IP hopper", and that they are giving them "no recognition" (diff). The edit summaries of the latest reverts claim "Block evasion, disruptive editing" (example).

I did some further looking into this, and the only IP that has been blocked in the past or has a currently active block, is 185.225.191.153, which is rangeblocked as 185.225.191.0/24 as a "Colocation Webhost". That IP was last involved in 29 November 2022 on only one of the five listed affected articles above, Wonsam, besides another one that isn't listed or related here. The edit from it looks very different to the other IPs too. Maybe John Yunshire can chip in on who exactly these IPs are block evading / any disruption on other wikis that led them to revert the IPs' edits here. The IP editors can also comment too if they have anything to say about this.

The disruption here is happening at a rate of one revert every 2 days, up to a rate of two reverts per day, but also this has been going on for several months now, unnoticed. On the article Haegeum, the exact same edit has been reverted back and forth at least eight times, over the span of a month or so.

There has not been any discussion on user or article talk pages, well besides my warnings/notices about edit warring of course.

I think that either the involved users (the IPs at the least) need to be blocked from editing for quite some time, or the affected articles should all be semi-protected for a few months or more. This disruption looks like it isn't going to stop without any action being taken here, given that looking at the edit histories of the articles, things may seem calm for a week or two, and then suddenly ceasefire is no more.

AP 499D25 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I apologize I acted too emotionally. I haven't been active as registered user so far, And these 3 IPs were all me in that I had to move around several places frequently.

I will have time of self-reflection, and won't cause edit war for a while. I promise I won't be active in wikipedia as IP user anymore, and will active as registered user. And I ask you to modify the articles neutrally to prevent further edit war. 124.197.207.130 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the response and clarification.

As Valereee mentioned below, it is highly advisable not to edit war with other editors. When you get into a dispute with another editor, you start a discussion on the article's talk page or on the other user's talk page about your edits, why you think they are correct / should be restored etc. If that doesn't work out / isn't appropriate for that instance, then choose one of the next options on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

If you are more familiar with Korean than English, then also see ko:위키백과:편집_분쟁, which is the Korean version of the Wikipedia policy page about edit warring and how to resolve disputes.

So can you confirm that the edits by the 4th IP above (185.225.191.153—for example, this edit) weren't by you?

AP 499D25 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That was not me. The 4th IP user is not me. There is a record that the user edited Mari Boya but I haven't heard about him and certainly have no memory that I edited that article as well. 124.197.207.130 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

So I'm thinking what actually happened here, is John Yunshire has been mislead by the previous blocked IPs and users on the articles and mistakenly assumed that you are a vandal / are block evading them.

If John Yunshire could jump in this discussion and acknowledge what has happened here, that would be great.

I think we all make mistakes from time to time, it's the acknowledging of them that determines a good outcome in the end.

I mean, I myself have run into an instance where one edit I made was mistaken as vandalism and reverted erroneously too, it was an edit where I removed a lot of sections, words, and sources that were duplicated / copied and pasted over accidentally by a different editor. The step I took after that was to leave a message on the user talk page of the editor who reverted me to check over my edit again, and indeed they recognised the mistake and restored my edit. A little bit of communication with the other editor can come a long way!

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If these are IP hoppers, blocking won't do much good. Maybe semi the articles?

(ec), ah. Well, yes, IP. It would be better if you'd register an account. FWIW, "won't cause edit war for a while" is not good enough, you need to never edit war. The best-practices progression when you're reverted is to immediately go to the talk page, open a section, and ping the other editor to discuss. Valereee (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Valereee Very difficult to confirm (as I don't read any of the languages involved) but there is at least a good chance that the IPs edit is actually accurate. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't try to drag me into content! :D Valereee (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

IP vandalism 74.51.195.74

This IP address has been making disruptive edits (that have been reverted since) at a series of songs/albums articles: Special:Contributions/74.51.195.74. Ippantekina (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks too stale to block for now, but I've reverted their edits and left a warning. If disruption resumes go ahead and try a final vandalism warning and then report to WP:AIV; if they start to hop instead you can use {{uw-multipleIPs}}. Other than that nothing to be done at that moment. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other

Note: I have talked about this in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Marcelus, but I believe that it is better to bring this matter of conduct between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus to ANI as it is less so about WP:ARBEE but more about editor conduct.

I have recently been aware that two editors- Cukrakalnis and Marcelus- have a long history of bickering, arguing and personal attacks at each other. The two editors seem mainly to disagree largely on their views on Lithuania-Poland relations and they seem to use personal attacks during their disagreements.

If you look at Cukrakalnis' talk page archive here (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/March#Category:Non-German infantry divisions of the Waffen-SS), you can see that both editors are making personal attacks towards each other instead of constructively discussing their disagreement.

Here are the potential personal attacks the two editors stated:

P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your third attempt on pushing a WP:FRINGE theory; you are literally destroying a clear existing disctinction between voluntary and conscript Waffen-SS foreign units. You fail to see the difference between "foreign" and "non-German"; and no 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) wasn't Ukrainian division, as you changed in the description, but a German division that consisted of mostly Ukrainian soldiers. That's a big difference, you are ignoring or are unable to see. Marcelus (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

By this point, it just seems like you're trying to just sabotage whatever I do and just oppose me doing something just because I am doing it. Get a life. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

However, as mentioned before, this is not new; these two editors have stated personal attacks against each other in the past too (see User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/February#ZZ), (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2021/November#Kołyszko) for examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct by these two editors).

Furthermore, what is concerning is that especially, Marcelus seems to be unaware of the impact his actions could have on Cukrakalnis and seems to justify his incivility judging from this diff left on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShadow_of_the_Starlit_Sky&diff=next&oldid=1147194057&diffmode=source). However, Cukrakalnis seems to at least somewhat understand the impact of his actions judging from this message on his talk page (User talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/March#Regarding your statement about Marcelus' personal attacks). This doesn't make Cukrakalnis' actions any less problematic, though; he still has engaged in prolonged incivil discussions with Marcelus.

I do not wish the two editors to be indef banned, though; both contribute very well to the mainspace and has made tons of constructive contributions. Thus, I believe that a 2 way IBAN for at least a month is the best course to take so both editors can continue contributing to the mainspace.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me where this unusual interest in my person comes from? You created your account less than a month ago, and just a few days later you spoke out on WP:AE against me ([184]). You claim to be uninvolved, but refer to my "past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names". It also looks like you tried to create an account pretending to be an ArbCom member, User:Arbitration Committee SPI Clerk (link to your t/p). Why does a new user have such a strong interest in the ArbCom?

To answer your allegations: this is at least the third discussion about the same thing in the last few weeks. I don't know what's the point of starting a new thread on Noticeboard about the same thing and bringing up issues from almost two years ago.

I don't see anything in my statement on the @Cukrakalnis t/p that violates WP:PERSONAL; as I said on your t/p I could have written it a bit differently, but I think I was right to protest the changes made by Cukrakalnis in categories. Which, by the way, was confirmed by the CfD result (link).

I don't know what purpose IBAN would serve in this case, I was somehow not particularly affected by Cukrakalnis' words. Marcelus (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus,

I don't have the time to type up an entire essay about this, so please refer to this user subpage; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadow_of_the_Starlit_Sky/Why_the_heck_am_I_editing_pages_about_Lithuania%3F_Well,_here%27s_my_answer. Naturally, after finding several pages about Lithuania that I am considering to edit, I have looked at the edit histories of these pages and looked through the user and talk pages of several editors as well as a couple of talk page archives. I looked through the archives and found that you and Cukrakalnis has been through several disputes in the past (that may have contained personal attacks) so I decided to address it at ANI through a third party perspective.

And as for my interest in the ArbCom, it all came down to my first discovery of the long term abuse page prior to joining Wikipedia. One day I wondered why Wikipedia wasn't breaking down if "everyone could edit it". That led me to falling in a research rabbit hole regarding Wikipedia governance and policies and eventually the LTA page.

And furthermore regarding User:Arbitration Committee SPI Clerk, I initially created the account to prevent impersonation of the ArbCom but I realized that creating the account caused some disruption following a conversation with several administrators. I have apologized to said admins and promised not to do this again.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a problem for you, could you please link the IP number or username under which you edited earlier? Also can you elaborate what was the idea behind creating "the account to prevent impersonation of the ArbCom", how was that suppose to work exactly? Marcelus (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not wish to reveal the IP address I edited under due to security and privacy reasons. I have not edited under any other account on Wikipedia, though, either (except for User:Shadow of the Starlit Sock- an alt I keep so it can be used when my main account is hacked or compromised). I have edited other wikis that use MediaWiki such as AoPS Wiki and SciOly Wiki, though, albeit very infrequently. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 19:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem Marcelus (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky I have tried to address this almost a year ago in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it, but nothing came out of it :

Marcelus has repeatedly belittled me, thus breaking WP:NPA. His words clearly fulfill WP:IUC, which says (d) belittling a fellow editor is against Wiki rules.

I would like to ask for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me.

There is a pattern of Marcelus denying that he has been uncivil/engaged in personal attacks towards me as he has said such things: I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus... 16 July 2022. He has not changed his attitude of denying that he has ever insulted me, as can be seen in Marcelus' answer just above mine. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to shift gears a moment and ask you, @Shadow of the Starlit Sky:, why you are reporting this. Reporting this kind of behavior between two other editors strikes me as a bit odd without evidence of disruption. I share Marcelus' raised eyebrow about your interest into the wikipersonal (is that a word here yet? I'm using it) lives of these editors. If you had diffs of disruption, or edit warring, or any evidence of this spat disrupting WP at all I could understand but your links are exclusively to Cukrakalnis' talk page (and yours, where Marcelus asked for clarification about you talking about their interactions with Cukrakalnis).

TL;DR : Why pick up this torch? GabberFlasted (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s the point reporting this @Shadow of the Starlit Sky?

And are you shadowing this fellow? --> User:StarryNightSky11 <-- Nothing against you StarryNightSky11, I’m not suggesting them are you, you just popped up into my attention here because of the similar names.

Something weird is going on here with that few weeks-old account (Shadow account) and his interests in reporting people - these two individuals in particular (Cukrakalnis and Marcelus). Notice that they perfectly know Wikipedia jargon already and their way around here. I don’t have time to study it but admin folks, please approach this report with caution. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't going to broach this topic without giving them a chance to respond but since it's out there now, I highly concur with GCB above me. A new account jumping into ArbCom discussions is odd. A new account making an alt account to pre-emptively doppelganger an ArbCom clerk is (!?). A new account starting to police behavior of other editors on their own talk pages like this is starting to get really weird, especially when the reminders start feeling like lectures. Either something is going on here, or SotSS really just hopped the rails of usual new editor development. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, I had no idea about that other Shadow account until yesterday when I found them at WP:AIV reporting several sockpuppet accounts who were vandalizing a bunch of pages about swine flu (while I was reporting a couple of vandals myself while doing my usual anti vandalism work). All similarities in usernames are entirely coincidental.

And on my knowledge of Wikimedia jargon, please see my response to Marcelus; I think that would address that point. (TL;DR: I basically wondered why Wikipedia wasn't falling down if anyone could edit it and fell into a research rabbit hole regarding Wikimedia policies and governance and even found the LTA page.

Last but not least, please refer to me using she/her pronouns in the future.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat - very odd report. Without even going into the weird alt issue, a quick look at this account's profile and contributions gives the impression of someone trying to "speedrun" Wikipedia from regular editor to admin (there are even progress bars!). Plenty of noticeboard interventions on topics they were not involved in immediately stand out. There's also a lot of policing on a variety of topics, which in theory isn't bad, but in doing so OP also seems to exercise very poor judgment at times: this is OP remvoing as "pov-pushing" a sourced claim of an antisemitic organisation passing off non-Jewish people as Jews in an attempt to promote a conspiracy theory regarding the coronavirus pandemic. This is just unacceptable, and assuming good faith one can only surmise that OP is completely ignorant of issues pertaining to the topic of antisemitism. It feels like they need to step back a bit, get off other people's backs and find an area where they can contribute meaningfully and knowledgeably. Ostalgia (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to speak up for the OP, not excusing their actions but we don't know the experiences they may have in life that cause them to respond certain ways. We should expect a certain level of ignorance of how Wikipedia operates from new editors. Some editors might be a little too aggressive and might move into areas of the encyclopedia and community before they really are able to comprehend their function but this is a good learning experience. While Wikipedia is not obliged to accommodate every nuance within every editors life experiences and how that correlates to their editing here, especially when it comes to disruptive editing, I believe we should give them the benefit of a doubt that what they say are the reasons are in fact their true reasons and there is nothing nefarious or malicious intended. I believe a strongly worded response followed by some guidance to be a far better recourse than any kind of sanction at this point. Any further disruption would, of course, make my suggestion moot. --ARoseWolf 16:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia, please don't assume bad faith. Like @ARoseWolf said, I am a new editor and may not be entirely knowledgeable of how Wikipedia works (although I know a bit of policy- please see my response to Marcelus for the answer to that question).

@ARoseWolf, thank you for your words. I am not engaging in anything nefarious or bad faith; I only wish to seek a resolution to a long term dispute as a third party.

If I do anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and not particularly experienced.

Regards,

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 17:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:InvadingInvader

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

• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of defamation, libel, and slander (see [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]), despite having been informed multiple times by multiple editors that the accusations by InvadingInvader are false (see [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197]) and despite having been warned by multiple editors that InvadingInvader is violating WP:No legal threats (see [198], [199], [200]).
• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of WP:Disruptive editing on an article (see [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208]), despite having been informed that, by the terms of the definition of disruptive editing in the said Wikipedia policy, it is in fact InvadingInvader who is violating WP:Disruptive editing (see [209], [210], [211]).
• InvadingInvader has made multiple false accusations of WP:Canvassing (see [212], [213], [214]) despite having been informed twice by another editor that the accusations by InvadingInvader are false (see [215], [216]).
• InvadingInvader has made a verbatim threat to escalate (see [217]) in violation of WP:Disruptive editing.
• InvadingInvader has made a personal attack with an expletive (see [218]) in violation of WP:INCIVIL.
• InvadingInvader has made a threat of reporting for WP:Disruptive editing (see [219]) and a threat of blocks and sanctions (see [220]), despite InvadingInvader never filing any reports in any relevant noticeboards, clearly indicating that these threats are intimidation by InvadingInvader.
• InvadingInvader has a history of edit warring in violation of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Edit warring to impose the preferred version of InvadingInvader in violation of various Wikipedia policies, having even been blocked indefinitely on a prior occasion for this behavior (see [221]).
• InvadingInvader has violated WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring, WP:BRD, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO, among other Wikipedia policies, to impose a version of an article that is in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:WEIGHT, among other Wikipedia policies, often by removing an enormous amount of content that is supported by citations of reliable sources (see [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252]), despite having been reverted multiple times by multiple editors (see [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]) and despite having been informed multiple times of the said Wikipedia policies by multiple editors (see [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289]).
• InvadingInvader has relentlessly persisted in these behaviors despite multiple warnings by multiple editors, as seen from all of the evidence above.--PoliticalPoint (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I started looking at a sample of the diffs above and found that many of them were greatly exaggerated. I gave up looking when I got to InvadingInvader has made a personal attack with an expletive. Where is the expletive in that? Do you really consider "crap" to be an expletive? I can't see anything else there that could possibly be considered so. I would advise you to withdraw this complaint and simply discuss things in an adult and civil manner at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have also checked a random sample of these diffs, and my initial impression is that these are minor skirmishes in the ongoing conflict about US politics. InvadingInvader is sometimes shown to be snippy and cross, but if there's one specific smoking-gun diff that warrants sysop intervention, then I haven't seen it yet. I think that PP might be able to make an arguable case that II's persistent but low-level snippiness might be dragging down the level of discourse in the topic area -- but I wouldn't buy that. I would see II's comments as characteristic of someone working in the trenches of a fraught and difficult topic area and surrounded by people with a very different view of NPOV from him. PP, would I be right in suspecting that you might want Wikipedia's articles about American politics to be less critical about a certain orange man with small hands?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It would be helpful to have top 3 most egregious offenses that you believe InvadingInvader have committed. This wall of diffs is very difficult to sort through. Carpimaps (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Both InvadingInvader and PoliticalPoint come to this article with apparent [opposing] POVs (or, at least, with an intention to "fix" the POV they perceive in the article), and they're the two most active editors on the article, so it's inevitable there will be conflict. I've taken issue with some edits by both of them, but both have made constructive edits, too. The challenge for anyone else is simply keeping up without making this single article a full-time job. InvadingInvader in particular has made more edits to both the article and to the talk page just in the last month than anyone else has in the history of the article (by some margin, too). On the talk page, which has been edited by 53 users over time, InvadingInvader has added 35.4% of all text, and all of it in the last month. None of this is against the rules, obviously, and I don't think there's really anything to be done at ANI, but it's also not ideal because it makes it harder for uninvolved people to get involved (meaning those that do get involved are the people who feel so strongly that they're ready for some high-activity arguing... and that might not be for the best). It's hard to know what's best in those situations. I suspect it might just be a matter of time. Right now, there are more people editing the article aligned with InvadingInvader than PoliticalPoint. While I don't agree with all their edits, they're also not turning it into something egregiously POV (as far as I've seen -- again, it's hard to keep up), so I'm inclined to wait and evaluate it when it settles. In the meantime, PoliticalPoint while I think you've done the right thing in providing diffs, you've diluted your argument by including a bunch that aren't very problematic. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• PoliticalPoint, I would strongly recommened that you withdraw this complaint. Without commenting on the merits of the content disputes, what these 105 diffs (ugh!) indicate to me is a significant exaggeration or misrepresentation of many of the alleged offenses. Others appear to be minor or unsanctionable.

You said InvadingInvader (II) "made a personal attack with an expletive", but unless I missed something, the harshest thing they said in the only you diff you provided was "I'm only asking you to discuss the content and cut the crap when it comes to me."[290] And their edit summary appropriately includes "Discuss content, not people." So, can you please explain where the personal attack and expletive are. Because I think this one complaint on its own will potentially destroy the credibility of the rest of them.

You said II "is violating WP:No legal threats". Can you please show us specifically in the policy where any of those three comments are violations?

You said II "has made multiple false accusations of WP:Canvassing, but they actually qualified their comments with "seems like" canvassing or "potential" canvassing, and explained why.

You said II "made a verbatim threat to escalate" but in the one diff you provided, they made a statement about editors in general (including themself) who deal with what they believe to be disrputive editing and how they "feel compelled or forced" to escalate. What's the problem with that? If it's a bogus claim, the reviewing editors will make that clear.

You said II ""made a threat of reporting" and "a threat of blocks and sanctions", and that because he didn't do so they were "clearly indicating that these threats are intimidation". But the one diff shows that they didn't make any threat; they merely advised that they actually had taken a neutrality issue to the BLP Noticeboard, and even provided the link to the discussion. The other diff shows that they were talking generally about perceived bad behavior that "the Wikipedia community shows a great dislike for and something that frequently leads to sanctions and blocks". My biggest concern with this particular claim is your characterization of their comments "clearly" being "intimidation"? That's a strong accusation and it isn't clear to me at all.

Finally, you talk about II's "history of edit warring" and how they've "even been blocked indefinitely on a prior occasion for this behavior". The record shows that in II's almost five year editing history, that is their only block (for edit-warring with a bot) and that they were unblocked 21 hours later.

Overall, what I see here is a bunch of minor infractions from, like you, a passionate editor who edits topics that are inherently difficult and polarizing, and who's clearly trying to protect and improve this encylopedia. If you are not going to withdraw this complaint, then I would concur with Carpimaps on his suggestion that you provide just a few of the most egregious offenses you feel II has committed; no more than five. Stoarm (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is a major and unnecessary exaggeration of any flaws with my personal character. The most alarming example of this is the treatment of "crap" as WP:INCIVIL. It's an extremely frivolous complaint to think that crap is any egregious violation of this. Furthermore, in such quote I didn't call you crap directly. Such diffs cited ask for you to start discussing content rather than pointing out every flaw with my own character. Akin to the content dispute on the talk page, please explain to me precisely how I am violating ALL of these policies. I fully agree with @Phil Bridger; I would ask you to discuss these matters at the talk page for the legislation, and participate in such discussion as well more frequently than just reverting and saying "This violates WP:POLICY X" and nothing more. On the talk page under the thread Recent edits (2), you made one comment like this, and failed to discuss further when multiple editors responded. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also questioning whether PP's behavior towards me would constitute as WP:HOUNDING. I'm not confident in definitely saying it, but it's very compelling for me to put forward per WP:BOOMERANG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is yet another false accusation by InvadingInvader. All editors here should take note of the fact that InvadingInvader is persisting in exactly the same behavior that forms the basis for part of the complaint here. Without a doubt, InvadingInvader cannot substantiate this latest false accusation, as is always the case. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Read again what II said. They're questioning it, and not confident in definitely saying it. Please, don't dig a deeper hole for yourself. Stoarm (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't run around Wikipedia left and right claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is spitting out false accusations or promoting fringe theories without attracting sanctions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil Bridger that the diffs need to be culled here because looking through a few of them and I don't see an issue worth discussing here. I would recommend either highlighting a handful of egregious examples (if they exist) or withdrawing this altotether. - Nemov (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: It was Carpimaps who suggested culling the diffs. Phil Bridger advised withdrawing the complaint. Stoarm (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest culling the diffs, but agree that if any new complaint is made it should come with enough diffs to substantiate it, but not with the many innocuous diffs that we see here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have known II from their work on WP:YEARS project and they frequently use assertive language when it comes to discussions, which I know can make someone offended, but they are not that aggressive as believed to be. This seems to be a content dispute that can be solved by dropping this complaint and taking this somewhere else or at least provide few diffs that you believe are worth looking. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Gish galloping will not get you far at WP:ANI. I agree that the complaint should be withdrawn, and if it's truly necessary to file a complaint, then at least consolidate to those which are certainly brightline offenses. If there are none, then there's nothing to discuss. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to that term. I hadn't heard of that technique, but that's precisely what we have here. It has now been over 72 hours since PoliticalPoint posted this complaint, yet they still haven't been back to either reply (or withdraw it) even though the general feedback by the several editors who've commented is clear and unanimous. Further, PP had edited other pages today at two different times. I think that after presenting a 105-diff, Gish-galloping complaint, the fact that they haven't returned here to even acknowledge the replies is quite problematic. This discussion should have been their first stop when they began editing again.

Proposal - If we don't here from PP soon with a reasonable response, I would propose that an appropriate sanction be given for wasting our time. Perhaps they should've been sanctioned anyway for bringing such a lengthy and hostile complaint without even coming close to backing up their claims. Stoarm (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just... let it be archived? PP opened a complaint, it didn't get traction, they got feedback why it didn't get traction, and they've declined to try again. There's already a separate section about PP here, which likewise failed to find traction. A proposal that asks for people to spend more time and energy about this to punish someone for "wasting our time" seems a bit ironic, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I'd totally agree with you... close it down and toss it on the trash heap. But this complaint is clearly outside the norm and involves an enormous amount of hefty allegations against another editor's character. As it stands now, this is the equivalent of a Wikipedia hit-and-run. No explanation, no apology, no withdrawal, and not even an acknowledgement from PP of what's been said to them. Editors get sanctioned for far less all the time. If nothing is done about this, it sends the message that any disgruntled editor can lodge an avalanche of major, unsupported allegations against someone and nothing will happen to them. Stoarm (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

... and if we turn this into a reverse witch hunt, then it sets up a chilling effect for future ANI complaints: gosh, what if the ANI regulars find that my charges don't hold water, are they going to sanction me for being wrong? What we sanction boomerangs for at ANI generally is their own past bad behavior, not for nothing beyond filing a meritless complaint. PP absolutely deserves a heavy trout slap and a stern admonishion about wasting our time, and that's that. Ravenswing 16:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It would depend on the types and amount of charges you're making, and the evidence you're providing. Or lack thereof. "Reverse witch hunt"? That implies that PP's intent was a witch hunt. Per WaltCip, this is obviously not about simply being wrong (Gish gallop: a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.) What if this complaint had been about you? Put yourself in InvadingInvader's shoes. And please note that I did not specify a sanction; I merely said "an appropriate sanction". A trout slap and admonition* is, at least, something. Stoarm (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been accused of things in the past that were baseless. Nothing came from it and there's no need to dwell on it further. We only have so much time as editors to work on this project. Wasting time on petty dispute isn't an efficient way to spend valuable editing time. Nemov (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that there should be a formal warning towards PP for this. If PP learns his/her/their lesson, put it behind them. PP has done this kind of thing before on the talk page for the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, where PP continued this behavior on adding/reverting/rollbacking, creating a talk thread with allegations on something violating WP:FRINGE, having everybody respond and disagree to them, and refuse to participate in the discussion, most recently on such talk page in the thread "Recent edits (2)" where they referred to edits made by some other editors as "a blitzkrieg". While this shouldn't be ignored forever, I think that this should serve as a warning to PP that if they continue the Gish Galloping and the refusal to participate in discussions constructively, he/she/they will be subject to sanctions. Nemov, however, does make a good point in not a need to dwell on this further, and this becoming a waste of time, and so I agree that this thread should really only be further elaborated on and expanded if this type of behavior happens again. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

All of the statements that form the complaint are more than adequately substantiated by the differences. You should actually read the differences before submitting a false claim regarding the complaint. Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed dozens of the diffs. That's plenty. You don't expect anyone to look at all 100+ of them, do you? What false claim are you alleging we submitted? Stoarm (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

nothing here. This really is the Gish gallop to end all Gish gallops. If I don’t know otherwise, I would have thought it was written and compiled by a chatbot! I clicked a random sampling of 20 diffs, and emphatically do not think they’re actionable, or at all saying what OP is alleging here (eg “crap” as an “expletive”). My overall summary is that OP doesn’t like II disagreeing with them, or giving them advice on their conduct. From the diffs, I would actually say OP is the one who is guilty of WP:NOTHERE. But overall I don’t think anything should be done here. I would say: close this with a heavy WP:TROUT. With the unsolicited advice that OP should be more careful not to waste our time. The next time they bring something like this to ANI, a wp:BOOMERANG is inevitable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This really is the Gish gallop to end all Gish gallops. That may be the best line I've ever read on a noticeboard. With that, I'll exit this discussion. Stoarm (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You submit a proposal on the basis of a false claim, then choose to leave the discussion immediately after you receive a response. By your own reasoning, you should be sanctioned. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed your reply because it was inappropriately posted out of chronological order. (It has been properly relocated.) See above. I'm glad you've chosen to return. So, this is your response to what's been said to you by all these editors? Please explain the "false claim" the editors here are making and why you believe all of us are wrong. Stoarm (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

When an editor has been warned multiple times by multiple editors, as clearly evidenced from the differences, that the said editor has made multiple false accusations and has violated various Wikipedia policies, then it is that editor who is guilty of WP:NOTHERE. You should read the differences that pertain to the multiple warnings by multiple editors before submitting a false accusation in that regard. Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anything in the foregoing discussion genuinely give you the impression that there is anyone who agrees with your characterization of events? I strongly suggest that your best course of action here is to accept your trout slap, back away, and to file no more meritless and timewasting complaints. Continuing to argue "I'm right and you're all wrong" will wind up in changing the mind of some editors who don't (quite) think your behavior is sanction-worthy. Ravenswing 19:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

PoliticalPoint, I strongly encourage you to take Ravenswing's advice above. The only possible outcome of prolonging this conversation is earning sanctions for yourself. The choice is obviously yours, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Trouterang PoliticalPoint and close I try to be ginger with these posts but obviously that doesn't work around PP. If you or a loved one have been bludgeoned with the fantastically vague Now, InvadingInvader has made yet another false accusation, which has been responded to above without explanation, I believe you will find that accusation to be this comment, by II, in which they very gently probe the discussion for anyone who would back up their suspicions that PP's actions constitute hounding. They deliberately avoid levying a solid accusation of such against PP and yet PP spent their next three posts in this thread either pointing to that comment of II as if it's a smoking gun, or doing so after stating how horrible they are in a post with no diffs or no new information. PP has been asked very reasonably to condense their litany of an OP into a shortlist of either their few most egregious/actionable points, or bright-line offenses. PP has, by the insubstantial nature of their last 4 responses here, refused to do so. Instead they've turned to accusing their dissenters of submitting a false claim regarding the complaint and saying they should be sanctioned. I believe this has officially become a waste of time. I do apologize for the grit and sass but this thread has become too silly. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• I echo GabberFlasted's comments and I'd point out that PoliticalPoint has been given advice before [291] on civility. I would recommend that PP learn from this episode. The consequences of not getting the point will end in a topic ban from politics or worse. Nemov (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll roundup

So I've been away for a week or so (been busy playing a lot of GTA V), so I had to catch up. Here are some unblocked IPs of who Jayron32 called the "bilateral relations troll" (with the previous discussion about that person here). Keep in mind that some (if not most) of those are stale.

• 176.220.121.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.220.109.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.220.219.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.176.178.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.176.186.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seems like the first three and last two are each parts of large ranges. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Might consider these ranges:

• 176.220.216.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 176.220.120.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 94.235.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 5.176.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Archer1234, I'm on it. I note that one of the ranges was blocked by Maxim; it was marked as a CU block. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with these. I hope this quiets down soon... --Jayron32 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right. The 94.xxx range was also previously CU blocked.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They've now appeared on 72.229.242.36, an IP I already dealt with on a separate occasion in March. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the same person. That IP appears to be User:Creepershark77. The other IPs don't have the same editing pattern as this one does. --Jayron32 10:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. In any case, I just found yet another IP with a behavioral pattern matching the rest: 176.220.206.32. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:AddyGamer adding unsourced 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.

---

AddyGamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been trying to get the article Draft:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Army Power created through AfC, and when it failed for being unsourced/promotional/unencyclopedic, they resorted to adding the same content, which contains some obviously nonsensical claims, to Afghan Armed Forces, without sources and in an unencyclopedic format. [292] (they claim in their own edit summary that they "made up" the content). They are edit-warring with multiple editors to keep it in ([293], [294], [295], [296], [297]). I reverted a single time after I came across this and gave them a final warning [298] for disruptive editing. They have chosen to ignore the warning and revert me without an edit summary [299], so I unfortunately think admin action may be required. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:27, 8 April 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.

Johnpacklambert continues to make disruptive edits

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.

---

He was warned today for removing redlinks without making any effort to check notability: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Why_do_you_remove_redlinks_to_notable_subjects? Also, he was warned about categories back in December: User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2022/December#Categories_(again). Remember the almost-site ban back in October, saying that this was his last chance.

From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive346#Site_ban_for_User:Johnpacklambert: "A number of individuals above have talked about a "last chance" - but I have to ask, how many last chances does one person get? More importantly - has Johnpacklambert ever acknowledged that any of his previous chances were opportunities to change? What is different this time?"

129.21.21.1 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and where did you come from, IP editor? This is a minor issue that does not belong at this noticeboard, and Johnpacklambert is discussing the matter with Fram. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I suspect this is User:World's Lamest Critic, who has spent the last few years filing ANI threads about Johnpacklambert under various sock accounts e.g. [300] [301] [302] [303]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The 'almost site ban' was closed as no consensus, and the words 'last chance' are nowhere to be found in the closing statement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is a ridiculous attempt to ban a user for a non-issue by an IP that is obviously some sort of LTA; why else would they care about something as minor as redlinks? This discussion needs closing. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have blocked the OP/IP for block evasion. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 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.

Skydance Animation Unsourced material added by one 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.

---

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

Look at these, [304], [305], [306], [307], and [308]. These are unsourced and forgot to find citations. CastJared (talk) 05:57, 6 April 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.

New username following New Jersey IP block

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.

---

• Special:Contributions/50.201.37.163
• 50.201.32.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:89:C602:29B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• XMartinez17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Directly after New Jersey IP Special:Contributions/50.201.37.163 was blocked for disruption, New Jersey IP 2601:89:C602:29B0:44AC:4E7E:3873:67E1 appeared to restore the IP's edits. After that, newly registered XMartinez17 showed up at User talk:2601:89:C602:29B0:44AC:4E7E:3873:67E1 to complain about my reversions, saying "Who are you to revert my edits that I put my blood, sweat and tears on??" This shows that new user XMartinez17 identifies as the New Jersey IP ranges listed above. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked XMartinez17 for block evasion. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on Special:Contributions/50.201.37.162 to detect any further block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 6 April 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:Saintstephen000

Hi Team, I recently edited a few articles, such as Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and M. P. Birla Foundation Higher Secondary School, where I removed huge chunks of unsourced content. I had also given an edit summary so other editors wouldn't get confused. But User:Saintstephen000 is continuously reverting my edit, unable to give a proper explanation. I even engaged in discussion on this issue in his talk page, but he was unable to give a clear-cut explanation why he was so inclined to keep unsourced content. Imagine what an ordinary viewer of Wikipedia would think: they would start trusting that content as facts, whereas it could be blatantly false. Credibility will only exist where we have reliable sources. Unfortunately, SaintStephen000 is unable to understand this simple fact. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:258E:2FDE:63A0:4E6F (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Admin would please look into this issue. @Cullen328: and @Girth Summit:. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:E5AB:7616:46D1:576C (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally this edit summary appears to suggest the account is A) a COI promotion account and B) a role account. Not convinced on that, but the wording is odd though maybe just a mistype or error. Canterbury Tail talk 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged here, but looking at the OP's contribs, I see a bit of a pattern. They are removing large swathes of text from lots of articles about Indian educational institutions. I haven't reviewed all of them closely to see whether all of the text is unsourced, but I suppose it's not surprising that they're getting some pushback at some of those articles. I also observe a few contributions that have edit summaries that made me raise an eyebrow - are unregistered IP editors able to use AWB, as their edit summaries suggest? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the OP ought to log into their account when they make comments here at ANI. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that some are quite happy with unsourced content. The average viewer would get incorrect information from Wikipedia, and this encyclopaedia would gradually decline. You can't imagine editors randomly adding alumni of colleges, universities, or schools without being able to provide reliable sources as to whether that person has graduated from the institution or not. The credibility of Wikipedia will hit hard, and people won't trust such content unless we provide reliable sources or at least remove that information.--2405:201:800B:6079:FC9C:87C7:4039:40A8 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please log into your account to edit project pages like ANI. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

EW at Fatlip: COI/blocked/disruptive editing from 2600:1700:4009:8cb0: and elsewhere

Hi, all. I am in what I think must be seen as a slow-motion edit war at Fatlip (a performer in which I otherwise have no particular interest). On 26 April 2021‎ I made a spelling correction, thereby adding the article to my watchlist. Since then I've seen 1 to 3 individuals, mostly as different IPs, attempt to repeatedly add uncited or poorly sourced info, mostly by blindly reverting all previous changes in a single edit. The changes they've reverted have included styling corrections, citation tweaks, table revisions for WP:ACCESS, as well as content changes (some removal, some rewriting, some addition of citations) by myself and others. Their edits mostly try to restore the status as it was in 2021, that is, with no apparent regard for specific changes in between.

On 9 June 2021‎, a user named User:TorporProductions appeared and made the same edit made by IP editor User:2600:1012:B0E1:2854:2C56:2373:E20A:A4A4 (preceded by User:2600:1700:BBD0:7F80:F52F:D7DE:CC16:8F8D and User:2600:1700:BBD0:7F80:995B:744F:4561:A260) on 5 June 2021‎, primarily to add an album called Torpor with "with a scheduled release date in 2022" (one weak source cited).

Before User:TorporProductions was blocked for username violations, I explained (rather lengthily) the reasons for my reversions, even though they wrote in a mail to me, "I am the producer of the new album". After their block, multiple IPs (I actually suspect an occasional second individual, a friend/colleague in New York or maybe Virginia) have been making essentially the same blind edits. They've begun using edit summaries, unfortunately to accuse me of "editing it out based on a personal vendetta", "unjustly edit[ing] ... due to a false sense of pride", and "sabotaging this page for quite some time now".

One of the stupid things is, they seem to be steadfastly fighting to get the "Torpor" album included on the page, at least based on their latest edit summary, when, in fact, it was already on the page (and correctly formatted, and sourced by me) in the version they reverted. They don't seem to even read the whole page or understand the individual edits. They are in full argumentation mode, it seems, and have forgotten what they are arguing about.

I'm wondering if some kind of protection for the Fatlip page might be appropriate, or even some sort of range block on the relevant IPs. (See, please, the page history). They're sometimes in NY, Reston VA, Los Angeles, and most recently in Dallas TX (2600:1700:4009:8cb0:). I also posted several such IP addresses at Torpor's talk, although I have no reason to expect that they've seen that communication. If I'm edit warring and you need to block me, that's understandable. But I feel that I am dealing with repeated failure of WP:V (the least of the problems), disruptive editing, COI, block evasion, and NPA. I'm not sure how else to react; single notices at the ever-changing IP Talk pages seem to be inadequate. And on that point, I don't know where to notify the user; I guess the last IP they used on Fatlip. Should I notify User:TorporProductions?

Thanks for your time,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll help for a while. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

174.89.100.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Persistent WP:DISRUPTIVE editor, particularly Taiwan WP:NPOV-pushing in China-Taiwan subject area. Latest example is [309], which editor engages in typical behaviour like:

• changing uses of "Taiwan" to "ROC" (against WP:COMMONNAME)
  • although not demonstrated in this edit, they also change "China" to "PRC" where there's no need against WP:NC-CN
• belaboring the political evolution of the ROC/Taiwan as seen in the "Names" section (UN resolution, Japanese rule of the island)
  • also note the WP:OR addition of:

Another name Taiwan National Day, is largely uncommon as the ROC...

Pattern persists for at least a year from previously used IPs (a long stream of warnings and occasional blocks, and not just in the China-Taiwan subject area), including:

• 174.89.100.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Mar Apr 2023)
• 76.68.77.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Mar 2023)
• 174.91.109.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Mar 2023)
• 142.112.239.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Feb 2023)
• 184.147.23.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Feb Mar 2023)
• 184.145.53.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Jan Feb 2023)
• 174.95.137.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Oct Dec 2022)
• 76.68.77.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (July Dec 2022)
• 142.112.227.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (June July 2022)
• 142.112.224.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (May Jun 2022)
• 142.112.224.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Apr May 2022)
• 76.68.77.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Apr 2022)
• 142.112.227.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (April 2022)
• 142.112.236.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (March June 2022)
• 76.68.77.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Jan 2022)
• 184.146.39.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Oct 2021 March 2022)

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User adding patent disinformation about themself to article

User:Limeisthebest123, who identifies themself as "Megan Chung" on their userpage and has edited a draft under the same name about themself, has been adding entirely untrue information about herself to Barbara Pravi and other articles about the singer. For example, they add here that they present a podcast with Pravi, yet this is sourced to a six-subscriber YouTube channel with no evidence of Pravi's involvement. They have also added, perhaps most egregiously, their name to articles about songs claiming that they wrote these songs, when there is no evidence of this. Same for here. And here, having been reverted for doing it two days before. If you check these songs on Spotify or in songwriting records, there is no existence of Megan Chung as a songwriter. Finally, the entirety of their autobiographical article is a hoax, with user-generated sources that this user has edited themselves to try back up a connection to Pravi, which can be debunked by a quick Google search. This has been a patent hoax on this user's part, and it is evident the user is WP:NOTHERE. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Given their apparent refusal to communicate via their or articles' talk pages, I have indefinitely p-blocked Limeisthebest123 from editing Barbara Pravi, which is perhaps the most visible location they are disrupting. This is a stopgap action, and if anyone else feels that other actions, including a sitewide block per WP:NOTHERE, are in order, they are welcome to implement it. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Kinu. If any further blocking is in order, if not sitewide for WP:NOTHERE, I would encourage it to be on other articles relating to Pravi, including the above ones about Eurovision 2021 and On n'enfereme pas les oiseaux, as well as Junior Eurovision 2022 (which Pravi wrote a song for). ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

They're creating hoax drafts and adding false material to everything they touch. I'll dig a little deeper but I think an indef is needed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've now blocked indef per Kinu's ok to modify their block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I was investigating further and was about to do the same. Good call on that and the G3 deletion of the hoax drafts. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Daceyvillain - Eastern Suburbs (Sydney)

Daceyvillain has being unnecessarily destructive editing and removing factual and well cited information from the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page. From the start the page has acknowledged that the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse with 5 LGAs. It then goes into detail about how the northern part of the Eastern Suburbs which are east of the CBD within the Waverley and Woollahra Council neighbourhoods vary from the south-eastern suburbs within City of Randwick and eastern parts of Bayside Council. They have different roads, federal divisions and are different socio-econimically and demographically. The official Australian Bureau of Statistics also acknowledge the different regions of the Eastern Suburbs and cuts it into Eastern Suburbs - North and Eastern Suburbs - South. Daceyvillain from the start hasn't liked any reference nor acknowledgement to this distinction regardless of references and citation as he believe the eastern suburbs is just one simple neighbourhoods/region from Watsons Bay to La Perouse with no demographic distinction whatsoever. He's now edited the page removing the well cited and factual 'Sub-Regions' section altogether. He's been pushing his own agenda and opinion from the start ignoring facts in front of him which he doesn't agree with. The Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) page reached an accurate and reliable compromise of information with the edit made on 15:21, 4 April 2023. This edit acknowledged the region as a whole is Watsons Bay to La Perouse but then went into detail about governance, sub-regions and neighbourhoods. All this information has now been removed by Daceyvillain as from the very start his biased opinion of the Eastern Suburbs not having any sub-regions nor distinction between areas is all he cares about pushing onto the page. Can this be mediated properly by an unbiased editor and this editor stopped from his agenda pushing tirade. If you check the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) talk page and previous edits You'd see the mess that has unfolded. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple edits by various anon IPs to articles relating to Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Most of these IPs have surfaced since the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South-Eastern Sydney. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also this IP claims not to be the same person as other IPs with very similar edits. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (talk · contribs) has refused to create an account to avoid such a confusion despite multiple requests. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

A series of anonymous IPs (which we assume are the same person) have been pushing their own original research relating to the Eastern Suburbs for the past several weeks and months. Their goal seems to be to divide the Eastern Suburbs into sub-regions in order to separate "different classes" of people. In general, there are ongoing elements of racism and classism to their edits.

Their edits have included personal attacks, revert wars, and a general refusal to accept government documents and maps which contradict their own opinion. In particular, government documents and maps generally treat the Eastern Suburbs as a large, contiguous region and do not break it into sub-regions.

Some relevant pages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-eastern_Sydney (note: this page was removed due to it being original research)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South-eastern_Sydney (note: as the article was removed, the talk page is no longer visible, but there was a large debate there)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Suburbs_(Sydney)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Suburbs_(Sydney)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daceyvillain (note: various personal attacks on me)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LibStar (note: several earlier discussions about this topic have been archived)

Thank you. I apologise for this distraction. Daceyvillain (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a non-exhaustive list of the IPs involved. From the IP location, the ISP (Vodafone), the pages edited, and the edits made, it is very likely most or all of these users are actually the same person

Mobile phone roaming IP

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:8849:1A0D:D5:A799 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:64B2:E702:CFE6:10EC (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:94EB:B228:CA4B:181F (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:A0C7:A899:D26E:935C (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:9D3D:6AF2:9631:CAC1 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:E463:57CB:20B0:9AF3 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:9FF:2DA8:7A47:8746 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:8517:E35F:71FC:1A99 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:CC94:9985:72C3:641A (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:2512:DF8B:6D5E:6F17 (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:146E:8AE7:956C:80EE (Vodafone)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:491:CA5E:F8B2:32C6:E05F:5101 (Vodafone)

Fixed IP

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 (corporate, The Good Guys) Daceyvillain (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

To me it looks like the one person behind the IP range Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 and the static address Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 has been indulging in violations of WP:No original research in various Sydney-related articles for a while now, trying to redefine the neighborhoods. This person is adding excessive detail with only scattered support in primary sources, and nothing from WP:SECONDARY sources. I'm seeing WP:NOTHERE because the person is not trying to summarize published sources for our readers; rather, they are trying to impose changes in definitions. I would topic ban this person from anything related to Greater Sydney. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with topic ban suggested above and the personal attacks still continue after this ANI was lodged. [310] LibStar (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

despite already reporting here the anon IP has decided to report Darcyvillian as a vandal with this edit and this. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And more forum shopping by anon IP here. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And now a different anon IP contacts me claiming to be different. [311]. Perhaps a topic ban and/or semi protection of articles in question. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• The indigenous WP:BOOMERANG should redound on the OP who should be blocked as Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235, Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 for starters. Violations of WP:MULTIPLE are tolerated even less than WP:Tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, I think that Special:Contributions/203.49.228.129 and Special:Contributions/2405:6E00:289:B4FC:0:0:0:0/64 (the whole range) are the same person

  But I think that Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235 could be a different person.

  Either that or someone is talking to themselves at User_talk:49.255.185.235

  ... it would be much simpler if everyone would just register an account. Daceyvillain (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If Special:Contributions/49.255.185.235 is a different person, then it should be noted they are also using multiple IPs: Special:Contributions/49.255.223.3 and Special:Contributions/49.255.252.131. I think these three 49.255 IPs are the same person. There's also Special:Contributions/49.186.36.122 who made a personal attack on you: "Daceyvillain is a sad ignorant fascist". That IP also made reverts to re-inforce the OP's viewpoint. Something must be done to stop this disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

and now yet another IP makes personal attacks again [312]. We definitely need some admin intervention here. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is really dumb and I am sorry for the distraction. I’m sure everyone has better things to do. Daceyvillain (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Annoyingly, part of my comment was not saved. The two 49.186.x.x IPs write with the same voice and are both coming from Optus (but from Optus in Victoria, which is weird). Probably the same person. Daceyvillain (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another IP most likely the same person continues with personal attacks. [313]. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User talk:RuddyKurniawan11

RuddyKurniawan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been creating large numbers of articles, mainly BLPs with large amounts of unsourced materials and WP:BLP problems. Some of it has been removed but much remains. See the talk page contents for information [314]. I didn't have enough fingers to count the number of articles deleted and drafted.  // Timothy :: talk  20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

According to XTools, they've created 42 mainspace articles, 19 of them deleted which accounts for 45.2% of their articles being deleted. I guess I ran out of fingers and tails to count the number of articles deleted and drafted as well! And do legs count? Anyway, not only that, they've been pretty active on Wikidata and Commons, so something to note. Tails Wx 02:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting that messages on the talk page appear to be not comprehended - as the behaviour recurs despite a block: -

The level of english replies raises the question of competency [315] (i has revised and please don't deleted my articles again) and other edit summaries...

The level of disruption (as mentioned at the block) raises the question of the amount of time required to review and put into quarantine in draft mode as queried by tails above

The uploads to commons require check of obvious copyvios,https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RuddyKurniawan11 and require taking down

The wikidata edits seem innocuous https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RuddyKurniawan11

The regular starting of new stubs of dubious status, and the responses to challenges requires a careful reading as to the competency issue JarrahTree 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks to understanding to my friend to clarificated to me

RuddyKurniawan11 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

RuddyKurniawan11: No one doubts your good intentions. The question is whether your grasp of English is sufficient. I have a basic level of understanding Indonesian, and I am well aware that my knowledge of Indonesian is not sufficient to edit the Indonesian encyclopedia. Practicing to learn a second language is great, but I'm not sure that editing an encyclopedia is the best method. (And thanks Deepfiedokra for expressing this so well in the previous item...) JarrahTree 01:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing and personal attacks by Baller McGee

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.

---

Baller McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently made a transphobic comment on Talk:Dylan Mulvaney, which was rightly reverted by Beccaynr. After being warned on their talk page, they responded with this ASCII art. Looking back at their contributions, they seem to have been engaged in extensive POV pushing on Killing of Tyre Nichols a few months ago and apparent trolling on Talk:Sam Smith. Methinks a WP:NOTHERE indef would be appropriate. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 05:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

My contributions are factual and improve the truth and reliability of Wikipedia, and are backed up by reliable primary and secondary sources. They are the opposite of WP:NOTHERE and are of exquisite value. The ASCII was a bit of excess which was out of character. Baller McGee (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying a trans woman is a man is the definition of WP:NOTHERE, @Baller McGee. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Under WP:NOTHERE, What NOTHERE is NOT: "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner." That opinion is not even unpopular, and it was expressed on a talk page only - which is where consensus is created. If not there, then where else? It is not a personal attack to say someone is a man. I am a man myself and I don't consider that a problem. Baller McGee (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying a woman is a man is a personal attack. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --Rschen7754 06:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: you put a temporary block notice on their page, not an indef one. Just so they don't get the wrong idea. Canterbury Tail talk 09:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone wants to fix it they can feel free to do so. I didn't see an option to make it indefinite in the template and I suspect this is a drive-by troll who won't attempt to return. --Rschen7754 16:51, 8 April 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.

Legal threat

Similarly, this user is also casting aspersions.[316] Editorkamran (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reporter has been engaged in an edit war at G. D. Bakshi (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It actually goes back further than these 5 edits for Editorkamran, but these 5 were all since April March 28th, with 4 of them being since April 3rd. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am reverting a WP:NOTHERE editor who is only there to censor content with misleading edit summaries. Your defense for this editor is unconvincing.

"April 28th"? Let see if your prediction becomes true! Editorkamran (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Another 11 instances where you re-added text about "He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions" to the lead, while removing or relocating other relevant information: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

While I do believe their comment should be interpreted as a legal threat, I also strongly believe you to be edit warring and POV pushing. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If you believe there is a case of "edit warring" or "POV pushing" then you are welcome to dispute the content in question. Until then, you can spend your energy in doing better things. Editorkamran (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am calling attention to the issue by replying with said information to this ANI, that was the entire point of my comment. See WP:BOOMERANG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that with these comments are you not even helping with the original comment but acting contrary to the purpose of this noticeboard? Editorkamran (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Shushruth s for legal threats. I have also blocked Editorkamran for two weeks for edit warring, editing without consensus in the contentious India-Pakistan topic area, and WP:BLP violations including use of poor quality sources. Editorkamran, your POV pushing behavior at G. D. Bakshi is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Block review

@Cullen328: Poor block on Editorkamran. You seem to be having a very poor understanding of every single aspect of this entire incident. The edit warring you are talking about is nothing but reversions of disruptive random vandals who are only attempting to get rid of important information about their far-right ideologue anyhow. It makes no sense for you to demand others to build consensus with them and also tolerate their vandalism at the same time. Can you show me a single discussion that claims the provided sources to be unreliable?[317][318] They are as reliable as it gets. Many editors including me have been restoring this content for ages so you cannot claim that there was no consensus for these edits. You can't just join in a content dispute, misrepresent the quality of sources and edit through protection after blocking another editor who happens to be right. In such circumstances, you are supposed to start a discussion yourself and keep your admin buttons at bay. Kindly undo your block. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996. You contend that it is perfectly acceptable to take a biography of a living person who served at high levels in the Indian Army for 36 years, and add a second sentence to the lead section so that it reads: Major General Gagan Deep Bakshi SM, VSM or G. D. Bakshi (born 1950) is a retired Indian Army officer. He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions. Do you truly believe those two sentences accurately and neutrally summarize this man's life and career? Well, I disagree and that does not mean that I like this man or the government that he served and now supports politically. This version of the lead section is a clear violation of the exceptionally important policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and accordingly I stand by my block and my removal of that content. As always, I appreciate a review of my actions by uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Your response fails to address even a single concern I raised.

Where is any BLP violation when the content has been perfectly supported by the reliable sources that you smeared as "low quality sources"?[319]

You haven't answered my question. Can you show me a single discussion that claims the provided sources to be unreliable? On the contrary, the discussions exist to prove their reliability as already told to you here.

When the content is supported by the reliable sources in question, how can you impose your belief that its a BLP violation after smearing the reliable sources as poor quality sources?

You are supposed to revert this edit by now when you have 0 explanation for your actions other than saying "I stand by my block and my removal of that content," when you have failed to prove how the sources are actually unreliable or there was no consensus for these edits. This is not expected from an admin per WP:ADMINCOND. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content from the lede that Cullen328 removed was clearly and unambiguously a violation of WP:BLP policy and of WP:NPOV. The lede of a biography (any biography, of anyone, living or not) is not a tabloid attack piece. There are many ways of indicating, in a neutral manner, that the individual's views are controversial, without using such language. I suggest you find some. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Take a look at many articles like Jack Posobiec, Robert W. Malone, Marjorie Taylor Greene and many others. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That utterly non-neutral two sentence lead section is based on highly biased, polemical sources who despise Bakshi, and zero attempt has been made to present the other side of the story. That's a policy violation. Let's hear from uninvolved editors now. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the block is unwarranted and what you are discussing is purely a content dispute. From "low quality sources" you have now changed your stance to "highly biased, polemical sources who despise Bakshi"? That is nothing more than yet another poor attempt by you to justify your unwarranted block. How the block was warranted for imposing these subjective views by you or editing through page protection? The Print and Alt News are reliable sources and you cannot smear them without achieving consensus on WP:RSN first since there have been many discussions concluding them as reliable sources on RSN. See RSN threads here (for Alt News), here (Alt News), here (the Print), here (the Print). Admins like C.Fred, Materialscientist have been also reverting the vandalistic attempts to remove this content. Are you going to block them as well? Whether the content needs to be on lead or not is purely a content dispute, but it has been backed with good quality reliable sources contrary to your every single claim that it was based on low quality sources and there was no consensus when many editors have restored the reliably sourced content. Blocking an editor after another admin put full protection over your subjective views is beyond the pale.

@El C, Bishonen, Deepfriedokra, and RegentsPark: Can you take a look at this uncomfortable mockery of good quality reliable sources like Alt News and The Print to justify an unwarranted block of a productive editor? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the standard treatment for anyone in the crosshairs of American politics. That doesn't make it right in this case, but as worlds collide, its something to reflect on. Sennalen (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Not gonna say this was a bad block overall because Editorkamran certainly was edit warring at least, but I'm not really convinced by Cullen's side of this story either. The Print appears to be a reliable source at least at first glance: they publish their editorial policy on their website and it seems reasonable, and in our article on it we don't note anything that would be disqualifying. Is one reliable source enough to source "promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions" in the lead of a BLP? Probably not, but it's also not egregious enough to block over by itself. Loki (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I contend that largely basing the lead section of a BLP on two highly biased, polemical sources that discuss a recent small part of this person's long career in a one-sided way, failing to provide any balance as required by WP:NPOV, and edit warring to restore the content when it is challenged is a policy violation that justifies a two week block, and removal of the content. I did not block for just one reason "by itself", but for several reasons that I described in the section above, including the edit warring that you acknowledge. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's a small part of this person's career and whether balance is required or even could be provided are all part of the content dispute, though. Loki (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, is it your conclusion that the two sentence version of the lead is not a BLP violation? Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unambiguously, no. Loki (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Whether it's a BLP violation hinges on the quality of the sources, the accuracy with which we summarize them, whether they're representative and WP:DUE, and so on. These are serious enough questions that it probably should have been reverted to the last stable version and hashed out on talk; but I don't think it is sufficiently obvious of a problem to warrant immediately blocking the editor. More generally - we usually warn before blocking for edit-wars precisely because the purpose of our policies is to encourage users to talk things out; blocks are preventative, not punitive, and the page was already protected, so there was nothing so pressing as to require an immediate two-week block. There's no reason to think that if you warned Editorkamran bout edit-warning and pointed them to WP:BLPRESTORE, they wouldn't have backed down, or at least moved the discussion to talk where it belonged. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Aquillion, the editor was warned about edit warring on 31 January 2023 and warned about disruptive editing on 1 February 2023. They have been advised that India-Pakistan is a contentious topic area in 2020 and again on 7 January 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• 1 February (a retaliatory warning) and concerns same article the one from 31 January which is Subhas Chandra Bose, but not this article about G. D. Bakshi. Even on talk page, only Editorkamran participated but not the another editor.[320] This has nothing to do with the block you made today. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The edit warring warning from January 31, 2023, was issued by an uninvolved editor (DaxServer). It's relevant because it shows that others have considered their behaviour to be edit warring and that they have been warned about it already. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Additionally, Editorkamran was also warned on the article talk page of Subhas Chandra Bose here by two other users before DaxServer dropped a warning on their user talk page. Editorkamran reverted twice more (1, 2) after the first warning on the article talk page from Martin of Sheffield. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

For an editor who has made hundreds of edits (editing mostly controversial subjects) throughout this year and you could find only 1 months old warning related to a single page where he was correct in his position. It fails to justify clear failure of WP:BEFOREBLOCK that happened here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

3 experienced editors (Martin of Sheffield, CX Zoom, DaxServer) warned Editorkamran about edit warring relatively recently. Are you really implying that those several warnings are not enough? Additionally, per WP:BEFOREBLOCK: However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't shift goalposts now. It has nothing to do with this block or page. It is necessary to follow WP:BEFOREBLOCK especially when dealing with collaborative editors. Don't cherrypick suitable words, and read the whole paragraph which is "However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Though in reality, we even need multiple recent warnings against vandals. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Shifting the goal posts? A past history of edit warring is absolutely relevant to a ban for edit warring. Also, don't send out unnecessary templates. I have not been editing in the area that you sent me a notice for, so the notice itself feels retaliatory. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Such "past history" is only important when it has direct connection or it is substantial. Failing that, it is irrelevant to cite it when an inappropriate block is becoming overly unjustifiable. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who shows up in a contentious topic gets slapped with legalese on their talk page, and POV warriors start breaking out the edit war templates on the first revert (meanwhile scrubbing the slightest criticism from their own talk pages.) All the evidence must be considered without jumping to conclusions. Sennalen (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: There was no revert after warning, and neitherCullen328 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC) there was a clear violation of 3RR. Many editors have restored the content against the vandalism occurring on this article. To be more specific, the last revert by Editorkamran was the reversion of vandalism like this, and it shouldn't be construed as "edit warring". Alt News was also used on the same edit for supporting the information and it is also a reliable source.[321] The Print and Alt News, two high-quality sources supported the information in question. See the WP:RSN threads I have provided just now in my comment above. Cullen328's negative comments on these reliable sources can be best described as smears. The block is unwarranted and Cullen328's explanations even from an editorial point of view, are completely baseless. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I await more input from uninvolved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the polemical headline run by one of the sources: Maj. Gen. GD Bakshi, shrillest warmonger in the media, hits new low with gaali on Republic TV: As the retired Army officer Friday let loose a volley of insults at another Republic Bharat panellist — probably a first on TV — here's a profile of G.D. Bakshi from March 2019. and here is some of their polemical reporting: Nowadays, whenever the media needs a defence expert to cry war on Prime Time television, Bakshi is inevitably the man for the job. You can find him wagging a self-righteous finger on your television every other night, his gruff voice reaching a breaking point as his temper rises and his nostril flares. And on and on it goes. That's not news reporting; it is vitriol. The other source accuses Bakshi of making false statements about one specific incident in his long career. Where is Bakshi's side of the story? The incident described in that source is not even discussed in the body of the article. Undue and non-neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A heading alone is not enough to deem the source as polemical and anybody with an understanding of this subject will agree it is not polemical. For background, do you even know that Republic Bharat is a black-listed/depreciated source on Wikipedia? See WP:REPUBLICTV. What type of reporting do you expect from their panel which frequently involves GD Bakshi? Which source accuses "Bakshi of making false statements about one specific incident"? Both reliable sources[322][323] have mentioned his disinformation about multiple subjects. Alt News mentions his false claims about Mehbooba Mufti and 2014 Budgam firing, while The Print also mentions his false claims about history. I would ask you to provide WP:RS which provides "Bakshi's side of the story". Do you know any? If you don't then it is completely valid to have only what The Print and Alt News reported. Abhishek0831996 (talk)

This was a valid block to prevent disruption at a WP:Contentious topic by an editor that was aware of sanctions in this topic. Even minor disruptions in such topics warrant a short block if the disruption is ongoing. There may have been potential to solve the issue diplomatically, but Editorkamran seems to be disproving that with their argumentative behavior on their talk page. The only question is whether Cullen was WP:INVOLVED, and past discussions have convinced me that there's no agreed upon definition of involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I had never heard of this person before the ANI report and made only a single edit to the article to remove a single sentence that I still believe to be a violation of BLP and NPOV. By what definition can I be considered involved? Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: The unwarranted block came after full protection was already imposed. How a block based on misleading reasonings could "prevent disruption" that never actually happened? Reverting vandalism to restore reliably sourced content with many other editors is not disruption. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bad block. I was wondering why a block was needed after full protection was imposed but then I found more errors with the block. To turn high quality reliable sources into poor quality sources overnight only to signify your inaccurate block is a disservice to Wikipedia. I urge Cullen328 to spend some time on WP:ARBIPA topics to understand them before making deeply subjective statements. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  If editors behavior goes far enough to cause an article to need protection, then a block is appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not after page protection and not for reverting disruptive edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Restoring material that violates WP:NPOV is not "reverting disruptive edits". Good block. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think that going straight to a two-week block was probably inappropriate when there was no effort to discuss this on talk (either on the page for the article or on Editorkamran's talk page.) Edit-warring to restore potentially BLP-violating material is definitely serious, but looking at the edit history, nobody had even mentioned BLP prior to the block; usually you'd give someone at least one warning. The text does have sources, so the debate becomes whether the sources were sufficient and adequately summarized, which doesn't seem to be something clearly one-sided. I'll also point out that @Ymblanter: (who ought to be pinged since this concerns an article they protected) protected the page on the version with the text that Cullen328 finds so objectionable; if it is, as Cullen328 asserts, it was so clearly a BLP violation that it deserves an immediate two-week block with no discussion or warning whatsoever, then wouldn't it make sense to talk to Ymblanter first? Per WP:PREFER, any BLP violations are supposed to be removed when the protection is placed; there actually isn't an exception in PREFER that allows a later admin to step in and remove them if they disagree with the version the original admin chose to protect (well, sort of; it says editors can request such a change, but my reading is that this requires that it be uncontroversial, like all edit requests for protected pages.) Obviously common sense applies; the policy is written under the assumption that the protecting admin would remove any obvious BLP violations, and if a blatant and unambiguous one was just overlooked it should be removed. But it makes sense to notify / ask the protecting admin first, because if they intentionally reached the determination that something was not a BLP violation, and another admin disagrees and changes the protected version as a result, that seems to me to be a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that I did not removed the text does not mean anything and should not be brought as an argument in this dispute. The text was sourced and at first glance appears legitimate, but I am not an expert in the topic area, and I can imagine that users who know the specifics better than I do can see obvious BLP violations where I do not. Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Since when ThePrint.in and AltNews.in have become unreliable? No evidence has been provided even after the block. The block is totally inappropriate and so is the unilateral revert based on misunderstanding of our policies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone who disagrees with my removal of content, a single sentence, that I sincerely believe to be a BLP violation should be trying to build consensus for policy compliant language at Talk:G. D. Bakshi, but it is crickets over there. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you show consensus for removing the reliably sourced sentence that is staying there for months? You have unilaterally removed it from a fully protected page by inappropriately terming reliable sources as unreliable. It makes no sense for you to ask others to discuss first when you are providing totally inappropriate justifications for your removal of reliably sourced sentence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I sincerely believe that the sentence in question in a two sentence lead is a BLP violation and a NPOV violation. Nothing said in this discussion so far has dissuaded me from that conclusion. And now, I need to get some sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Enough arguments have been already made against your ideas above and you haven't disputed any of these arguments other than repeating yourself what you "sincerely believe". Why do you still insist that you are correct? Your actions only confirm that you removed content against which you had invalid objection and you blocked another editor who had restored the reliably sourced sentence recently. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the fact that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the important points of the article. That sentence that was removed is not supported by the content of the article. The article content makes no mention of him pushing fake news or misinformation. For such a thing to exist in the lead, such an important and controversial statement, it should be heavily detailed and referenced in the article content. The fact that it is not means it has zero place in the lead. All BLP issues aside. Canterbury Tail talk 07:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not relevant. The real concern is over a totally inappropriate block and lack of acknowledgement by Cullen328 himself over errors he has committed despite explanations from several editors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant. It's apparently so important to include in the lead that it was re-added 16 times, but it was never mentioned elsewhere in the article. What's in the lead, especially when controversial, is meant to be supporting by what's in the rest of the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This issue was not raised on talk page or provided in blocking reason. Why it needs to be raised in-relation to the block? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block, for a clear violation of BLP. If there's some aspect of the disputed content that should be included, it should be done the proper way - in the body of the article, according to WP:DUE. And what is included should be decided by consensus, not by edit warring (and not by badgering either). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: With due respect, how a block can become good when it is falsifying credibility of reliable sources such as The Print and Alt News? When the so-called "clear violation of BLP" was even discussed? Was Editorkamran alone with restoring it? You should reinvestigate the incident. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I repeat, with a bit of extra emphasis. "If there's some aspect of the disputed content that should be included, it should be done the proper way - in the body of the article, according to WP:DUE. And what is included should be decided by consensus, not by edit warring (and not by badgering either)". Badgering everyone who doesn't agree with you won't help your cause. You've had your say, so you should shut up and let others have theirs. (Oh, and please don't ping me any further - I'm aware of this thread and I'll see responses). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block; that sentence was a clear violation of BLP by insinuating that the subject's comments in the media - however dubious they may be - were a defining aspect of the biography of someone who was an army officer for 37 years. And edit-warring to put it back in is really not good - and certainly blockworthy. And I'm going to go further than that - I strongly suspect that those editors want that sentence there because then it appears in the Google search infobox for that person (as it does at the moment). That material belongs in the "controversies" section and I would support blocking anyone else who tries to restore it in that location. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, as far as I can see, whilst he is obviously a controversial figure, both sources for the "fake news" claim appear to reference a single incident from 2014 where the subject was found to have made false claims. So as well as BLP issues, it's clearly UNDUE for the lead paragraph as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: But The Print has provided examples of misinformation spread by Bakshi with regards to history under the same section about "The PhD in military history or purveyor of ‘fake news’". Examples: 1) "Bakshi then goes on to explain that after studying the Transfer of Power Archives in London, he was shocked to learn that a letter signed by the Viceroy of India..." 2) "INA, which he once told Republic World, “was really responsible for forcing the British to leave”. 3) "Of 60,000 INA soldiers, 26,000 were martyred. They may have lost the battles of Imphal and Kohima but they won the war for independence..." Anyone who has little understanding of Subhas Chandra Bose will know these claims by Bakshi are nothing but outright misinformation. Such claims by Bakshi were specifically fact-checked and debunked here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Those sources that were being used at the time weren't enough to place that statement into the lead. I am not saying that the subject hasn't spread fake news, but unless that's one of the things for which they are notable, it should be in the controversies section. You will generally find that where such statements do appear in the lead, it is generally where a subjects primary notability is based upon such controversies. Someone mentioned Jack Posobiec, Robert W. Malone and Marjorie Taylor Greene above. Pobosiec and Greene's notability are based on their conspiracy theorism (in Greene's case even before she was elected), and Malone wasn't even notable until he started spreading fake information about Covid. Have a look at the levels of sourcing in those articles that is needed to overcome the BLP bar and then decide whether it was reached in this case - I would say it clearly wasn't. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content was never contested. I mentioned The Print, because it was used on the article. It, together with Alt News supported the content since The Print mentioned not only fake news example about 2014 incidents but also the examples about GD Bakshi where he spread misinformation about the Indian independence movement as well. Those who are informed about movement are also aware that it is one of the prominent Hindutva project to always discredit the most prominent freedom fighters of India[324] and falsify history on channels such as WP:REPUBLICTV as one of its prominent medium to enforce their fake version of history. There are many more examples of fake news being promoted by the subject.[325][326] A case could have been made if the dispute was ever raised on talk page, that's why the actual point here is whether the block was required. Was it? I don't think it was, especially when the full page protection already enforced. The talk page had to be the next venue, not blocking. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the content was not contested the blocked editor would not have had to replace it into the article sixteen times. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The content was contested, repeatedly - it was removed, with explanatory edit summaries. As far as I can work out from the article's history, the content was added in January, removed the next day, and has been subject to back and forth removals and reinstatements multiple times by various editors. Some of the removals used misleading edit summaries - I can understand why those might have been knee-jerk reverted by an uninvolved patroller - but at least one of the removals was by an autopatrolled editor in very good standing, with an appropriate explanatory edit summary. It should not have been reinstated after that without discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

All of those reverts (by Editorkamran) were reverts against disruptive editors who were removing content they don't like. That's no "contest". If there was any sense here then we would be never having WP:ECP. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No, they weren't. That removal was less than a month after the sentence was added, and was made by an enormously experienced editor. The subsequent revert was inappropriate; discussion should have taken place before any reinstatement. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - it wasn't Editorkamran who reverted that edit. Nevertheless, the content had been contested - discussion was needed. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block (though I may be considered involved since I brought forth the issue of OP's editing). It's fine if you want to debate how long the block should have been for, but I don't think it's reasonable to debate whether there should have been a block. There was clear POV pushing and edit warring. The text: "He has promoted fake news and misinformation on a number of occasions." was re-added to the lead, the summary of an article, 16 times by Editorkamran. They clearly felt it important to include there, but, as Canterbury Tail pointed out, there's no mention of this in the rest of the article. Controversial statements have no place in the lead if not detailed or expanded on somewhere else in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  ...and, if they've been contested, controversial statements have no place anywhere in the article without consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, good addition, thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Editorkamran has submitted an unblock request, which I am discussing with them; I've made some comments over at their talk page, which I won't repeat here, but in short I find that the block was within the realm of administrator's discretion, that the content they were edit warring over had no consensus and should have been discussed long ago (and that Abhishek0831996's reinstatement of it here was inappropriate), and that its inclusion, as written in the lead, was likely a BLP violation. They're going to need to accept some of those things before an unblock can be considered, and I will not be unblocking without Cullen328's explicit agreement. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Good block, edit warring over a clear BLP violation.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying this person does not promote misinformation according to the sources? Where this "clear BLP violation" even discussed? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• None of this looks ideal. Another example of a shortage of experienced, good-faith editors watching a page that sees a consistent stream of socks, anonymous edits, and SPAs. I see an editor that got used to frequent disruption on the page, where new users don't articulate good reasons for their edits, and reverting because it's yet another new user here to make the exact same edit with an absent or misleading edit summary. We haven't historically done a good job of dealing with brigading or with the users who try to stand in front of it. We wind up blocking all of them, which is of course success for the side with meaningless accounts.
  On the content: No, of course we shouldn't have a claim like that in the lead when it hasn't even been added to the body. But people don't know the lead is only supposed to summarize material in the body until someone tells them. And of course we need consensus to restore controversial claims about living people once someone has made a good faith policy-based objection. The thing is, nobody did that. Nobody brought this issue up at all on the talk page and nobody explained anything about the lead or policy to Editorkamran before blocking (apart from edit warring templates). Editorkamran didn't originally add the material, but did revert a bunch of drive-by, poorly justified removals that make no policy-based claims. Nobody mentioned BLP, and nobody mentioned NPOV (except for someone else when they restored the content). In other words, nobody who has removed this content articulated any policy-based reason for doing so until Cullen post-block, but we're assuming Editorkamran was just willfully violating policy. I see multiple experienced users reverting the kinds of edits Editorkamran reverted, and only one experienced user removing the claim (but it wasn't Editorkamran restoring it in that case). They did receive a couple edit warring templates, though, so shouldn't be surprised at the block, but as I said ... none of this is ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with a lot of this. I am reminded of User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned - I think that Abhishek0831996 acted poorly in reinstating the content without discussion back in February, and that their hostile note to the person they reverted was unnecessary and counterproductive. Abhishek0831996, a relatively experienced editor, set a poor example, and Editorkamran, a comparatively inexperienced editor, was following that example, and wound up blocked. I would be prepared to petition Cullen328 for them to be unblocked early, if I could convince myself that they recognise that edit warring is bad even when you think you're in the right. If the talk page had been used before now, we would probably have some neutrally written content about all this in an appropriate part of the article by now, and nobody would be blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• The block is invalid on the basis highlighted by Aquillion above that no attempts were made to notify the user of the said problems. Contrary to the blocking admin's claims, the used sources are reliable and heavily used across Wikipedia. That's why the claims of BLP violation seem dubious and had to be discussed first. The sources provide several examples of misinformation promoted by the subject. However, any claim to the contrary does not exist. The block apparently concerns only this 1 article (which was already protected) but it has been made as a 2-week sitewide block which is in contradiction to blocking policy. To expand more about the subject, he frequently appears on Republic TV.[327] Republic TV is a blacklisted source on Wikipedia because it promotes fake news. Once you know the subject, you will also know why the content unsurprisingly existed on the article. >>> Extorc.talk 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There was just a widespread community consensus that it was appropriate to indef someone who had never been warned for far less disruption than this. Sennalen (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again: the blocked user was warned about edit warring just a few months ago. Including the blocking administrator and myself, five admins have now commented on this thread, and none of us think that the block was inappropriate. I personally hope that it will be possible for it to be lifted early, but this is not the same as saying that it was invalid. Your time would be better spent on the article talk page thrashing out how to include something about all this in an appropriately neutral and WP:BLPSTYLE-compliant manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on the block but that material clearly did not belong in the lead to the point of being an egregious insertion. The high bar for putting such in a BLP was miles away from being met. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FowH is WP:NOTHERE

FowH (talk · contribs) has not a single good edit and their edits are purely disruptive. See for example their edits on Ivan Aivazovsky where they simply remove all content they do not like without explanation to push a POV.[328][329]. They have been warned multiple times already for the same behavior. See for example other unexplained content removals such as [330] and this[331] which removed 60,000 bytes simply because they did not like the content. I think they have received enough warnings and need an indefinite block. Mellk (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it's blatantly false that he "has not a single good edit". Just looking through he Ivan Aivazovsky page, this edit is perfectly fine as is the first one you called "POV".

Honestly it looks as if you both should be blocked, because you do quite the opposite; whereas he is pushing to remove mentions of Russia from famous Ukranians, you're not stranger to Russifying Ukranian history: just from today you did it here, and here, and here, AND here, and that's just a few diffs I looked at.

Propose sanctions for both FowH and BOOMERANG sanction for User:Mellk

2601:18F:1080:48F0:25FB:1FF3:C9E4:AA65 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not a good edit because it does not follow the consensus established at WP:KIEV. There is also nothing "good" about blanking an entire section that is well sourced without giving a reason and proceeding to do this again when reverted. Also if you are familiar with what a "boomerang" is, then you should be familiar with what a revert is. But it is always a good sign when a random IP shows up here. Mellk (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the general picture, but I do think in that particular case Kyiv would be accurate as it seems to be describing a modern-day event (an exhibition honouring Aivazovsky in Ukraine not long ago), but you know what they say about broken clocks being right twice a day...

The fact that the overwhelming majority of his contributions are being reverted by other editors and even by bots that consider them vandalism (and blanking a page because you don't like its content possibly falls into the category) is quite telling. A random IP popping up with ludicrous claims points in the same direction. A block or at the very least an indefinite TBAN could be in order. Ostalgia (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. Mellk (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A ridiculous suggestion, especially given that the links you provided either don't support what you are saying or are cases of Mellk undoing non-constructive edits. How did you find this discussion, given that you're an IP? — Czello 08:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You really cant be complaining considering you have a thing for refusing to take part in consensus building discussions. Bigshlomo (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't make silly comments please, clearly you are here simply because you hold a grudge. Mellk (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m here because I wanted to thank FowH for his edits. Your edits in the Ukrainian art genre have not reflected any efforts to build a Wikipedia, rather to Russify Ukrainian culture. I agree with the IP address.

Propose sanctions for @Mellk Bigshlomo (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Bit strange to thank someone for disrupting the project, maybe it also helps us to determine whether you are WP:HERE (with 13 mainspace edits)? you're not stranger to... you have a thing for... it is all starting to sound the same... Mellk (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your scare tactics on newer users by threatening administrative action (and insinuating you have some kind of power) isn’t going to work here. Bigshlomo (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You have had this account for over 7 months now with only 13 mainspace edits such as [332]. You say a user's disruption is good here. WP:CIR looks to be the issue. I am not going to waste any more of my time on your attempt to derail this, a block is simply needed. Mellk (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also strike your comment please if you are not going to provide diffs for bogus claims. Mellk (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is free to look at your behavior on Malevych’s talk page Bigshlomo (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Then strike your comment if you are not going to provide WP:DIFFS. Or do you think "everyone is free to look" really works? Mellk (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP user’s diffs work fine. I’m adding on :) Bigshlomo (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, don't do that. Either provide diffs or withdraw the accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also they were alerted about contentious topics earlier. And instead of responding to any warnings or notices they decide to continue their disruptive editing.[333] Mellk (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Without a single talk page response (either on their own talk or article talk) and sheerly disruptive edits like this, I can only conclude that this is a case of nationalist editing and an attempt to right great wrongs. If they're going to refuse to communicate, then an indef is the only option. — Czello 08:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing else has changed except edit summaries referring to "Russian bots"[334] and nationalistic drivel[335][336]. So I do not see any other option aside from an indefinite block. Mellk (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

FowH has been indeffed by Widr for disruptive editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPs at AfD

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

Moonraker has been voting at AfD regarding BLPs. They have been making nonsense arguments and personal attacks in order to keep nn BLPs. Here is a selection of their arguments:

[337], [338], [339], [340], [341], [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]

• Substituting your opinions for policy and guidelines is always a problem, but when it spreads BLPs, it is DE.
• Using sources must exist arguments rather than providing sources to keep BLPs is a violation of policy at WP:BLP.
• Personal comments and attacks should not be tolerated ever, especially at AfD where discussions often get heated.
• Their personal attacks have been raised recently by an admin on their talk page [351], but their response clearly indicates they will continue.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

I believe Moonraker participation in BLP AfDs is DE and counterproductive, and their personal attacks/comments about others need to be addressed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comments like "Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive.", "*Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism." and "NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." are inappropriate aspersions that contribute nothing to the conversation, especially when repeated across multiple discussions that were closed as "delete" because no sources were found. A formal warning would be appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way by sanctioning anyone who disagrees with them (see past frequent attempts to drag ARS here) instead of, you know, winning arguments on their merits? Especially when in these cases the deletionists really are winning the arguments on their merits? People can disagree with you, and repeat their disagreement in the same places that you repeat the arguments they disagree with; it's not any form of malfeasance to do that. It doesn't make it malfeasance for the consensus to go against them. It just makes theirs a minority opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's inappropriate for you (an admin) to take shots at other editors with loaded terms in a discussion involving Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Everyone is welcome to an opinion/position and they can express their opinion, but everyone is required by policy to express their opinions without violating Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It does not matter whether an editor is on the majority or minority side, it's unacceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  08:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is completely appropriate for me here to express my opinion that all opinions should be welcome in AfDs, even repetitive ones that you disagree with or happen to think are too thin on substance, just as it is completely appropriate for Moonraker to repeat those opinions in the AfDs in question. AfDs need to be based on free and open debate, not a system where one set of participants causes another set to become fearful of participating due to threats of sanctions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Let me be perfectly clear: I think that editors who make personal attacks in any discussion should be fearful of participating due to threats of sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Let me be perfectly clear: I think trying to shut down people who disagree with you by accusing their neutral comments of being personal attacks is reprehensible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is broad consensus that use of labels such as 'deletionist' and 'inclusionist' (almost always used as a pejorative and/or to discredit opposing arguments) are part of a battleground mentality that is particularly disruptive at AFD – see recent RFCs, including ArbCom. Your use here is unhelpful at best. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  All I can see in the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is that these labels are sometimes used, and that sometimes their use can entrench people into sides with battleground behavior. The labels "Democrat" and "Republican" are sometimes used in US politics, and sometimes their use is associated with battleground behavior, also. Nevertheless, we don't hesitate to label US politicians in that way, even in cases where they hold nonpartisan office. I didn't see anything in the case that these labels are pejorative, used to discredit, disruptive outside the context of AfDs (as we are here), or in any way a personal attack. So maybe you could supply a better citation for your supposed "broad consensus"? Or at least stop engaging in the exact same "I don't like how you're saying things so I'm going to push for you to stop saying them" behavior that I am complaining about? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  My perception is that, on the whole, it has been people who generally oppose deletion who have tried to use policy to remove people they disagree with (especially via the plainly unsupported argument that WP:BEFORE is somehow mandatory, which they try and turn into a situation where anyone who nominates an article for deletion must WP:SATISFY them and bear the WP:BURDEN of looking for sources for material that other people added or wish to retain, in a clear inversion of our policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• I read through about half the AfDs and I don't understand why there's a discussion here. A number of Canadian ambassadors were successfully deleted and Moonraker objected. In several I see no personal commentary of any kind, let alone a personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  So calling me an obsessive editor isn't a personal attack? LibStar (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  First, that's not one of the AfDs I looked at. If that's one you consider significant you should have highlighted it, with a diff. Second, no, not really? He's characterizing your conduct with respect to ambassador AfDs. This is the full comment, within a larger comment: If I had time, I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry, simply because an obsessive editor is determined to cull ambassadors If you opened an ANI discussion because someone called you an obsessive editor, you're dangerously close to proving his point. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Erm, Libstar didn't open this discussion... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  "He's characterizing your conduct with respect to ambassador AfDs" which is a bright-line violation of our WP:NPA and WP:FOC policies. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't read WP:FOC that way. Any editor who nominates a dozen or more articles of the same type, or with the same author, can expect someone to make an observation or two in that connection. That's fair comment, not a personal attack, and common in AfD discussions. It's not really relevant for the closer, no, but that goes for much of what is said in an AfD. Aside: policy says editors shouldn't take deletion of articles they've worked on personally. Policy says lots of things and editors are people with all their manifest imperfections. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Pointing out the number of articles that an editor has nominated is never helpful in deciding whether or not a topic meets our notability requirements. The place to discuss this would be their user talk page or here at ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Moonraker should be reminded that AFD is not a battleground and advised to refrain from commenting on the motives/competence of the nominator (or any other contributors to these discussions). Such comments are disruptive and others have been topic banned from deletion discussions for the same. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: Everyone needs to cool down and move on. AfD is an argumentative place where feelings run high. It's quite natural that deletionists and keep-everythingists will clash and criticise one another's approaches. It's necessary that things are repeated, because each discussion must stand on its own (there is no guarantee that whoever closes the discussion on one Canadian ambassador will have read all the others). We need to be super cautious of letting ANI intervene in AfD discussions: it's really important that people feel able to state their honest view about an article without the chilling effect of fearing being dragged off here and dumped under a load of angry admins armed with block-buttons. The important life-skill at AfD is to learn to state your case and walk away. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • This is well put. Jahaza (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Amen to that. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the incivility, I'm concerned that someone with autopatrol is claiming obviously non-independent sources count towards GNG. A university's recap of a speech the university invited the subject to give and a primary account from an org she invited to visit her delegation are not acceptable for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Participants at AfD regularly debate what sources count for what, and what GNG's demands for depth, reliability, and independence really mean. That is exactly what AfDs are for. In the case in question, my own feeling is that the independence of these two sources is not problematic, and that their reliability and depth of coverage are dubious but defensible; but that is a matter of opinion. The fact that this opinion might differ from yours, or from the opinions expressed in the AfD, is a matter for discussion at the AfD and for the closer to weigh; it is not ANI-worthy misbehavior, and not cause for concern. If we had an ANI discussion every time someone cited GNG inaccurately in an AfD, or every time two participants disagreed on what GNG actually meant or how it applied to specific sources, we'd be so swamped with these petty dramas as to never have time for the real blowups. The impression given by your comment above that you think only opinions conforming to your orthodoxy should be allowed expressed in an AfD, and that we should consider anything else to be problematic, is a bigger cause for concern, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of source discussion at GNG-based AfDs is over whether the coverage is significant enough, which is the only really subjective aspect of GNG. For a source to count towards GNG, it must be fully independent of its subject, even if it meets the SIGCOV and reliability aspects. How else can you read significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? A university inviting someone to give a talk and then posting a recap of it is no different from a sports event organizer covering its own results, and the latter is pretty unanimously dismissed as non-independent in sports AfDs (because obviously the org will write about all the events it runs, regardless of external attention; it has a vested interest in promoting its own activities in a positive light and in maintaining favorable relations with participants). This isn't some "orthodoxy". JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just like, your opinion. Sharing these opinions is what AfD is for. But shutting down contrary opinions is NOT what ANI is for. I could argue specifics about why you are wrong (sources can be used for different information and the independence of a source depends on what information it is used for, so a source by an institution that does not employ the subject is independent for the biography of the subject even though it is not independent for the fact that the subject gave a talk there) but that's not the point. I'd rather express my opinion freely on an AfD and end up on the non-consensus side than get my way at AfD by silencing contrary opinions, and I'm extremely disappointed in your seeming disagreement with that view. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A couple thousand sportsperson and entertainer AfDs (and the AfD in question!) disagree totally with that interpretation. The motivation to publish material on a subject cannot be entangled with the publisher's coverage of itself, and that property is inherent in the publisher's coverage of its own activities, especially when there is a financial or professional tie (such as a paid speaking engagement). Just like a writeup on the winners of an award written by the awarding body is not independent because of course the awarder is incentivized to hype its awardees with positive material. JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, at no point here have I argued that such opinions can't be expressed at AfD, or that Moonraker should be sanctioned for making them, or even that Moonraker should be sanctioned for incivility, so I don't know where this "silencing contrary opinions" thing is coming from. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's coming from you piling on to a complaint here at ANI about someone expressing their opinion at AfDs saying that "I'm concerned" about their doing so. What effect do you think such statements could possibly have other than silencing? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can agree it wasn't a relevant or appropriate comment to make in this context. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Participants at AfD regularly debate what sources count for what That's not quite what he did, so your repeated complaints about "deletionists" subjecting others to their own standards are incomprehensible. Saying things like "extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors" and "sources are easy to find", especially without an accompanying source-based input, is pure noise and disruption, especially for BLPs. Avilich (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It is no more disruptive than half of the participants at all other AfDs. Statements like this, made without adequate and visible justification, are commonplace, and easily and routinely ignored by closers. They are not the level of problem that justifies an ANI discussion of the behavior of the person making them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the ideal course of action is to allow free speech and for closers to simply ignore useless comments. However, here the discussion was relisted once, and here twice, in both cases without any explanation, solely due to the unhelpful comments of Moonraker and company. Whether you choose to blame the latter or the relisters, it's clear that at least 3 weeks (3 relists) of editor time have been wasted for no good reason. Avilich (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that those comments were the only reason for relisting, your labeling of it as "Moonraker and company" suggests coordination for which you provide no evidence. Jahaza (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the second relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric John Bergbusch was by a blocked sockpuppet, whose behavior doesn't provide any evidence of legitimate closers being in any way confused by the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• If lack of notability is brought up and no sources are produced to prove otherwise, there is no reason why AfD should last for more than a week. And yes, it's quite clear whose comments (whether they were coordinated or not is of no importance) provided the reason for relisting: aside from a lone IAR weak keep vote there was not one policy-based vote to be seen. (I stand corrected, however, on the last relist, seeing that it was done by a sockpuppet.) Avilich (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BLP discussions are not an area Wikipedia should tolerate this kind of behavior. David Eppstien's attitude towards BLP AfDs will only lead to more low quality participation at AfD, providing a bad example for others. This problem stems from another issue, the refusal of some editors to accept recent changes at NSPORTs.

Childish boilplate prostests are annoying and misleading, but can be ignored when an AfD is about a film or building, but they have no place anywhere in BLP discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Accusing @David Eppstein of providing a "bad example for others" in relation to AFDs of BLPs is beyond hasty. He's a valuable AFD contributor who's done a tremendous amount of work on BLPs both sourcing BLPs that should be kept and arguing for the deletion of non-notable figures. Jahaza (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Moonraker needs to comment here, and commit to not making comments like The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive, which have no place at AfD and are disruptive. If they are not willing to make that commitment, then some form of warning or sanction may be required.

I am also concerned by David Eppstein's comments here; comments like What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way by sanctioning anyone who disagrees with them (see past frequent attempts to drag ARS here) instead of, you know, winning arguments on their merits are inappropriate aspersions, and their belief that the comments under discussion are appropriate is also problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another opinion-silencer whose only recent contributions to deletion debates have been on the "delete" side of the debate steps in. I think that the people who need to make commitments here are you, Timothy, dlthewave, etc. Specifically, you need to commit to the principles that open and free sharing of opinions is welcome both here and at AfD, that sharing an opinion you disagree with is not uncivil and not a personal attack, and that sharing an opinion on patterns of behavior (such as that a perceived pattern is unconstructive) is again not a personal attack. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: BLP is policy and it states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", not any source you can find, but HIGH QUALLITY sources. Encouraging a standard that is anything less than this in discussions about BLPs is a rationale going directly against policy.

WP:V is policy, Wikipedia does not allow a "wait and hope" better sources appear position in discussions about BLPs. Spam posting that an BLP should be kept when it does not have high quality sources or a rationale in guidelines such as CLN, is supporting a rationale that is against policy. An admin suggesting editors can ignore policy and just speak their mind will cause more disruption at AfD, not make the process better.

If David Eppstein or any admin is going to be closing AfDs, it needs to be clear that he needs to follow policy and not their own opinions. Otherwise they shouldn’t be closing AfDs.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if you're going to insinuate that I have been using my admin bit to close AfDs improperly, in an ANI discussion, I'm going to demand that you supply diffs. When have I ever done that? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right that was not clear. I have never seen you ever make a biased close. In fact based on what I've seen at AfD, I am actually shocked at the arguments that you are making (and with the words you are using). Its depressing frankly to see your comments here. But I do believe your statements about WP:BLP mean you should potentially not be closing AfDs involving BLPs. And this will be a loss because you're a good closer.  // Timothy :: talk  01:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I think I'm basically on David Eppstein's side here. I'd personally advise Moonraker to stop making rude comments like those, but IMO they are not really past the level I've seen in many other contentious areas. It's not against Wikipedia policy to say that the nominator at this particular AfD is making a lot of similar AfDs and that you oppose the whole campaign. Loki (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Two unwritten rules of AfD: 1) you can be a little bit snarky, a little bit hostile, and right most of the time, or you can be collegial while getting things wrong more often than others. If you get things wrong too often and you're a bit hostile, you'll probably wind up sanctioned. 2) It's fair game to criticize people for a pattern of nominations or !votes as long as you can highlight problems with those nominations or !votes. It's not a good look when you criticize a bunch of nominations and consensus winds up in favor of deletion. But, of course, the ideal is to focus on subjects rather than nominators, and to calibrate interpretations of notability criteria based on how they're typically applied. FWIW. Don't know that anything here rises to the level of needing sanctions, but if this becomes more of a pattern who knows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I don't see anything sanction-worthy in the diffs provided in the original post. Yes, cookie-cutter !votes can be annoying, but they're also easily ignored, and arguably some of the nominations had that character as well. This looks like a humdrum example of an editor's comments coming off as too obviously frustrated. I'll echo the advice above that The important life-skill at AfD is to learn to state your case and walk away. Maybe this could escalate to a real conduct problem in the future, but it isn't one yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding David Eppstein comments

• David Eppstein has made disparaging comments (and I beleive personal attacks) against others editors in this discussion. Eg: "Yet another opinion-silencer" [352], "What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way" [353]

WP:ADMINCOND states "Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."

In light of the above, are these comments about other editors acceptable?  // Timothy :: talk  00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact, that was an accurate description of the behavior here, in this thread, by the person I was replying to. And by you, in this very comment. You are calling for my civilly-expressed opinions to be sanctioned, discouraged, or silenced. That makes your behavior opinion-silencing. Additionally, the very comment you first quote goes far out of its way to avoid the "deletionist" epithet, after others here convinced me that it can sometimes be seen as pejorative, in favor of a drawn-out description of the same behavior that avoids epithets.\ Civil descriptions of behavior, even descriptions which you disagree with or wish people wouldn't pay attention to, are not problematic and do not deserve sanctioning. Behavior that attempts to shut down civilly-framed criticism, such as yours here, is much more problematic. Your attitude expressed above that a preference for open and unhindered debate, even when that means allowing (but not basing closes on) contributions from people who make poorly-founded arguments at AfDs, would in any way disqualify someone from participating in or closing AfDs is also problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments like Yet another opinion-silencer and What is it about deletionists that makes them so thirsty to get their way by sanctioning anyone who disagrees with them (see past frequent attempts to drag ARS here) instead of, you know, winning arguments on their merits are not civil; they are WP:ASPERSIONS. You are welcome to disagree, but when you disagree you are required to do so civilly, and without resorting to personal attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, they're fine.

Longer answer: what are you even talking about? That's not a personal attack, that's barely snarky at all. Loki (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's uncivil, but doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks. Or exactly what makes AfD a toxic cesspool. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• What we have here is an admin who believes that their opinion (all opinions are welcome at AfD, including personal comments about other editors) trumps our NPA, FOC and AfD policies (Comment on content, not on the contributor; "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.") It's okay to disagree with policy, however this disagreement has escalated over the past few days from a simple "It is completely appropriate for me here to express my opinion that all opinions should be welcome in AfD" to bludgeoning the conversation with responses to every opposing comment, to calls for other editors to commit to their point of view. David Eppstein is reminded that ANI is a place where our existing policies are enforce, not a forum to discuss how we personally think it should be. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If David Eppstein's discussion has been bludgeoning, so has your's and TimothyBlue's. With no momentum towards consensus for sanctions against Moonraker after five days, you both should WP:Drop the stick. Meanwhile, Libstar should take seriously @Liz's suggestion that Canadian ambassadors can use a rest [354].--Jahaza (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Spooninpot

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

User's behaviour has escalated to edit-warring, disruptive edits that editorialise about government actions, and personal attacks and taunting on Talk pages. A warning about edit warring was posted on his Talk page but ignored. Examples include:

• This revert summary: "It remains a village this is not a page about the local government it is a page about the community."
• This edit that he insisted was "not a blame" when reverting its removal: "On 1 January 2023, provincial officials caused Petitcodiac to annex all or part of four local service districts to form the local government jurisdiction of Three Rivers, an Village under the legislation."
• This edit: "It held its own municipal status prior to 2023, when it became part of the new Fundy Albert municipality, which is incorporated as a Village under the enabling local government legislation. OMG that was long and wordy."
• This text, immediately after a citation: "Or, Aukpa-que, may be. Some words exist in the Passemaquadi-maliseet dictionary, but did anyone look them up?"
• This text: "Saint-Léolin is a village, and don't you let anyone tell you otherwise."
• In general, user has insisted on forcing a personal viewpoint as to what constitutes a village and has thrown a tantrum that's lasted for two days over numerous pages about New Brunswick municipalities.

I'm not a paragon of good behaviour but this has moved beyond normal editorial disagreements into something I want nothing more to do with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you post some differences? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by differences. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DIFF, hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It does, actually. Thanks.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147278618

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147269403

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147146012

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147150687

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147130551

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147126617

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147122945

It's a sample; you can consult the user's Contributions list to see how much of it has been disruptive. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And this example, posted while I was getting the above list to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147403322 G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What becomes evident upon investigation is that the user's investments in the local government aspect of entries about communities has lead to exclusion of community in whole, perhaps by focus on governance template and it's universal application in the category, and that complainant has avoided the matter brought to talk pages and elsewhere and in the past. The category and entries now require considerable revisiting due to legislative changes in the jurisdiction of New Brunswick the entries discuss, a response to which might be another disclaimer about yet to be known secondary information. i.e. old data. Or, to detatch the legal/jurisdictional element from the remainder.

The supposition is that communities (villages, towns, cities, regions, etc.) exist only by virtue of being governed and that that the entries of these community pages by their standardization are official or proprietary to local government.

Here (diff), one can see the modification of the template heading "official name" to "name", and yet the edit calls the place type by an official type not the type of community it remains in the non-legalistic sense.

A consequent question, "do communities need one article for governance/divisions, and another for community that doesn't have to get to specific?"

Like how settlement is often organic, I believe this need to "snap to grid" has longer-term and larger consequences to the continued viability of the articles in question.

User @G. Timothy Walton and @Hwy43 need to address the question and are faced with the leadership role it would seem due to apparent investments. Spooninpot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In New Brunswick, village is a legal term for a particular type of municipality. The 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform affected more than 80% of existing municipalities and other local governments, with most villages losing their status as independent municipalities and being amalgamated to form larger units, many of which are classified as villages. Existing articles had only their municipal status changed; any information that was already in them remains. @Spooninpot objected to the dissolved pre-reform villages now being described on Wikipedia as communities, or unincorporated communities, or any other synonym. This should be sufficient background to put the above comments in perspective. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And this is today's attempt to strawman the English language into submission:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147571072

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573011

All because one editor is fixated on one connotation of one word. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And I think an ISP check may show that @Placeographer77 is the same user with a second account. Examples:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147622929

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147621774

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147620560

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147618700

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147618508

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147616757

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573831

User Placeographer77 has been repeatedly informed in the past, as long as two years ago, about which government legislation applies and has repeatedly refused to acknowledge it. The behaviour, area of interest, and language used in edit descriptions are certainly similar to User Spooninpot. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And more from Placeographer77, just in the last few minutes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147625299

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1147573831

The devil is in the edit summaries. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reality is G.Tomothy and Hwy 43 are like accused. Elswise explain "doh" moment Placeographer77 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Spooninpot is definitely a sock of Placeographer77, the latter of which has just been blocked by Materialscientist. Look no further than these two “snap to grid” diffs.

[355] by Spooninpot above in this very ANI; and

[356] by Placeographer.

@G. Timothy Walton: if the outcome of this ANI results in a block that doesn’t match the block of Placeographer77, I suggest you start a case at WP:SPI. Hwy43 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Thanks. I'll give it a few days and act if I have to. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You guys talking to yourselves again? Spooninpot (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, here we go again. Latest behaviour of Placeographer77's sockpuppet, including one where he retitles a section on someone else's Talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148088237
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148089748
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148096777

Hopefully this is finally enough rope. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

They are actually the sock puppet of Placeography76. But as the long arm of the law I wouldn’t expect you to know that.

NB Villages about Awkward Villages offends you, long arm? Spooninpot (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And the hubris continues.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148432532

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1148429514

The second diff shows the typical level of expertise of the editor behind the sockpuppet, some garbled timeline where legislation that took effect in 2018 wasn't passed until months after the article was created in 2022. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The baiting editor doesn’t appear to realize that the article was actually created in 2023. It was a redirect to 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform so that readers that heard of the then-proposed municipality could learn something in the meantime. Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Waltononly just learned about difs. Warring continues Spooninpot (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

oh, where can I draw more complaints where contributors are turned terrorists? Spooninpot (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Spooninpot is now CU blocked as a sock of Placeographer77 after an SPI case here. Further sockpuppets can be reported at said SPI page with sufficient evidence, I think this discussion can be closed now. AP 499D25 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Spooninpot is already unblocked, updated their own Talk page less than four hours after AP 499D25's post. A block that lasts less than twelve hours doesn't accomplish much. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look unblocked to me. Blocked users can post on their own talk pages unless access is specifically removed. Deor (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The user is indeed indef'd and since they admitted they are evading a block and "blatantly vandalizing", I've removed talk page access. They can request an unblock on their main account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oriental Aristocrat

The content being unilaterally restored by this user has no consensus and there is consensus not to include it since 2018. However this user continues to edit war all alone even after warnings.[357] He keeps restoring this rejected information by falsely claiming that he has consensus[358][359][360] and for that he has to call people a "vandal"[361] and baselessly accuse them to have been "canvassed".[362] This article is under 1 revert rule. Orientls (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no consensus in 2018. I'd like to bring the fact to admins attention that Pastbirth's very first edit was to the talkpage discussion which makes it very suspicious. Moreover, all they said was that "the citations used mostly are pakistani newspapers and hence biased" (an invalid assertion) without saying whether the content must be kept or removed. Only two editors Orientls and DBigXray were opposed to the contents inclusion in the Infobox. While, two other editors, Vif12vf and Mr. Guye supported it's inclusion. Mr. Guye even said that "The content is very well-cited". The only thing he pointed out is that the fact must also be discussed in the body of the article which it does now.

Secondly, may I remind the OP that consensus can change and it has. What do you call pinging other editors preselected "according to their established opinions", if not canvassing? Funnily enough the OP calls the text "rejected information".

Thirdly, looking at the article's history, other active editors have also restored the content in the past like Giggity, Spasage, Khestwol, Arjayay, Vif12vf, Vif12vf, Shadow4dark, Shadow4dark, USaamo and War Wounded etc.

While, Orientls own conduct on the article is questionable where they helped an IP involved in an edit war that led to the page being protected.

This right here is a content dispute and must be settled on article talkpage. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You are still making baseless accusations. This time you are sneakily claiming that this account "Pastbirth" must be a sock of any of us. The consensus was clear since 2018 that this content should not be included. WP:CON depends on argument. Vif12vf and Mr. Guye never said they are supporting the inclusion. You had recently pinged them on talk page to support your inclusion but they have refused to entertain your request. You are pretending to care about "consensus" when you prefer calling editors a "vandal" or falsely accusing them to have been "canvassed". Why you are the only person who is edit warring to restore content for the last 5 months[363]? Orientls (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Calonmenisback reverting cited text, adding questionable (AI?) info

I've been trying User:Calonmenisback to repeatedly tried to warn and have a conversation with the editor to no avail.

Said editor has repeatedly removed a cited entry in the Lobo River article without explanation. Note that I trimmed and sourced it as there are several issues, mostly because it seems to be AI generated.

• here's the diff where another editor tagged it as AI generated.

Note that those myths are nonsense with the golden salakot lifted from the Panay Island myths. I can't verify anything in the conservation status heading.

Other drafts and articles of concern

• Malabrigo, Lobo, Batangas, several blocks of unverfiable text, also the "Ref" that they added just says There are 0 barangays as of 31 December 2022.
• Draft:San Miguel, Municipality of Lobo
  • cite 1 or 2, has no info
  • cite 3, is a wiki
  • cite 4, points back to en.wiki
  • cite 5, is a waze point, which is user generated.
  • cite 6 points to a zip code, doesn't verify BATELEC claim
• Draft:Saint Michael the Archangel Parish Church
  • cite only points to a church directory

• diff of Draft:Mount Lobo
  • seems AI generated, also uncited
  • Of note is the claim "Mount Lobo is part of the larger Taal Volcano Complex, which is located just a few kilometers to the northeast." Actually Taal is around 90 km Northwest of Mount Lobo.
  • Also I tagged the image they lifted from a 2013 blog in Wikicommons, it got deleted.

All in all, I think we should block the user due to repeated attempts to put false info in wikipedia and not responding to any attempts at communication. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

IPs with similar edits

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.

---

180.74.69.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has the same pattern of edits and subjects as 180.74.216.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is presently blocked for 3 months. I have several of the "[X Year] in Music" articles in my watchlist and I've actually noticed several IPs with the same edit pattern make unsourced edits to these and other pages over the years. They usually accumulate warnings, never reply to any of them, are inevitably blocked, and then they hop to a new IP. For instance, 180.74.71.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 180.74.216.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There looks to be a pattern of edits and ban evasion with this range. What should be done in this instance? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If they only edit the "[X Year] In Music" articles, we could protect the pages under heavy attack. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 20:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's more than those, it's specific subjects, and you can get the idea of what they are from those IPs' contributions (music, auto racing, football/soccer). Their most concerning edits are on discography pages, where they change genres without explanation (as seen here and here), and auto racing, where they remove large, sourced sections without explanation (seen here, here, and particularly here where a whole table was removed, twice). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:19, 8 April 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.

Promo'l AC

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 this [364], the User: Sports point00 and his web have same name, It seems like he made this AC for his website Ad.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

To me. "AC" means air conditioning . What does it mean to you? Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In this context, I'd assume "account". Kurtis ^(talk) 13:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean an account. The user's username 'sports point' is similar to the link he added in 2023 IPL, which have url -https://www.sportspoints.in, i think he broke wp policy about COI or UN. I reverted his edit. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

SPAMUBLOCKED. In the future, such can be reported at WP:UAA. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:11, 9 April 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:Infactinteresting

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.

---

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

They have unilaterally and disruptively reworded a lot of pages (without following WP:MOS), reducing their readability. I reverted their edit on Keanu Reeves and notified them. But then they started an edit war and left me a message that showed no regrets. They have since been continuing their behaviour. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked x 24 hrs. They removed the ANI notice w/o bothering to respond and have continued their problematic editing. It looks like they think this is Simple English. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  The editing style (note the edit summaries) is very similar to Highwatermark1. I even brought this to their attention in February, but it was just deleted. Backstory: I first noticed Infactinteresting when they were editing film articles and made a fuss here about using an "offensive word" in a quote (also see Talk:Barbara Walters#Bloat). Do I need to open a formal sockpuppet investigation or is this a WP:DUCK? Mike Allen 14:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  @MikeAllen Thanks for that information. Yes, I'd take this to SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  @MikeAllen P.S. Based on date of registration Highwatermark1 is the newer account and would actually be the sockpuppet. Given the behavioral evidence I'd call the two a likely match. But it's best to let someone with checkuser tools verify this to be on the safe side. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infactinteresting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 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.

Whitewashing history with summary "some changes," often in "minor" edits

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.

---

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

(The edits, edit summaries, and talk page notifications of this user and this IP make it probable they are the same person. But an occasional failure to log in is not the problem here: POV-pushing edits and uninformative edit summaries are the problem)

Some diffs:

• Removing info about Soviet or Russian censorship:[365][366]
• Removing information about Soviet biological weapons programs: [367][368]
• Adding detailed claims about the success of a Soviet program, cited to a source that does not support or even mention these claims about grain yields, meat, lard, eggs, etc. etc.[369]
• Same edit as above, inserting his own comment on expert cited by RS "It's hard to say how true it is":[370]
• Series of edits, each marked "minor," to Vitaly Melnikov (film director), removing info about the execution of Melnikov's father and grandfather as well as Soviet censorship of one of his films: [371]

Hoping some experienced editor will know how to deal with the problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked. As for the user, he doesn't seem responsive on his talk page despite the warnings. I'm guessing a block is in order here as well. In the other hand, if you're certain (or at the very least have a strong suspicion) that the IP and the account are the same person, I recommend opening a SPI case as well. Ostalgia (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

On closer inspection he seems to have replied to talk page comments a couple of times, both on his tp and at Boris Moiseev, but he has done so in Russian (and IP geolocates to a Russian-speaking area of Ukraine). It may well be the case that his edits are in good faith, but if he can't engage other users in English then we have to take it as a CIR issue that makes the changes disruptive.

//Edit he appears to have been indeffed @ ru wiki for disruptive editing, so maybe language was not the issue after all... Ostalgia (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Цйфыву, whose edit pattern hasn't changed despite many attempts to engage on talk pages, should also be indeffed. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It might not have been clear from my message, but I was referring to the user - it's Цйфыву who's been indeffed from ru wiki. ANI is working a bit slowly because of a couple of cases hogging attention (a racist [now former] admin and a NR deleting pages with dubious methods). If you feel the user's behaviour is beyond solving, open up a SPI to block him for socking (which he has done, after all). I'm not sure his behaviour necessarily rises to the level of vandalism, but if you feel that's the case, reporting him there will be faster, too. If you feel he can be "saved", I could try writing a tp message in Russian (I'm not great with Russian but I can get the point across!) to see if he's more responsive to that. Let me know. In the meantime I will try to revert/correct some of his edits. Ostalgia (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: I'm happy to wait here to see what some admin decides, but thanks for your help. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:35, 9 April 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.

Honeyintruder888 disruptive editing

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.

---

• Honeyintruder888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long-standing chronic issue with Honeyintruder888. Most recent examples at Sruthi Lakshmi (a BLP) include adding unsourced claims (sometimes with a pre-attached {{citation needed}} tag) ([372] [373]), including trivial claims like non-performance appearances on game shows and talk shows ([374] [375]), using unreliable sources ([376]), and now removal of maintenance templates without providing a valid reason or without resolving the underlying issue ([377] [378] [379]).

HI has been warned ~two dozen times, including five "final warnings", does not appear to use edit summaries and, despite having nearly 14,000 edits, has never used an article talk page nor a user talk page, despite invitations and polite pleas to do so ([380] [381] [382]).

This editing pattern is not limited just to Sruthi Lakshmi, but extends to dozens, if not, hundreds of Indian cinema/television-related BLPs and film articles to which HI has contributed. I am open to working collaboratively to resolve the disputes, but HI does not appear interested in engaging. I would appreciate advice on other ways I or others could use to deal with these issues in a more constructive and effective manner.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:19, 9 April 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: 32.219.249.73

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.

---

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

Hello,

I have noticed that many of the edits made by this IP have been less than constructive, if not outright vandalism. Here are a few examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ness&diff=prev&oldid=1145128389&diffmode=source
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Rifkin&diff=prev&oldid=1143730152&diffmode=source
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Young-hak&diff=prev&oldid=1137997875&diffmode=source

Could someone please rectify this? DeathTrain (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited in almost a month. Right now a block would not have any effect, since the editing is so sporadic. If they come back to vandalize, please report them to WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:13, 10 April 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.

Holdfast1905

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.

---

• Holdfast1905 (talk · contribs)

I've already reported them as a sock of Heyoboyo at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heyoboyo, and one of the affected articles has been semiprotected. It seems they are displeased by that and they are now following me around to revert my edits at unrelated articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

How am I a sockpuppet? Because I edited a page you're defending? Absurd accusation and fairly ridiculous too. This is my first account, I have read the rules and have respected them. I am not displeased by the reversion, even if it was sourced properly according to wiki rules, I am however disappointed that you seem to think you are the end all be all for some topics and seemingly refuse to comply with wiki rules. You also doxxed me outside of wikipedia. Please do not spam me again. Holdfast1905 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Except the rule about not making perosnal attacks. I removed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I see that Holdfast1905 is harassing Mr Ollie and will block them for 24 hours. As always, any admin can revert, undo, or modify as they see fit. A ping would be nice -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

And they now have been blocked as a sock. Gee, I didn't see that coming...RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Will wonders never cease. 😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure. The kicker was the ridiculous comment in the Rock Stone Gold Castle thread. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 11 April 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.

Back at it

• Sinkingforest (talk · contribs)

I suspect Sinkingforest is the same person as the above. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I did block them already, but this definitely has the smell of laundry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

UCLAPhdCandidate complaint

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.

---

There's a complaint of harassment against me here from a paid editor who I've p-blocked from mainspace. Would some kind colleague care to review my actions there and amend if necessary? Thanks, I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have posted here too. Wikipedia:Help desk . Seems to be a combination of the Draft:Inertial Labs talk page, that page and my talk page. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@UCLAPhdCandidate your responses on your user talk page have been poor, at best. To note, you indicate that his accusations of advertorial were ungrounded All I have been asking him is what he found advertorial?, while also saying several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language. That someone else removed the problematic text, which you freely admit, does not mean your editing escapes those accusations. So that you claim the admin is harassing you while you are both admitting and claiming false accusations of advertorial editing suggests your accusation is unwarranted.

You also did violate the paid editing rules - both in the specifics of the disclosure aspect and in the significant aspect of directly mainspace posting. I would not say that your disclosure failings were significant enough to warrant a mainspace block, given an incorrect but attempted disclosure on your side.

The violation of the no direct editing was clearly breached by you avoiding articles for creation. That alone could justify a partialspace ban - I would probably have avoided it, but I don't think it's beyond admin discretion. Others may disagree.

My tl;dr:

1. Harassment charge not upheld by evidence
2. Paid disclosure breaches insufficient to warrant partialspace ban
3. Advertorial breaches sufficiently conceded to indicate that accusation is reasonable, and could act as sufficient reasoning to make the partialspace ban reasonable, even if not required. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I never say the advertorial tag was unfounded. I asked what else he felt needed to be removed because another admin had already chopped thousands of characters off the article, I would assume with the intention of brining the article into compliance? That is why an admin would do this? Instead of providing any type of constructive criticism at all on the article, he began banning me, avoiding the question and changing the focus of his initial complaint from mostly about the articles advertorial issues to more about the paid editing which wasn't being hidden at all. I might not have had the whole proper tag but there is no way it should look as if I was trying to hide paid editing at all. There is no reason other editors should have that impression at all. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

By my count, three separate users so far have expressed some reservations about the rapid escalation to a block from mainspace. I will quote from @David10244's comment on user talk: [UCLAPhdCandidate] posted a paid editing disclosure, then was admonished for "undisclosed paid editing". Huh?? That is weird and counterintuitive. May I suggest that things might have gone more smoothly had a block not been so quickly issued? Shells-shells (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing users also seem to firmly rebut the harassment charge. In the normal flow of things, I'd gladly advise a "accusation incorrect, but while we're here, let's remove the block" outcome. However, at the moment, UCLA is demonstrating a lack of awareness on how to avoid future issues. This includes their failure to read the most relevant rules carefully and a hugely incorrect first article where they were fortunate enough to have it fixed rather than deleted. It also includes their communications with other editors, to whit: I have enough wikipedia experience over the years to know the admins literally make a game of trying to make new editors subservient. I know he wants me to kiss his ass but, what he is doing in my opinion is disruptive and it is taxing.. So we end up needing to see if JLAN may have come to a viable conclusion even if their reasoning wasn't what we'd have wanted. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's correct. Not a good enough reason for a mainspace block, but the editor has demonstrated that it is warranted. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize.. I haven't backed off, I am in PST and went to bed.. Technically we are talking about my 2nd article. My first article went through AfC as it was supposed to and was moved into main space by an admin. The issue with me moving the page isn't really in doubt or challenged. I did it to get help with an article I felt was already better than most needed for wikipedia to get some help bringing it down to size to be compliant. I left detailed notes in the pages history and talk page to this affect and had a paid editing disclosure on my page. In fact, this had exactly the affect that I had hoped and several editors immediately jumped on the page and began improving it, such is the intention and result of a collaborative wikipedia, as it should be. My only other article I created before this issue, I submitted through AfC and it was approved by a senior editor, the way everyone likes it to be. My issue was with him coming in without reading the article, seeing a notice at the top of the page after many editors had already worked on the page, and just randomly adding tags just to add on to what everyone else was doing. It was obvious the page had been moved by me, and several editors and admins in the spririt of wikipedia began to help me fix the page constructively. Justlettersandnumbers came along and drafted the page after it had been substantially worked on, including by a person who works heavily on the new page patrol. He added liberally added notes and drafted the article without much consideration for anyone else or engaging on conversation on the talk page of the article either. When asked about what he detailed as promotional since that was the focus of his original notes rather than COI or UPE (though UPE was mentioned), 1) he changed the focus of his actions to UPE/COI 2) escalated his individual actions against me and my pages to the point of tagging a Artlist properly created through AfC and unpaid when it too was clearly done correctly and had a notice on my talk page 3) He blocked me from editing the main space 4) He continued to refuse to add any constructive comments about the original reason 5) He tried to shape this as unpaid editing when it was absolutely nothing but the opposite. An editor who had disclosed paid editing, using Wikipedia successfully and collaboratively, the way it was intended. 6) After his retaliation, he leaves intentional notes detailing his apathetic feelings towards the entire class of paid editors, bolding his text to highlight this as the reason justifying his aggressive behavior. I find the whole thing very retaliatory, very aggressive and improper to be so narrow minded to not check and see who was working on the article, if it was improving in the spirit of wikipedia, and to check if the notes he left on the page were still appropriate. As with any editor drafting an article, he should be able to explain in some detail the reason he noted when doing so. This isn't obnoxious, it is mandatory.. Making the whole thing look like paid editing so other editors will dismiss my complaints is also a very deceptive enforcement action in my opinion. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally a quote of what he said \"I have just no idea why we tolerate paid editing in this volunteer project, but we do, within certain limits. " That is an admin, Justlettersandnumbers intentionally displaying nothing but apathy for paid editing.. so much so that he intentionally bolded the statement to intentionally emphasize it so as I know the reason for his aggressive behavior. This is WP:Civ from an admin? To me it looks like intentionally displayed apathy to an entire class of wikipedia editors and justification for his retaliatory behavior. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Apathy = indifference. Perhaps you meant antipathy? Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

UCLAPhdCandidate, I assume that you mean "antipathy" instead of "apathy". Most administrators are highly skeptical of paid editors for good reason. In general, their primary reason for editing is to make money rather than to improve the encyclopedia, and they are more interested in making their clients happy than in collaborating with other editors. Indignant denunciations of administrators as a class are unlikely to be effective for you, since adminstrators are selected by the community to deal with problematic behavior, and many paid editors engage in such behavior. I think that you have found yourself in a hole of your own making, and I advise you to stop digging. Cullen328 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up, I imagine he was intentionally projecting both. I am not admonishing a whole class of editors and I am not going to get into a paid editing scenario since wikipedia only deals with paid editing when it is convenient. The truth is it is allow, the rules on paid editing are there because they are legally required to be there to satisfy internet advertising disclosure requirements, not because paid editors aren't wanted or are discouraged from editing on wikipedia. Without paid editing which occurs on every celebrity and major company page, half of this platform wouldn't be here so people can write articles on 800 different breeds of cattle. Also, I shouldn't be subject to antipathy, apathy or any type of discrimination for disclosing paid editing and asking an admin to explain his actions so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR! This subservience to older accounts who bully new editor accounts and are allowed to mislabel and inaccurately post tags on new accounts and pages as retaliation with no accountability is unacceptable. Seniority is not an excuse to be prejudicial, especially by an admin whose job it is to oversee these types of issues. No one will recommend suspending the admin for 48 hrs will they? Many of the editors on here already have voiced support and say the ban was improper.. That sort of is the consensus... If I were to make a disparaging statement that grouped all paid editors together, you would say I was wrong to do so.. as an admin he is not admonished for the same identical behavior? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess you prefer to keep digging. That's sad. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block, as evinced by the most recent reply by UCLAPhDCandidate here, particularly the NOTHERE and contemptuous attitude expressed by Without paid editing which occurs on every celebrity and major company page, half of this platform wouldn't be here so people can write articles on 800 different breeds of cattle. Also, I shouldn't be subject to antipathy, apathy or any type of discrimination for disclosing paid editing and asking an admin to explain his actions so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR!. If the disparagement of volunteer editors continues, a full block may be necessary, but perhaps they will be able to make appropriate edit-request contributions a la WP:COI guidelines once they cool off a bit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The oppression of independent thought and push for subservience to others strictly based on tenure on this platform amazes me. I can't imagine what types of discussions would occur if gender roles were required to be released on here. Would you like to look on upwork and see how many paid editing jobs there are? Do you know how many PR companies actually engage in active editing for clients? How many corporate SEO and PR offices are actively following their accounts to make sure they are properly adjusted? All of them worth over $5m. It is a requirement and it is taught in SEO, PR and in incubators through out the startup community. Every political page has paid editing. Want to look, start and any major candidate, look at those pushing the false Trump Russia story, those impeding the Hunter Biden story, I imagine the Clintons probably have 20 people working on their page to suppress press from different stores they do not like. Wikipedia is taught in SEO classes and in startup incubators throughout the worldwide tech scene. I have disclosed paid editing from day one.. This is what Wikipedia wants and these are the rules established. I shouldn't be targeted or subject to discrimination by admins practicing retaliatory practices. Banning is for harmful editing, not as a tool to demand oppressive subservience from those who like the status quo of power. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You aren't helping yourself here and I highly suggest that you put down the shovel. This isn't about tenured editors vs new ones. Nor should we break down and embrace paid editing because we can't catch it all and people choose to be dishonest. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The contempt for Wikipedia shown here, warrants a block on it’s own per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, openly prejudicial attitude towards even properly disclosed paid editing. Real paid editors understand how to make a page, properly reference them, chose clients who are notable, and are following the rules of wikipedia. Apparently Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers are just content for show? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont have contempt for wikipedia at all. I have contempt for the attempt to either hide the true value of paid editing, attacking it, or just being ignorant of how much it is happening on wikipedia. You push editors to disclose, then attack and are openly prejudicial against ones who disclose from the beginning and who are only on their second page. There is no accountability for what I experienced and admins continuing to try and demand silence or subservience when I have a factually provable set of actions that violate the wikipedia TOS, just proves my point of the larger issue. Somehow me being the victim resulted in my ban from editing the main space? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about you, but no, many paid editors do not know those things at all. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. That is a direct quote from WP:COI. Unlike yourself, volunteers aren't getting paid to argue. Keeping promotional writing off the encyclopedia is not bullying you. Be respectful of other people's time and don't file nonsense complaints. Thanks! - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is mildly amusing when someone with 180 edits to date tries to "educate" highly experienced administrators about the intricacies of the paid editing ecosphere. I have personally blocked about 7000 promotional editors in the last five years, so I don't think I am bragging when I say I already know a thing or two about the problem. I have also helped thousands of good faith new editors at the Teahouse and at the Help Desk, but it is tough when a new editor is belligerent and has a chip on their shoulder. UCLAPhdCandidate, you did not properly disclose initially, and you submitted a badly written article to main space. Instead of arguing with all and sundry, your time would better be spent improving your draftified article and preparing it for an AFC review. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328: perhaps you could have just cited this meme instead. --Jayron32 18:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 dont you understand, that is how this whole thing started.. I asked what he still felt was advertorial.. he obviously wasn't reading the article and was just fast editing because instead of making a constructive comment so I could bring the article into line like so many other editors have done since, he decided to put a main space ban on me after publishing one previous article because I hadn't made enough main space edits even though I am not supposed to because I do paid editing. It is funny that you see a new wikipedia account an assume that is the total amount of my entire wikipedia experience. I also find it not very funny that it is same editors and admins from 3, 5, 10 years ago practicing the same bullying and subservience in these "open forums" which Wikipedia says

"All complaints about bullying - even those which turn out to be unjustified - should be treated with seriousness and respect; any WP:BOOMERANG on individuals who have complained they are being bullied is contrary to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. No one should ever be afraid to come forward to make the community aware of a bullying concern, and no one should ever feel (for one reason or another) that they can't come forward and report it.

There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large.

On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

• WP:LAWYERING
• WP:Disruptive sanctions
• WP:Don't edit for power

UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, we got it. I highly suggest you return to editing your draft. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In these trying times let us not forget the wiki motto of those who forged the bricks this holy tower was built on... "Improve not remove"! UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, I am trying to get the block removed per

• WP:Disruptive sanctions

UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

One more thing.. paid editors are also the ones who donate to the wikipedia foundation .. those who make their living are more likely to contribute to the financial success of the platform. I know I donated several times so, I don't appreciate this antipathy. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok.. I didn't quite realize this was a voting board. I didn't see any bold voting print like I AfD. I thought this was more of a jury.. I will quite down and see what some others have to say. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I don't think you'll like what I have to say. Your comments in this discussion indicate an arrogance about your supposed better understanding of Wikipedia's precepts and processes than editors and admins with many more years of experience here than you have, as well as a misguided self-assurance about your value to the project, which you've hardly shown in any practical way at all, certainly not enough to put yourself on the pedestal you've constructed. You are, pure and simple, a paid editor with a bad attitude who seems unwilling to be judged by the normal standards of this project, but instead is full of special pleading for your supposed importance.

Paid editors are evaluated by much stricter standards than ordinary volunteer editors, because their first loyalty is not to building a quality encyclopedia, it is to their clients, and to making money from the process. Those of us who labor here without ever collecting a cent for the many hours we devote to it have every right to do whatever is necessary on our end to insure that editors such as yourself contribute acceptable material and are not led by their pecuniary interests into promoting their clients rather than objectively reporting about them in an encyclopedic manner. Object all you will, that is going to remain true as long as the powers-that-be allow paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block - I agree with those above that the partial ban was within administrative discretion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to examine this statement for a second in which you insinuate their is an incited quote from me that you are referring to me " indicate an arrogance about your supposed better understanding of Wikipedia's precepts and processes than editors and admins with many more years of experience here than you have" .. Do you see this line you wrote above? Where is the direct statement you are referring to here that allows you to accurately publish that sentence? Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers .. I would have hoped you would have evaluated you decision on the initial encounter and if it followed or violated the above cited principles of wikipedia and not the arguments or posturing that has to this point. You are welcome to your opinion and as much as I may not agree since I feel it certainly violated those principals, I somewhat value it. Have a nice day. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Or the motto ... Improve, don't remove. For the record, my vote is unblock since it wasn't disruptive editing in the main space, there was a disclosure on my user page and I only had a single previous client so it may have been incomplete but it would have been obvious who the client was. So this definitely shouldn't be tagged with UPE as a reason either. I think he should be at least warned too about working with new accounts. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good block - This looks like WP:NOTHERE Very Average Editor (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Since as a paid editor, UCLAPhdCandidate should propose edits on article talk pages and submit proposed articles via AFC, the block from article-space doesn't hamper their efforts. After demonstrating that they can edit following the WP:PAID guidelines, UCLA can request a lift of the block. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - I am going to use WP:PE here since you people seem to inaccurately quote it on here all day. The language on WP:COI says exactly "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". Now, I am going to put this sentence in context of the entire piece of the article and I want you to notice their is no bolding to emphasize and there is no strong language such as "you must not act" or "strongly discouraged" as In the rest. It is published exactly this way:

  "the policy on the English Wikipedia is:

  • you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;
  • you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
  • you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
  • you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
  • you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
  • you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
  • you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK)."

  While I understand this is general practice, wikipedia has intentionally left the language exactly as it is and that is how we are supposed to interpret them. It certainly sounds to me like in certain cases is would be ok to self publish, which I did here with very detailed notes when the article was moved. Please stop using this as a means to justify the admin's behavior because it is 100% untrue even if it seems to be the agenda people are pushing. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  We have seen this kind of lawyering behaviour before. You're not going to find some loophole or technicality that will get you unblocked and allow you to do what you like - that isn't how things work here. Every time you post one of these tone-deaf messages you are digging the hole you're in a little deeper, and reinforcing the appearance that your COI prevents you from working collaboratively on the encyclopedia. Your messages are making it more likely you will remain blocked, not less. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also, given this admission, I think some checkuser should verify that they are respecting the article space block with their other account(s). MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I dont have other accounts. It was retired years ago. There is no overlap in editing. I am not an idiot. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  This language has been exactly this way on wikipedia for over a decade and every established editor who patrols has been trying to get it changed with no luck for years. They left it that way intentionally. If you are going to lawyer I will refer to Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:WikiBullying and I love this one especially Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  You've just said you're not a newcomer. If you're not new, you should know better. MrOllie (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I should be aware that editors will bully and enforce their will over articles regardless of the actual TOS. I should know they will falsely label accounts as undisclosed paid editing even though the disclosures are there and were even there before the article began work in my sandbox. If this is such a hard rule, why not change the language and emphasize it with bold lettering in the TOS like I have show has been done in the rest of the TOS? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Was tempted to indef, but have instead upgraded this to a Wikipedia space block as there posts here & Help Desk clearly show no intent to edit collaboratively. If someone things an indef is merited, feel free.

Star Mississippi 02:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but after the Karenesque "but I am paying you!" I am very surprised he wasn't indeffed. Ostalgia (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone here is going to have to contact the WMF and fess up that there's going to be a dent in their ~$150M of fundraising revenue next fiscal year. Time to eat some humble pie. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Prescient block, possibly weakly based, but this discussion has shown its value. If we need paid editors at all (dubious) we don't need argumentative and self-important ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if I'd been prescient I'd have done straight away what Jayron32 has now done, saving a lot of people a good deal of time and (virtual) ink. I endorse that block as essentially the only remaining solution to the disruption this has caused (and apologise for being a contributory factor in that disruption).

As regards the possibly weak basis for the block, my block summary was definitely not sufficiently clear. This editor had already moved two improperly-disclosed paid advertisements into mainspace, and I wanted to ensure that would not happen again. It would have been enough to remove auto-confirmed status, but we can't do that (can we?), so the p-block seemed a reasonable middle ground between doing nothing and an immediate indef as an advertising/promotion-only account. I should have stated that clearly when issuing the block. Thanks to all for their comments here, constructive criticism included. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reblocked to sitewide At this point, I think the chance for useful work from this user is essentially nil. They're more interested in debating that complying with policy. --Jayron32 11:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Good Block; now make it sitewide A) because editor is here "so I can make the changes to fix the page BECAUSE IT IS MY JOB THAT I AM BEING PAID FOR!" rather than to improve the wikipedia. This is supported by B) Editor's general attitude as displayed on talk pages and this thread make me seriously doubtful that they can AGF and collaborate at any time they aren't being strictly agreed with. Also I might just be spooked by the apparent thought that pages regarding major companies and celebrities are the REAL pages of import while pages about 800 different breeds of cattle only exist because paid editors do the real editing. This line of thinking is fundamentally incompatible with WP. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum: Whoops, wasn't trying to gravedance. I read Jayron32's post as a proposal that UCLAPhdCandidate be Reblocked to sitewide. I failed to realize that the post was them announcing that they already had done so. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:03, 11 April 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.

Justanother2 and their uncivil attitude

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.

---

Justanother2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been part of a lengthy discussion on Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting, and Justanother2 has been very aggressive, not assuming good faith and, most notably, saying that this article has been taken over by "special interests" who in the guise of seeking consensus seek to change both history and the news. This article is a train wreck of journalism practices and a dumpster fire. (diff) After trying to falsely accuse Sideswipe9th of recruiting other editors of the same viewpoint (diff), I've sent them a final warning against harrassment, which they removed (diff). But they didn't stop, instead doubling down in a second RM (diff). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the Wild, Wild West or Canada... doubling down? One, I was stopping the foolishness that was occurring at said article. Two, warnings? Three, doubling down again. Show me what edit I made after you put a warning up is something with which you disagree. Four, you and the project pages are trying to take over discussion. Five, you have misunderstandings about the operations of this site.Justanother2 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You're the one misunderstanding the operations of the site. The bare minimum "me and the project pages" (whatever that means) want to do is respect MOS:DEADNAME. All I'm seeing from you is complete and utter disrespect for even that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See, you're pushing a pov. That shows you don't understand the situation.Justanother2 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How many times will I have to tell you MOS:DEADNAME is not a POV? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, even if this MoS rule is a POV, it's a WP:GOODPOV. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is so Canada, as you'd know if you read the parts of my Talk Page you claimed there to...have. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have been keeping an eye on User:Justanother2's contributions for a few days. They're a decent wikignome but otherwise extremely uninterested in learning any wikipedia base policies. It was looking likely that I'd report them here sooner or later.

They recently moved 5 articles based on no policy arguments. When reverted, they edit warred against consensus, refused to discuss it anywhere, and I basically had to go to WP:BLPN to get someone else to look at this. They got blocked for 24h for edit warring, only to go back and do the same undiscussed moves a few days later.

Anytime someone disagrees with them, they show up on the user's talk page to prove them wrong. The problem is, they show their lack of understanding policy each time. See User_talk:Soni#Soni_or_OS or User_talk:Stwalkerster#Perchance.

Ultimately, it feels like a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Just from a few days edits alone, I cannot imagine they wont be indeffed sooner or later, the question to me is when. Just see their talk page history and you'll see the pattern of ignoring everyone else.

Soni (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC

LilianaUwU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) False accusation, not understanding what constitutes a warning and how a reply regarding an unnecessary "proposed move" of a page is supposedly incivil. Recruiting did happen. Sideswipe9th had not edited prior to the notification ie "call to arms" posted by Funcrunch on a wiki project page. Since that post EvergreenFir and Sideswipe9th have tried to push their pov incessantly.Justanother2 (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is an admin. I am not required to post evidence or diffs. I was trying to reduce tensions, de-escalate stuff.Justanother2 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to reduce tensions is fine, and I have been pretty aggressive, and I apologize for that. However, you've been quite literally stalking me ever since I reported you here. Knock it off, I beg you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

How about another admin (whose only connection to the content dispute is protecting the page per formal request until consensus is achieved) directly telling you that the onus is on you to provide evidence? If you don't have any feel like posting any, then don't make the allegation. ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B184:2761:56FB:BC90 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Justanother2 WP:ASPERSIONS does require you to provide evidence. And I warned you of that as an admin. Accusing others of wrongdoing in no way deëscalates anything. You seem to have missed the fact that I disagree with Sideswipe and Lilian for some reason.

Like Soni, I've been watching this user as they seem to have issues with following policy and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm I also have been keeping an eye on Justanother2, for the same reasons as EvergreenFir and Soni.

In the last week alone, Justanother2 has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, warned twice for edit warring on the school shooting article (first notif, second notif), issued a final warning for moving articles against consensus and relevant naming conventions, and issued an only warning for harassment of other editors.

It also seems that this is not Justanother2's first ANI visit for their talk page behaviour. In February 2022 @Floquenbeam: said please let me know if this user's behavior doesn't improve (examples would be edit warring, insults, hounding, or ignoring consensus), and I will block them for disruptive editing, which seems applicable here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also just to note, because I pinged Floq here, and his talk page says he's may not be active, I've left a note about the context for the ping, should this discussion be archived/resolved before Floq sees it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what you'd consider a "call to arms"?

Also — people of all POVs are able to follow any project they like. I'm wondering why you've only chose to make spurious accusations of collusion against editors you disagree with.

Sideswipe9th's very first edit on that page came nearly 19 hours after that post.

Ignoring the obvious post hoc inherent to claiming anyone who first edits a page after it's posted about somewhere must only be there because of that post... are you aware that your very first edit on that page came nearly 8 hours after that same post? ● 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B184:2761:56FB:BC90 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I was first alerted to the article by the move request, and the neutrally worded please see request at WT:NCEVENTS. As you can see from my contribution history to that article and talk page, my first contribution was solely on the application of WP:NCE in relation to that move request. It was only after I read the article, saw that it involved a trans person, and saw what I believe to be misapplication of relevant guidelines like MOS:GENDERID that I decided to remain and actively contribute to the broader discussions on the talk page and edit the article.

If you have proof that editors were canvassed to the article, in a manner that the community considers innappropriate per WP:INAPPNOTE, and/or that I have canvassed other editors to that article, then per WP:ASPERSIONS I would ask that you provide these now. Otherwise please stop making baseless accusations against other editors and myself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the diffs provided above and the user's comments here, I think it will end up as Soni said, with an indef NOTHERE block either now or later, since a prior ANI thread in which the user avoided a block, and then a prior block, plainly hasn't resulted in any improvement. -sche (talk) 04:00, 9 April 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 Jaredscribe

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.

---

Jaredscribe (talk · contribs)

I am concerned by this editor's recent edits. Their contributions at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla master plan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Democracy Movement have been substantially tendentious. Also, they have been making some substantial (and reverted) changes at Wikipedia:Competence is required, which naturally makes me question their competence. I considered discussing this on the user's talk page, but there are already two years worth of warnings and multiple previous blocks, suggesting this is a pattern that requires administrator's attention. Walt Yoder (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note here that beyond the Tesla nonsense where I've been most deeply involved, there appear to be numerous other issues in regards to Jaredscribe's behaviour which probably also need consideration, concerning unrelated matters, though as someone involved in that mess, I'm probably not best placed to make a fair assessment. As just one example, take a look at this [383] series of edits, where a 'humorous essay', WP:WikiDwarf, was turned into a hostile diatribe. After I reverted this, JaredScribe went on to restore his attack piece as Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf. And see also Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, where the same thing has been done with a core Wikipedia explanatory essay, after his dubious and distinctly pointy edits to WP:CIR were rejected. This, along with more or less everything I've seen of JaredScribe's recent behaviour, seems to indicate a chronic battleground mentality, and an abject refusal to accept that he isn't going to get his way with everything. Frankly, I don't think JaredScribe has the necessary attributes to engage in a collaborative project, and we'd be better off without him - though rather than taking my word for it, I suggest people look for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made a number of essays on wikipedia, including WP:Bold-refine and WP:Obversion, and have substantially improved WP:CANDOR, which is needed here.

It should be noted that the essay Competence is required is an attack piece as currently written, it is widely seen as a personal attack, and its not a policy or a guideline or key consensus document. My re-write substantially softened that, in agreement with WP:Competence is acquired. It also removed the threat of indefinite block that CIR implied.

After my proposed re-write was rejected, (apparently the incumbents wish to maintain a battleground mentality against newcomers and marginalized editors) I accepted their consensus and gave up, and am now doing exactly what editors suggested I do in the talk page discussion: write my own essay.

Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Three_Essential_Competencies_for_Managing_Editors

After I improve Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, I intend to propose it at the village pump and get feedback and invite other editors to contribute. This is a WP:CIVIL process, exactly, what I'm supposed to do. Is it not?

Also, Mr. Grump forgot to mention that he reverted my recent contributions to WP:SCREW, and did so, according to his edit summary, on [384] on orders from the "go-write-your-own-polemic-somewhere-else-cabal". So in response to his instructions, his polemic, and to the existing polemics against newcomers and marginalized persons, that's sort-of what I did. Although would call it an "argument" rather than a polemic, because I don't resort to the type of circular reasoning, informal fallacies and vulgur personal attacks to which Mr. Grump habitually and deliberately resorts.[385]

If anyone wants to collaborate on improving the diction or tone of my essays, they may. Or they may nominate it for deletion. (CIR has been nominated twice) That would be a civil process. If Mr. Grump and friends object to my essays, why not just do this? But accusing me of "lacking the necessary attributes to engage in a collaborative project" simply because they don't like my inclusion on Tesla master plan or Tesla, Inc. of sourced material on sustainable development and renewable energy transition, or my opinion in the essays on the right to logical and dialectical self-defense, is a polite way of attacking me to have me removed from the project. Using ANI as a content battleground - which is what they are doing - strikes me as an abuse of process.

Does a Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf have the right to defend himself when attacked by a a group of WP:WikiKnights? I hope so. If not, please explain why.

Is a defense piece, permitted, in response to the attack piece that is maintained at CIR and the attack mentality that's being deployed here by my adversaries? If not, please explain why. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A simple look at the edits to WP:CIR by JaredScribe will amply illustrate the falsehood of the claim that the intention was to 'soften' the essay. Adding section headers entitled 'Incompetence by policy enforcers' and 'Administrative incompetence' clearly wasn't 'softening'. Nor are comments about 'groupthink'. As for what I didn't like about the ridiculous Tesla master plan article (which even JaradScribe seems to have given up trying to defend, since he is now requesting draftification), I made this perfectly clear at the AfD. A blatant POV fork, consisting of nothing but regurgitation of Tesla material. There is absolutely nothing in it concerning "sustainable development" or "renewable energy transition" beyond Tesla's promotional claims on the matter. Absolutely no secondary-sourced commentary on the consequences of Tesla's activities on such issues whatsoever. Or secondary-sourced commentary to speak of on anything else either. The article is grossly unencyclopedic fancruft, self-evidently created as a POV-fork of an article, (Tesla Inc.) that JaredSribe had made no effort whatsoever to engage with before embarking on his futile attempt to present promotional material for an electric-vehicle manufacturer as some sort of master-plan for saving the planet. Abusing Wikipedia facilities to engage in such time-wasting nonsense is a behavioural issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Just like it needed to be the last time JaredScribe chose to engage in a facile attempt to impose his own (frankly bizarre) take on article content, where he somehow thought that the Rudy Giuliani article would be improved by adding a section on supposed 'Transvestism'. [386] This last incident led to a topic ban, but seems to merely have moved the problem elsewhere. Which is why I suggest stronger measures are likely to be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Despite being notified, JaredScribe is continuing to engage in further battleground behaviour [387][388] rather than responding here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I made those edits before reading my talk page or becoming aware of this ANI incident. I will desist from further editing in that area until this is resolved, and I ask that @AndyTheGrump and his ally do likewise, and respond to the discussion I've initiated at Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy instead of doubling down on their reversion-war and WP:Status quo stonewalling, which is a passive-agressive form of battleground behavior. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I will contribute where I chose, as and when I chose. Though thanks for reminding me of your WP:OWN behaviour, which clearly needs discussing here too. See e.g. this edit [389] which is a blatant attempt to assert control over who participates in talk page discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Responding to @Walt Yoder accusation of Tendentious on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iranian_Democracy_Movement, an article and a deletion discussion in which he was not involved.

I have accepted the decision of the closing administrator @Vanamonde93 and acknowledged that it was a "mostly fair decision".

User_talk:Jaredscribe#Nomination_of_Iranian_Democracy_Movement_for_deletion

That was my first participation in a major AfD; I'm still figuring this out.

I did respond to most of the arguments to delete, perhaps too much. My counter-arguments were not tendentious, but valid and sound, although not ultimately persuasive. The number of citations went from 3-4 to over 60, it was fair to mention that. The allegations of hoax were unfounded, it was right to refute that. The need for a Farsi perspective was appropriate to mention. I dissent, but I dissent respectfully. I agreed with aspects of my critics' critiques, I offered a compromise in renaming the article. If I've offended anyone, I'm very sorry, and will make any corrections needed.

Regarding the allegations of "questionable competence", I've responded above. @Walt Yoder's reasoning is circular, and amounts to a mere appeal to the authority of the essay above, for an argumentum ad baculum As I argue above, that essay is not, and should not become, a key consensus document of the wikipedia project.

If they are undertaking to enforce compliance by threatening to have dissenting editors permanently blocked from the project, this will prevent the scholarly exchange of ideas, degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, and reduce the competence of those who edit it. QED Jaredscribe (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing isn't an essay. It does however state that Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks If it makes you happy, maybe we could avoid 'circular reasoning' by blocking you for that instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment no administrators have commented on this yet. I am quite concerned by the reply It should be noted that the essay Competence is required is an attack piece as currently written, it is widely seen as a personal attack, and its not a policy or a guideline or key consensus document. My re-write substantially softened that, in agreement with WP:Competence is acquired. It also removed the threat of indefinite block that CIR implied. My understanding is that you can be blocked for incompetence, and I'm not sure how that principle is a "personal attack". I think administrators should be extremely interested if an editor is trying to unilaterally change that. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

To add to that, I'd have to suggest that entitling an essay Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired in response to the long-established Wikipedia:Competence is required explanatory essay is confusing given the structure - a POV fork of the CiR essay - perhaps deliberately so. The 'desired' essay is so close in structure to the established 'required' one that it could easily be mistaken for it. Given the highly-questionable content added (see e.g. the section on 'Administrative incompetence') this is self-evidently undesirable. To be clear, I have no objection to anyone writing an essay critical of Wikipedia processes, but such essays clearly need to be identified as personal opinion, not 'Wikipedia:' namespace material purporting to represent community consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe's edits at WP:CIR and its talk page were pointy and disruptive, which I noted here. If this is spewing out to other pages, as evidenced by AndyTheGrump above and below, then I think the edits need to be reviewed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The CIR essay itself is pointy.

Yes, I pointed that out. WP:Competence is acquired points it out too, and moreover disrupts the premises of CIR, and rightly so. And it had a unanimous KEEP when it was nominated, unlike CIR. Its also better written than CIR, more WP:CIVIL.

But if you wish to have a policy debate with me, lets undertake it at the Village Pump, shall we? Jaredscribe (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After my WP:BOLD proposal was reverted by @AndyTheGrump, I did not attempt to re-insert it. I went to discussion. This is called WP:BRD, and that is a key consensus document of wikipedia.

When the consensus turned against my proposal, I accepted that outcome and gave up.

Nothing I did in the explanatory essay or in its talk page was "disruptive", except in the logical sense in which I've successfully pointed out some basic political and moral flaws in that explanatory essay, which ought to be corrected or at least subjected to scrutiny from the wider wikipedia community.

Jaredscribe (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This whole scenario has come about because I cited that essay at the discussion Talk:Tesla master plan § Plan for a Sustainable Energy Economy, in response to @AndyTheGrump doubling and tripling down on the accusation of "marketing-bullsh--". I said that, IMHO, he is per WP:CIR "not competent to be acting as a managing-editor".

I immediately realized my error, and tried to atone for it by editing that essay to remove the threat of indefinite block, and to suggest that incompetent editors be given a lesser penalty - such as a temporary topic ban and a slap with a wet trout, or a prohibition on using the "undo" button, and this is what the new proposed essay recommends.

Nevertheless, for my earlier assertion, @Anachronist has faulted me on the talk page for making a "personal attack".

As stated on the talk page, I retract that, and I deeply regret citing that essay. I understand now that it is an uncivil attack piece. I won't do it again. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RE: Allegations of "Tendentious" at Tesla master plan

From Talk:Tesla master plan § Not Marketing, not Promo, not Fancruft, not POV-fork

The official corporate documents are WP:PRIMARY sources, and we cite them here in accordance with Wikipedia content policy: We may cited primary sources for the bare facts, but we may not use them to make statements analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. This essay does not make such statements, and if it does inadvertantly, those may be individually challenged and excised.

analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis That has to come from WP:Independent WP:Secondary sources, and we are willing to do that.

Now that I've had time to do more research (in spite of the distractions above), a dozen or more secondary sources from the mainstream media have been cited in the article. And the article can be expanded with critical analysis and commentary drawing from these, and assessments of how and whether Tesla has met its own goals so far. (A critical negative evaluation from Bloomberg had been the only one to date)

The company's strategic plan for a sustainable energy economy may or may not help their marketing (some investors would say that the idealism is a distraction), but that is tangential to the issue. And insofar as it is marketing, its not "bullsh--" - its not empty worthless hype. According to Tesla investors at least, it worked. The company is not only the industry leader, it is revolutionizing the industry, like Ford motors or Toyota did in their day. An article about their industrial engineering is a topic unto itself, and thats why this is not a POV-fork any more than Fordism or The Toyota Way is, and they are not.

I shouldn't need to remind us that that world we live is not a fictional universe, and the resources we consume are assigned by the roll of dice or the draw of card, as at a fantasy football or pokemon gathering. The allegations of "FANCRUFT" are a false equivalence, a denial of reality, and an appeal to ridicule: an unsound argument to say the least. That so many "editors" find it persuasive says more about their intellects than it does about this article.

It is possible for us to report on the futuristic, environmentalist strategic plan of Tesla Inc. without hype, without exaggeration, with advertisment or promo. Tesla Inc. should be held accountable to the "forward looking statements" that it gives to investors and to the world at large, and an article like this is one way to do it.

@AndyTheGrump and his cohorts and enablers want us to believe that the myriad Tesla customers, investors, employees, students, and imitators, are nothing more than "fans" and that they're all spoonfeeding themselves "feces" from Mr. Musk. This is perceived as a personal attack against every Tesla Inc. employee, customer, investor, and sympathizer. Disregarding for a moment the vulgur and exaggerated ridicule that ought to have no place in an encyclopedia, the assertion that "the Tesla Inc.'s master plan is worthless", is verifiably counter-factual: Isn't Tesla Inc. the most valuable company in the world? Hello? And even if it weren't, the assertion is a priori absurd.

It appears from the AfD that this article will be deleted; I'm only one against almost a dozen who have voted to delete on the very presumptions that I refute here, and now I've been hauled to ANI and am being threatened with expulsion for "incompetence" or "disruptive editing". Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. This was a good-faith attempt at a scholarly analysis of Tesla's industrial engineering and environmental ethics.

I'm sorry that I published the draft before it was ready; I had hoped to attract intellectually curious people who would research and contribute. I realize now that this not to be expected from the english Wikipedia "editor" community, at least not from this corner of it. Apparently, most of them prefer to revert, delete, and scoff.

To those few who contributed, I want to share with you some leftover Dobos torte, it was more than I could eat.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The above attempt to justify a blatant POV fork through a wall of text is sadly typical of JaredScribe's talk-page behaviour. A gross misunderstanding of multiple Wikipedia policies, unsourced speculation dressed up as fact, pretensions to 'scholarship' entirely at odds with the content of the disputed article, and an abject failure to get the point on multiple levels. Fractal incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

More battleground behaviour

Even after this thread is opened, JaredScribe is still engaged in spamming attacks on anyone and everyone across the project. From Wikipedia talk:List of cabals:

The WikiKnighthood cabal

The WP:WikiKnighthood exists to defend eachother's honor and that of the wiki, but not to learn anything from it.

Their habit is to revert the good-faith contributions of anyone who disrupts the status quo of the inadequate articles that they often manage, often with a dose of misinformation or ignorant mockery in the edit summary. Those who courageously resists this hostile treatment, can be accused of misbehavior. The knights who say "ni" enforce their regime of groupthink by making an appeal to an administrative notice board, and by shaking down their victims for payment in the form of shrubbery. Most editors recognize the dyslogic here, but they let the knighthood get away with it anyway, because they're too scared to do otherwise: If a knight calls you "incompetent" for having failed to comply to his arbitrary and whimsical decree, it could lead to an indefinite block.

They have a strong aversion to reading, writing, research, or having to study anything new - either on-wiki or off - and they take great pleasure taken in demanding that others educate them on the obvious, which they often decline to learn.

Those of us who resist the knighthood disavow membership in the Shrubbery cabal (see above), but we may ally intersectionally in certain operations.

Jaredscribe (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

diff [390]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a {{humor}} page.

If you think its not funny enough, then give a witty rejoinder. Expand the existing section on the "Shrubbery cabal" mock me and my friends for "pointy and disruptive and incompetent behavior", if you want to. You're allowed to do that there. I promise I won't report you to ANI for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a reason for concern with Jaredscribe’s edits. Even after being made aware of his forbidden synthesis in numerous articles, he still continues to make such edits. In one of several recent examples, Jaredscribe tries to change the subject of an article to prevent it from being deleted. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have responded here: {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing to these exaggerated and false claims of SYNTH in "numerous" articles:

  @ParadaJulio either misunderstands our WP:Content policy and needs to be educated, or is WP:Tendentiously mis-applying it in order to undermine articles in the content area of the Iranian opposition.

  This is not SYNTH:

  Talk:National Council of Resistance of Iran § 2023 U.S. House Resolution 100

  This is a WP:Verified fact, its also not a HOAX as he has earlier claimed, twice, in the AfD and then in a Sockpuppet investigation, assuming bad faith from the outset and never retracting the falsified allegation. Alleging SYNTH here appears to be disruptive WP:Status quo stonewalling, on an article that was demonstrably incomplete with glaring omissions.

  The Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran is a verified fact too, and it originated in The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement, summit meeting, which is why we have unanimous consensus for the move, from the constructively contributing editors. I invite good-faith contributors to tag or remove any unsubstantiated or synthetic claims in that article, if they find any. (And on all other articles I've improved) But don't make false accusations or remove verified content. The AfD itself is disruptive process initiated by @ParadaJulio, who failed to do even a cursory web search for secondary sources on the ADFI, before nominating the article for deletion.

  The article in which the synthetic statement did occur, is now renamed (as I had proposed) and is being incubated at User:Jaredscribe/Iranian_democracy_movements. It has been shared with WP:WikiProject Iran and eventually will be published with more sources and without the problematic name (which was the only "synthetic" claim in the article). In the AfD itself I had acknowledged this problem - I'm not unaware or insensitive to it, and I will accept a consensus decision by constructive writer-editors on whether to keep that name, or to call it Iranian opposition, or its original name before a merge, Iranian dissidents. Whatever happens, I agree to abide by our WP:Content policy including the prohibition on WP:Original research, and to abide by the mostly fair decision of the closing admin in that AfD case.

  The allegations that I have a conduct disorder, are an extension of the initial refusal to WP:AGF. @AndyTheGrump also assumed bad faith from the outset. He has WP:HOUNDed me all over wikipedia (and even onto humor pages), canvassing support on an AfD he has nothing to do with, merely on a campaign to have me permanently removed from the project, apparently recruiting @ParadaJulio to assist. I suggest that they each go read a book instead, or at least a magazine.

  Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  canvassing support on an AfD he has nothing to do with I assume this refers to this post of mine. [391] Pointing out that someone doesn't understand how to properly participate in AfD discussions, and giving advice on how to do it properly, while explicitly stating that I wasn't going to !vote, isn't 'canvassing'. As for 'hounding', when the same disruptive behaviour is evident in multiple places, including core explanatory essays as well as articles, it is legitimate to comment on the matter. Maybe if JaredScribe hadn't already demonstrated a monumental lack of clue over the Rudy Giuliani 'cross-dressing' nonsense (which I took no part in, but was well aware of) I'd have taken less note of his behaviour, but it was self-evident from a quick look at his talk page and recent editing history that there were problems all over the place - the most fundamental ones apparently being a total inability to take advice concerning his misunderstanding of policy etc, combined with an immediate assumption that he is being conspired against. AS for WP:AGF, it should be noted that the first comment regarding 'competence' in the now-deleted Talk:Tesla master plan came from JaredScribe, not me. Frankly, if, as it appears, JaredScribe really thinks everyone on Wikipedia is engaged in some vast conspiracy to sabotage Elon Musk's supposed plans to "prevent civilizational collapse" (a direct quote from the deleted article lede) he needs to find another soapbox to tell everyone about it, since he clearly isn't going to succeed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Jaredscribe: it's not just me who said you were engaging in forbidden synth, it was also the closer in the last RFC. You're now doing exactly the same in The future of Iran’s democracy movement. The underlying issue (brought forward by different users here) is WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:CIR. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a more civil approach and more appropriate forum for your content dispute with me. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard § Analysis/Synthesis dispute at articles on Iranian opposition Jaredscribe (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-close comments

The nomination has been closed and article was deleted (though the closer kindly placed it back in JS's sandbox)...and they responded with this after below the close, including a new personal attack. I've warned them about both and reverted the comments. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Jaredscribe is ill-willed, but I don't think they understand how Wikipedia works. Or, to the extent they understand that, they derisively call it "the Borg" or "hive mind". (I have used the words "hive mind" myself, the difference is that I wasn't derisive.) They seem to be on a crusade to reform the ways of Wikipedia. Again, not because they would want it to fail, but because of their inability to comprehend the greatness of leaving our personal opinions at the door while editing Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would never go on a "crusade" for or against anything, not even against you or your hive, or your Borg colony to which you want me to assimilate, or to whatever you call it nowadays. And no, I don't that wikipedia is such, and I don't think you can speak authoritatively on "how it works".

But if you want to bring in tangential philosophical debates on the nature of academic discourse, please give diffs and context, and be forewarned: I am scholastic. Or better yet, don't, and go read a book instead. There are some good ones for on the #Bibliography and #Recommended Basic Curriculum at the foot of my user page. And if you don't like those, go write your own, and then tell me about on a talk page if you want to, or write an essay. This is tangential.

You led a failed campaign once to have me blocked. (or should I instead call it a "crusade"?)

I was too busy to even respond; I don't even remember what it was about - lunacy, I suppose. I'm grateful that the admins in that case saw through those WP:Tendentious charges, and dismissed it. Would you like to appeal to the mob, by providing a link to that closed decision, and so that we could all re-litigate it here, @Tgeorgescu? Or are you just looking for applause from the undergraduates? Jaredscribe (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You basically called Wikipedia antisemitic. I was simply told that your POV amounts to free speech that has to be tolerated. Which I have abode by, but in exchange I also request that others tolerate my vitriolic comments about religious fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never called wikipedia antisemitic, and if you want to put words in my mouth, you'll have to provide a diff and link, otherwise this is WP:Tendentious. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to re-litigate that thread, but I clearly stated therein that you have accused Wikipedia of being antisemitic, and I have provided quotes and diffs to the satisfaction of the then present admins. I was simply told to be more tolerant of people who call Wikipedia antisemitic. I wasn't told therein that I had made baseless accusations.

In that thread I was lambasted for accusing you of being wrong on the internet. But nobody has accused me therein of making up the accusations against you.

I have just consulted your user page, and at User:Jaredscribe#Traditional Antijudaism intersects with modern Scientism in unsound, ignorant, and dogmatic minimizing of the Hebrew Bible there still are the quotes which I have reported as evidence at that ANI thread, perhaps with only minor changes, basically hammering the same point, namely that Wikipedia is antisemitic (search for "anti-jewish propaganda" and "anti-Jewish bias"—your capitalization is not consistent). Why is Wikipedia anti-Jewish, according to you? Simply because it does not take the Bible at face value (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). You wanted evidence, now we have evidence of your POV. But I'm not asking once more to be punished for being wrong on the internet. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Asserting the presence of Anti-Jewish bias in Academia and consequently on Wikipedia, is not the same accusing "antisemitism", and I wish you would stop being so careless with your words.

I've never asked you to take the bible at face value, except for establishing bare uncontroversial facts about what it claims, as we would also do for any WP:PRIMARY source: no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (And I didn't make analytic, synthetic evaluative claims about the primary sourced Tesla master plan either, I let the secondary sources do that.)

You succeeded in totally driving me away from that content area, and I've been ignoring you and it for years, to the loss of the whole project.

I've now responded substantially here:

User talk:Jaredscribe § CHOPSY

Now stop the exaggerations, caricatures, and straw man arguments. It makes your judgement generally untrustworthy.

Jaredscribe (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1. If an interpretation of the Bible passes WP:N, you don't have to perform WP:OR, but simply WP:CITE modern Bible professors (and, yup, there are many Jews for Judaism who are Bible professors); and you show know that Wikipedians WP:CITE the Bible only for fairly uncontroversial stuff, such as MOS:PLOTSOURCE.
2. If fail to see the difference between anti-Jewish and antisemitic, and I do not necessarily find that anti-Jewish means the same as Antijudaism. But pursuing such arguments is moot.
3. You think that Wikipedia:No_original_research#AEIS is carte blanche for performing WP:OR upon the Bible; it isn't.
4. I am not against Jews. I am not against Christians. I am not against the Bible. But I am for the Ivy League understanding of them all. I am not even saying that's the only understanding there is. But it is the best scholarly understanding on this planet. I am not even claiming that Orthodox Judaism is wrong, just that it isn't the mainstream academic view.
5. As for Christianity being a "solarian religion", most Christian theologians would not understand what you're hinting at: the "solarian" calendar was chosen for practical reasons, not for theological reasons. There is no link between the Nicene Creed and adopting a "solarian" calendar. The "lunarian" calendar was suppressed for being impractical, not for being heresy. Most of the people who follow a "solarian" calendar are not Sun worshipers, as it would be apostasy in Christianity and Islam. The only powerful Christian who was at the same time a Sun worshiper was Constantine the Great. But he did not decide upon Christian dogmas, but simply made theologians clear that they have to preserve the unity of Christianity. And his Sun worship was an inconvenient truth for the Christian Church, they tried to hide it.
6. I don't say that you have to agree with my POV. I'm just saying we have to agree upon WP:RS. And the Bible is most definitely not WP:RS for theological claims. Mainstream Bible scholars are the authority upon the Bible; the Bible is not an authority upon the Bible.
7. And, yes, I am very head-on, but generally speaking not uncivil to fellow Wikipedians. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"be forewarned: I am scholastic". Wikipedia:No academic threats appears not yet to be policy. I shall endeavour to rectify this oversight immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If my comments are vitriolic, your comments are by an order of magnitude more vitriolic. At least I did not accuse all religious fundamentalists of being in cahoots with Hitler. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never brought up that name in conjunction with you or another editor, or even with another group. What are the "your comments" that you're refering to? These exaggerations have now crossed the line. Once again, if you are going to put words in my mouth, so that you can accuse me of something, you'll have to provide a link or a diff.

Otherwise motion to dismiss, failure to state a claim. And the accuser should warned not to bring accusations without evidence.

This is not even something I can even respond to.

However I will go back and review that past case, and will endeavor to respond, as I was not able to do at the time.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Again: my intention is not to re-litigate that ANI thread. I was told to be more tolerant of free speech and I have adapted to such request. I had provided quotes and diffs in that thread, it is publicly archived and can be read by anyone. Neither you, nor me were found guilty of violating WP:RULES in that thread. So, the idea that I had baselessly accused you in that thread it is a baseless accusation itself. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've responded here - User talk:Jaredscribe § After AfD comments

As anyone can see, who reads the differential link that my accuser provided, no personal attack was made - only a self-defense against my accusers, who persist in assuming bad faith.

Please refer to me in the singular as "he", or else the neuter "ed" if you can't perceive my sex or gender. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe has now attacked my competency (using an essay they heavily modified and another they created) for the above action. I feel I was appropriate and neutral in my warning and stand by it fully. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It is true that I have "questioned" @MrSchimpf's competence, and that of everyone else who cited the CIR essay, including myself once upon a time.

I the essay I drafted, though DOES NOTE propose an indefinite block, and it holds all users accountable rather than merely newcomers and minorities. That what makes mine CIVIL.

@MrSchimpf on the other hand, has not only "questioned" my competence, he has implicitly threatened an indefinite block with CIR, and is now working in tandem with all these other accusers here to accomplish exactly that.

Thats what makes his attack UNCIVIL, imho, and contrary to a foundational principle of Wikipedia - that it is open to everybody, and that there should be no cabal. Therefore, the "establishment" must be held accountable no less than the "outsider".

With 3+ years and 9,000+ edits, and having contributed to some policy documents and published some essays that are now cited, I am now a veteran editor and part of the "establishment", at least from the perspective of the newcomer and novice. It amazes me sometimes that I got this far, and I really love this project. I dearly do not want to be kicked out. I am one of y'all now, as much as we all might be averse to that situation, and I intend to make the best of it by reforming myself, desiring competence and acquiring it daily, and striving to learn something new every day I edit. Anyone, no matter how simple or unlettered, or "outside" our "hive mind" here, is capable of this. Therefore, we must be accountable to the same principles that we insist others adopt. We must cultivate the same virtues that we insist outsiders cultivate. And furthermore we establishement editors can be guilty of incompetence no less than newcomers and outsiders can. In fact our incompetencies are even more dangerous, which why these periodic purges occur and scapegoats are sought.

I am alleging that there is a "systemic incompetence" here that is not the fault of any one of you, and that is why I have deprecated the essay CIR and ask that everyone stop referencing it until a wider discussion can be had at the village pump. And I need a few weeks to finish my drafts and publish them, before they are scrutinized. I share the drafts here because Mr. Grump examined my edit history and leaked it. And perhaps it can be an inspiration to all of you to go do something constructive, or engage in some original thought. (off-wiki of course)

And if you don't like my essay, you can go write your own! Eventually we will all have a policy discussion about this, and it shouldn't be done under the threat of expulsion.

I think we should all admit our incompetence now, and just declare a general amnesty on that. I for one, would never block someone on the grounds of mere "incompetence", before first giving him a block on the "undo" button and an education, and perhaps a temporary topic ban if necessary.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I should make it clear that, since I'm presumably included amongst the 'accusers', that I don't consider this to be an issue of 'bad faith'. It is instead a question as to whether a contributor so demonstrably at odds with multiple Wikipedia policies, and so unwilling to accept that he may be in the wrong despite the advice of so many others, can usefully continue to contribute. It is entirely possible (and indeed sadly quite common) for a contributor to be simultaneously 'good faith' and yet disruptive to the extent that the project would do better without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lessons learned through a hostile AfD

User talk:Jaredscribe § Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD I invite neutral admins and competent, non-involved editors to respond here or on my talk page.

Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected.

I know that the "stub" article I made was very much WP:UNFINISHED, and was probably not fit to remain published in its present state: I don't deny that or defend it as such. I am defending my own good-faith and semi-competence in taking an "inclusionist" stance, and on assuming that others would perform competent due-diligence, which IMHO, they did not, as most are POV-hostile to the topic itself. And I had not been diligent myself, on several counts that I admit. And I'm acknowledging that I would like to acquire more competence. If any of you wish to join me in that endeavor, you may.

Thanks for your consideration. I intend to avoid this content area for a good while. And after I finish up another outstanding content dispute in which conduct issues (not my own) appear to be present, I will voluntarily take a few weeks or months off-wiki entirely, to reflect.

Have a good weekend. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You're adding unfiltered PR onto the encyclopedia and textwalling everyone who dares disagree with you (and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks you need to learn to edit your responses), and may I remind you, attacked my competence for simply stating that you shouldn't attack others. That you're still not blocked despite all of this and just had a personal attack here oversighted; just stop. Read our guidelines. We're not here to get you blocked, but to help you edit better, and if you refuse to do so, you won't be editing any longer. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The oversighted post may have been caught up in deletion of unrelated content, rather than being problematic itself - see the history of this page, where three posts are removed, presumably due to the original one by an IP needing oversight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (wasn't sure if both were related); struck that. Nate • (chatter) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be noted here that inspection of the 'Lessons learned' linked above yet again demonstrates that JaredScribe has failed to learn the actual lesson of the AfD discussion: that Wikipedia policy does not permit the forking of an established article on an electric vehicle manufacturer (or anything else), based solely on a selective reading of three minor primary-source publicity/promotional documents ([392][393][394]), that a contributor (but no cited source) wishes to claim are somehow of independent notability, beyond that of the company itself. This was made abundantly clear in the AfD discussion, which was (bar JaredScribe's failure to get the point) utterly unanimous on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment all of the above was painful to read (even with ice cream). I think JaredScribe responses mean that WP:IDHT needs to be seriously addressed here to provide them clarity and to hopefully prevent future DE. They stated I intend to avoid this content area for a good while is a good start, but if IDHT follows thats a problem and the close here should ensure they have clarity of the consequences of further IDHT. Since they open above with Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected. I don't have realistic hopes any warning will sink in, but it will be a helpful reference in the next predictable ANI (now back to ice cream).  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is that when experienced Wikipedians tell Jarescribe how we do things around here, he considers that they are attacking him, and he builds defenses. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Propose block

Everyone else may respond too, but expect that I will hold you to the same high standard of competence to which I hold myself, which most of you have never known and have explicitly now rejected.

With the above, and all the prior invective posted throughout this thread, Jaredscribe has declared that everyone else must be held to his standards of "competence." This refusal to learn and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, while adopting a combative approach to editing and interaction with others, tells me that he is not here to edit productively with others. I propose an indefinite block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support unless he promises to change his ways soon and actually does that in practice. He should be given a chance to repent, but not carte blanche to continue with his present behavior. He accused me of baselessly stating that he claimed that Wikipedia is antisemitic, simply because he does not find that anti-Jewish is synonymous with antisemitic. I'm not making an April's Fools Day joke about it, see [395], [396] and [397]. Yup, he never called Wikipedia "antisemitic", he just called it "anti-Jewish". And I was supposed to parse words in order to realize there is a difference between "antisemitic" and "anti-Jewish". In his own opinion, "anti-jewish propaganda" and "anti-Jewish bias" do not mean antisemitism. Up to and including [398] he was the sole editor of his user page, so I don't feel compelled to provide diffs, just search that version, it is all of his own writing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And even the present version of User:Jaredscribe it is all his own, except for the correction of a typo. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia does not buy into the creeds of the Yazidis, it does not mean that Wikipedia is anti-Yazidis. Similarly, just because Wikipedia does not buy into the creeds of Judaism, it does not mean that Wikipedia is anti-Judaism. It is simply religiously neutral. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

At [399] he accuses me of hounding him for two years, as a reply to [400]. I wasn't hounding him, my approach to his edits for the past two years has mainly been to get the popcorn. See https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=jaredscribe&users=tgeorgescu&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki . Every interaction time larger than 30 days is irrelevant, and when we have had edit wars, those are roughly two years old. Also, accusations such as due to your use of the Egyptian and later imperial Roman calendar system and astrology are nonsensical and ridiculous. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, per continuing WP:IDHT. And because, despite his protestations to the contrary, JaredScribe appears to have done nothing significant to 'acquire' further 'competence'. You don't do that by attempting to redefine what 'competence' is, in multiple venues, even while the requirement to comply with basic elements of policy, and the need to accept that the informed opinions of others may prevail when engaging collaborative work, is under active discussion at ANI. This isn't a dispute over two or three articles, it concerns a repeated pattern of behaviour which seems to have at its core an almost unerring certainty on JaredScribe's part that he is always in the right about everything. Nobody is, that isn't possible. It isn't something any sensible person should even aspire to. We all make mistakes. We are all absolutely certain about things that just ain't so. The best of us try to learn from our mistakes, and expect to make more.

JaredScribe is a poor fit for Wikipedia. And, I'd have to suggest, Wikipedia is a poor fit for JaredScribe. He's clearly got some talents, but the evidence suggests they aren't the sort that work well in a collaborative environment. I honestly think it would be better for JaredScribe if he were to take his talents elsewhere, to venues less constrained than an online encyclopaedia burdened by decades of (apparently necessary) 'guidelines', 'policies', and essays that explain that thinking you are right - or even being right - isn't good enough, and that you have to accept that others may prevail. And that if you won't, you may have to be shown the door. A door, it should be noted, to a whole damn world outside. With plenty of other things in it that need fixing. Go fix them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this seems to be the problem: he has high encyclopedic standards, but his encyclopedic standards are alien to Wikipedia. He is inside Wikipedia Community like a Marxist inside Conservapedia community. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't consider your analogy to be at all helpful. This isn't about politics, or about 'encyclopaedic standards'. It is a behavioural issue, not an ideological one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I did not mean that he is a leftist, nor that Wikipedia is rightist. I meant that what he deems that should be our encyclopedic standards, aren't in fact ours. My overall meaning is that he hasn't understood how Wikipedia works. I mean he knows how the text editor works, but he hasn't understood how to edit according to WP:RULES. People have explained him how to edit according to WP:RULES, but he considered they were attacking him. And, yup, he is persuaded they tried to impose an ideology upon him. you or your hive, or your Borg colony to which you want me to assimilate, or to whatever you call it nowadays is not a joke, he means it. As Allan Bloom has put it, "The combination of hardness and playfulness found in their writings should dispel all suspicion of unfounded hopefulness. What they plotted was “realistic”, if anything ever was." Meaning: although it sounds funny, he means it. He sees himself as Captain Picard sabotaging the Borg ship. I think that Wikipedia is the Borg, and being the Borg is good. He thinks that the Wikipedia is the Borg, and being the Borg is bad. It takes someone with highly complicated thinking to recognize someone with highly complicated thinking. Same as his statements about "solarian religion" are very complicated to parse, but I know what he meant. It's an elaborate conspiracy theory that people who follow Sun-based calendars rather than Moon-based calendars would be in fact Sun worshipers. While people who follow Moon-based calendars would be worshipers of the True God. He claims that Sun worshipers "suppressed" the Moon-based calendar, and that all mainstream Western people are Sun worshipers. Basically, he claims that heathens suppressed the Jewish calendar in order to suppress true religion. And Wikipedia would be part of the conspiracy to suppress true religion, mostly due to being based upon the Western academic mainstream. And his task would be to redress such injustice. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

JaredScribe certainly seems to have picked some unconventional Great Wrongs to Right, but the details don't really matter for the purposes of this discussion. The issue is behavioural, and IDHT isn't a particularly complicated concept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Redressing some injustice of the past is not what irks me. It is redressing it through original research. You may search yourself Wikipedia for "Non-solarian religions" and you can bet there is no WP:RS for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed a whiff of WP:OR in some of JaredScribe's contributions, beyond the ones discussed in this thread, and they probably need scrutiny. Regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As annoying as the editor's behaviour may feel, the level of damage they might have caused to Wikipedia's consistency and reliability is fairly low. Yes, they have added some poorly sourced or unsourced passages; yes, they repeatedly fail to get the point and keep fighting back, and all of this is exasperating. But just being annoying and a poor editor is not an offence punishable by an indefinite block from editing as long as WP:GF is there. The normal route is an AN discussion, then article ban, a topic ban, an article creation ban, and/or a block of an increasing duration. Nuclear option, however, as tempting as it may sound, should not be the first one to use in such cases. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If this were his first offense, I would agree with you. But he features prominently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force#Lunisolar and Lunar religions, confessing in his own words he was already told he's WP:NOTHERE. That was roughly two years ago.

The only mentions on Google of "solarian religion" or "lunarian religion" are people discussing fantasies about extraterrestrials.

And there was a solar religion in Ancient Egypt. Also the god Sol Invictus. But AFAIK no lunar religion ever. And "lunisolar religion" has no results according to Google.

So, lunar religion and lunisolar religion are his own fantasies. He was calling for Wikipedians to mobilize in service of his own concoctions, to serve his own WP:OR fantasies. If he faked it for so long, what else does he fake?

"Lunar religion" and "lunisolar religion" are fake scholarly terms. And not even WP:Notable pseudoscholarship, but simply his own fantasies. Lunar religion seems to be mentioned at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22lunar+religion%22 And Solarian religion was a fantasy of Tommaso Campanella. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The user was previously blocked for 24h and 7 days and no topic ban (there were two page bans). Given that a lot of their contributions were constructive and have been kept, I'd normally go for a longer block (1-2 months) along with an indefinite topic ban (certainly religion, possibly others). This should be sufficient IMO to prevent further damage and annoyance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by AndyTheGrump that Jaredscribe copiously engaged in original research. I don't know if that is true: even if I confronted Jaredscribe several times, I did not check all his edits (nor even most of them). And, frankly, from the diffs I have provided, he thinks "RS for thee, but not for me." Also, he started many drafts which he later abandoned, simply because there were no WP:RS to get his drafts accepted as Wikipedia articles. So, yeah, while he has read a lot books, he started drafts which I would not start, because I would know in advance that it's hopeless to get them accepted. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it a grave sin to start a draft and then abandon it due to the lack of sources? Or to abandon drafts in general? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't a grave sin. But he has done it often enough to notice that he overestimates his own capacity of writing a cogent article. And very often he cannot write a cogent article because there are no sources to WP:CITE. While a minimal prudence asks that one should first seek two or three sources and only then proceed to write the draft. For example, he started a draft of the 40 years wanderings of the Israelites through desert. Besides being probably a WP:POVFORK of the Exodus, he did not WP:CITE any WP:RS for his draft. And it was a bit skewed against the academic consensus. I added some sources therein and made the draft more in conformity with the academic consensus. So, it looks that he likes to pontificate and push minority POVs rather than perform encyclopedic work and abide by WP:DUE. Here it is: Draft:40 years of wandering. All RS have been inserted by me. Do you get the point now? He wants to achieve huge results, with very little effort in achieving those results. And instead of seeking RS for improving his articles, his efforts concentrate on blaming his critics and skewing very popular essays in his own favor. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The 'Tesla Master Plan' article at the root of much of the immediate problems has been deleted, so clearly an article ban there isn't going to have any immediate effect. As for topic bans, which topic? Electric vehicles, Iranian politics? 'Solarian religion'? Wikipedia essays on policy? I can't think of any way to frame a topic ban that would prevent similar problems arising elsewhere, and previous sanctions regarding the truly bizarre Giuliani 'cross-dressing' nonsense appear to have had no effect whatsoever - you can see exactly the same pattern of IDHT and allegations of being conspired against in the thread on that (2022) incident, on his talk page. Along with the same from an earlier (2021) incident resulting in a block. This isn't the first time JaredScribe's behaviour has been the subject of serious concern. And if he isn't blocked, I sincerely doubt it will be the last. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, and he wasn't unaware that it is his own coinage: [401]. "Non-solar religion" does not appear on Google. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My own coinage is a {{humor}} response to the charge of "lunatic charlatan" POV-pushers, which is found on your user page. Of course I've never put the term "solarian religion" into a mainspace article. I was not aware that User pages are required to meet encyclopedic standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've improved many articles on the various Lunisolar calendars of Asian civilizations. I don't see why that is a problem. We have articles on Babylonian calendar, Hindul calendar, Hebrew calendar, and I've contributed to them. Is that POV-pushing?

Nevertheless, I just now removed the offensive material from my user page. Now instead it reads "western christianity" and "post-christian rationalism". Is that satisfactory? I hope not insulting any Europeans by the term. If I've offended anyone, I'm very sorry. Jaredscribe (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support A 31h block and two article-specific blocks, along with a talk page with many admin run-ins already. We've blocked others for much less agitation, and I really didn't appreciate him questioning my competency for merely issuing him a warning. If anything, at least block them from Middle East and Tesla/EL-related articles and creating new attack essays, along with a requirement to keep any talkpage responses edited, short, and concise. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support I was going to propose a namespace-ban from Wikipedia space, but after seeing "Lessons Learned through a hostile AfD" on his talk page it seems likely that would just move the disruption elsewhere. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Jaredscribe has always struck me as the type of editor who, despite being highly motivated to build a free encyclopedia and working towards this goal in good faith, neither understands the methodology by which we work here nor is willing to learn about it and eventually follow it.
  In their view, Wikipedia editors should take a scholarly approach, directly representing the attributed views of primary and/or non-secular (e.g., religious Jewish) sources to 'correct' and 'balance' the mainstream academic view, which they regard as systemically biased by enlightenment ideology. See, e.g., here, where they define this type of "deliberate ignorance" promoted by "previous generations of European and Anglo-American scholars" as "anti-Jewish systemic bias". While there are many possible interpretations of WP:NOR (I myself believe that scholarly experts who edit WP should be allowed some more editorial discretion than is typically held safe, especially in the evaluation of secondary sources), Jaredscribe's perspective here is fundamentally at odds with the core goal of representing mainstream academic views untainted by editorial selection and interpretation of non-academic sources. Yes, following existing policy will reproduce the systemic bias inherent in mainstream academic views, but the alternative of allowing direct representation of non-academic (primary) sources without any restriction is a pandora box by which, once opened, any perceived systemic bias will become a valid excuse to contradict expert academic knowledge and to push non-mainstream or fringe views.
  Any editor who like Jaredscribe prefers to start from primary sources and has an axe to grind with mainstream academia is a liability to the project. I understand Kashmiri's hesitancy to straightly go to the 'nuclear option' of an indef, but as others have pointed out, no single-page block or topic ban will solve the basic IDHT issue. Editors have been trying to educate Jaredscribe for two years yet their attitude remains the same. It seems beyond doubt to me that this attitude makes them a net-negative, in the sense that many articles (I'm thinking, for example, about the articles related to Aristotelianism that they've edited "in the living tradition of aristotelian scholasticism", i.e. from an explicitly neo-Aristotelian POV) are likely affected in ways that only someone thoroughly familiar with the academic secondary literature will be able to recognize, let alone correct.
  What should be done to prevent this? Short from an indefinite block, which I would support if no other action is taken, perhaps we could devise some editing restriction disallowing Jaredscribe any and all usage on Wikipedia of primary sources, broadly construed? Would that solve the existing problems? If so, this would give them the chance to learn how to edit starting from a review of secondary sources, as ideally we should all be doing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I really can't see how it can be justifiable to continue to permit someone to edit articles at all if it is necessary to impose such a broad-brush restriction to prevent them doing damage. And no, I don't see it solving the existing problems: there are far too many of them, and a 'no primary sources ban' (which would be a nightmare to monitor, and easy to argue around: see the way secondary sources were used in the 'Tesla Master Plan' article were cited simply to restate, without analysis, content from the primary sources the article was regurgitating) would do nothing to resolve JaredScribe's endless attempts to reinvent policy to suit his own distinctly oddball agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  And if things weren't bad enough already, JaredScribe has resumed editing the recently-deleted 'Tesla Master Plan' article (now at User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan, by misusing a cited source in the lede (or whatever the first section is supposed to be, the article was never properly structured). The source cited ([402] from 2016) states Not content with producing sleek electric cars (which to be fair, was only ever a stepping stone to greater things), Musk wants to fundamentally change how we live our lives. But the road to Musk’s techno-utopia may be rocky.". JaredScribe uses this to write Observers have noted in addition that it is a plan for a "techno-utopia" that would "fundamentally change the way we live our lives". Using a source which goes into considerable detail elaborating on the writers thoughts about the social and technological obstacles facing Musk in this cherry-picking manner - picking out words to suit his own promotional agenda from a much more nuanced and sceptical article - is utterly unacceptable. Even after all the criticism his Article received at the AfD he is carrying on writing exactly the same promotional bullshit, without even the slightest gesture towards neutrality. Whether this is due to an inability to understand what others have repeatedly told him, or a refusal to take note of it even after understanding, doesn't really matter at this point. He is clearly and unambiguously a net liability to the project, and self-evidently incapable of acting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have updated that to make my intentions clear:

  This article has been previously been rejected in an AfD as a POV-fork of Tesla, Inc. It is maintained here as a private study in the math, engineering, and environmental ethics (personal interests of mine which not well covered in the other article). It is not intended as an Encyclopedia-quality article per se or as a replacement or equivalent to that or to History of Tesla, Inc.

  Also tagged it:

  {{original research}}

  ~Because of its heavy use of primary sources. I don't dispute that it was "unfinished" and probably unfit to remain as published. I only dispute the charge that I was in some form of bad faith for making it - promo, CoI, bullshit and everything else you have continually alleged of me - profoundly disrupting my life.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have twenty or more other user pages that contain my study notes, curriculums, opinions, original researches, and to-do lists on all sorts of topics I'm interested in. None of them are intended for publications. I use wikipedia as a study tool and a research aid. Thats why I made this article. :(

  I like to make stub articles. Most drafts I just abandon, hoping that someone else who is interested will pick it up. :(

  If you all decide to kick me off, please allow me my user subpages so that I can remain as a WP:WikiHobbit, which is how I spent decades here. I only starting to contribute during COVID-19, and I had too much time and relatively isolated. Please have compassion me.

  If you permanetly kick me off :(, please allow me to remain on Wikisource, where I've also made many contributions, where your concerns about my Original Research will not be a barrier to my participation. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTWEBHOST. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  For secondary sources on Aristotle, I recommend Mortimer Adler, W.D. Ross and Richard McKeon.

  I made the article on Octavius Freire Owen, who in the 1800s is AFAIK the first to translate Aristotle into English. (although verify)

  I would like to read more about what she says about Aristotle and Plato, so I made a draft: Draft:Rachael Wiseman

  It seems you have not even evaluated my contributions in that area before assuming they are all bad. Of course, they could all be improved. Most articles had major ommissions when I arrived, and they still do. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Adler, Ross, McKeon, and Owen were (none of them is still alive) all neo-Aristotelian philosophers whose primary scholarly interest lies in their own philosophical views which explored how Aristotelian philosophy might still be relevant in the modern world. In other words, with respect to the subject of Aristotelianism they are all primary sources: as Aristotelian philosophers they expounded original views just as much as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Averroes, Maimonides, or Thomas Aquinas, and they are among the prime/original sources for Aristotelianism in the 19th/20th century. Apart from Ross' critical editions of some works by Aristotle which are still widely used, none of the four scholars you name are widely cited in the modern literature on Aristotle himself or on the pre-modern Aristotelian tradition. As secondary sources, they are fringe at best (it's probably more equitable to not consider them as secondary at all, but rather as historical primary sources).

  On the other hand of course, their original views do align with your own neo-Aristotelian world view, and so the fact that you recommend them here substantiates my point that you are most likely editing from an explicitly neo-Aristotelian POV, relying almost exclusively on primary sources. You have a valid point that I did not closely evaluate your contributions in the area, but the fact is that their OR-ish nature on principle makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia. The true problem here is that you are not willing to acknowledge that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  And even considering that he is a neo-aristotelian POV-pusher, neo-aristotelianism is one of hundreds if not thousands of philosophies available on the market of philosophical ideas. Pushing one of those as unvarnished truth is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I invite you or anyone to audit my contributions, point out the errors or inappropriate use of sources, and I will endeavor to correct them.

  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Audit_of_User:Jaredscribe's_philosophy_article_contributions Jaredscribe (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I can see how Adler et al are primary sources for neo-Aristotelianism, and as such secondary sources should be preferred on that topic.

  For Aristotle's own philosophy, they are secondary sources. McKeon's notes to the random house / penguin editions published from 1941 on (the one I have is 2001) are probably one of the most widely read secondary sources in use by students. I also consult Jonathan Barnes edition. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has problems, but they're not these: 1 2. That's some parallel universe wikipedia with an authoritarian Borg government enforced by uniformly ignorant managing editors, with a knighthood of upperclassmen wielding swords of reversion against heroic truthspeaking scholars. It's quite the fresh take. I got a little chuckle from If you skip AfC but haven't yet done the diligence and research... mark the article as {{stub}} and {{unreferenced}} when you publish to mainspace, so that others will be encouraged to do the work... Even then, don't assume that editors will do their jobs... (here), but it all feels a bit hopeless. Jaredscribe seems to have a lot of big ideas, about educational reform, calendrical reform, peace in East Asia, and the pursuit and dissemination of free knowledge, all of which sound good to me, up to the details. But his own words cast him as an iconoclast in this alien environment he feels behooved to Fix. I think it's laudable in a human being to be staunchly non-conformist and adhere to their own values and processes, but like, not so much on this website. I don't know that Jaredscribe is necessarily WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, but it seems like it will take a lot of effort on his part to conform to our policies and culture rather than trying to change them so they resonate more closely with his own ideals, and maybe a different venue would better suit his skills and energies. Folly Mox (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu concludes his authoritative essay on the WP:Academic bias and CHOPSY-supremacism he enforces against "lunatic charlatans" with these words:

  What Wikipedia is can be summed up in these memorable words: "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

  While CHOPSY can be valuable in excluding pseudo-science and historical denialisms, it also against persons of Asian descent or philosophical orientation.

  To call it white-supremacism misses the ideological grounding of the bias, because it has a diversity and inclusion program. If you're a talented Asian, African, Jew, or Arab, they will accept you, but they will also expect you to assimilate.

  I'm hardly the first or only person in academia to attempt a critique of this phenomenon. I don't see why it should be excluded from something that purports to be an WP:Encyclopedia, which is what I'm here to make. An encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge (and you can double-check my contributions to those last two linked articles to ensure that they meet standards)

  Jaredscribe (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  In case I wasn't clear: it is about the culture of Wikipedia, as in being a Wikipedian, not about WASP culture. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  It may be helpful to note that, doubtlessly like a lot of other editors around here, I personally do not at all agree with the 'Borg' metaphor, and that in general I find both tgeorgescu's essays WP:CHOPSY and WP:Academic bias overbearing, simplistic, and likely to do more damage than good. The fact that Jaredscribe got so hung up on them (what with the 'anti-Borg' attitude) is probably due to a mistaken perception of them as closer to being policy than to being a limited number of editors' interpretation of policy.

  This is something I see a lot, where aggressive essays like that make it harder to teach new editors how we work here, because of the defenses they naturally build up against a simplistic and authoritarian version of it. I believe a 'nudging' approach may be much more effective here. Of course we're all bound to have different opinions on that, but I think that the way the 'Borg' metaphor was received here may be a good example of why the essays' overall approach might need some polishing at the very least. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  What you don't understand: we're not UN Security Council, negotiating the fate of whole countries. We are writing an encyclopedia. Its not racial or even ethnic bias - its Graeco-Roman imperialism with a diversity and inclusion program. Nope, we are not running an empire, we are writing a summary of world's knowledge. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma: The wording can of course be tweaked, but my reasoning is very simple: Wikipedia cannot not stand for something. I gave my two cents of what it stands for, even if that's merely a rough idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Tgeorgescu for admitting that you too are explicitly, deliberately pushing a POV.

  And doing it with great zeal all over the encyclopedia.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Making "propaganda" for science, art, and culture, as rendered by very reliable WP:RS isn't brainwashing or even POV-pushing, but merely education, which is the core task of an encyclopedia.

Here I do make the allowance that: brainwashing is education which the speaker disagrees with. E.g. Boko Haram with Western education. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reassess to 18 month partial block from project namespaces as lower bound per confrontational pseudolegal bloviating and tedious timesinky not-getting-it. All the undiscussed PAG changes, userspace POV forks of guidance pages, the whole RGW tenor, the forum shopping.... You don't show up to a shared space and rearrange it to suit your liking over the protestations of others. I really think it would be healthier for Jaredscribe to contribute to a different knowledge project than have his spirit broken to the point where he's able to contribute here with neither disruption nor resentment, although that breakage may come naturally as the decades pile on. Folly Mox (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alt suggest 18-month block, or other long temporary block. The evidence is clear. I think an indef can get the job done, but ideally blocks should be preventative. I think that if they're holding this much grudge or force against the general community, they should get some sort of block, but I'm leaning towards the idea that they could use this time to reflect. I would only suggest reining in an indef if after 18 months (or another long period of reflection time), and they still act authoritatively towards the community in an WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE manner. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I affirm the WP:5P and whatever I can do to conform my content and conduct to those principles, I will. My only dispute is a relatively minor one with WP:CHOPSY and how its presented and enforced here (which in many ways does not reflect academic consensus, IMHO, although it should) -

  In that dispute I recognize the value of WP:Academic bias on most subjects. I've updated my user page and diatribes to reflect that. Those were unfinished works-in-progress not meant to be widely read. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing the rules (or extremely well established guidelines) to suit your own ends is not acceptable, and tldr-fu when you don’t get your way is just disruptive and annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Additional evidence of WP:NOTHERE/WP:GREATWRONGS/WP:BATTLEGROUND problems: he links to the now deleted Iran democracy article from his hyper-political twitter (https://twitter.com/jaredscribe) which gives off WP:CANVAS vibes, and also has a lengthy user page simply called “diatribes” which has the same hostile “stick it to the man” tone as his unsolicited edits to established essays. Dronebogus (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  From my social media accounts I've also linked to lots of wikipedia articles about holidays, current events, and topics of interest, most not edited by me. Wikipedia is widely cited on the web as a quickreference for all kinds of things that happen in the world. I'm not the first to cite it. The Mahsa Amini protests are such a current event. I'm not ashamed of using my social media to elevate the voices of those women and Iranian dissidents who want to see a better world. As the closing admin in the now-deleted article noted - it is likely that more scholarly sources will come available in the coming years and this article can be revisited with substantial new sourcing.

  All the material in it was well cited and sourced, and now should be copied into various other articles on the various dissident groups who are working for a peaceful regime change through referendum and constituent assembly, and a new constitutional framework for Iran.

  Although that is not my only interest in the subject of Iranian history; I'm just getting started. See my substantial addition and improvement to the lede here: Persian_alphabet. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BRD is an acceptable process for improving explanatory essays on policy. Where my WP:BOLD proposals (which are encouraged by Wikipedia) have gone to discussion, they have often resulted in productive compromises and improvements. Only in the last weeks has my essay writing been rejected, and I haven't attempted to reinsert it, but remained on the talk page, which is the current status. If you object to my essay contributions, please mention it there and lets collaborate on figuring out how to make the WP:Encyclopedia better than it already is. That is my #1 mission. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think Jaredscribe has offered some creative and interesting critiques of how Status quo stonewalling can prevent improvement of the encyclopedia. Their critique of the CIR essay makes valid points: the essay subtly privileges established content, and the essay is geared to undermine and delegitimise bold contributions from new editors. I don't think that's the intention or only purpose of the essay, but it's built to do that, and Jaredscribe's critique is quite clever and certainly apt. If there's no consensus to change the essay, I'd like to see what Jaredscribe can come up with as counterpoint.
  We know that Wikipedia has problems. This is well documented and frankly irrefutable. If we care about the encyclopedia and want it to be the best it can be, we need to tolerate some critique from people like Jaredscribe who are showing us some of the mechanisms that keep underrepresented POVs from being adequately represented here. These critics won't always have perfect behaviour, but we should not seize on these imperfections as a means for throwing people out of the community when they bring up uncomfortable truths about the encyclopedia.
  Jaredscribe has already said that they will take some time off to reflect. Let's encourage them to do that. I don't think a ban is necessary. @Jaredscribe:, the note about editing your responses is valid. You're using too many words and creating large walls of text. (But that's actually pretty common behaviour! (sigh)) Larataguera (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Larataguera is exactly right:

  the essay subtly privileges established content, and the essay is geared to undermine and delegitimise bold contributions from new editors. I don't think that's the intention or only purpose of the essay, but it's built to do that Jaredscribe (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  You don’t get to massively, unilaterally overhaul a good and well-established essay because you personally disagree with some of it. You can discuss changes or write a rebuttal. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I feel pity for him, not hate. His whole idea that he knows better than anyone else how Wikipedia should function prevents him from learning how Wikipedia actually works. I don't deny that Wikipedia has problems, but despite his redressing systemic bias jargon, he does not have the solution to those problems. In the end, the calendar is just a convenient, or should I say conventional, way of measuring time, not a religious worship service. I don't care which calendar we follow as long as we understand each other about time. And while having admiration for some scholars is good, turning it into a personality cult is bad. And yup, antisemitism is bad, but he failed to convince anyone that WP:CHOPSY is anti-Jewish (there are Jewish full professors working for CHOPSY, even as Bible scholars). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support With regret. I have been following this one from afar for a bit, and originally intended to weigh in on the side of some sort of lesser sanction than a block. The unearned sense of superiority struck me as bad, but something that could be worked with. When I saw the diffs that Andythegrump so adroitly called "pseudolegalistic horseshit" below, my mind was changed. It is had to imagine someone misunderstanding both the substance and process of Wikipedia so badly. Combine that with the fact that learning calls for humility, and I see nothing good from this editor anywhere in the near future. Dumuzid (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who makes wide-sweeping suggestions about what should be of prime importance on the main page of the encyclopedia with references to "post-christian academic scientism"[403] and makes multiple "demands" [404][405][406] of other users to "stand down and renounce", before making personal attacks [407], assuming bad faith in other users (that they are not "able to have civil discourse" [408]), is absolutely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here, as demonstrated, to right the great wrongs of "academic scientism" (AKA, our WP:BESTSOURCES) and remove or extinguish their ideological enemies (get them to "stand down" and "renounce"[409] or "Wake up and use start using your brain"[410]) or in whichever other available method, let them have their way. This is an extremely obvious indef that is being obscured by lots of window dressing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Dumuzid stated here about me that he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I have realized fairly early that Jaredscribe is up to no good in respect to Wikipedia, and I have reported him to WP:ANI at that time. But my complaint was simply dismissed as "complaining that he is wrong on the internet" (or something to that extent). I think that when editors are clearly opposed to WP:BESTSOURCES/academic scientism, and make their resentment of it clear enough, they should get indeffed without much ado. Since either their ideology or their personality are opposed to Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Although 'scientism' doubtlessly is a pejorative term and as such somewhat vague, it's also to some extent a real position in philosophy of science. Our article states that "the positivist perspective has been associated with 'scientism'", and it's probably fair to assume that people who use the term 'scientism' are generally talking about positivism, in a disapproving manner. But within contemporary philosophy of science, positivism is a distinctly minority position, in some aspects even leaning to fringe. In that sense I think it's rather unfortunate to state that editors who oppose scientism/positivism should be indeffed. Editors whose personal views lean towards positivism are very vocal here on Wikipedia, but ironically enough they are themselves taking a minority/fringe position, and it would be detrimental if such a minority/fringe position would become 'official' Wikipedia POV.

  I agree that we could and should do more to clarify that in any subject covered by academia, Wikipedia is all about exclusively following academic views. In fact, in my opinion this should be a part of core policy rather than an informal practice laid out in a number of (often snarky) essays. Such a policy would make things much clearer for editors like Jaredscribe, and it would allow us to remove them much sooner from the project where needed. But the principle that we follow academic sources only should not be confused with philosophical positions like scientism or anti-scientism. Part of the problem with the current informal/essay approach is precisely that it is too much infused (confused?) with this type of philosophical position. We need something that allows us to be more clear-cut and strict about our actual practice and less philosophically cavalier. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that Comte's positivism has much support from Wikipedians. But if you mean WP:RS-positivism, that's quite another matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  There are several forms of positivism, Comte's one being of the more fringe-leaning type I hinted at above. But what is something like "WP:RS-positivism" if not precisely the confusion of WP principles with hardline philosophical stances I was talking about? There need be nothing 'positivistic' about following RS, and acting as if it does alienates (new) editors with different, at least equally mainstream philosophical views. We need to agree on a methodology for writing an encyclopedia, not on a worldview. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Upholding WP:BESTSOURCES is not pushing a worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, the problem with this user is that they are yet another user who doesn’t like what reliable/best sources say and goes after the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia in a fruitless attempt at righting these great wrongs. Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Upholding WP:BESTSOURCES is not pushing a worldview": precisely. And so we should block users who oppose that policy, not users who oppose scientism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  “Scientism” is a meaningless term used by people who don’t particularly like one aspect or another of science. Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's not. I like, I love science, everything about it. I sometimes do use the term 'scientism' though, when talking about some aspect that I don't like of positivism. But I see that the confusion between science (a methodology shared by people from many different backgrounds) and scientism/positivism (a narrow philosophical position) is endemic here, so I guess that the alienating of anyone not toeing to the positivist line here will just go on. The reason why I'm making such as fuss about is that though popular among the wider public, within academia positivism is minority/fringe position, meaning that we're driving away academics by the bunches here. Oh well, what's new? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you’re on about. This user likes haranguing people about lunisolar calendars, Tesla, and anti-Jewish bias in a weird pseudo-legalistic way. What this has to do with “scientism” is beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately @Apaugasma is exactly right about this - positivism is a minority fringe opinion in philosophy and academia, but a widespread, even 'mainstream' opinion in society, and now also on wikipedia thanks to that snarky essay and to the pseudo-CHOPSY clique that enforces it.

  I love science too; but it is the misapplication of the methods of natural science to the social sciences, compounded with the uncritical acceptance of their findings, and then exaggeration of their claims by "pop science", then implementation of recommendations by governments, schools, institutions.

  Critiques have been given by Hayek, Wittgenstein, Feyerabend, and many others - but the snarky essay on "Academic bias" ignores all actually reliable academic sources, and merely quotes a random wikipedia editor as an authoritative decisor. This random editor in turns cites himself, saying

  Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost.

  — User:JzG

  This essay is a discredit to academia and to scientists: it will drive them away.

  The CHOPSY essay does not represent CHOPSY, it represents a bunch of entrenched wikipedia editors who can't even be bothered to read the wikipedia article on the subject. Thats why I served notice that this essay is not a WP:Reliable source of guidance. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unable to quote a single academic source on the philosophy of science, the essay proceeds to quote another wikipedia editor with this gem of wisdom:

  My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...

  — User:AndyTheGrump

  What he means to say is "pseudo-science" and "religious fundamentalism" - which are different from each and from "bullcrap", but like on this discussion and elsewhere, the user quoted is unable or unwilling to mitigate his obsession with feces for long enough to even make a pretence at academic discussion.

  Wikipedia needs a good essay on "Academic bias". The essay as written ought to be deprecated. @tgeorgescu and @AndyTheGrump ought to locate WP:Reliable sources on the philosophy of science, with critiques of pseudo-science and of scientism, and provide them in the essay. Else they ought to stand down from this tendentious prosecution of me for making a good-faith effort at giving a reasonable and much needed critique. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have no intention in engaging further with JaredScribe's ongoing campaign to mark his return from a one-week block by arguing with absolutely everyone about absolutely everything. I will however note here that (as is very frequently the case) JaredScribe is making shit up again (n.b. this is a 'rhetorical device' [411]) in assigning particular views to me in regard to WP:CHOPSY, and the essay (Wikipedia:Academic bias) it appears in. I have never edited that essay. And nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever commented on 'scientism'. The essay contains a quote from me, certainly. One added by another contributor, taken from a post I made elsewhere. I haven't really looked into this in enough detail to determine whether the quote has been taken out of context, but either way, I'd advise anyone misguided enough to read JaredScribe's ongoing diatribes against the refusal of the universe to recognise his outstanding intellect to take note that their connection with reality is tenuous at best. I am not the AndyTheGrump that lives in his head, and bear no responsibility for the actions of this particular figment of his imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  If that is the case, then will you please undertake to remove the quote from the WP:Academic bias essay that your cohort here @Tgeorgescu has written? If not please ask him to please remove it, because it brings discredit to both Academia and to Wikipedia.

  This is my humble opinion, and I have reason to believe it is shared by most unbiased observers who read that essay. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Throwing around words ending on "ism" as if they were valid arguments does not help. "This is scientism" or "this is positivism" will only convince people who think that those isms are 1. clearly defined, 2. applicable in the case at hand and 3. something to avoid, which is not consensus but just dogma. Consensus is field-specific: Chemists decide what is chemistry and what pseudo-chemistry, because they have the competence. The same holds for biology, geology and so on. Having philosophers dictate the borders of every discipline would be arrogant, obtrusive, and silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  this entire thread is astoundingly inane. guys, really? Jondvdsn1 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I learnt about this a few days ago and then reverted Jaredthescribe on Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_acquired (where their takes were mostly reasonable, but the wording was weird). Since then I've somewhat followed this thread but stayed away. This diff has convinced me an indef is the only way. A new editor who made that comment would be blocked at first edit. (Whether that is more about treating newcomers more kindly or treating "prolific editors" more fairly, I cannot say) The rope must end somewhere, so indef and move on with our lives please. Soni (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note the royal we in that diff. Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose an indefinite block or community ban. Jared has posted incompetent nonsense, and has been blocked for it for a week. Let's see whether, when he comes off block, he has learned not to post about matters about which he is ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I will note that the block was not about incompetent nonsense but personal attacks, specifically this one.

  Whether or not the "incompetent nonsense" deserves a longer/separate block, is for the community to decide. Soni (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was sloppy in my comment. I knew that the block was for personal attacks. But I think that discussing an indef at this point would be kicking a defenseless person. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just because he was temporarily blocked, it does not mean that the problems will go away when the block expires. From all his answers at the Jaredscribe thread at ANI, it is obvious that: (i) he does not understand the charges, and (ii) he has big ideas about how to edit Wikipedia, while his ideas are incompatible with how we edit Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: His block has expired. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

And it clearly, clearly, clearly did absolutely nothing. If anything they’re just emboldened to WP:BLUDGEON their opaque fringe points even more. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support If you review the posts Jaredscribe has made in response to the complaints raised in this thread, and also read through all of the discussions linked herein that led to this report being made, the result is exhausting. These aren't quirky takes on certain topics, they're complete and utter time sinks. Their response to the block does not indicate that anything will change once the block expires. I don't think Jaredscribe's communication style is compatible with the consensus and collaboration-based nature of Wikipedia. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Jaredscribe was made aware (by several editors) that he has been engaging in WP:SYNTH, was asked to stop, but he continues to engage in WP:SYNTH. That resonates with the same kind of WP:IDHT that others are complaining about here. A quick look at his talk page shows these and other things have been a long-term problem. WP:AGF can only go so far, and here it has been exhausted. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  @ParadaJulio is himself engaging in disruptive editing, refusing to retract false allegations of HOAX. This is not SYNTHetic original research - this is supported:

  Talk:National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran#2023_U.S._House_Resolution_100

  @ParadaJulio is simply saying WP:IDHT. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Jaredscribe's non-stop behavior seems to reflect the lack of tools required to participate in a project that requires collaboration with others who may disagree with them.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Note: I was canvassed to this discussion. I realize this probably means my vote will be ignored, even though I have read this entire thread and most of the connected discussions and would like to think my opinion is just as unbiased as anyone else's. I still believe the following things ought to be said, and since it doesn't seem anyone else will say them, I will.) I will be blunt. Some of these comments will seem like accusations of bad faith, which I do not intend and regret, but I believe I need to describe what I am observing and don't know how to do so inoffensively. I apologize.
  I am disturbed by the way this discussion has unfolded. From what I can see, the situation is as follows. Jaredscribe is an odd editor. He has idiosyncratic policy interpretations, an abrasively blunt manner of speaking, and a willingness to comment on the structural workings (and failings) of Wikipedia that often lands editors with those first two traits in lots of trouble. Like most editors with this personality, he has upset many people over the years, some of whom have held grudges. One of them is Tgeorgescu, who two years ago tried to get Jaredscribe sanctioned for… implying that the use of a solar calendar is Sun worship. Given that he has chased Jaredscribe all across the project spaces in an effort to deny Jaredscribe the ability to write his opinions on Wikipedia's governance, AndyTheGrump sure seems like another.
  I don't see any glaring competence issues. His arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla master plan look reasonable at a glance; he was hardly the only person to make the SYNTH mistake at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Democracy Movement; I can't tell at a glance what is wrong with his edits to Wikipedia:Competence is required; I could keep going, but it's more of the same. This was a routine content dispute; it should not have come to this. I agree that Jaredscribe has been far too uncivil in this discussion, but he has merely been matching the ever-more-insulting tone of his accusers here. That doesn't make it right, but his rising frustration is understandable. I find it extremely disappointing that his grudge-bearers have (intentionally or otherwise) baited Jaredscribe into losing his cool and are about to succeed in completely driving him off the Project with it. This could have been resolved with a modicum of grace or an interaction ban. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Post one-week block comments

Time to close this

It is time to close the above. He returned to Draft:Wikipedia:Wiki-Dwarf. He claims that those statements are humour, but those aren't humorous, they are full of resentment towards the WP:WikiElf ruling class. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See my response to your essay, which I resent, in my comments to @Apaugasma above.

I love wikipedia and I want it to succeed, and that is why I'm offering a critique.

I am taking a voluntary leave from mainspace for a while, which is why I'm now editing humor pages and drafting essays. Bad humour is not against the rules here, and neither is resentment, and neither are differences in philosophy or culture, but that is the substance of the complaint against me - which entirely focuses on my unpublished userspace diatribes and draft essays, and my denunciation of certain non-consensus essays on their talk pages. None of that is against policy - we need to have debates on wikipedia policy and practice - because these can and should improve. What ever happened to WP:Ignore all rules? Isn't that our 5th pillar? Does anyone still believe it?

Other than the deleted article - which was very rough - no one has provided an example of a mainspace contribution to which they object. Where are the violations of content policy, of which I'm accused? Produce the body of evidence. And if someone does, I will be glad to correct those errors ASAP and to receive correction on how to improve my editing. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Other than the deleted article - which was very rough - no one has provided an example of a mainspace contribution to which they object

Except for various WP:SYNTH issues, BLUDGEONing, antagonistic/battleground behavior towards other editors, cabal-baiting, POINTy edits, and various threats... all of which have been detailed by numerous unaffiliated editors above from various disputes you appear to have had over the years...

Yep, except for those things, no one has provided an example to a mainspace contribution to which they object.

I would add, the policies and guidelines on editor behavior apply to every article space on this site. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Why can dwarves and elves not get along even on Wikipedia? Dronebogus (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally really like that they did this. Although it won't work (unfortunately, editors who are willing to systematically peer-review other editors' contributions are all but non-existent; this is a volunteer website after all), I think it shows the right intent and an improved understanding of our policies.

Edits being firmly grounded in secondary RS is only the start, however. If Jaredscribe would also be willing to accept that wp:due means that even secondary RS should sometimes be ignored, and especially that when wp:consensus is against them it is better for everyone involved that they stop arguing quickly, there might still be some perspective here. Contrary to what they have written elsewhere in this thread, resentment and inter-editorial polemics absolutely can be disruptive on Wikipedia, and will lead to a ban at some point if not checked.

One thing that would probably help a lot for Jaredscribe to know is that policy pages reflect and describe existing practices rather than prescribe them, and should be changed only after common attitudes among a large number of editors have likewise shifted. Trying to change policy starting from an individual opinion purely on the basis of arguments will not only not work, if sustained it will set up other editors against that opinion, and eventually it will become disruptive. When a large majority of other editors take a different view on how Wikipedia should be written, the solution is to accept that and move on. Yes, this can at times be enormously difficult, but it is the key to becoming a successful long-term editor. What helps a lot against wiki-stress is to step away from Wikipedia for a time. Diving into policy-pages is quite the opposite of that, and seems to be what made Jaredscribe end up here at ANI. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

policy pages reflect and describe existing practices rather than prescribe them So I do not have to use reliable sources, it is just a widespread thing people happen to do at the moment? This is news to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Urgent admin action needed

Seen [412] and [413], I think that urgent admin action is needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

an appeal to brute force does not constitute a sound argument. Let alone an academically acceptable argument.

Answer the charges, or else stand down and renounce.

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this even? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

'Charges'? ROFL. Go peddle you ridiculous pseudolegalistic horseshit somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, ridicule and verbal abuse do not constitute a sound argument.

@AndyTheGrump has already been conclusively refuted at the Village Pump on the issue of competence generally and CIR essay in particular:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Competence_is_Desired_and_Acquired Jaredscribe (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's give the bovines and equines a break here. Aardvark-shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop thinking with your ass. Wake up and use start using your brain.

What you mean to say is "nonsense", or "worthless".

If thats what you mean , then say it. whereupon we will be able to have civil discourse for the first time yet.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is aardvark-shit. Bullshit, Capybara-shit. Dingo-shit. Emu-shit. Fennec-fox-shit. Gnu-shit... You get the picture? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wombat shit is cube-shaped EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Are wombats philosophers I wonder? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning here - how can a single individual can simulataneously be an Aardvark, a Bull, a Dingo, Emu, a Fennec-fox, and a Gnu? These are all distinct species, some of them are even in distinct phylogenetic families. Has anyone ever seen an individual that is a simultaneously a member of two species? To my knowledge this does not exist in nature.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm very sorry that I insulted you @AndyTheGrump

I suffered a one-week block for that, just now.

Just because you call my thinking and my discourses "sh--t", and this is evidently tolerated by everyone, doesn't give me the right to imitate your vulgur potty-humor when telling you to please stop and start using your brain. I should not have made the inference that this is tolerated by the wikipedia: two wrongs don't make a right.

Please forgive me for insulting you.

I hope we can all get back to making an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which is what I'm here for.

Jaredscribe (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

He is asking for help in answering this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force § DEMANDS of ACADEMIC-bias POV-pushers at WP:CHOPSY

Jaredscribe (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Jaredscribe Sorry, you don't get to "DEMAND" anything around here. I'd remove that nonsense before someone (possibly me) decides to block you instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not demanding from the admins or from the wikipedia community as a whole, I only demanding from @Tgeorgescu.

And there is some consensus for my demand that the

CHOPSY POV-pushing now be subjected to the same scrutiny that my "neo-Aristotelian" POV is being subjected. As mentioned by @Apaugasma and @Larataguera

above.

He has demanded removals of allegedly offensive content from the WikiProject:CSB and from my user page - my novel coinage of Solarian religion to refer to the Gregorian calendar currently in use. I have complied and removed the offensive term in both places.

It is just and equitable for me to expect in return that he remove the pejorative lunatic charlatan from his user page and the userbox deprecated on the grounds of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV

Thank for please carefully considering the matter deliberatively, before you decide.

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

How about replacing it with 'Moon-obsessed pseudoscholar' instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, I did not ask you to retract those terms. I have merely stated that those terms are WP:1DAY. AFAIK, the terms could even be true, but since they are not mentioned in any WP:RS, the point is moot. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I allege WP:1DAY of lunatic charlatan. Although polemical diatribes may be useful in political and social debates, they are generally not reliable sources for anything other than the person making them.

And since you are purporting to represent CHOPSY, you ought to hold yourself to higher standard than the average editor. Make your critique more precise, so that it is answerable. Ridicule is not answerable in the spirit of scholarly discourse. Jaredscribe (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The terms "lunatic charlatans" have been expressed by Jimmy Wales, speaking in the name of the Wikipedia Community. There are many mainstream media which have reported it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What the crap is a chopsy…? Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CHOPSY. It's an essay, though a very reasonable POV. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that I blocked Jaredscribe for a week for personal attacks [414] --Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I would tell everyone here that, if they are at all concerned about whether Jaredscribe really is a time-sink on all other editors, who bludgeons discussions and uses pseudo-legalistic confusing and abrasive discourse to bully others into doing what they want.... If they are still unsure if any of that's true... Then they should take a good long read through this entire ANI section, and then ask themselves the same question. This thread (and those above) is/are an excellent microcosm of their overall behavioral pattern. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat

At [415] he continues to claim that he served notice, fails WP:NLT. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Served notice" has several meanings, and not all of them have legal connotations. In this particular context, I do not detect a legal threat. It seems to be a rhetorical device. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: See above. He served me notice in pseudo-legalese to "cease and desist from prosecuting him". Using the royal we. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC

tgeorgescu, not a legal threat. Nice try, though. Using "we" can often indicate a shared account, which is a policy violation. The "royal we" is pretty much the opposite. Irritating to many editors, but not a policy violation. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Its a rhetorical device - informing you and everyone that I will write a critique of the WP:Academic bias essay, which I perceive to mis-represent CHOPSY and to be as written inconsistent with our WP:5P

I intend to write a counter-point wikipedia essay, and then we can all have a civil discussion about it at the Village pump. How about that? Maybe even parliamentary debate with you as government and myself as opposition. Resentment is only natural in politics.

If that is not possible due your prosecution of me here at ANI in seeking an indefinite block over our philosophical differences, I will publish my critique somewhere else off-wiki.

Eventually, you will have to answer, or else all wikipedia will have to answer for you. Also, you are now engaging in ad baculum, as before, and you are doing it ad nauseum. These are informal fallacies, and might doesn't make right.

Answer the complaint. Or else admit that you can't, and tolerate me to give a try at improving your essay. Jaredscribe (talk) 08:53, 11 April 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.

Block review - AndewNguyen

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 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 days ago, Moneytrees (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked AndewNguyen (talk · contribs) with a rationale of "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV". [416] This morning, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) unblocked, describing the block as "a blatant case of admin overreach against an ideological opponent". [417] This unblock has been criticised by Courcelles (talk · contribs) [418]. As nobody wants to wheel war, I'm bringing the block here for review.

In summary:

• Was the block of AndewNguyen good? Or could he be unblocked with a topic ban from race and intelligence instead?
• Was Moneytrees' block a reasonable exercise of admin discretion?
• Was Dbachmann's unblock the same?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the unblock could have eventually happened with an R&I topic ban imposed under the CTOP protocols, but the undiscussed unblock? That was a misuse of admin tools contrary to the usual rules of their use. The block wasn't so clearly improper that it needed to be undone without a word of discussion (such obvious mistake blocks would never have lasted three days, anyway). I don't have any particular interest in restoring the block as it was, but the process that led to the unblock was an example of the culture of long ago. Had Dbachman attempted discussion and then unblocked and imposed a CTOP topic ban over R&I I'd seen it as a reasonable compromise, but not a straight unblock without any attempt to discuss. Courcelles (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

DBachman did post to Monetryees' talk page seconds before unblocking; not really an attempt to discuss as no time was allowed, but at least a notification. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Courcelles on this. I haven't done a deep enough dive into the contribs to have a firm opinion on whether the original block was justified, but deciding to unblock without prior discussion with the blocking admin was very poor judgment in my view. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dbachmann stated "I am reverting this block, after my attention has been drawn to it, for the following reasons".(emphasis mine) I would like to hear how their attention was drawn to it. Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I found that a bit strange, given the last entry in Dbachmann's block log was 12 years ago. Not even a vandal or spammer blocked in over a decade and then this. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad unblock by an Admin who rarely edits and uses his tools even less often (12 years is a long time, we really need to tighten up our requirements and I think this is a good example. I'm pretty sad about this as he's a long time editor and Admin. He could have brought it here for an unblock review if he felt strongly about it, there wasn't a need to rush it. I'd also like to know how he found out about it. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about tool use, 12 years seems a misleading statistic to me. While they might not have been involved in blocking, they seemed to be semi-regularly doing page move deletions in 2016-2018 (probably earlier). While their lack of experience with blocks does make their recent unblock highly questionable, I'd argue they were using the toolset enough to justify them being an admin in 2018. We don't require admins use all aspects of the tool set and I'm not convinced we should tighten our requirements so that admins need to regularly use all aspects. Although since they can we do need to trust them to do so which includes when not to do something e.g. if you haven't done it in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Never thought I would say this, but the activity requirement may need tightening -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting all admins need to use all tools. For one thing not all of us are competent with all tools; it's good that we know which ones we aren't competent at and stay far away. But to revert a very recent previous admin action in an area in which you haven't worked in twelve years is very strange. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to hear that as well. An admin who hasn't touched a particular area in a dozen years, and who not only suddenly does so now, but does so to countermand another admin action? I hope and trust we're not expected to believe this is a freak coincidence. Ravenswing 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Echoing the cry, @Dbachmann: How was your attention called to it? Why did you not bring the block here for discussion? Per all of the above. Bad unblock -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - just for clarity in future situations, it might have been helpful if the block had been placed (both in the communication of the block itself, and in the log) in the context of the R&I WP:CTOP. R&I was part of the discussion in the context of which the block was placed, but seems to have been unfamiliar to the unblocking admin (in fact, I'm not sure Dbachman is familiar with CTOP protocols at all, given their suggestion if they are convinced that this user is really beyond the pale for the purposes of generating a "neutral point of view" by means of a weighted representation of every possible perspective to take the proper channels to impose a community ban via arbcom, which doesn't reflect familiarity either with the former DS regime or the current CT one). This clash of expectations may have contributed to the incipient wheelwar, and strikes me as a good reason to lean into the current CTOP framework where it is relevant (as in this instance). Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't find tool abuse by Moneytrees. If someone could me show the way? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This was an exceptionally poor unblock that in my opinion rises to the level of tool misuse.

• On Moneytrees' talk page they claim that they reversed the block because Moneytrees blocked an ideological opponent [419]. They have provided no evidence whatsoever to support their claims of a political motivation, this is simply casting aspersions.
• They made no attempt to contact Moneytrees prior to reversing the block, leaving a message literally seconds prior to reversing it. When asked to explain their actions they claimed they were busy and would be unavailable for hours.
• Their repeated criticism of Moneytrees for acting unilaterally and without consensus is without any basis in policy (it is completely acceptable for an admin to block an account as an individual action), and is the height of hypocrisy, given they themselves were acting unilaterally and without consensus.
• Their claims that they "had their attention drawn to the block" following weeks of inactivity suggests some kind of canvassing or off-wiki conduct.
• Their "instructions" to moneytrees show they have no understanding whatsoever of blocking policy or practice. It is ludicrous to suggest a fourth opinion would be required for a temporary block, or that a full arbcom case would be required for a routine disruptive editing/NOTHERE block.

This is another legacy admin who should not hold the tools. They haven't used the tools in half a decade and have now shown up after a massive period of administrative inactivity to make an extremely poor unblock. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Bad unblock. Whether the block, or a topic ban is what should be imposed now could go either way. But it's time for Dbachmann to resign their tools as, per their own admission, they're using 2004 standards for their actions. Never mind the clear canvassing bringing it to their attention, which raises a positive COI with Nguyen Star Mississippi 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• The twenty-first unblock in an 18-year administrative career and this is it?...wow. Just, wow. Per above, then. SN54129 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And the first in fourteen years? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I fully endorse the comments made above by the Oxford IP. Astoundingly poor judgement by a legacy admin, who should resign before the tools are taken away from them by force. The baseless "ideological opponent" comment was absolutely beyond the pale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not surprising considering this is the guy who once wrote "the major races of H. sapiens would normally be categorized as subspecies, and on their extreme ends possibly as species". Levivich (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Thanks for showing me a new way to link diffs, I didn't know you could do it like that. That said, I second the WTF of the first editor.

  I have no interest in "racism" whatsoever, you are the one who keeps dragging it into anthropological discussion. Your "WTF?" is what I mean by "obvious reasons", objective classification of Homo has become a political minefield because of misguided ideological hysteria as exhibited by you. That's fine. What isn't "fine" is your smear-campaign against perfectly reasonable anthropology which just so happens to use terminology some people have decided is now "racist" beginning c. 2010. This is insane. "Racism" is an ideology attaching value judgement to racial classification. I invite you to show any statement by me that makes such value judgements. As opposed, I might add, to your editing behavior, which seems to be dedicated to do nothing else. Ghirla's statement is correct, the major races of H. sapiens would normally be categorized as subspecies, and on their extreme ends possibly as species. Any palaeoanthropologist will be aware of this as a perfectly unremarkable fact.

  This person really shouldn't be an admin. This is clearly racist and is not conduct becoming of an adminstrator. I think given what was said at the case request to desysop Athaenara, this is a completely reasonable stance to take. Seriously, how could anyone who falls under this person's classification of subhuman feel safe working with them? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• While it's patently obvious that this a completely craptacular unblock that should result in the striping of admin tools and may be motivated by the unblocker's own fringe POV and battleground mentality, let's be correct here and not that the above quote calls no one subhuman, but instead refers to the taxonomic concept of subspecies, where separate populations of a single species show distinctions brought about by isolation from other populations of the species. It doesn't apply to humans because humans do not have such isolation (there no massive gap in human population distribution), so trying to apply it to people as some sort of justification for race is a fringe position that falls under so-called "scientific racism", the misapplication of scientific knowledge in an attempt to justify racism, a position that can only be described as "stupid as fuck" (and I will in no way tone down calling it out in such language). But if we're going to strip tools from someone, we have to do such based on accuracy. They've clearly done enough without needing to misquote them. oknazevad (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: I'm glad you don't think this behaviour is okay and that it's "stupid as fuck" with no scientific basis. However, doesn't the whole "on their extreme ends possibly as a species" and their thoughts wrt racial classification imply that there are some people they consider to be subhuman? Especially here in regards to the Khoisan peoples. Again, this was in 2018. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use quotes around a word that isn't outright stated. Their actual words show enough BS without having to put words in their mouth. That just gives them an opportunity to claim unfair treatment later when they get rightly pilloried for their actual issues. oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: I've removed the quotation marks from subhuman, you're right in that word specifically is not an actual quote. I think I intended to italicize it for emphasis? I consider everything that went down after Athaenara to be precedent for the concept that the majority with editors aren't comfortable with admins who espouse hateful beliefs. But I concede that this is a very fair point to make. As for claiming unfair treatment, I'm not sure if they're actually going to respond to any of this. If they do, I'll deal with that when it happens. I'm even okay with waiting a little bit (although the persistant dewiki editing isn't the best sign). I don't think there's anything they could really say that would eliminate my concerns, but they can say something if they want to. I went to ArbCom because I thought it was the best place to actually address all these issues. ANI can't really do anything other than endorse reblock and turn into a bunch of comments about how the other stuff isn't okay. But it's not like we can perform a desysop and an admin doing something like blocking NOTHERE at this moment in time would just cause more drama. I think it's important not to tolerate this sort of thing and would like to echo Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. Apart from that, I'm very willing to have an open mind. My life experiences have firmly entrenched the belief that reasonable people can disagree on many things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've restored the block, with the following notation in the block log: "Restoring block for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia-- Endless tendentious editing to promote a fringe POV"; overwhelming consensus at ANI is that this was a bad unblock (I'm just enacting that consensus, so this isn't wheel warring). A way forward, expressed by several people at ANI, might be on an on-wiki unblock request, possibly resulting in an unblock with a topic ban from R&I. But if the editor wants to remain retired, that's OK too."
  If people want to continue the discussion about dab's unblock, they certainly can. I note that he has said somewhere (can't recall where now) that he will try to reply in more detail tonight (wherever "tonight" is for him). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the discussion is now about whether Dbachmann should resign the bit. The unblock and the expressed lack of tool familiarity make a strong case for resignation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. Their first use of the tools in five years, their first entry in the block log for twelve years and it's to make an extremely controversial block, riding roughshod over the well thought-out rationale of an admin who is actually active on this project and conversant with 2023's expectations for admins? Add in that this was apparently canvassed off-wiki and I don't see how their position as an admin is tenable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock. Just to remove any doubt.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse all of the above I'm not sure if the evidence points to Dbachmann being canvassed. They have previously shown an interest in race related matters, voicing similar views of different races of humans as potentially being different species/subspecies of Homo [420] and may have just been following the previous AN thread. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock and encourage Dbachmann to resign as administrator . That's the only way to minimize the inevitable drama. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock. This is a block that absolutely should not have been removed without significant discussions between Moneytrees and Dbachmann. I'm neutral right now on whether or not Dbachmann should resign or have the tools removed as I'd like to hear what they have to say in response to this, however I would suggest that if they do not resign or otherwise have the tools removed that they should seek mentorship with another experienced admin so that they can get up to speed with the current expectations surrounding administrative actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure if this is a case of ANI flu, but Dbachmann's continued silence on enwiki while making edits on dewiki is very much not what's expected per WP:ADMINACCT. I was hoping some explanation for why they took this action and how that contrasts against the clear community consensus that this was a bad unblock, and in light of the diffs of some extremely problematic prior edits that some acknowledgement of and apology for those past contributions and a commitment to do better, but it seems as though that won't be the case.

If Dbachmann can't or won't come here or to ArbCom to defend themself, then yeah it's pretty clear that the tools should be removed. And we or ArbCom should look at whether we need an indef NOTHERE block, or whether a R&I TBAN is appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Terrible unblock; the projection & hypocrisy in the unblock rationale are extreme, and I agree with others that Dbachmann resigning as an administrator would be an appropriate outcome. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bad unblock. In 2021, the user voted for the science on race and intelligence to be considered "mainstream", and seems to be attempting to relitigate that by derailing loosely-related RfCs. These were clear behavioral problems; nothing to do with removing an ideological opponent. DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(this was mostly written before @Floquenbeam restored the block off of consensus here-- thank you for that) I was initially planning of taking the unblock to Administrative action review (or AN/ANI if it was more appropriate), but thank you @Ritchie333 for opening this while I was away. I'm completely uninvolved with the R&I area and have never edited in it, and I've also never expressed what my views on the area are, so I don't think Andew can be construed as an ideological opponent of mine. On the other hand, I think there is an argument that @Dbachmann is WP:INVOLVED with regards to the topic area and unblocked because his views align with Andew's, at least based on this 2018 talkpage discussion and however his attention was drawn to the block. While I don't attach any diffs to what I wrote in my block rationale, I provide two links to all of Andew's talk: and Wikipedia: contributions, which are completely exclusive to the R&I topic area. Reading over his contributions to these discussions substantiates my proceeding rationale. If further evidence is needed, I am willing to do a breakdown of Andew's comments at Talk:Eyferth study, which exactly fit the pattern I describe in my rationale. Otherwise I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said.

I could've made this block a one-year AE one and then indef, or a regular indef with an indef AE topic ban since R&I is a contentious topic, but I didn't, partly because I thought it wouldn't be necessary... lesson learned. I get that this block can be construed as a "bold one", but I believe we need to get "meaner" with editors who are only here to promote a specific (fringe!) point of view, sometimes "civilly", and contribute little to mainspace. Not blocking editors like this allows them to become "ingrained" in the community, so when they cross a line down the road they become more difficult to sanction. We are only going to see more accounts operating along these lines in the future-- remember a few years ago during the beginning of the COVID pandemic where all these thinkpieces talking about how Wikipedia is one of the last few places on the internet with "accurate and fair coverage" or whatever were coming out? We have an increasing influence and popularity, so now there is increased incentive and interest in undermining us. And if a block like this can't be made, it's a bad sign. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I think more ROPE is acceptable versus a unilateral indef (I see your concern about "entrenchment", but I've never actually seen that be an issue in recent years, because all the "problem children" we deal with are almost all long timers. We have far more of an issue with newbie biting than we do long-term time sinks that are in "good standing" versus LTAs and the like.) That doesn't excuse Dbach's conduct here, but 0-100 blocks are always going to be more controversial. Newimpartial's advice here is good to keep in mind for the future as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

AndewNguyen's talk page shows he has had a history of problematic edits over more than three years. I think he's had plenty of rope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

AndewNguyen is not a "problematic editor". Nor is he an SPA. The block was egregiously bad in my opinion. AndewNguyen was never warned, never told that his behavior was problematic, and never given a shroter-term temporary block as is customary in these situations. You don't just start with an indef block, especially when its far from clear that AndewNguyen has done anything to deserve a block, short term or otherwise. The larger problem is this - there are many editors and admins here who find the whole R&I discussion to be so distasteful, that any topic even remotely touching on it immediately becomes a minefield. And because the majority of wikipedia users fall on the side of "nurture" on the nature/nurture debate, anyone advocating for any type of biological determinism is held to a totally different standard and are at risk of sanctions simply because of their ideological view. The original block by Moneytrees was a ridiculously bad one - without question the worst I've seen in my time here. AndewNguyen has done nothing to deserve any type of sanction, much less an indef block. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ETA - On Dbachs user page, Moneytrees commented: "...I would be opposed to any unblock without a topic ban on the talk page.". Again, this is a perfect example of what I discussed above. AndewNguyen while certainly not an SPA, is still a prolific and valued editor in the R&I topic area. Moneytrees is more concerned about removing AndewNguyen's voice from said topic area than anything else. I've said it before, I'll say it again - editors have attempted to turn any genetics-related topic into a political football, instead of a scientific approach. Human genetic variation is a fact - not a fringe idea. No amount of RFC's or banning editors will change that. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You can keep saying that, whoever you are, but it won't make it true. Good block, bad wheelwar, waiting to hear from Dbachmann as to why they think they should keep their +sysop bit. — Trey Maturin™ 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 --JBL (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Question. Am I correct in my understanding that a de-sysop would need to be done by ArbCom? Because if that is the case, given the circumstances (notably Dbachmann's overt involvement in the topic in question, as noted above), I honestly can't see how anything Dbachmann could say in response would mitigate this abuse of admin tools by someone who clearly sees little use for them otherwise. Wouldn't it be simpler to cut to the chase and take it straight to ArbCom, given that the result would seem a foregone conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd like it better if he just turn in his mop without forcing us into melodrama. I suppose the Arbs could do it by motion at this point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

He edits sporadically, so it might be a while for a response. I guess this thread should play out and then we take it from there based on his responsiveness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra They've spent the evening editing the German wikipedia [421] At this point it seems that they're deliberately avoiding replying. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: Gott im Himmel! Dass ist schrechtlich! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think an arbcom removal of bits (either a full ADMINCOND case or removal by motion) would be premature at this time. We've all messed up at some point, what matters more around here is what we do after we make the mistake, and I'm waiting to see what Dbachmann chooses to do once they've seen this thread. Easy on the lynch mob, please, folks. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see them resign the tools with dignity at this point. If they use them again without comment, and especially if they use them in such an egregious manner again, then it's a matter for ArbCom. But they can and should do the right thing and I trust they will do so. — Trey Maturin™ 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a lynch mob, but the best thing to do would be for Dbachmann to hand in the admin tools since they appear not to be able to use them correctly ... or, I suspect, ArbCom will take it out of their hands. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically, I'm not aware of anything stopping us for topic-banning someone from admin actions as an ANI action, though that's just an off the cuff thought. If someone under such a ban were blocked for using the tools, would that block prevent admin actions as well as normal editing? Resigning is simpler for this case though, and ArbCom would be a cleaner break to actually remove the tools than a topic ban though. Best to wait and see what Dbachmann has to say for now. KoA (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Has there ever been any attempt to evaluate issues with admin actions and see what proportion of them are caused by legacy admins? Between the sporadic activity and the open racism, Dbachmann would have never passed RfA if they tried to become an admin in 2023. There have been so many calls to reevaluate legacy admins, but nothing ever comes of them, resulting in drama like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  The drama involved in reassessing every very long-term admin, either systematically or ad hoc, would obviously vastly overshadow these occasional AN/ANI microdramas. — Trey Maturin™ 19:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  This assumes that all future issues will be the same as all past issues. It also overlooks issues with legacy admin behavior that go unreported, which likely makes up the vast majority of such incidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Could you define "legacy admin"? Are we talking about a specific window? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm talking prior to 2005. I don't believe that all of them (or even the majority of them) are problems, but I find it shocking that there are still admins who haven't gone through the scrutiny that we expect today. Given that admin tools have expanded more quickly than admin recall procedures, and given that problem-admins only get "caught" when they do something dramatic like this. I'm not convinced by any "we'll catch them as they come up" argument. Again, I don't think this is some existential problem, it's just something that's been carried over from early Wikipedia but doesn't mesh well with modern Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  There are ~900 admins, and about 850 have been admins for longer than 5 years, and only like one or two a year are a problem. It would take far more effort to audit the legacy admins than to desysop problematic ones as they arise. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Me, for example. I was made an admin in 2004, and while I've stayed active I freely confess that I don't really recognize some of the acronyms that get thrown around. On the other hand, I also don't go around making insane unblocks... Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Someone who expresses the view that large numbers of the project's membership are human sub-species should not be on Wikipedia, never mind being an admin. (Oh, and even without that, I fully support Harry's reasons above). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he arguing that all members of the project are human sub-species? I.e. each major racial grouping belonging to its own subspecies. I know nothing about anthropology or taxonomy so it may well be completely fringe and inappropriate, but it seems like that's how taxonomers used to classify humans until it fell out of popularity in the 80s or so as per Human taxonomy#Homo sapiens subspecies. I'm not at all endorsing his statement, but my reading of his comment doesn't seem like he is considering certain editors/races as "subhuman" (which to me would warrant an immediate block and level 2 desysop). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  What fell out of use in the 1980s was classifying fossils as subspecies of Homo sapiens. Nobody was classifying races as subspecies. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, like I said I have little understanding of the topic. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just changed that line from "1980s" to "World War II". See Historical race concepts for a more detailed history. "Subspecies" classification (like mongoloid, negroid, etc.) is now considered scientific racism. Levivich (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Two things are true: (1) the statement in question is not the same as the statement "some races are sub-human"; (2) only racists entertain the idea that human races are actually different species. --JBL (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a faux talking point (is "trope" the word I mean?) used by racists to try to pretend they're not racists. The claim that human racial groups represent subspecies has no mainstream biological support whatsoever - it's racist fringe BS, intended as a stepping stone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And looking over where he's expressed opinions on the subject, and the people he supports, his actual position seems clear enough to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And the reason why it has no mainstream biological support is effectively summed up in the sentence "There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species."

  I would support desysoping this admin; we should not tolerate such beliefs in admins, regardless of whether it affects their work as an admin. I also see no reason why we can't do so ourselves rather than waste time going through ArbCom; the case seems obvious, and there is no policy preventing us from doing so, only convention which may change. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The simple fact is that we cannot just desysop somebody ourselves. We have neither the policy nor the technical ability to do that. Consensus can change, sure, but not as a result of a single ANI thread about one incident. Our options (if this thread achieves consensus for a desysop) are to make the request to Arbcom, the Stewards or to Jimbo. The latter two probably won't intervene except in case of emergency. The good news is that with Arbcom, there's plenty of precedent for it. There have been cases where an ANI thread (or an WP:RFC/U in a previous era) closed with a strong consensus to desysop, the request was made to Arbcom as a formality, and they passed a quick motion to make it official and have a Crat yank the mop. It doesn't have to be a months-long case. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't need a policy to permit us to do something; as long as there isn't a policy establishing that we can't (and there isn't) a consensus at an ANI thread is sufficient.

  The technical ability aspect shouldn't prevent us; just as when the is a community consensus to block an editor an admin implements that consensus, if there was a community consensus to desysop someone a bureaucrat would implement that consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If an administrator abuses administrative rights, these rights may be removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation...There have been several procedures suggested for a community-based desysop process, but none of them has achieved consensus. is in fact policy. Also policy: The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:...

  1. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;

References

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

  If the community wishes to siteban Dbachmann it certainly can. I hope the community will one day find consensus to have a non-arbcom desysop process (I have supported some previous attempts). But it is not correct that a local consensus of editors can over rule previous consensus enshrined into policy and desysop Dbachmann. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock While we shouldn't get out the pitchforks just yet, the WP:ADMINCOND concerns here are real and we need Dbachmann to discuss what's going on and answer the legitimate questions asked above, especially Fram's question of how he became aware of the issue given no apparent connection between them. If he cannot or will not give satisfactory answers in a reasonable amount of time, the next step would be requesting a desysop from Arbcom. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• That's not even the issue, to be honest. Regardless of how Dbachmann found out about it, the block was correct, the unblock was not, the rationale given for the unblock was ridiculously bad and given the amount of time since the tools were used in this way, needs to result in the removal of them. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the unblock was bad, and tool removal is probably needed here (I doubt the "satisfactory answer" I mentioned above actually exists or will be provided). Certainly the reasoning we've seen so far is not encouraging. I just want to give some time for Dbachmann to fully respond and explain himself so we can have all our ducks in a row before escalating to Arbcom, otherwise they may reject it because we haven't done enough dispute resolution. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith They've been editing the German wikipedia all evening, instead of responding here [422]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  And more today -- exceptionally bad look, on top of everything else. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock, waiting to hear from Dbachmann before opining on that side of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• This was obviously a very long time ago, but I'm going to stick it here anyway in case anyone finds it relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Dbachmann reminded. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh so this has only been going on for almost 20 years.

  2005: These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them.

  2007: ... the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld. Instead of commending the few Wikipedians that still hold out attempting to let sanity prevail, the verdict seems to be that they are somehow culturally insensitive for not letting the "ethnic" people revel in their own truth ... I keep getting attacked as "racist" for my fundamentally anti-racist position that everybody has a brain and is expected to use it, regardless of where they are from. It is not alright to disrupt Wikipedia with bad faith tactics or utter stupidity just because you are "ethnic" ... apparently it is much more acceptable indulge in dishonest revisionism if you are a Hindu, don't ask me why.

  2008, Arbcom: Dbachmann ... is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It may be old, but inappropriate use of the tools when WP:INVOLVED, failure to explain himself and user conduct issues in racial/nationalistic areas seems extremely relevant. I'd also note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3. Having three WP:RFC/U and an Arbcom case named after you all for the same issues of inappropriate admin conduct is alarming; I'm not sure how he's flown under the radar all this time with his flag intact. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it's not that hard to keep the flag intact, is it? :-P Levivich (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just putting it out there, but I wonder if we actually need a block here to prevent any further misuse of the tools. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not willing to personally as I won't be online consistently this evening & tomorrow for questions, but I'd absolutely support it. Clearly there's history to go with the potential of being canvassed to act. Star Mississippi 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I thought about it too. Blocking an admin is always a can of worms, and I'm not sure it is necessary to open that one just yet. If Dbachmann makes any edit or admin action that even approaches INVOLVED or inappropriate tool use then it would be preventative and I would absolutely issue a block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the merits of the block, unblock or reblock, is "legacy admin" just a term that was invented on the spot here? Seems highly pejorative in this context to me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen it used before; I believe it usually refers to admins who became one when standards were considerably lower than they are now, and would be SNOW-rejected under current standards. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  But, yes, its use is often pejorative. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness, so is "admin". Levivich (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So true. Which makes 'legacy admin' a bit redundant, no? Valereee (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  How so? Both parts often being pejorative isn't redundant unless they carry the same pejorative meaning which they don't. The "legacy admin" problem exists no matter what we call it, we can call it the "Great Purple Clunifus" and we'd still have a problem with early admins who don't meet the community's current basic standards. "Rotten admins" is another I've seen but that seem to be a bit too far into PA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect some of the the usage is influenced by how the term is used in software development, though I'm not sure to what degree. In that field, legacy code is just used to refer to code that has been around for a while, and is typically used to distinguish between the latest redesign versus what was there previously. In that context, it's non-pejorative and can be roughly thought of as previous generations of code. If applied in this way to Wikipedia admins, it would refer to earlier cohorts of admins, thus incorporating changes in both the community and the project's needs, without passing judgment. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I don't really find either term, "legacy" or "admin", insulting. Mind you, I've only been an admin since 2011. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure Dbachmann is aware of this thread. As he's been editing on DEWIKI, I left him a note there.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not new to this discussion, but tends to come out of this type when a relatively inactive admin takes an action that doesn't reflect current practices. I don't find the term as problematic as the content that tends to lead to the label. Disclosure, I am one. Star Mississippi 00:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Me too -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, at one point in the past but not today. With 10-20k edits in the past 12 months, you are both too active to be "legacy admins". You're both now "veteran admins". Congratulations on your promotion! Levivich (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I needed that -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

and he did it without calling us old, my okra COI friend! Star Mississippi 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

DFO laughs, then weeps -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My back already has that one covered. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has existed for longer than I have – I'm 20. Deepfriedokra, The Wordsmith, and Star Mississippi, I apologize if this makes you feel old. I think you're all great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh oh, grounds for an indef for taunting right there @Clovermoss :D Star Mississippi 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"I'm bent and grey, and I've lost my way. All my tomorrows were yesterday." --Cat Ballou -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• A laughably ban unblock, showing no understanding of current practice and sounding like he's half-remembering stuff from years ago when he was active - what on earth is a "community ban via arbcom"? He should resign as an admin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  (cringe) I think that's the sort of claptrap I've seen from other "fringe theory" enthusiasts. But it's moot. I have resisted kicking and screaming taking part in CTOP, but the ArbCom have given the admins the latitude to act on there behalf in these areas, and the block was tantamount to a CTOP block without the bureaucratic trappings. Dbachmann needs to update his skillset in that regard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The unblock was hasty and not a model of responsible tool use. The original block was egregiously bad. AndewNguyen was the defender of Wikipedia at Talk:Eyferth study, advancing quality sourcing against a local consensus to disregard WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If there is any admin action in this area, it should be to investigate aspersions and a questionable RfC close at Talk:Eyferth study. Sennalen (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, it is being reviewed at WP:AN#Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure, where so far uninvolved commenters have unanimously endorsed it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen I lost track of the number of warnings you've had on your account. And your comment on the RFC closure doesn't reflect what I see there. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You can join the discussion on the RFC closure[423]. If you want to look into the aggressive templating and intimidation attempts on my talk page, that would be great too. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen who are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeking relief for any particular incident right now, just commenting on the general phenomenon of involved editors leaving nasty legalese on talk pages in lieu of discussing content. Sennalen (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Shall we close? ArbCom is spinning up and the consensus here is clear. Might we not close this?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would be great. Also here is the ArbCom request for those who are interested. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Edit: actually honestly someone should just indef Dbachmann, I think it's easy enough to find consensus for that in this discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  +1. That would save many editors many hours. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock - Good block, very bad unblock, probably requiring desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm willing to block Dbachmann. I'm uninvolved and have seen enough support for that here. My only concern is whether it would just create further drama vs. allow us to close this and move on. Any input? Valereee (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we need to hang back a bit and wait. Dbachmann has only made 14 edits this year, and is not actively being disruptive right now aside from their "radio silence" here. I've dropped a head's up on their talk page that this is being proposed and they ignore it at their peril; for now, I think that suffice. Arbcom can always propose motion to desysop and site ban in due course, if they feel it's required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The point of indefing is to not have to use up the time of a dozen arbitrators to propose a motion. The fact that he's only made 14 edits this year and still unblocked somebody without discussion, and then refused to respond while editing on another project, are arguments in favor of, not against, blocking, in my view. Frankly, I don't understand why we need a dozen arbs to "review" this at all, they have more important things to do. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dbachmann:Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> Doug Weller talk 15:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone needs to put it before the Community as proposal if we want to indef. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Only if we want to do it as a community action, no? If I blocked and someone else unblocked, I wouldn't wheel war. I just don't want to initiate that drama. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think we require the Community's advise and consent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's your choice. I think it's possible it'd cause more drama and was hoping the ArbCom case request would minimize it considered they're the only ones who can actually desysop. As I said there, I think it's a bit weird to have this sort of catch-22 where can discuss indef-blocking an admin vs whether or not they should remain an admin. As I've said here, I'm okay with waiting a little bit (3 months isn't the timeframe I had in mind but it doesn't have to be the choice between now and that). At the same time, the case request seems to imply that that this action is something that's within an individual admin's discretion. If someone's blocked, they can still defend themselves through contacting ArbCom, correct?

  Disclaimer: I'm the one who filed the ArbCom case request. I'm also not an admin so it's not like I have personal experience of dealing with potentially controversial adminstrative actions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse reblock and encourage Dbachmann to resign as administrator Also endorse a review by Arbcom if that doesn't happen. Regarding comments made admins often self-select in which areas they operate (including some non-tool ones) based on various factors, and so I don't consider inactivity with with just one type of tool to be indicative of inactivity-based competency issues. But long and broad admin inactivity is. And combine that with them being from an era when it was far easier to get in means that havng passed RFA is less of a meaningful factor when making assessments. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As Dbachmann's non-response response at ArbCom did not address an understanding of why it was a bad unblock, and what he would do instead in similar circumstances, as well as how he "became aware" of the block he reversed, and as he has not resigned the tools, It is my hope that ArbCom will remove his tools sooner than later. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 2 April 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 edits

Ancilliary issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After their last few comments (particularly [424] and [425], I've come to believe that 2600:1700:1250:6d80:947a:51e4:eb45:1fb4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the person who was formerly editing on range 2600:1004:b100::/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and was topic banned from this area. Can something be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I had been considering a separate WP:NOTHERE block for the /64, and was mostly waiting for someone to make a connection to a previous account/IP before acting, so that edit definitely tips me that direction. (NB the topic ban of interest is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling.) I've given them a month off now. Izno (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (Comment moved here from Izno's talk page per request.) Thanks for giving the disruptive IP a month off. Just FYI, in the closure review currently at AN, this IP range also copped to editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. The first two are owned as "I attempted - several times..." in the OP comment, and the third one is owned in this comment. Another arguably disruptive comment by this user was posting "Casualties of the Cabal" at the bottom of AndewNguyen's talk page. I'll leave it to you to determine whether a more expansive range block may be required. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Block evasion from this IP user is coming on hot and heavy now in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. Courtesy ping to Izno who asked to be informed here if the evasion continues. According to this comment on my talk page, they claim not to understand that they've been blocked at all. Note however that per the diffs in my comment above, this is clearly the same user who was blocked by Izno. A more expansive range block appears to be necessary to give them the intended month's vacation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is exhausting. I am NOT the same IP who is responsible for the vandalism. Generalrelative has repeatedly accused me of being responsible for edits that I had nothing to do with. If I've run afoul of procedure, then by all means, block me! But please don't block me for an imagined transgression. [Generalrelative] is unique in that he steadfastly refuses to discuss anything with me. I've tried going to his TALK page several times and am reverted evey time. Please investigate further to see what I'm talking about. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please re-read this section. You are the OP of the RfC closure review on the Eyferth study, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:0:0:0:0/64. Please click that link to confirm that you are in fact blocked for 30 days. In that discussion you copped to also being the user editing in the ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0/64, 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0/64, and 2600:1012:B014:8929:0:0:0:0/64. Now you are continuing to edit in the range 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:0:0:0:0/64. If you actually did not understand this before, despite being told repeatedly, now you are aware that you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Can an admin please block this block-evader? --JBL (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW, they have promised to "refrain from editing henceforth" on my talk page. I hope they keep their word. Generalrelative (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ARBECR R&I. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I have also seen these IP addresses as well on the same talk page that might also be related Special:Contributions/12.31.71.58 and Special:Contributions/2601:581:C180:1980:206E:CD5B:8C72:BCC0/64 Qwv (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Qwv, but these IPs do not appear to be related. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef DBachmann

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.

---

DBachmann is blocked from editing indefinitely for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• (no !vote)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Of course he should be blocked. The amount of editor time wasted on any subject seems directly proportional to the obviousness of the action needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  My point appears to have been borne out here. Why is this still being discussed a week after it was proposed, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that he should be blocked as a simple racist who can't collaborate with people that he considers to be part of a different subspecies? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. De-sysopping would certainly remove most of my concerns. Topic banning may well be an option. I'd rather wait until Dbachmann replies, if he does, and wait for the ARC to run its course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a desysop (Arbcom can decide) and a topic ban from R&I (available under CTOP protocols) would be enough to handle this. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Was never CTOP alerted, so no. But we can TBAN as a Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Support In light of the images evidence presented. That's enough to justify revocation of editing privileges. --Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment Overkill in the wrong place (ability to be an editor) and lack of action / displacing of action in the correct place which is review of admin status. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Struck because I "voted" twice. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose an indef, however I do feel that they should lose the admin tools at this point, and a topic ban from R&I would be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I'm changing this to a Support in light of some of the edits and the apparent off-wiki material. If this was not an admin, it's very likely an indef would happen without hesitation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been more than 48 hours now and Dbachmann clearly thinks he's more important than enwiki, so we should ensure he can't disrupt the encyclopedia again. Since ANI can't desysop, we just block. This isn't a difficult concept, and we're not really losing anything anyway, since he only has 14 edits this year. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. The comment about entire populations of people "arguably qualifying" as a seperate species is more than enough for me, especially given the recent unblock citing "ideological opponent" grounds. I think that determining a consensus here about whether or not this is something that should be done is better than purely individual adminstrator discretion as alluded to earlier. I don't think this is conduct becoming of an adminstrator or a regular editor. I'm conflicted about how this would impact the ArbCom case request, though. I'm under the impression that they can still contact ArbCom to defend themselves, correct? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC), edited 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  In full cases concerning a blocked editor, there have been times where ArbCom has agreed to temporarily unblock with the condition that they only edit case pages. A block or not would not be a detriment to the editor participating in arbitration should they make that choice, the Committee has various ways to ensure that the editor still has full participation. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my support in case this is closed in the near future. I consider myself to be someone who tries to see shades of grey and avoid looking at the world with all-or-nothing thinking. I'm at a loss at to how the reaction of the community to this versus what happened with Athaenara seems to be slightly different? We have two long-term admins that recently lost the trust of the community (the latter was explicitly mentioned in the ArbCom motion). I remember people saying that we wouldn't accept an admin who espoused racist views so we shouldn't accept one that espoused transphobic ones. Obviously, I don't think either type of hate is okay, but I'm used to people being more strongly opposed to racism in contrast to transphobia. For lack of a better term, at least where I live, one is considered way more socially acceptable than the other, even if I wish it wasn't that way. I try my best to be an ally for other members of the LGBT+ community even if I don't fully understand everything that people who live differently than I do experience. I try my best to treat people that way in general.

  Athaenara was indef-blocked. She still is. Mostly as a result of one diff. Here we have someone that has problematic edits that align with racist talking points and that history goes as far back as pretty much my entire lifetime! Dbachmann's response at ARC makes it clear that they aren't backing down from this, same with Athaenara's brief responses after she was unblocked. Their unblock of Andew citing "ideological opponent" grounds makes it pretty obvious that their views are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. That unblock is recent and again, the underlying pattern here makes this all the more concerning. I started editing here in 2018. Literally like a week and a half after they made the comment about how certain humans should qualify as seperate species! If I had said something like that back then, I'm fairly certain I would've been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. In this case we have a long-term pattern of disruption. Admins (or in this case since the desysop motion has passed – former admins) shouldn't be immune to this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC), edited 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  The idea you’re thinking of is the overton window Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now He isn't editing, and isn't causing any current disruption that a block would relieve. There currently isn't any preventative purpose which would make a block purely punitive. Let's let this thread and the Arbcom case proceed to a consensus to desysop, maybe topic ban, and if he starts acting disruptively then we can issue a block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would still like to see them appear here, offer an explanation (which would've been the norm, if I understand it, even back when they were first +sysop) and resign with what's left left their dignity. The failure to engage here, whilst still editing happily on other Wikimedia projects, goes beyond ANI-flu and is basically now just fucking with us. Every minute of silence from them just makes it more likely that they will be community banned in the end, but with extra drama. Or we could cut to the chase. — Trey Maturin™ 18:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as straightforwardly preventative of any repetition of inappropriate behavior, either as an editor or admin, in a context in which Dbachmann has had ample opportunity to present an explanation or defense but has opted not to. If Dbachmann wants at some point in the future to contribute to en.wiki, they should at that time make the case that they can do so constructively, via an unblock request. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was instinctively going to oppose, as it's in ArbCom's court. But having seen a lot of his comments now, together with some very disturbing off-site material, I support a community ban (or indef, or whatever closes the door on him). Whether whoever judges the consensus sees my reason as valid or not, I simply don't think racists, enablers of racists, or promoters of "scientific racism" tropes should be allowed to be part of any project that values equality and inclusivity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: And thereby hangs a tale. I guess you sent the juicy bits to ArbCom? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  They already know, I'm quite sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I preferred indef as a normal admin action because that would stop the rest of us from having to spend time on this, but this works too. Based on a long term pattern, including multiple arbcom cases about this editor already, evidenced by diffs from 2005-2023. (The 2023 diffs are the unblock and comments surrounding it.) Levivich (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. We seem to be faced with a refusal to acknowledge WP:ADMINACCT by someone who is willing to use admin tools to promote a thoroughly offensive POV, and who provides little constructive input to the project. We can manage well enough, with a lot less drama, without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it violates the spirit and letter of WP:BLOCK Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't it a bit illogical, that the community can't directly desysop admins, but we're allowed to indef them when we feel they need to be desysopped? Feels almost like a loophole; either desysopping is up to the community, or it isn't. I think I roughly understand why we relegated desysopping to ArbCom (to avoid turning it into a popularity contest, and minimize the risk of poorly-attended discussions by INVOLVED users resulting in desysops), but the idea of indeffing for WP:ADMINCOND issues makes me uneasy. DFlhb (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: It is odder still that the relatively few drama-seekers who patrol ANI are considered "the community". Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• It is an odd hole in our policies, but partially because indeffing an admin basically always ends up at Arbcom anyway. Either because the user unblocked themselves (which was possible until recently) or somebody else unblocked and wheel warring ensued. There's no specific community desysop procedure, but there is precedent for the community achieving consensus here and formally requesting Arbcom do the desysopping. I think the very first Arbcom motion might have been for that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  there is precedent for the community achieving consensus here and formally requesting Arbcom do the desysopping Sounds like something worth formalizing, regardless of what happens here. DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've thought about it before. I was planning on making a proposal here with the wording I just threw onto User:The Wordsmith/Workshop#Community Desysop Proposal after this thread had been open for a day or two so consensus could form and the user had an opportunity to respond, but it was brought to Arbcom early before I had a chance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  In my view, the problems go way beyond ADMINACCT, which is probably the least important of the problems. I wouldn't support indefing just for an adminacct issue. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The remedy for abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT is surely de-sysop. It could potentially move on to indef if there are problematic issues relating to general editing established - such as discussed below in the context of the TBAN. But that's not the proposal and doesn't seem to be established either per my weak oppose of the TBAN. He should definitely be de-sysoped by Arb Com of course. I don't think there's much doubt that that will be the Arb com outcome so I don't think ANI need do anything further on that particular issue. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No, they've done nothing to indicate they should be disallowed from normal editing. Misuse of the admin toolset is a different matter from editing Wikipedia articles. Desysop should be the appropriate response. Blocking is the wrong response entirely here. --Jayron32 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Outside problematic use of admin tools, supposed evidence of any problem with Dbachmann's editing is extremely stale and contrived WP:SMEAR. Sennalen (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as a response to "abuse of admin tools and unresponsiveness per WP:ADMINACCT". The correct solution for that is a desysop. Weak Neutral as a response to race topic area ickiness, but the topic ban below is marginally better IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floq and several others above. This is sledgehammer to crack a nut territory. Serious infringements of ADMINACCT lead to a desysop, not a ban. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Boing! and Lev. The editor can not be trusted to edit with the integrity of the encyclopedia in focus. The disruption and drama only adds to the net negative. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reopened. Original close reason was: "Consensus for this option is unlikely to form. The general feeling is that abuse of sysop tools and a failure of WP:ADMINACCT is not enough to justify an indefinite block, and the evidence presented, mostly five years or older, isn't enough either. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)"

Apologies to Isabelle Belato, but new information has come to light that I think warrants reopening this discussion. Under the Images section below, there's evidence that Dbachmann has fabricated sources to support "scientific" racism in violation of WP:OR. This is about far more than a one-off case of ADMINACCT failure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the new evidence (below in #Images, referenced above by BsZ). — Trey Maturin™ 12:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Strong evidence of behavior wholly incompatible with Wikipedia. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the sum of the evidence, especially the diagrams. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above and new evidence; pretty clear long-running subtle (or not-so-subtle) POV-pushing of fringe theories; this is unacceptable. If AndrewNguyen was blocked for this, and DBachmann also had the abuse-of-tools thing, then I don't see any reason to hold admins to a lower standard than regular editors. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per BsZ and Iseult. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support unless he promptly comes here to renounce the images and what they represent. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  23:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Devil's advocate but, while the unblock, comments, and graphic have been concerning and I think a race tban is definitely in line and maybe a desysop, I don't see any disruption outside the race topic to warrant a full indef. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support and also support referring to WMF for their ban. --Rschen7754 02:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support screams WP:CIR and WP:NORACISTS, especially considering this is an admin we’re talking about, who are supposed to be the best and brightest Wikipedia has to offer. Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasons given are for a desysop (which I support), not for an indef. Let's not turn into a careless lynch mob. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @North8000: You've voted on this proposal twice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss: Thanks. I fixed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm surprised to see that I hadn't !voted on this before, possibly because it was closed before I had the chance to, or because I was counting on ArbCom dealing with Dbachmann promptly with a desysop, which does not seem likely now. In any event, the additional information about falsified images apparently intended to promote scientific racism is more than sufficient to justify a CBAN for Dbachmann. It's a shame that the images will continue to be used on other language wikipedias. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning support in light of the diagram, although I feel a desysop alone would be significantly more appropriate. I'm not too familiar with Dbachmann or his history regarding racism, but the diagram should warrant at least some consequence. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  DeCausa has pointed out that desysoping from ANI is not (currently) possible, so why is a block not more appropriate? Dronebogus (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per diagrams. This is a savvy and therefore dangerous user who has used their familiarity with Wikipedia's systems to spread misinformation undetected. I think a TBAN is not sufficient as there is evidence that this type of editing extends beyond even Wikipedia to Commons and other projects. It cannot continue. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBan per WP:NORACISTS. Racism or any other kind of bigotry is inherently incompatible with the goals of this project. Any unblock should have to be approved by the community. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indefinite block or community ban. First, the misuse of admin tools, while justifying desysopping, was not of such a blatant nature as to warrant a ban. Second, the expression of hateful opinions should only very seldom result in a ban from the project, although it should result in a ban from the areas in which the hateful opinions are relevant and toxic. Desysop and topic ban are sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the evidence presented so far. Clearly a long-running issue that goes far beyond ADMINCOND. DFlhb (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in this case jumping to an indef without first trying a TBAN seems like skipping a step. I also note that most people seem to have lost interest in this since he got desysop'd. maybe just close this all and reopen the issue if anything else noteworthy happens. (i would just like to get this off my list of open issues.) - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough (per support arguments above, eg by Boing! said Zebedee, Clovermoss and RickinBaltimore). Doug Weller talk 07:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I'm swayed by the evidence put forward here and I believe that allowing Dbachmann to remain a member of the community would harm the project. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 09:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose—I admit that I'm not a paleoanthropologist or anything of a similar nature, so I cannot speak with any expertise in assessing the disputed images. I'm not even sure if they qualify as "scientific racism" or if they have mainstream acceptance within the paleo community at large; however, prima facie, I can see why this diagram in particular might give the impression that humans branched off into different subspecies, and that this accounts for racial differences between black Africans and so-called "non-Africans" (i.e. everyone else). Usually, POV-pushing isn't something that's done maliciously, but rather by people who are unable to distinguish their own internalized biases from reality. That's why we have a whole essay on civil POV-pushers, and why it can be so difficult to deal with them. I get the sense that Dbachmann sees himself not as a "proponent of racism", but as a harbinger of truth in the face of modern political correctness. He's trying to mitigate what he considers misinformation in race-related articles, and holds certain viewpoints that may diverge from those accepted by fellow editors and scholarly sources alike.

  My opinion is that a topic ban from race-related pages, broadly construed, is worth trying before jumping straight into an indefinite site ban. Dbachmann has made over 235,000 edits over a period of roughly 20 years (ranked 200th in the list of Wikipedians by edit count), uploaded countless images, and has consistently been a very hard-working contributor. I'm not saying that a history of good, productive editing in and of itself absolves someone of incompatibility with a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, but it does mean we should be hesitant with swinging the banhammer in cases where other options have not yet been attempted. I still think Dbachmann can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia—it's just that they should probably avoid doing so in areas where their involvement has anteceded dissension. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:07, 9 April 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.

Topic ban proposal

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.

---

It's come up as a motion in the ArbCom case request, and I think it's something the community should decide rather than ArbCom. So I propose that Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about Race, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. The ban would be in addition to any indef block or any other sanction, should such be decided.

• Support as proposer who copied it over from ArbCom (updated). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Despite claims to not being involved in this topic area, I think their unilateral unblock of someone who was blocked for their editing in this area was an involved. action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: It is not conjuring to say that an admin who has had problems in a topic area in the past who then improperly unblocked a user in that topic area has acted unacceptably in that area, especially while thumbing his nose at WP:ADMINACCT after being required to account for that unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  The subject of a topic ban was deemed not appropriate for ARBCOm and was returned to where it belongs--ANI. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Aside form the already belabored unblock, I saw no recent problem edits in at least a year. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Question Is this proposal based on the three diffs at the beginning of the Arbcom case (from 2005, 2007 and 2018)? Are there other diffs that should be considered? DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good question! Dbachmann said "not involved" when he made the unblock. This question is the very crux of the matter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's essentially based on my transfer of the proposed motion from ArbCom. But, I've seen a number of disturbing comments from Dbachmann, both on- and off-wiki (and I don't know if what I've seen on-wiki is covered by all the diffs - I don't think so, and if I can find more I'll post it). Essentially, the long-term totality of what I've seen, in both words and actions, convinces me a topic ban is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and for anyone who hasn't yet, I think it's worth reading all the thoughts over on the ArbCom case request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Essentially, the long-term totality of what I've seen, in both words and actions, convinces me a topic ban is needed. But what about everyone else? Can someone link to the other diffs? Tbh, diffs from 2005, 2007 and 2018 with a non-specific comment that there are other disturbing edits is a weak case for a topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That alone is perhaps indeed a weak case, but people can (and should) do their own research rather than basing their decision solely on what the proposer says. Dbachmann has not protected their real-life identity, and it's not hard to find. But I don't want to risk going too close to outing, so there are links that I don't want to post here - but others can find them if they want to try. But in essence, even with just what has been presented in this discussion so far, I'm seeing something that I think is pretty clear. Dbachmann has argued that different human races are different sub-species (totally against mainstream science), and that some, including the Khoisan, are even different species (again, way outside mainstream science). I don't know if a search might uncover more recent evidence of his "scientific racism" tropes, but he doesn't seem to be very active in the topic area these days. But he has defended (and unblocked) another editor on the grounds that those very same racist tropes are merely a different opinion, in 2023, this month. And you can't get much more recent than that. It's certainly enough to convince me that he hasn't changed his views on race since the diffs we've seen. And I do not think we should welcome anyone who considers some of his fellow editors to be different species. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That alone is perhaps indeed a weak case, but people can (and should) do their own research rather than basing their decision solely on what the proposer says. That's not normally the expectation when when someone proposes something here. DeCausa (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair enough. But I always do my own research before I !vote on anything, and I never go only on what the proposer says. (Even if I !vote "Per someone", that just means I agree with them, but I've still done my own research.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: "Go only on what the proposer says" is nothing to with what I said. Please don't misrepresent me. It's that you haven't produced the diffs. I'm not interested in opinions or "what you said", only the evidence. Time and again, when OPs make vague assertions inadequately supported by diffs they are turned away here. Never is "do your own researcH' an appropriate or successful response. The onus is on the OP to furnish the evidence to support their case. It happens less when a proposal is made in an existing thread - usually the diffs have already been provided earlier in the discussion. This thread is unusual in that. No one seems willing or able to produce evidence outside of those 3 diffs. I'm not going to dig around looking for the evidence to support what you propose. If you can't produce the diffs, I'm going to oppose what you propose, and that's what I've done. If you or anyone else is willing to produce the evidence to support your proposal in the form of diffs, then I would be happy to chnage that. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your view - I do know what you meant, but I worded it badly. I won't try to explain any further in case I dig myself in deeper ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support for same reasons as my vote above. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The comment about the Khoisan is so utterly at odds with both mainstream science and basic human dignity that it would justify a topic ban (as an absolute minimum) on its own. And frankly, I very much doubt that if a new contributor had made such a statement we'd even be debating the matter - we'd just indef block and leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Conjuring up sanctions on an admin for simply unblocking is not what the project needs. This reminds me of the blocks editors get for daring to ivote oppose at RFA. I see this is at ARBCOM also, how is that for ratcheting up pressure? Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because the feedback from multiple people was that a topic ban was inappropriate for ArbCom to consider I have withdrawn that motion so it's no longer being considered there. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: It is crazy that we consider that this rises to the level of an indef or a topic ban. "There but for the grace of god go I." We should all move on, there is clearly no ongoing disruption or need to protect the project. So then this is punitive. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep didn't say the concerns didn't rise to the level of action, and he said he was glad the community was considering it. He said he withdrew it from the motion at ArbCom because he'd gotten community input that it wasn't appropriate there. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thanks for the message. We should be concerned with ongoing disruption, only. This was started by outrage over an unblock and then there was a frenzied approach to overturn, block, punish and ban. I believe that this belongs at Arbcom and it should not be in this limited-participation-forum. There are very few actual Wikipedians that come into this forum, and frankly based on the multiple knee-jerk proposals the folks here are not qualified to deal with this. Arbcom should live up to their charter. They have declined to take important cases several times: like Pontius Pilate they turn cases over to the mob. As someone who was adjudicated by this unfair process, and had my own case dismissed by Arbcom, I am sympathetic to others who get skewered and sanctioned here. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst, this page has 8500 watchers. ArbCom case request page has about 1500, and the decisions there are made by a handful of people. The number of people who've watchlisted the proposed decision page for a current major case is 41. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: It is very messy here with knee jerk proposals and it is dependent on whomever happens by looking for drama. It is orderly at Arbcom, and arbitrators with conflict recuse, not so here. Most good editors never come here for any reason. I always check the RFA candidates and many of them do not participate here. I am not telling you anything new, and nothing I am saying will change anything about this process. As I said before, is there an organization anywhere in the world that allows volunteers to skewer other volunteers? Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose (for the time being) Per the answers to my question above, 3 edits from 2005, 2007 and 2018 are too old and, to some extent, not egregious enough to bring dow a TBAN. The Khoisan edit is...well bizarre. It might be racist but could also be crazy WP:FRINGE. But either way making the "sub-species" argument once in 2018 is not enough. Some decent diffs would switch me to "support" but I think, in principle, it's not right to put forward a proposal based on a weak case and say "do your own research" to get up to speed. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  "It might be racist but could also be crazy WP:FRINGE." What would be an example of non-racist crazy FRINGE? I am having a hard time imagining any non-racist explanation. Levivich (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Getting too analytical in the world of crackpot theories probably has very limited benefits. I can't tell from that one diff in 2018 exactly where the guy is coming from. Maybe you can. Most people here seem to think they can and maybe they're right. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Bans, like blocks, should be preventative. Topic banning someone where the evidence is from 5, 15, and 18 years ago seems just silly. If we have a pattern of recent problematic behavior in the topic under discussion, please present that. Like the indef block proposal above, this seems like a non-sequitur over-reach for the terrible use of admin tools. The appropriate response for misuse of admin tools is desysop, and that's it. The rest feels like overkill. I'm fully willing to consider other remedies for other problems, but no one has, at yet, really provided any evidence that Dbachmann is currently behaving in such a way that any kind of ban or block is needed. The evidence of the three diffs that have been provided is fantastically unsavory, and if all three were from the past year or so, I'd be totally on board with a ban or a block. But it doesn't seem right to dig that far into the past for evidence, it feels unfair. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as one obvious remedy for long-term disruptive behavior. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support - It looks as if ArbCom will desysop -- which is appropriate -- with a suspended case, but has rejected considering a topic ban by motion, so it's up to the community to take action. Dbachmann has not only expressed racist opinions for many years, they have acted on them in their editing, and that is something that we simply cannot have here. There is no excuse for waiting for them to take further steps to skew our articles in that direction, and failure to topic ban now will only encourage those of similar beliefs who are waiting in the wings to edit in the same fashion (you can see who they are by a careful reading of the comments in the arbitration case request, but anyone who's been following the R&I issue for years knows who they are). A topic ban is clearly necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Might I suggest a slight tweak to the wording of the proposal? The phrasing "pages about Race" leaves Dbachmann perfectly free to make comments about race elsewhere. I would therefore suggest the ban be from editing material related to race on any page in any namespace, and from commenting about race in talk comments in any way anywhere on the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The pages wording is how ArbCom has worded "don't say it anywhere", while using "Articles" for well articles. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I just copied the words from the proposed ArbCom motion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, including Beeblebrox's suggested tweak above just to make it even clearer. It's not a frequent issue, but it's a long term one, and it's icky, and they unethically unblocked someone because of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I think that's the crux of it. The diffs of past comments are old, but the unblock was clearly in ideological support of a purveyor of racist tropes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sadly Oppose While I find the characterization of Dbachmann to be accurate and I certainly won't lose the tiniest wink of sleep if he's topic-banned, I have real problems with doing it for this set of facts. It does come off as punitive rather than preventative, given the time since 2018 and the lack of any kind of disruption. Jurisdiction over his administrative actions is elsewhere, and I don't think we can fairly use the block itself as part of the evaluation. What we're left with is some very old posts, 2018, and assuming bad faith -- I think we can take into consideration this even if not the block itself -- and I'd have a hard time believing that anyone would score a topic ban just based on that. And while the off-site comments leave me with little doubt as to his character, there are real problems with using that as a proxy for Wikipedia behavior that didn't exist. Applying ad hoc policy, especially in a situation where there was no disruption that's not being reviewed elsewhere is just something I find to be a very poor idea. The case that it's needed to prevent future damage is weak and if something should happen, it's very easy to resolve. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...except for the 2023 unblock and comments. I don't understand why so many editors are saying the most recent evidence is from 2018. We're here because of something that happened this week. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  But we're not, actually. We're *only* here because of an improper unblock. But that's already being handled by ANI, the proper forum for that issue. Stripped of the improper unblock, there's no here, here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Err, ArbCom (sorry, early and did not sleep well) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yeah, if you remove the "there", then there is no "there" there. But the "there" is the unblock (and comments, like saying Money was an ideological opponent of AndewNguyen, an absolutely ridiculous claim, but even more ridiculous because of Andew's ideology, which is why Andew was blocked in the first place). Oppose the tban if you think a desysop is enough to address the 2023 problems, but don't say there has been a "lack of any kind of disruption" since 2018, because we had disruption this week. Serious disruption. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there is a desysop at all, as it begins to look like ArbCom in starting to shy away from taking immediate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  The disruption was caused by the block itself, which ArbCom is choosing to address or not to address at their discretion as it is within their jurisdiction. I'll be disappointed if

  The disruption was not the behavior otherwise, which was extremely small potatoes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is, I'll be disappointed if he ends up with his admin status intact. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Digging up old posts seems punitive and even vengeful at this time. If he continues spewing the same racist garbage, I'm all for it, but I'd prefer if it was based off of recent, on-wiki evidence. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  19:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Struck in light of the below section ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is nothing "vengeful" about presenting evidence of a long-term problem. If the historical evidence wasn't presented, people would be saying that we can't topic ban solely on the strength of one recent incident. It's the history that justifies the topic ban, and the ADMINACCT behavior (among other problems) which justify the desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I posted this about 3 hours before David Eppstein brought the racist diagrams to light. That's more than enough recent, on-wiki evidence for me. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  It still hasn't been substantiated that there's anything racist about the diagram, as much as some editors are trying to read into the color scheme. Sennalen (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Something does not add up. If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? On the other hand, if he has... well, this is the first time I have seen on Wikipedia, where we came across a racist and said, "let's not lose a valuable contributor, we can give him something else to do". And, even putting aside the lack of precedence, someone who is racist or has made racist edits in the past will have managed to have compromised NPOV in the articles they had touched, and in the future, could compromise NPOV in other articles without ever bringing up race. Just as an example, a hypothetical racist editor who's prejudiced against Indians and thinks Indian Mathematics is overhyped by ineloquent, non-resident, Indian-nationalist teenagers, could, without ever bringing up race, prevent "globalisation" of mathematics articles by reverting edits that add text about Indian contributions, for containing typos, grammatical errors, or too much detail. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just for the sake of clarity for the closers, @Usedtobecool, could you clarify whether this is a !vote or simply a comment? If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? sounded like possibly an oppose, but the rest sounds like a support. If I were closing, I might treat it as no !vote, just a comment. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really care how this is closed, to be honest. It's not going to do much if it's passed other than make people feel good about having done something. If people really want to do something, they should look at the evidence and either clear his name of these serious charges or support indef. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, UTBC! Valereee (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the state of voting at the arbitration request after Dbachmann posted their non-explanation explanation there, it seems quite possible that a desysop could be a long drawn-out procedure as the arbs try to settle whether to open a case or desysop by motion. (Both of the desysop and suspend motions are now failing due to the removal of one arb's vote in favor of a full case, and the desysyop motion has only two support votes.) Given this, it seems to me more necessary then ever that the community take action here and put a topic-ban in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. Dbachmann isn't editing on en.wp and from their terse "done-with-it tone" (as Valereee rightly describes it) in their statement at ArbCom there's little prospect of them coming back to edit disruptively. I can't see any preventative rationale here. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're reading much more into Dbachmann's statement than is actually there. What they are done with is dealing with the issues that have been brought up leading to a desysop inquiry and this TBAN discussion - in other words, he has basically told the community to take a hike in regards to its concerns. They have not said anything to lead me to believe that they're removing themselves from editing in the subject area of race. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with BMK. I read it as being done with responding to the concerns, not editing Wikipedia. AFAIK, he's not "retired." And as I see his response as being grossly and totally inadequate, I hope ArbCom will remove his "hat." Be that as it may, there will be enough talk page watchers who would report any further problems coming from his direction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I also read his comment exactly the way BMK did. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Beyond My Ken and Floquenbeam. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence is at best five years old but I don't see any evidence that his views have changed since then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. His comments and graphic show an intent to push a POV in the race area. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. --Rschen7754 02:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support even if good faith an admin should absolutely not be making slapdash contributions to an area they seem either biased or confused about. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if it weren't old, the evidence presented so far doesn't substantiate the existence of a problem apart from the use of admin tools, which is better dealt with by desysoping. Sennalen (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike the desysop (which I support) I haven't seen a case made for this;we don't want to be a careless lynch mob. As an aside, this is a very mild remedy and so not a huge deal either way. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Based on the image below. Though I think the old links are sufficient by themselves, also. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As I note above re:indef: most people seem to have lost interest in this since he got desysop'd. maybe just close this all and reopen the issue if anything else noteworthy happens. (i would just like to get this off my list of open issues.) - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to request evaluation and closure of both threads, but in fact there are !votes on the indef proposal from yesterday and today, so the proposal is still active (that they are opposes is irrelevant, the !votes show that people are still considering the issue). However an admin might want to take a look at closing this TB proposal, where the most recent !vote is from 3 days ago, and the raw !vote is 14 "support" to 6 "oppose" (possibly 15 "support" -- I couldn't tell if Beeblebrox's "suggestion" was intended to be a "support" !vote). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I missed User:GhostofDanGurney's un-bolded "support" !vote, so the raw !vote count is 15 (possibly 16) "support" to 6 "oppose". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, sure a lot of the evidence is old, but the recent action shows that things haven't changed. Unless dbachmann disavows what he said before, there's no way he should be editing about race (or IMO anywhere on wiki as per Usedtobecool). Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly has a strong POV that is at odds with scientific consensus, and has tendentiously pushed it for several years. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 02:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support in addition to indef block/site ban. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support—Per my comment in the above section. I feel that this is worth trying in lieu of a site ban. Should Dbachmann be banned at the conclusion of this discussion, then this should also be interpreted as a support for a topic ban when/if Dbachmann is allowed to return. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:15, 9 April 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.

Images

Given the racist views on human lineage by DBachmann uncovered above, can someone explain why we are relying on a diagram of human evolutionary history by DBachmann from 2018, claiming to show the human species as having diverged into multiple subgroups and using distinctive colors to emphasize that supposed divergence, in some eight of our articles on the topic? With at least three more related images by DBachmann also in use in article space [426] [427] [428]? The hosting of those images on commons is a separate issue off-topic for here, but their use on en is a matter for en. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Although sources are cited, the specific visualizations are completely OR, unless Dbachmann is a subject expert, in which case they should be citing themselves as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The diagram from 2018 is very different from the figure it claims to have been "based on"; all the brown pointy bits are just drawn in. The next citation in the image description is a lengthy quote from a blog post by Razib Khan. As the absolute best that could be said about the 2018 diagram is that it's unacceptably synthetic, I've removed it from article space. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's currently used on ~a dozen other wikis, some on multiple articles. Valereee (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that 2018 one is clearly fabricated by a proponent of "scientific" racism. Definitely agree with removing it. And does anyone still *really* think this is someone we should be keeping on this project? If this was a newbie, we'd see a quick and uncontroversial indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that the indef proposal was closed too early and Usedtobecool's comment sums my viewpoint on that matter up quite well:

Something does not add up. If he's not racist or made racist edits, why would we want to topic ban him from "race"? On the other hand, if he has... well, this is the first time I have seen on Wikipedia, where we came across a racist and said, "let's not lose a valuable contributor, we can give him something else to do". [429] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's effectively faked content on Wikipedia to support racism. Faking content in an encyclopedia (whatever the motive) has to be about the worst offence there is. I'm going to be bold and reopen the indef proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely OR. I go back and forth on whether this figure is OK or if it is misleading. The science itself seems fine to me, but representing populations (the different groups at the top of the image) alongside all populations for a species merged (Everything brown with distinct text) gives the wrong impression to the layreader. This means it looks like the figure says that the modern groups are equivalent to different species, which is a racist dog-whistle. Whether that's because DBachmann didn't notice, doesn't understand the papers he cites, or did it for scientific racism reasons, that's for people who can read minds.

You probably can't simply overlay admixture events (brown lines to brightly-coloured lines) on top of each other from separate papers as the underlying tree will change (plus, those genes may not be flowing from the same population or at the same time, which will change your interpretation). Plus calling it a phylogeny when most people would use that term to refer to species trees is really unhelpful.

Disclaimer: Still fairly new to working in population genetics, so if someone thinks what I've said is wrong, I would appreciate it. Thanks all. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an MS Paint approach to science; whether due to ineptitude or to racism, it isn't acceptable. The other images that David Eppstein mentioned are less overt, but I am thinking that they are also unencyclopedic synthesis. Starting with a figure based on one journal article and then modifying it is the essence of OR: Why pick those particular modifications? Why include them all at the same level of confidence? Merely verifying that the figure is not misleading becomes a whole research project. (Some of the modifications are not cited at all.) XOR'easter (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. People who wish to work in these areas should be much more careful. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: "Whether that's because DBachmann didn't notice, doesn't understand the papers he cites, or did it for scientific racism reasons, that's for people who can read minds." Or for people who can read the rest of his contributions to the subject, including off Wikipedia. There's no mind-reading needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If you have more information about off-Wiki activity that suggests one or the other, you are far better placed to make that judgement than me. I've only seen the figures. I'd rather not get involved with this topic area - only wished to provide some clarification as to how those papers have been distorted (intentionally or otherwise). NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, appreciate your help, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. Get this shit outta here. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  20:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Homo sapiens lineage.svg is off en.wiki. I haven't gotten around to examining the use of the other three or checking if there are any more in that vein, and I probably won't have time for that today; anyone who would like to beat me to the task is welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• The topologies depicted in most of these are not inaccurate, and the first one in particular does generally reflect scientific views as I understand them. However, it is not supported by the source provided, and there is clearly a lot of original research going on with the other images as well. If there's a POV agenda here it's definitely subtle; what I find more concerning is that an admin felt it appropriate to create figures on human evolution not explicitly supported by multiple sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

But is it wise to combine three valid topologies to morph through species->poplulation->Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup in the same tree, then say: The six major divisions of modern humans are given as... when the paper says/does no such thing? fiveby(zero) 03:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You know way more about anthropology than I do. What are we looking at? Is it the same level of concerning as the fringe viewpoints expressed here [430][431] or is it more mainstream-like (even if it might have other issues like synth/OR). I think the former is more relevant to the currently reopened indef proposal if it's a fair representation of these actions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH aside, as far as I can tell these particular images are in line with the current mainstream. (Not a palaeoanthropologist!) In light of Dbachmann's comments elsewhere, I can see why the choice to depict human populations with clear open space between them rings alarm bells. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem odd that the Khoi-San are the only human population depicted as not 'reuniting' with the rest of the species in recent centuries. But if you compare it to e.g. this image from a textbook by Chris Stringer, he uses the same convention for continental populations. Being charitable, I think the intention is to show (temporary, apart from the Khoi San) reproductive isolation, not speciation, and the whole idea of these 'blobby' diagrams is to convey that human evolution is more messy and interconnected than a conventional cladogram.

That said, when I said to ArbCom that "I've definitely raised an eyebrow or two at DBachmann's contributions before", I was actually thinking specifically of his images. File:IE_expansion.png is still quite notorious amongst prehistorians, for example, even though we stopped using it on enwiki years ago. If there are more images that we're still using on enwiki, I think a close review for OR/synth problems would be a good idea. He has been doing this for nearly twenty years. – Joe (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

File:IE_expansion.png is in-use on over a dozen enwiki articles (and over 500 across all WMF sites) at this time. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In article space: Bronze Age Europe, Genetic history of Europe, Haplogroup R1b, History of Europe, History of Hinduism, History of Russia, Indo-Aryan migrations, Indo-European migrations, Indo-Iranians, Latins (Italic tribe), Neolithic Europe, Peopling of India, Pre-modern human migration, Sanskrit, Western Steppe Herders, and Who We Are and How We Got Here. XOR'easter (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Well, it shouldn't be. – Joe (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know of a place online where subject-area experts complained about it? Blog post, Twitter thread, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I'm thinking of offline conversations. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and XOR'easter: Evidently, the problems with IE_expansion image were raised on talk page and Dbachmann also agreed it is not perfect.[432] Azuredivay (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That brief talk page discussion goes over some specific objections to the details of which arrow points where. The deeper problem is the impression it gives of a wave of Indo-European (language? culture? people? it's not clear) spilling out of the steppe and covering most of Europe, which is misleading and linked to the scientific racist ideologies that we've discussed above. "Not perfect" really doesn't cover it. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. To my layman's eyes, the difference between Stringer's diagram and Db's is that Stringer's shows the 4 continental populations all being within a purple circle called "modern H. sapiens", making clear that all continental populations are H. sapiens, whereas Db's diagram does not, suggesting (to my layman's eyes) that H. sapiens split or branches off from H. sapiens into subspecies or separate species, called "non-African" and so on. Also, the admixture lines (if I'm using the right word) in Db's suggests (again, to my layman's eyes) that "non-Africans" mixed with African genes, but not the other way around (a horizontal line runs from yellow to the other colors, but it looks one-way to me; orange/red/purple/green lines do not run to the yellow). I could be totally misreading of course. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Could be. I'm not sure what the change of colour from Homo sapiens purple is supposed to mean. Or what the recent admixture events depicted by the 'arrows' are supposed to be. It's probably telling that neither design convention appear on Stringer's various versions of this diagram, which DBachmann was clearly imitating. I think the general picture---that since our recent common ancestor 300k years ago, most human genetic diversity is in Africa, and this has deep regional structure---is okay. As for the added details, as above it's hard to distinguish incompetence and malice. Either way I think any diagram that relies on synthesis of multiple sources with heavy commentary isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't always a difference between malice and ignorance. In general, I'd categorize racism as malicious ignorance. Db's Nov 2018 comment about the "major races" being subspecies provides some explanation for the Jan 2018 diagram. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, the lack of a labelled X-axis for both figures means the blobbiness of the branches is meaningless. I'm guessing it represents some measure of population size, but without a scale or even a qualitative statement regarding the meaning, it's not very helpful. isaacl (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I’ve nominated that first image for deletion. You can easily find the relevant discussion by following the link at the top of this section. Dronebogus (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that there may be OR in these images. The rush to judgement however is not based on an interest in encyclopedic content, but a desire to brand, discredit, and ban a user who has become the object of a personalized vendetta. The attempts to project racist beliefs onto Dbachmann are based on willful misreadings of irrelevant diffs. Article content should not be allowed to become collateral damage here. These images should be discussed with disinterested deliberation on relevant article talk pages and WP:NORUSH. Sennalen (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering the policy aspect, WP:IMAGEOR seems to say that an image depiciting a claim that is otherwise sourced as text is not OR. It does not say anything about whether multiple claims from different sources can be depicted in the same image. I would think so, as long as the combination is just compiling facts and information. It would be possible to create an image that synthesizes information from different sources. Image or not, SYNTH is not presumed. That means, SYNTH requires that there be a new, third claim that is not in any of the sources, and if there is such a claim, it should be possible to say what it is. Sennalen (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm looking for anything the image seems to claim that isn't sourced. The closest I've come is the appearance of an introgression from H. heidelbergensis to L0. The literature says there are believed to be two archaic introgressions otherwise unnamed/uncharacterized. On the image, one has no label. The other doesn't have a vertically oriented label like the Neanderthal introgression, so Dbachmann probably intended both the archaic introgressions to be unlabeled, but the appearance of the H. heidelbergensis text below that is confusing at least.

The best reason for removal I can come up with right now is that according to the caption text the image is out of date with respect to more recent research that doesn't place H. heidelbergensis as the most recent common ancestor of Neandethals and H. sapiens. I would support removing this image on that basis. Sennalen (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, there's definitely OR (synthesis) in these images; NeverRainsButPours has explained why above. And that's no need to 'project' racism when someone says that an African people don't belong to the same species as the rest of us. That statement is indefensible. – Joe (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What he said is that there are understandable reasons for not classifying people as subspecies, despite differences that would be considered enough for any other species. Even if Dbachmann had said what is claimed, it is projecting the speaker's racism to decide that human subspecies would not deserve equal rights and dignity. Every who makes that assumption is telling on themselves. Sennalen (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The only people who promote the idea of “races” being subspecies are racists. As billedmammal mentioned above, humans are nearly devoid of genetic diversity compared with other animals. Dronebogus (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's right to be suspicious of anyone who is highly invested in any persuasive definition related to race. Sennalen (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons has all kinds of stuff that should not be used in an enclyclopedia. And in EN-Wikipedia OR rules are not applied as rigorously as they are for text. I think that the defacto standard in EN-Wiki is that if the veracity of the content looks suspect, (only) then it gets removed if not fully supported. This diagram should not be used in Wikpedia. MO they should not be an admin, but let's not ascribe nasty motives to a simply bad-to-use diagram or turn into a lynch mob over it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons has lots of stuff that shouldn’t be on an encyclopedia because it’s used by other projects that are not encyclopedias. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Desysop Proposal

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.

---

Since Dbachmann has responded with what I don't believe is a reasonable explanation and Arbcom seems conflicted on what to do now, the Community should make our wishes clear and formalize what I believe is already our consensus with the request to Arbcom. Please discuss and weigh in on the following proposal:

Given the conduct and accountability issues raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it has been determined that (a) Dbachmann's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. As such, the community formally requests that the Arbitration Committee remove the account's advanced permissions, either under Level II desysop procedures or any other allowed process.

– The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• endosre with a breathless sigh, as expressed above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unsure. On the one hand, their only response to the controversy they have generated seems to be "I said what I said" and they have not really elaborated on why they unblocked, or what they have perhaps learned from the lengthy discussion of it. On the other hand, they have also said in each of their posts, that they would accede to the decision to reverse their unblock, and have no intention of warring further on the matter. I'm torn between not really engaging with the concerns about the misuse of the admin tools on the one hand, and the clear statements that say they aren't going to cause further problems. I'm really down the middle on this, the mis-applied unblock was fairly egregious, but I also am not sure that there is likely to be a repeat of the problems. Waiting to hear other perspectives before I make a decision. --Jayron32 17:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Sure, what the hell. Support. I definitely don't think they should be an admin, so the only concern is "this isn't how we usually do things". And frankly, perhaps this would function as an anti-dithering gambit at ArbCom. I admire the attempt to bootstrap a new community-based desysop process, and this isn't half bad. A nearly-unanimous community opinion that someone should be desysopped - i.e. they've lost the community's trust - should result in an ArbCom motion to desysop, with the option of a new RFA. I'd like to see how this plays out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't how things typically go (when they go at all...), but of course a lot of how we "usually do things" began when somebody just started doing it and the community went along because it made sense. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse severely incompetent use of powerful tools. Tarnishes the office. Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sure ArbCom will get there eventually, but it's like herding cats trying to keep track of their multiple discussions. It doesn't help either that there are four "inactive" ArbCom members and two more that appear to edit very sporadically. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's almost funny how utterly unfit Dbachmann is to to be making any sort of administrative decisions on anything whatsoever, and the ADMINACCT violations are so large they can be seen from space. His attitude is entirely incompatible with the expectations of administrators - you aren't allowed to go around doing whatever you want and ignoring the positions of others, including other administrators. To those who claim there's no evidence there will be further disruption - there has been zero indication Dbachmann won't pull a similar stunt in the future, seeing as he's apparently learned nothing from the massive blowback. Ignoring the concerns of the community, Arbcom, and other administrators simply isn't acceptable conduct for any administrator. Since Dbachmann won't save a bit of dignity and resign, we have no choice but to bring about desysop by force. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support For all of the discussed reasons and rationales. Too much to recap, and IMO this is slam dunk obviously needed. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Unblocking of AndewNguyen should have been the correct eventual outcome, but only following substantive discussion. By unblocking unilaterally and not communicating adequately, Dbachmann has shown they are unable or willing to properly act in the role of administrator. Sennalen (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Wordsmith for posting this proposal. Dbachmann's various actions have not been consistent with what we expect of our administrators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Succinct, and to the point. Wikipedia can manage well enough without an admin so utterly at odds with the standards required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. If part of ArbCom's decision comes down to whether an admin has lost the confidence of the community, then why not specifically tell them and make it easier for them? I like this idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment on the RFAR; it seems extremely clear that Dbachmann was using administrative tools to advance a particular point-of-view on a topic on which they were deeply involved (see the bit in their original explanation about the overbearing ideological "mainstream"), and it's clear from their more recent comment that they're completely unremorseful about this and believe it would have been appropriate when they were last active as an administrator in 2011. As I said there, this sort of behavior has never been appropriate for an administrator - in fact, as mentioned above, he was warned about it in 2008; long ago, certainly, but it shows that this isn't a matter of norms having changed and an older user being unaware of that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The usual RfA standard is "not a jerk, has a clue." Levivich (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - although I think this is moot since looking at the arb case, there is now a majority of arbs supporting this, so I suspect it'll be actioned shortly. I've been encouraging Dbachmann to communicate here so he can dig himself out of this hole, and they don't seem to be interested in doing so. WP:ADMINACCT is one of the most important policies for administrators to follow - people (or at least a sufficient subset of them) tend to be reasonable about articles being deleted or editors blocked if you can explain it in ways they understand. Having an attack of ANI flu is not acceptable. Sure, it sucks to have what appears to be a lynch mob on ANI calling for your head - but in my view that's what you sign up for when you become an admin, unless you do really uncontroversial stuff, and somebody's got to do the difficult work and be prepared to have shit thrown at them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Admins are not martyrs, and if he wasn't an admin, he'd have been indef'd a week ago. His sysop bit is protecting him; it's a shield not a liability. Levivich (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Levivich. See also WP:SUPERMARIO. Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC).

• Support per Dbachmann's indication that he no longer understands the rules of the project. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because this frenzied approach to discipline is not the way to achieve justice. Arbcom should live up to their charter. This forum is exactly how mobs operate: constantly throwing up charges until one sticks. We should close all of these open threads and make Arbcom live up to their charter. This is not a place where this case can get a fair hearing. If someone is about to be Desysopped it should be done through a fair and impartial process, in a place were evidence is presented and arbitrators evaluate... now, if only Wikipedia had a process that could accommodate that process. JMHO. Lightburst (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I respect that view, and of course the possibility for pitchfork mobs has to be recognized. My suggestion if a process like this were to move forward is that the consensus here would have to be very strong and essentially undeniable, above what might be considered consensus at an XFD or maybe even an RfA. I only did this because it seems to be an accurate distillation of what the community already has consensus on above and at WP:RFAR, they just didn't have the wording to summarize it. Nearly everyone in these discussions believe that Dbachmann should not continue to be a sysop. The role of the Arbitration Committee is another solid argument from you, and sure this is borderline. WP:ARBPOL says the scope of the committee includes serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve and requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. I see this proposal as the community stating that they are in agreement on how to resolve the user conduct issue, and are making the request for tool removal with one voice (like an RfC proposal) rather than dozens of individual statements in the RFAr. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  If we're not supposed to petition ArbCom like this, how exactly are we supposed to "make ArbCom live up to its charter"? (enphasis mine) Thoughts and prayers? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: This forum should not exist. It is messy, and unfair. Individual editors can undo closure like above, or erase people's comments and control the process here like Levivich did when I was taken before this mob. The fact that discussion extends past even one day is an indication that this is not an urgent issue requiring immediate action to protect the project. My thoughts are that no volunteer in any organization should ever be forced to stand in the center and be stoned by other volunteers. It is haphazard, and emotional. Try this proposal...no? Then try this proposal. I realize that I am only be repeating myself and I am in the minority. But we should strive to be better and to treat volunteers better. Perhaps if we had think of each other as real people. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If the discussion lasts less than a day, it's too knee-jerk and unfair. If the discussion lasts more than a day, it's not urgent. Thru inescapable logic, we deduce that only discussions lasting exactly 24.00 hours should be permitted here. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Flippant comes easy for you but I hope that you can understand the sentiment I am conveying. The top of this forum states: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Is this that? Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Flippant takes longer than you might think. But anyway, an issue doesn't have to be an urgent incident AND a chronic intractable behavioral problem. It can be just one. It could theoretically be done at AN instead, but I assume you would still object. I'm not sure that objecting to the very idea of AN/ANI is a good reason to oppose a particular proposed task, any more than being opposed to the very idea of RFA is a good reason to oppose a particular candidate. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I truly believe this matter belongs at Arbcom. The rest was just me proselytizing which muddied up my position. We elect Arbcom members for just such a case. But as to your comparison I do not equate this forum to RFA, nobody gets blocked for losing. But they do if they dare to oppose a candidate. Happened most recently in the Aoidh RFA when Synotia got blocked for opposing. even if it does not look like it, I like you Floquenbeam. You helped me previously when I needed help. I only noticed recently that you were snarky about me in this RFA. I believe we sort of hugged it out on your talk page. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But @Lightburst, that block was lifted 26 minutes later by the blocking admin after several people objected. Doesn't it seems like a better example of the system working than of it not working? Valereee (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

erase people's comments and control the process here like Levivich OK, I don't think I erased anybody's comments, and as for controlling the process here... remember that time I reported you for COI and you got autopatrolled? I'm not very effective at controlling processes here. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever this was, is one reason this forum is bunk. Your COI charges were also bunk. And I have the autopatrolled right because I create content and do not need to be patrolled - that is how it works. As long as you can control the processes: by erasing other's contributions, diminishing and discrediting those who do not agree with you, it will be an unfair process. Would it surprise you to know that you have 3,161 to this forum and 1,185 to AN? And only 17.2% of your edits are in main space? My own main space participation is too low at 33.4%. So I have to take my leave now. Also I am supposed to WP:AVOIDYOU lest I be accused of PAs. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose if ArbCom is conflicted on what to do, then I have no meaningful viewpoint to offer either way. If ArbCom ever becomes unconflicted on this issue, any viewpoint I may offer would not matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  But Paul, isn’t this a “neutral” rationale, rather than an “oppose” rationale? Unless you’re saying that no one could have a meaningful viewpoint? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't my intent, people are free to state their point of view or belief. I oppose that we take a position as a group on this matter. If ArbCom wants our opinion, they'll ask us.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich above at 11:51. If ArbCom are too busy debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's 16, by the way) then the community must act. — Trey Maturin™ 14:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm tempted to support this because I (mostly) agree with the sentiment. I'm also tempted to oppose it because I very much agree with Lightburst about the dangers of mob rule, and because I don't think it's appropriate to be telling arbcom what to do. But, every time I get close to writing that, I realize how silly it is. Of course it's appropriate for people to express their opinions, and a petition to a higher authority is a time-honored way of doing that. Arbcom has even availed itself of that process when it felt the need.

A few days ago, Special:Diff/1146923962 made me worry that the community might try to implement a WP:TBAN which was effectively a desysop. That would have been a mistake, because only arbcom has the authority to do that. Had it been attempted, things might have gotten ugly. But the wording of this proposal is explicitly just making a request that arbcom do something, which is perfectly legitimate.

I've long felt that we should have a community recall process for admins. There have been a few proposals in the past, none of which have gotten very far. Perhaps what's happening here now could be used as the start of a new proposal. Policy making on enwiki has always been codification of existing practice. Now we have an example of the community ostensibly making a decision to desysop somebody. All that remains is to declare that we're OK with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m okay with it. We really do need a community recall process for urgent and fairly uncontroversial “rogue admin” cases. Dronebogus (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith this is good example of when the community should be able to desysop. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

7 and 2-half days discussing this matter, plus another 24 hours of this particular sub-discussion, then to WP:BN with the results and a further 48 hours of discussion there and then a -sysop from a 'crat (or not)... it's not particularly tidy, but it does seem to be a process of sorts. There are certainly worse ones in our various nooks and crannies. Pending getting community buy-in on an actual process (currently likely to happen sometime before the heat death of the universe) this doesn't seem that bad, considering. — Trey Maturin™ 16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The best method we currently have for deciding such things is Arbcom. Certainly not ANI! If one thinks that someone should be desysopped, then one should request Arbcon to open a case. Even if such a proposal were to gain consensus at ANI, Arbcom should still handle the case with its normal processes, so I'm not sure what effect it would (or should) have. Certainly it should not effect Arbcom's decision, which should only be based on the evidence, and not on the opinion of ANI! Paul August ☎ 16:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Paul, I think the main effect it could/should have on ArbCom's decision is that it would be a clear message that the admin has lost the trust of the community. That is information that we currently have no way of telling ArbCom, and information that I think ArbCom should have when making a decision to desysop. This is not an end run around ArbCom, it is a way of telling ArbCom that the community doesn't want someone to be an admin anymore. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The opinion of the community should definitely be of interest to ArbCom and I can see nothing bad coming out of them recognising it. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point here being that ArbCom appear unable to decide whether to take the pending case, or to decide by motion, or to use Level 2, or to reject the above, or to do nothing, or to do something. Whilst they debate what they can do when faced with an apparently racist administrator who has said that they will not engage in any process that deals with their wheelwarring and/or apparent racism, which is apparently nothing, then it falls back to the community to act. — Trey Maturin™ 17:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support There are no policies or guidelines preventing us from making a formal request of ArbCom. I 100% support this as DBachmann has shown themselves to be out of touch with current norms expected of admins and no indication they plan to change or try to understand the isssue. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support at minimum; this is a petition to Arbcom, which derives its authority from community consent. If I may quote Alan Paton: “The Judge does not make the law. It is people that make the law. Therefore if a law is unjust, and if the Judge judges according to the law, that is justice, even if it is not just.” Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Pointless is this thread. ANI can't desysop, but meanwhile ArbCom, pretty obviously, is meandering however tortuously but inevitably to a desysop. There's no urgency. Despite some rather artificial wringing of hands elsewhere in this thread, there is no realistic threat of Dbachmann suddenly re-emerging to wreak havoc which needs countering now. (and even in the unlikely event that happens there would be a host of admins jumping to indef within nano seconds). Everyone just needs to stand down and let Arbcom take its course. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While I do personally support a desysop (and a CBan), we should follow the same process as we usually do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support As it seems unlikely that a resignation is forthcoming, I urge ArbCom to desysop as he has lost the trust of the community. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support – The community has no confidence in the ability of Dbachmann to serve as an administrator in 2023, and calls on ArbCom to take action, either by case or by motion. The community has elected the ArbCom, and sometimes the community may remind the ArbCom to do its duty. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Support While I'm against a topic ban for what I feel are significant procedural reasons, I have little question that Dbachmann's use of the administrative tools are not consistent with the standards expected of an administrator, nor is there any reason he needs the tools. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, but only through the proper procedures. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Dbachmann has certainly lost the trust of the community, and this petition to ArbCom seems an appropriate way to convey that to the body that can take action. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• This appears to be moot, and has been since 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) when the 7th vote for the desysop motion was cast. Can we wrap this up or nah? nableezy - 17:13, 5 April 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.

Close? (re: AndewNguyen & DBachmann)

1. the block has been reviewed and that is settled
2. the ip edit sub-issue has been closed
3. the proposal to indef DBachmann looks like it lacks consensus
4. the proposal to tban DBachmann looks slightly in favor, but seems to have stalled for lack of interest since ARBCOM's action
5. the images issue should be moved to the related boards if it needs to continue
6. ARBCOM desysop'd DBachmann

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s kinda dodgy to vote “oppose” and say “well we’re done here, no consensus (which we all know is just “oppose” in practice) Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Especially since you’re in the minority here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the CBAN (indef) proposal has !votes from yesterday and today. Even though those are "oppose" !votes, it's an indication that people are still considering the proposal, so it should probably remain open until several days have passed without any new !votes. As for the TBAN proposal, it's been 3 days since the last !vote, and the raw !vote count is 15 "support" and 6 "oppose", or 2.5:1, not "slightly in favor" as ForbiddenRicky claims. The "images" section is not a proposal per se, it consists of evidence to be considered in the other two proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't count !votes.

• The indef proposal was looking split to me. I'm used to more clear addressing of the opposing issues; which is to see if people will switch !votes or stick to their !vote. Also, some of the support was in the form of "he's a bad admin", which in my mind calls into the question if that support remains, now that he's been(? is going to be?) desysop'd.
• I support the TBan, but the support is divided into various partitions of clear support some kind of ban, support for the original proposal, and support for a stronger (clearer?) ban. It would have all been better, if there weren't two competing bans. That really should be hashed out.
• The images sections (in addition to evidence) has issues/topics that need to be addressed, but those issues/topics should cleaved off of the issues around AndewNguyen & DBachmann.

This has all been a little strange because this is partially here in ANI, and partially in ARBCOM. FWIW, I think the indef and tban should handled here in ANI. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I am fully aware that determination of consensus is not made by counting votes, I simply offered what I clearly labelled as "raw count" as an indication of where the discussion stands, which is better than saying "looks like it lacks consensus" or "looks slightly in favor", as you did above, without actually having investigated the state of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• If you want to propose closure here, ForbiddenRocky, you should *not* offer your own judgment on how it should be closed, as you are very much on one side of the discussion. Still, I'm quite sure the closer will ignore you and review it for themselves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• I can't close an ANI thread that I started and have commented on, but for what it's worth, I also don't see a consensus for an indef block or a topic ban at this time, and therefore the whole mega-thread can probably be closed out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  A lot of folks supported a topic ban. I would be a bit surprised if there wasn't a consensus for that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's a substantial amount of support in each section, and it looks like the balance of !votes shifted significantly after the above discussion about DBachmann's image contributions. We're talking about potentially banning an admin of 15 years here; these discussions should be properly and individually closed. – Joe (talk) 06:53, 11 April 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.