Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 14 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 34 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 13 requested closures
• 64 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 8 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (47 out of 8846 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case

Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
• "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."

  There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Wikipedia-related community and editing Wikipedia illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.

  @TheresNoTime:

  @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou

(Writing so thread doesn't get archived tomorrow). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal: WP:ARBECR (which includes a 500edits/30days restriction) over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support something needs to be done concerning the flood of IPs and sockpuppets. The AA2 area is continuously being disrupted by the socks of Aydın memmedov2000, Beyoglou, Steverci. And a listing of disruption for the last 3 yrs: 2022 disruption 2021 disruption, 2020 disruption. I think this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Clearly something needs to be done here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Surely something must need to be done about this disruption. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Very sensible proposal to reduce the disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Long, long overdue. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support the disruption is only ever going to grow, and it's already at unsustainable levels. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Even though this won't stop them, it will certainly hinder their disruptive activity. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Clearly there is almost no good activity by IPs and plenty of autoconfirmed socks. This is probably the most effective remedy. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• @HistoryofIran: I have no opinion on the proposal but would suggest replacing "500edits/30days restriction" with "extended-confirmed restriction" – WP:ECR was carefully drafted specifically to address the nuances of applying a topic-wide 500/30 restriction. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per constant disruption/vandalism by IPs on AA2 topic area. – Olympian ^loquere 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Query I'm not against applying WP:ARBECR, but it seems to me this is an ArbCom-level restriction that needs to be applied, not one that we can do via WP:AN based on its phrasing. I support its implementation, but there appear to be some bureaucratic hurdles we should clarify. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions says the community can impose any general sanctions it wants, and can (and has) made its general sanctions identical in substance to sanctions imposed under ArbCom's procedures. That's if it wishes to, of course; the community is "not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines" when imposing these general sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• This overwhelming support surely is more than enough for the WP:ARBECR to be implemented? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Only if you're brave enough for the WP:ARCA template, which no one is. Otherwise, it'll probably have to be set up (i.e. split) into something like WP:ARBEE → WP:GS/RUSUKR. HTH. El_C 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. Are there even more steps required to go through with this? Weren't we only supposed to vote for it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: I understood this proposal to be for establishing ECR as a community-imposed general sanction. That would not require ArbCom action, if I'm understanding correctly. @HistoryofIran: I recommend posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you'd think that, Kevin, when the proposal plainly says: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Now, asking the Committee at ARCA to consider doing that, as is the intent here, ought to be relatively straight forward when such overwhelming consensus has been gathered. Had I not been so lazy (I mean, the ARCA template isn't that hard) and likewise anyone else bothering, RUSUKR probably would have passed by motion as +ARBEE. The overall trend has been to streamline (subsume), like with WP:GS/COVID19 → WP:ARBCOVID; WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK; WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; and so on.

  To me, personally, it's more or less all the same (even when inelegant), but beyond that, I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes. To help them file the paperwork, as it were. Because the less of an access ceiling, the better, I'm sure you'd agree. And all of this as we are in flux. El_C 01:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  The confusion about this proposal may be my fault. Before my comment here, the proposal was for "500edits/30days restriction over" the articles. I suggested changing it to WP:ECR, which describes more nuances and implementing rules. My thought was that the community would implement the restriction itself, not that it would ask ArbCom to do so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not following. What I quoted (the proposal: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS) was from Nov 1; your comment to whch you link is from Nov 11. The two Arbcom sanctions regimes mentioned in the proposal, WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS, are ones that many of the users supporting the proposal are already accustomed to (to whichever extent). What would be the benefit of adding a third sanctions regime, except this time making it WP:GS instead of WP:ACDS? Would it not make more sense to just amend AA2/KURDS, instead of overcomplicating everything with a new log, new alerts and page notices, new thing to remember? Thwink about it! El_C 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry guys, but I am even more lost now. Is there a tutorial somewhere for dummies that I can follow? I wanna proceed as soon as possible, especially since the numbers of socks are slowly ramping up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I've been trying to work towards in my comments above (and elsewhere), HistoryofIran. I wish Kevin would have addressed my point about this access ceiling. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  El C, the original proposal was for a 500 edits/30 days restriction, as seen in this diff provided by Kevin. This was overwritten later, following Kevin's comment. Can we please get the administrative and bureaucratic eccentricities out of the way, and have some sort of action on the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not preventing you from doing anything, least of all read what I had written. El_C 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of constant sockpuppeting. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose even though I know that this isn't going to have an effect. When I created what would become ECP in 2015, it was meant to be a last-ditch creative effort to stop the highest-level of disruption on the project. I feel that this proposal rolls it out to a far too broad array of articles while lesser remedies have yet to be tried. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guerillero and my comments at WP:ARCA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Nominator has given definitive proof that too many IPs and accounts have disrupted Kurdish-related articles for many years. Some personal experience at Southern Kurdish. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 07:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Potential oppose, potential support - I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose applying restrictions on the entire AA2 scope, per statistics below. Undecided on narrower restrictions, and restrictions on WP:KURDS. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose general ECP. When we're ECPing an area, we should be doing so only if it is a narrowly-tailored way to prevent future disruption. The arguments above note that the locus of the disruption is threefold: the first is that there are a number of disruptive IPs, the second is that there is general problems newer editors and the third is that there is socking going on. For the first issue, semi-protection would solve this quite easily; we don't need ECP to protect a topic area from disruptive IP editors. For the second, if the concern is new (canvassed) editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to disruption that people would not be able to enter the topic spontaneously and begin to disrupt articles. For the third case, I do not see substantial evidence that long-term persistent sockmasters are deterred by ECP requirements; IceWhiz, NoCal100, and יניב הורון all still sock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area, and frankly I don't see why this is going to be different. That being said, semi-protection would well-address most forms of disruption in this area, and I might be able to get behind a 1-year semi-protection in the area. To paraphrase El_C's close of this 2021 discussion, I'm not seeing the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi-protection in this topic area, especially when the majority of the complaints are about IP editors doing the disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I can see the merits of both arguments. I think semi-protection is likely the better option; if the socks are that determined, they'll simply stick around for the 30 days/500 edit requirements before starting again. Semi-protection works best in my mind and tends to prevent these "hit and run" vandalism efforts where they only change a few words here and there rather than substantially blanking/re-writing sections in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support – I trust the rationale and evidence provided by numerous experienced editors in these topic areas. Aza24 (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

At ARCA

Might as well do myself, or it probably just won't happen. I requested ArbCom to amend WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS by motion per the #Proposal. See: WP:ARCA#Long title. El_C 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:CENT in case that helps move things forward. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

IP editors were reverted:

• 65% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 57% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 40% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 28% of the time on all articles

Non-AC editors were reverted

• 64% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 49% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 63% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 53% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 37% of the time on all articles

Non-EC editors were reverted

• 47% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 33% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 42% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 27% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 17% of the time on all articles

Non-EC but AC editors were reverted

• 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 30% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 38% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 23% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 13% of the time on all articles

All editors were reverted

• 23% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
• 15% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
• 26% of the time on articles related to Kurds
• 14% of the time on articles related to American politics
• 10% of the time on all articles

Articles were determined by looking at articles within the scope of the relevant wikiprojects; WP:WikiProject Armenia, WP:WikiProject Azerbaijan, and WP:WikiProject Kurdistan. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is useful. Can you clarify if "non-EC" editors includes IP/non-confirmed editors? If so, can you give statistics for non-EC editors who are autoconfirmed?

For comparion, could we get the revert rate in non-ECR hot-bed topics like American Politics?

Did you do this programmatically or did you select a sample of articles? (Enterprisey out of interest, could your revert script from WP:RESPONDER-RFC be used for this kind of analysis?) ProcSock (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"non-EC" editors include non-confirmed editors, but not IP editors. I've added the requested statistics, as well as few others. I've also attempted to include the revert rate in AP2, but I'm not certain I have properly identified the area; I used Category:American_politics_task_force_articles and it includes articles on American politics not covered by AP2 (the AP2 template is only used on a ~200 articles, so isn't useful here).

I did this with Quarry; see Edit count Armenia or Azerbaijan articles, Edit count American politics articles, Edit count Kurdistan articles, Edit count Armenia and Azerbaijan articles, and Reversions by editor. Reversion by editor only looks at November 2022; the rest look at all of 2022. They also don't account for the increase in edit count since making the relevant edits; if an editor has EC now, it assumes they had it when they made the edit. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible fake "Wikimedian In Residence" user accounts

I have noticed the recent proliferation of a number of user accounts where the user self-describes as the "Wikimedian In Residence" at some institution, then lists a set of "interests"; what caught my eye is the repetition in form from these supposedly unrelated accounts, such as:

User:VidEwan: Hi, my name is Ewan and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland and the suffragettes. Resolved as ok. BD2412 T 14:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Vaishnodevimandir: Hi, my name is Elly and I work at the University of Texas at Austin as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:Skmagar1500: Hi my name is ewan and i study at the University of Edinburgh as the wikimedian in residence. I am intrested in writing articles about film,Scotland and the suffragettes.

User:Fightersword: Hi, my name is Tom Peter and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:DonJovanie: Hi, my name is Don and I work at the University of San Diego as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interesting in writing articles about musician, film, and the suffragettes.

User:Hiteshsagarjatav: Hi, my name is Hitesh Sagar Jatav. I am working at Bloomberg as the Wikimedian in Residence. I am interested to writing articles in technology, religion, music and India.

User:Sayeedsam1234: Hi My Name Is Sahim Haneef And I Work At Digital Company As The Wikimedian In Residence I'm Interested In Writing Articles About Film, Graphic, Animation & Photoshop Tricks.

Unless there is some training program for Wikimedians In Residence that instructs editors to introduce themselves in this way, I think we're looking at some kind of account farm. Also, that's an unusual amount of interest in "the suffragettes". BD2412 T 15:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: As you appear to be (or have been) a legitimate Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh, can you speak to the three accounts claiming that role above? Cheers! BD2412 T 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I ran a quick check (I have to run, so I can't do as much digging as I'd like to right now). Vaishnodevimandir and Fightersword are  Confirmed to each other, and Vaishnodevimandir's creations look a lot like UPE. Blocked those two. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• The others haven't edited in 2-4 years, so there's no rush in dealing with them. At this point, I'd guess they're 99% likely to be the same person (or using the same tactic). Good catch, BD2412. But what did you mean about a "recent proliferation"? All but the two blocked accounts are years old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  First impression - the two new ones were the first two that I came across. BD2412 T 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Someone experienced in UPE might want to look at active editor User:Scoffworld, who has a few similarities of user page, and has recreated at least one article that shows up in the deleted contribs of one or two of the accounts above. Image in the article is claimed to have been taken by Scoffworld. I'll notify them after I save this edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging this. My main account is User:Stinglehammer but I have other training accounts User:EMcAndrew and User:VidEwan for when I am creating video tutorials. So VidEwan is one of my accounts. I'll add some text to make that clearer. The other ones are interesting/problematic. During training, I do advise to add an introductory sentence of text to a) make sure we have content to turn the user page into a blue clickable link b) to provide transparency about someone's affiliations/motives for editing and any potential COI and c) I also demo how to create a short bullet pointed list of approx 2-3 things they are interested in editing about again for transparency. What's striking is that we have obviously written about Scotland and the Scottish suffragettes at the University of Edinburgh during my tenure to date and I do use my own userpage as a base exemplar. But they are instructed not to replicate but make their own. Clearly one or two here have just copied my base userpage too literally. which is obviously problematic. Can we ask them to remove clearly misleading/factually incorrect info or am I legitimated to edit these userpages in this case? not sure how active they are for instance and I don't want too many of these existing and causing confusion. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

NB: looks like they are replicating what I demo in a 2018 video tutorial. I can mothball/archive that video tutorial if it is causing issues as we have newer video resources now which might be better in any case. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Thanks for the clarification on that point. When I see a number of accounts created following a pattern such as this, my mind jumps to bots, an unfortunate effect of the times we live in. BD2412 T 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Having been a proper WiR in the past (Royal Society and Cancer Research UK), one problem is that there is no real control over the title. At WMUK some 10 years ago there were discussions about trying to at least assert an "official" status for the ones WMUK supported and usually paid (or the host institution or a charity did). But it was decided not to do this, so in effect anyone can claim the title - I don't think there is any legal restriction on doing so, just in terms of using the name. You can see from User:Pigsonthewing's (Andy Mabbett) user page that he has done a number of these, some paid some not, without asking anyone's permission first (and without causing significant problems afaik). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, mixed up two people, apologies. Fram (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Perhaps it doesn't fall strictly under the WiR label but had some other moniker, but Gibraltarpedia shows that they did cause significant problems... Fram (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC) It didn't fall at all under the WiR label, as I recall, and the actual "significance" of the "problems" caused is a matter of opinion, though it was certainly an uwise initiative that was badly handled. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC) It shows no such thing, because I was not involved in running Gibraltarpedia. I'm not mentioned in the article to which you link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Nobody said you were! Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

While I'm still struggling to understand the difference between my Wikimedian residences and being "a proper WiR", I can state categorically that I have never claimed to be a Wikimedian in Residence at any institution without first gaining the appropriate permission to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

My recollection from when I was on the WMUK board is that we only heard of some of yours when you announced them. Who did you get "the appropriate permission" from? Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the peer to peer regulatory organization, to the extent that any standards exist. There are no formal processes there but sometimes organizations write in asking for guidance about whether a user is in good standing to be hired as a Wikimedian in Residence, or for information about recruiting one. The majority of active Wikimedians in Residence have participated in the activities of that organization, and it is the only organization with any standing to speak for the community. I posted notice of this on the talk page there. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • WREN is not a regulatory organization, has no authority to act as a regulatory organization, and nor does its page on meta make any claims to that effect. On that page, the section "Mission and Goals" says in full:
    "The Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network advocates for Wikimedia community members in professional or volunteer roles at institutions.
    "Goals of the organization include defining and protecting the common elements of the Wikimedian in Residence role, creating a peer support network which invites new and experienced Wikimedians in Residence to find each other for collaboration, and to encourage a global professional environment which inspires institutions to offer appointments to persons to engage with Wikimedia projects.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation audio files

Over the last few days on my watchlist I have noticed a number of editors, majority brand new, adding IPA audio files to articles, particularly those involving African BLPs - see 1, 2, 3, 4.

Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos? GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with this. These seem to be Nigerian editors fluent in Nigerian languages recording pronunciations of Nigerian names. Why do you think that it is ill-thought out? Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that these good-faith contributions are "ill-thought out"? What administrative action do you think is required? Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not say this is ill thought out. GiantSnowman 09:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you chose to insinuate it on an administrative noticeboard. Such conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I ask again: Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Are the pronunciations incorrect? If they're not, then this instant jump to AN seems like assuming bad faith and WP:BITEy. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Three of the four editors have been active for several months. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea - do you? Like Trey Maturin says below, how do we verify this? GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Verify what exactly? These audios were recorded and uploaded by the users who added them to articles here. Did you bother to ask any of these users before hopping to ANI to fill a report? Or at least ask any of the dozens of active Nigerian editors here? Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether the pronunciation is correct or not. This is not ANI. I was asking the community, rather than being seen to be BITEy by targeting individual editors. Why have a number of editors all decided to suddenly start recording and uploading these audio files? GiantSnowman 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's AN or ANI is not relevant. The tone of your report does not indicate that of someone who is simply asking a question. It was worded in a manner that suggested that they were causing problems (which was not the case). Shoerack (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it did not - I asked if it was a campaign (it is, nobody knew), I did not say there were issues, and I have not challenged or reverted. Stop being so defensive. GiantSnowman 11:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to speak for GiantSnowman, but we are all aware that these types of files are unsourced (or if they are sourced, there's no easy way I can find to find out the source from the article itself: I assume I can go into the history, find the editor who added it, see if they were the one who uploaded it, visit their contributions page, find the upload, see what they wrote on the upload page that might be on a different project... and no reasonable reader is going to do that)? That's a vector of abuse that would worry me, regardless of the likely good faith of the contributors. — Trey Maturin has spoken 20:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The basic principle is that we should Assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary. The three national languages of Nigeria are Hausa language, Yoruba language and Igbo language, each with tens of millions of speakers. And we have plenty of Nigerian editors. Has anyone knowledgeable complained about the quality of these pronunciations? Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed. GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Noticed what? Please AGF. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• These pronunciations are correct. If there is anything that is "ill-thought out", it is this nonsensical false alarm or report. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Who says they are correct? Who says it is ill-thought out? GiantSnowman 10:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  The wording of your report suggested that, and I am not the only one on this thread who interpreted the wording that way. Shoerack (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you read the whole question. The first part said "Who says they are correct?" - and I don't see where you answered that? I have no opinion on how "well thought-out" it might have been, but if the answer to "Who says they are correct?" is "some wikipedia user called Shoerack" then that's perhaps not the level of reliable sourcing we'd usually like to see... Can you, please, provide something more reliable and authoritative than "because I said so"? Thanks. Begoon 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This one linked above by GS was uploaded to Commons by User:Frankincense Diala and according to their userpage, they are from Imo State, a state in Nigeria where the native language is Igbo and the official language is English. "Onuachu" in Paul Onuachu is an Igbo name. It is strange to think that a native speaker of a language would not be able to pronounce their native name. It's like saying a native speaker of English in the U.S or UK cannot correctly prounounce "Paul". Perhaps you are looking for a verifiable published source? Shoerack (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The grant page (linked below) says: The audio will be inspected to ensure it is of good quality and accurate pronunciation after which it will be linked to its corresponding article on Wikipedia.

While I don't particularly doubt that this entry is accurate how would I go about confirming that? Is there a record of this "inspection" being done before the file was linked?

It should, in general, be possible to confirm the accuracy of information in wikipedia articles, so yes, a "verifiable published source" would be ideal, but failing that some way to look at the "audit trail" might help.

The grant mentions that "mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression" so it would seem useful to have more to go on than: "user says on user page that they come from a place where this language is spoken", in my humble opinion... Begoon 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

While verifying the pronunciations is a laudable aim and something mentioned in the grant, I don’t think there’s any local policy or guideline they requires it, or any sourcing requirements (which is not to say there shouldn't be, though I wonder how practical that would be). For example, there's nothing that I can see in wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Pronunciation task force that mentions any verification or sourcing requirement. –xeno^talk 23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• It appears these users are using the c:commons:Spell4Wiki app after receiving training funded via m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/Say-It-Right:Wikipedia as a tool for preventing mispronunciation of names (ID: 21930417). I don't think this is the correct venue to discuss whether the grant itself or its aims are "ill-thought out"; and absent any particularized belief that the edits themselves are problematic, this thread should be closed. –xeno^talk 16:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Fix erroneous ping.

  Pinging grant participants (OtuNwachinemere—Hesyomi—Timzy D'Great—Accuratecy051—Albertoblaq) Sorry for the mistaken ping to Abubakr1111 and Anasskoko. –xeno^talk 16:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @Xeno for the ping. Unfortunately, if @GiantSnowman had messaged any of the editors directly ab initio, they would've gotten adequate information and there wouldn't have been need for this post.

  I believe all discussants can now refer to the project grant documentation for all other information.

  Many thanks to you also @Shoerack, i and my team appreciate. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Of particular relevace is this section of the grant application:

Deliberate names mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression.

• https://pavementpieces.com/african-students-says-mispronouncing-their-names-is-a-form-of-racism/
• https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/05/the-mispronunciation-of-african-names-can-cause-lasting-damage-13999360/
• https://standard.asl.org/18485/features/name-pronunciations-leave-lasting-impact-on-individuals/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? @Pigsonthewing: I'm not seeing anything unsual about it? Deliberately mispronouncing someone's name is pretty rude. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• When we have a question about an editor's edits, the best move is to first ask the editor rather than first asking other editors. It's not "bitey" to ask, it's "bitey" to not ask and instead start discussing it in public with others (without even notifying the editors involved). It was a bad idea to post at AN before asking any of the editors involved, especially with a loaded question like "Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos?" We should treat new editors with respect not suspicion. Respect means talking to them directly, not talking about them with fellow admins. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, in my opinion there is already a problem with people adding unsourced IPA pronunciations in articles. It's impossible for anyone to judge whether such information is correct, whether it has been vandalized, what dialect or accent it reflects, etc. (I am less bothered by the audio files, which are more clearly just some person saying the word.) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not impossible to judge whether an IPA is correct. All you need is a WP:RS that has audio, like BBC Radio. Anyone can verify a pronunciation, so it complies with WP:V. (And that's true in any language.) Levivich (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, not everyone. :) Although I have a PhD in Linguistics, I am not fluent in IPA, and my hearing has deteriorated quite a bit. There is also the problem of which pronunciation to use. See Talk:Miami/Archive 1#Pronunciation of "Miami" in lead (from 2007), for example. I have since stayed away from discussions about pronunciation. Donald Albury 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Accepting “All you need is a WP:RS that has audio” arguendo, I doubt very much that most IPA pronunciations on WP are supported by any source at all, let alone this particular kind. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In my immediate family of 5 we have 2/3 different ways of pronouncing most words... GiantSnowman 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Blanking inactive LTA pages

Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for performing this type of maintenance tasks in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

LGTM as well. I have no concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rescued from archive

The above may be OK, but is not ideal. The blanking of LTA pages should be done with visibility at WP:SPI. Ideally, clerking of LTA subpages should be done by accredited SPI clerks. If you are interested in clerking LTA subpages, why not get experienced and accredited at SPI? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As an SPI clerk, I have no interest in maintaining LTA subpages and don't particularly care about what happens to them. I suspect most other clerks and CUs feel the same way, which is why there is no policy or guideline about this. I wasn't aware we were accredited, by the way. How much do I have to pay to renew my SPI clerk license? Spicy (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your accreditation, trainee and promotion, are recorded in the history of [[this page. It’s helpful to know that SPI clerks have no interest in WP:LTA and this supports the option to shut it down completely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

LTA subpages have been occasionally helpful to identify some behavior, but I have no strong opinion on them. I think they should generally not be created in the first place, except in cases where it is useful to admins dealing with them. I have checked the list of LTA subpages marked as historical... none of them ring a bell, so I guess there are not relevant to current activity we see at SPI. MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For transparency, here is a list of LTA pages I have blanked. I am not interested in becoming an SPI clerk for a one time sweep. LTA pages, unlike SPI archives, can be created by anyone, so I don't think editing it should be restricted only to them. Any editor in good standing should be able to edit LTA pages and blank inactive ones. It is questionable whether some of them should even exist. Take for example Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/貴花 which was recently created by someone in their very first edit. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of interest in clerking LTA, beyond sporadic driveby blanking of its inappropriate content, is a reason to shut LTA down. The creation of a new LTA page by the drive-by SPA is another reason. It is quite concerning, was it created in a WP:game to harass? How would anyone know. If a user’s LTAbuse doesn’t involve any sock puppetry, then why not use their user_talk page? Shut down LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The disinterest of SPI clerks in LTA pages says nothing about the usefulness of these pages to the rest of us poor benighted souls who don't have advanced permissions and wish to find out about these people when we come across misbehavior. The pages are there for the community, not for the very small number of SPI clerks who, if they're not availing themselves of this information, are only hobbling themselves (and perhaps hurting valid SPI cases).

As for the deletion of these pages, I don't understand the purpose - are we running out of storage space? I suggest that the pages already deleted be restored, and if a culling needs to take place, which I doubt, it be done by an admin with more experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, SPI clerks know a lot and stuff, and are good at finding out who to ask, but it's the other people in the trenches who usually know about this stuff. I've been seeing the blanking, and haven't seen anything to complain about. LTAs have a coloured history at MfD, so it may be worth consulting before MfDing any more of them. One of us competent rouge admins might just speedy it. I do think these pages should probably remain categorised under LTA, so we can properly clean them up at some point. Blank uncategorised pages are not a lot of good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

When I first saw this come up in the original thread I thought exactly what BMK has written: what on earth is the benefit in blanking these pages? I assumed there's some issue that I was unaware of that everyone knew about, that meant that blanking these pages was a good thing. It seems blanking is (a) pointless (b) takes away potentially useful information from the community. I second BMK's suggestion pages already blanked be restored. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is I think a persuasive argument that too many pages only serve to glorify or inspire copycats (see WP:DENY). I've seen several LTAs who literally run through the lists joe-jobbing as many old MOs as they can. These pages should be considered a working tool, and if they're no longer useful we may as well get rid. Sometimes vandals do actually go away. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And sometimes they come back. Do joe-jobbers prefer MO's that appear dormant rather than active? That seems doubtful. Those all seem arguments for not having LTA pages at all rather than blanking older ones. There may be some validity for that but I'm very doubtful that they negate the usefulness of those pages on a day-to-day basis. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We should only keep pages which are useful, and some of them are useful. I'd encourage a look through the list which was blanked, and ask if they're still around. It's notable (to me at least) in all the ones which were skipped. It seems to have been a well-performed exercise. And yes, on a broad scale, we still get WoW and Grawp copycats to this day, along with some others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

LTAs that fall in the category of often-copied should have a warning on them to look out for copycats and joe jobs - but it's not possible to disseminate such warnings if there's no page to put it on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Just as a curious aside I can't quite get my head around Spicy's earlier comments that they (and none of the SPI clerks) have any interest in the LTA pages and, more surprisingly, the sarcasm around being "accredited" given what it says in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Could they clarify? DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Accredited" seems like a slightly pompous term for an informal volunteer position on a website. In case it's not clear, the point of my comment was that I don't agree with SmokeyJoe's idea that clerks/CUs should have authority over the community at large in regard to LTA pages. LTA pages were not a part of my clerk training and I'm not aware of any other clerk who uses them on more than a very occasional basis (in my experience, the SPI case archives are usually much more useful). That's all the more reason for these pages to be managed by the community. Spicy (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all subpages, haven't blanked any that remotely look useful or active. no page to put it on is misleading, they are not deleted and removed completely, only blanked and can be restored if necessary. Of the two joe job targets mentioned above, Grawp is not blanked and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was deleted 12 years ago and salted. The only MFD I have started is for a completely useless page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kiyanu Kim. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• LTA is mostly a moribund process; the information there has mostly been subsumed by SPI reports. It feels like LTA was once a more active area of Wikipedia, but it has basically fallen into disuse as any purpose it served has been taken up by other processes. There's a few of the pages I use from time to time mostly for tagging block summaries so any reviewing admin will know the background (such as WP:LTA/VXFC), but otherwise I'd be mostly OK with merging and/or redirecting LTA pages to SPI pages, since that's where most of the active work in the area tends to happen. --Jayron32 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've never known it to be a "process", since there was no desired immediate outcome to the creation of an LTA page. I've always seen it as informational and educational, for those editors interested in that corner of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that, in order to be such, it needs to be actively updated. Otherwise, it's just a memorial to trolls, something we don't do. If we're using the LTA pages and creating new ones and updating them on the regular as a community, then they serve a use beyond simply being a memorial to trolls. However, if we aren't, then it isn't a useful corner of Wikipedia, and whatever small purpose it is currently serving in terms of being "informational" and "educational" could also be served in a part of Wikipedia which is being updated regularly, such as SPI pages. Just as an example as to how moribund most LTA pages are; WP:LTA/VXFC, which is a banned user which has been active as recently as the past week and which has never not been active, has an LTA page which was last updated once in 2021, and 3 times in 2022. Being that it's only seen 4 substantive edits in basically 3 years, it's not really serving its purpose of tracking ongoing long-term abuse. It's just a memorial to VXFC. --Jayron32 13:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, moribund, not functional, despite some wishful thinking. I think that virtually all long term abuse worth central tracking involves sockpuppettry or editing abusively while logged out while blocked, and so it has negligible scope outside SPI.

  WP:SPI in impressively professional-like and well functioning, and no one at SPI seems able to say that LTA has any known value. LTA is moribund, and we see it being a place of trolling. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  "we see it being a place of trolling" Who is "we"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, "X is moribund, therefore delete it" is an interesting philosophy. Generally, if there are things on Wikipedia which need to be updated, we -- you know -- update them, we don't "tsk-tsk" and delete them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I said we should remove all information entirely. I've said we should move the pages to relevant SPI pages, and house it there instead. It's redundant with SPI, and no one is using it. Imagining that some day, some time in the future, someone may use it is not a useful way to run things. We have a way to track long-term trolls that is currently being used many times per day. It's called SPI. Let's just merge the content of the LTA pages with the SPI pages, and get rid of the LTA process as historical. There are many things we used to do at Wikipedia that we have shut down and don't do anymore. That you claim such a thing is so novel as to be confusing to you is beyond-the-pale, given that you've been here as long as as have, if not longer. We shut things down at Wikipedia often enough. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. All of these were shut down and marked "historical" or "closed" and we now direct users to other processes instead of trying to use them. My suggestion is we do the same with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. We mark it historical, merge any relevant cases to SPI, etc. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Marking something as ""historical" is not what was being discussed - at least, that's not how I understood it. It's deletion I'm opposed to. (About the same, incidentally, first edit with an account: 26 June 2005). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have a problem with what I proposed, why did you spend so much energy telling me I was wrong. If you have a problem with deletion, then find the person that proposed deletion and tell that person they are wrong. I proposed merging with SPI and marking LTA as historical. If that's not what you disagree with, then don't argue with me!!! --Jayron32 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Woah, hold on a bit. I'm allowed to disagree with you, I'm even allowed to disagree with what I thought you were saying, and I'm allowed to change directions once I understand what your argument actually is in fact, but chastising me for disagreeing with what the general thrust of the conversation was (exclusive of your contributions) doesn't seem very productive. I did misunderstand you, and I apologize for that. I'm certain if there was ever a real effort to deal with LTAs in connection with SPI you and I could probably agree on some procedure that preserved information in one form or another, but since it seems unlikely that that is going to happen, I don't see much point in expending energy over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is both WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. If we really updated LTA pages with as much information as possible, it would become a troll memorial (a WP:DENY problem), and also a guide of trolling ideas and block evasion techniques (a WP:BEANS problem). That being said, some LTA pages of prolific sockmaster who have been active in recent years are sometimes useful. Not every day, but occasionally they are. MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Prolific sockmaster? Why is not covered by SPI? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  DENY is not working well if it leads to regular editors losing useful info. The practice of not tagging sock accounts already leads to issues in gaining a good understanding of any particular case, deleting LTA pages would make that task even more inaccessible. CMD (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban (User:Arif80s)

Am I still topic banned. Arif80s (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless you appealed it successfully (you would certainly know of the appeal, and should be able to find it, if this is the case). The discussion you linked to doesn't state the ban is temporary, which makes it indefinite (appealable, but forever unless successfully appealed). Your ban is also listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Animal lover |666| 05:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Respected, I am not happy with this decision. In my view, this decision is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. This decision of the English Wikipedia will hurt the trust of users. Since we are from a country where most of its users do not have much understanding of the English Wikipedia's rules and policies, I am of the opinion that the English Wikipedia should not make such tough decisions and lift my ban soon as possible. thanks Arif80s (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What decision? Your indefinite topic ban is over 4.5 years old so it's well past time to get over any unhappiness with it. The fact that an indefinite topic ban lasts until it is successfully appealed is something that in some ways predates Wikipedia and isn't even really a 'decision' more a matter of definitions. I'd note that the 3 months minimum before any appeals is over 4 years past so you can appeal at anytime. However you will need to convince the community that 4.5 years later you now understand our policies and guidelines and whatever problems that got you topic banned are unlikely to reoccur. A good way to demostrate this to the community is simply via your editing. Again, it's been over 4.5 years. And the scope of your topic was very narrow, there was nothing stopping you creating well sourced and overall excellent articles that are basically FA quality, related to Pakistan or whatever, even with the topic ban in place. If you have done so, it would like make your appeal very simple. If you haven't, I'm not sure why the community is at fault for that, since your topic ban shouldn't have stopped you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. For clarity I'm not saying you must write FAs for an appeal to succeed. I'm saying that it would definitely help, and more importantly although you seem to be presenting our restrictions on you as some make unfairness and loss to Wikipedia they are actually very limited. And they should not be stopping you making some of the best contributions any editor can make to Wikipedia even when it comes to your country. Indeed the loss to us from restricting you in that way even if it's no longer needed is surely very limited (which doesn't mean we should continue them if it's not) and the loss to you should really be seen that way too. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It has certainly been long enough to allow an appeal. I'd recommend that you look over your behavior leading up to the ban, and write a convincing statement why the ban is no longer necessary. If it succeeds, then an admin will officially unban you. If it's unsuccessful, read the opposing comments and figure out how to fix your own behavior over the next few months to increase your chances of success next time. Animal lover |666| 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you take my opinion before making a decision? Don't you see the bias of the few users? Was it a big enough deal to ban on me and 3 other users?--Arif80s (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make the decision. It was made in the discussion you linked to. I'm simply following it. And 4 years after it was closed you can't claim the closure was incorrect. Animal lover |666| 06:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Animal lover. I am addressing to administrators of Eng Wiki not you. Arif80s (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This was not a decision of an individual admin (by the way, the closing admin left Wikipedia 4 months after that discussion). It was concensus of all the users who participated in that discussion. You will need to convince enough users to establish a consensus that it's no longer needed. Animal lover |666| 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither will I appeal nor will I work on the English wiki. You are reducing your users. Congratulations. Arif80s (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've made only a sporadic handful of edits in the years since that topic ban (including a couple after you said you would no longer work on the English Wikipedia), and just a few hundred before then, I expect we'll manage. What would genuinely "hurt the trust of users" would be to have policies we did not enforce. Editors are just as bound by Wikipedia's policies and rules as visitors to your own country are bound by those laws, however strange they may be to foreigners. (I don't expect, for example, that your country would waive its blasphemy laws for my benefit, however much the criminalization of blasphemy is a strange and deplorable concept to Americans.) Ravenswing 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remove rights from globally banned/locked users

• Александр Мотин (talk · contribs)
• PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs)

Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please see WP:INDEFRIGHTS. Did either of these users engage in any sort of deception to get these rights? For Planespotter, at least, my understanding is the answer is "no"; she got autopatrolled fair and square, and only started socking after her initial indef. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Tamzin, I have a genuine question. Why do we need to keep advanced rights for indefed users. There must be some good reason why a person with advanced rights already will be indefed, and if such person ever returns, they can just reapply. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  We will often clean these up in batches, as the users end up being locally inactive. As far as that specific question: "global" sanctions are reversible (and sometimes in opposition with the desires of the local community), so unless there was also a local issue that actually needed dealing with we don't usually need to spend time on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I went right away to a maintenance category and with assistance from "mark user rights", and "strike blocked user" scripts, I found User:A1Cafel for example, who was CU blocked back in October 2019, and is still a file mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker. There are several more of them, this was just the first such result in Category:Wikipedia page movers. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  @CX Zoom: Personally I'd actually be fine with removing all rights from sitebanned users. But the community reäffirmed its objection to doing so as recently as 2019. As Xaos says, some rights nonetheless get pulled for inactivity; and others get pulled at time of indef if the blocking admin feels that they were gained deceptively or that the user lacks the required level of trust. Perhaps there should just be a universal 5-year inactivity cutoff for all rights except confirmed and extendedconfirmed (as a backstop to shorter cutoffs already in place for most)? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  If we have consensus to delete stale drafts in just 6 months in order to cleanup Wikipedia, it is beyond me why we do not have consensus to remove permissions from users who are never coming back for just the same reason. If I were a new user searching for page movers, for example, I would not want to bump into an indefed user who left 3+ years ago. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is in the other direction: If a user is indeffed; there is no point in removing rights they have no chance to use while indeffed. What's the point? If you believe they aren't coming back, then it is pointless paper-pushing to flip some switch for a right they can't even use while blocked. If you want the right removed as a condition of unblocking for a specific case, then we can have that discussion when we as a community deal with their being unblocked. But pre-emptively removing user rights from accounts is a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. --Jayron32 14:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  The only exception to this I think is sysop and edit filter manager/helper, which I believe are currently the only three groups where a user can use some subset of their advanced groups (although the edit filter manager/helper think might actually already be fixed; can't find the phab task this second) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's true, but in a practical sense, if a blocked admin started using their admin tools while blocked, within a very short time period, ArbCom would institute an emergency desysop. It's a rare enough event that it doesn't require a formal process to enshrine at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 12:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  One of the few things a blocked admin can still do is view private edit filters Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Stephen - case request [20]. I AGF you're correct that there is a log of such views, but are you certain anyone is paying enough attention to notice? I don't think it's logged anywhere that anyone just checking out what the blocked admin is up to is likely to notice so it would have to be someone viewing the private edit filter view log who happens to notice that one of the viewers is a blocked admin. Remembering that until and unless the WMF fix the bug, this could be up to 5 years later or whatever the inactivity standards are when people may barely remember the case (depending on how high profile it and the admin was). Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I should clarify that I don't think there's need for a formal process. Where I differ is the reasons. There isn't a need because thankfully arbcom does recognise this isn't an area we should be reactive in. I see no realistic chance an admin will keep their tools for 5 years while blocked all that time. If arbcom really did allow such an untenable situation to continue then, yes we will need a formal process. This is simply an area where it's unacceptable to be long term reactive, and if administrators aren't willing to accept that then sorry not sorry. Even if the WMF fix that edit filter bug, considering there's always a risk of future bugs, editors should not be allowed to keep such high level permissions long term when they have completely lost the trust of the community in general. I'd add that block editors may be less likely to maintain their account security properly. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  One of the few things a blocked admin can still do is view private edit filters based on my reading of the phab ticket that should have been fixed already, so it should no longer be an issue. This leaves of course the fact that a blocked admin can still block whoever blocked them, so its probably still the only userright we should pull -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've pulled autopatrolled from PlanespotterA320 because the original reason for the block was pushing a genocide denialist POV, so in the unlikely even that she's ever unblocked, her creations definitely need to be reviewed. That was her only advanced right. Courtesy ping @TonyBallioni: who originally granted it. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Re RFC that is malformed and misleading

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

---

User:Surtsicna has opened a malformed and misleading rfc to clarify their position on the right to continue their edits on the same type of subject in the same vein. This is a blatant attempt to gain authority to push their agenda, by quashing any opposition from other editors by referring to the rfc as such authority. Further they have used canvassing techniques to at least two favourable users. The rfc omits that the user is deleting supplemental information that is not in the main table, claiming it is a duplicate or available in the main table, this is not the case in the most part at all, the user does not or refuses to recognise this. Usually in the subsequent, secondary or supplemental table and accompanying effective prose, within a section named "Listing of the Living xxx", includes some items including DOB, age, first to die in office, last to die in office, sometime more, sometimes less, whereas the main tables rarely (I have found none) include any of this information. This I believe goes against the grain and purpose of wiki, to build the base of knowledge and by inference information. Their excuse does not stand up, their reasoning on the initial deletion, on the many reverts as editors revert the user deletes and re-reverts amount to, it is available on the main table when it is demonstrable not. While I am not saying the user is in breach of the 3RR, I believe they are sailing close to the wind on this and are certainly in breach of the spirit of the 3RR if not technically.
Having a small section that details who the oldest living ex-PM is, who first dies in office, none of which is usually available in the main table is good for the new or average reader, this user saying well place the DOB and age in the main table to some of his many, many critics that attempt to undo this poor approach is insufficient and onerous on other users and in the case of very long table, hardly fair. This mass deletion has been ongoing for sometime and they obviously do not review the exact details, their poor excuses, to a poorly thought out, illogical approach, that belittles other user efforts, negates other users work, totally goes against many of the pillars of wiki and the purpose of wiki and detracts from all.
I can back up all of the above, in detail, with further information and revision histories (including the 2 canvassed users) and provide example of the near edit-wars, the table and prose deleted etc. etc. and will gladly do so on any request, from any admin.
I propose a solution, that is:

• 1. This editor stops these actions immediately and refrains from any of a similar nature going forward, including any reverts, re-reverts on these type of articles and matters etc.
• 2. This editor attempt to undo their edits of this nature over the next 28 days.
• 3. This editor withdraws the malformed and misleading RFC, and by inference to one above, does not reformat and try to gain such authority again via an new RFC or any other means.
• 4. This editor is given a dispensation for these matters only and alone, over the next 28 days, from the 3RR to correct their poorly thought out and removal of this highly useful supplementary information not available anywhere else on wiki without comparing and contrasting many different articles.

2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The audacity to lay so many accusations without even attempting to provide evidence for anything is impressive. Otherwise, this made me cringe more than anything in my 14 years on this project. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just so you're aware 2404:4408:638C::/32, it's not reasonable to expect your fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation when filing noticeboard reports; you need to provide diffs that support your allegations. From glancing this one over all I see is an (exceedingly minor, and quite routine) issue with WP:RFCNEUTRAL that's not worth bothering over. The notifications appear to be WP:APPNOTEs, and RFCs are the appropriate way to gain consensus (authority) for content changes. Without additional evidence of behavioral issues supported by diffs this isn't going anywhere. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFC. IMHO, the mobile editor is attempting to stop it, because it's not going their way. Side-note: I'm concerned about the mobile editor's apparent knowledge of Wikipedia, even though they only joined a mere day or two, ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no way to tell how long someone has been editing Wikipedia based on their IP's contributions. A brand-new user could edit from an IP that someone else has used going back 20 years. An unregistered user with multiple FAs could edit from a new connection and appear to have never edited before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Having been an IP editor previously I was going to say the same. But someone who had an account [until earlier this year], and created something so massively pointy as this draft, before just happening to come to that RFC is straining credulity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not expressing any opinion on the overall issue here. I just get sick of the "new IP" line that seems to come up about once a week at AN(I). There's no such thing as a "new IP user" (at least, not that can be inferred by looking at contribs). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: odd from looking this over I drew almost the opposite conclusion, the content of their post suggests a user who is both unfamiliar with the cultural norms of the noticeboards specifically, and lacks a firm grasp of the nuances of many internal protocols more generally. Moreover, a true noticeboard pedant would've posted this at ANI instead of AN. That aside, I see no reason to doubt their claim of being around since 2014, many casual or purely exopedian editors can go years without so much as a single projectspace contribution. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW - The title of this report is malformed. It's "RFC", not "RC". GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Break

I apologies for my genuine mistake over canvassing, I was never shamelessly lying as the subject of this matter asserts.
For those above doubting anything about what I said and as an example spirit of 3RR violations include this for Alaska [[21]] and just about every other position, state, region and country, this user to me seemed to be bordering on and almost edit warring with multiple others who all disagree with the user and the users approach. The user also accused me of hostility when none was shown, the user seemed to take it as a personal affront that anyone could disagree with them, and many have via the multiple reverts, to which the user sometimes also gets quite short with. I did not expect fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation, I anticipated admins would have some extraction tools to quickly review the bulk of these edit and contributions and or ask me to provide such details that I had as per my original post. To ActivelyDisinterested, I was attempting to review Russian trolls, creating disharmony, subtly removing or editing articles to suit pro-Putin views and I created that draft as a counter to what I viewed as misleading Nazi Canadian and US article that were, at that time, as biased, or more so, than my draft, I then followed some of the users involved and came across these bulk deletes. And lastly I still believe this is a complete waste of resources to delete information that is not available on most of the main tables, and a waste of the other editors time to revert, and a waste of the user that was the subject of this matters time both in the first place and to then to re-revert and to defend such actions, when much better things could be being achieved by all parties.
I thank those that added anything constructive.21:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk)

" I did not expect fellow contributors to dedicate the time to conduct their own full-investigation, I anticipated admins would have some extraction tools" As admins are fellow contributors and no, we don't have magic tools that can figure out what you're talking about, so yes, you were expecting fellow contributors to put in the time and effort that you weren't willing to. We shouldn't have to ask for details from an accuser. They should be offered willingly, otherwise the accusation is completely empty. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

↑ this

2404:4408:638C::/32 you still have yet to supply a single diff, though the link to the page history is a slight improvement. There's no special extraction tools available to sysops or anyone so you must explain the issue in a clear and concise way supported by evidence (usually in the form of diffs). No one should have to read a WP:WALLOFTEXT and subsequently investigate the edit histories of everyone involved on their own, it's just not reasonable.

Example of what evidence might look like

Brief overview of the circumstances (What is the urgent incident or chronic intractable behavioral problem involving Example that needs to be addressed?) [22], [23], [24], edit-wars against multiple users [25], [26], [27], engages in personal attacks [28], [29], [30], and disruptive POV pushing They've ignored all warnings and requests to stop so I'm bringing this here. ~~~~ more diffs is better to a point but don't overdo it

Do not insinuate that editors you're in conflict with are Russian trolls without evidence in the form of diffs; see WP:ASPERSIONS. Continuing to do so will eventually result in sanctions, and I suggest you strike the offending phrase with <s>...</s>, (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments). 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ima just take this moment to point out that this editor is demanding we give them good faith (why else mention that they used to have an account, and have never had a ban, without telling us who they were) without offering the same for others (for example, I was not canvassed, I am an actual participant in this topic and have been for fifteen years). They may be apologizing but that just means that they have demanded good faith, squandered it, and offered nothing in return; we have no reason to believe this apology is genuine, and I have no reason to believe that anything will come of this. They have provided no diffs, no reason beyond "i want it," and have been rude and accusatory. I have no interest in continuing to interact with this person. --Golbez (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This IP user has declined to participate in a level-headed fashion and has been WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. If they hadn't made this ANI thread, one likely would have been made about them by myself or someone else. I believe WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate here, and this user should be advised to stop engaging until they've familiarized themselves with the RfC procedure and etiquette guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologised for the canvassing, end.

I did not insinuate anything about any of the users here or on the rfc, I explained my draft and how I got to the the rfc, I will not strike anything out, if you want to misread what I wrote to a specific poster that is up to you.

I provide one edit history to show what I was talking about, and to answer critics and insinuation that I deliberately, carelessly and shamelessly lied for any ulterior motive, not as evidence to continue this, so no further example, guide or coaching was or is needed.

None of the additions, since my close offered anything constructive or applied any good faith, which I did not by insinuation or otherwise demand, it is however wiki policy, so no demand or other should be necessary.

Hence when I effectively closed this and thanked the user that gave any due care and consideration, i.e. those that did not start throwing accusation and threats around, I thought this was at an end.

Re WP:BLUDGEON I made OP and one close, bring it on.

Re ANI or AN as this is on the latter, bring on either, regarding the rest of your comments, advice and threats please review my 2nd close below.

So to close again, any of the subsequent posts and posters that threatened, that rehashed closed items, that place words into my mouth, that demeaned me, and offered other slanted and pointed advice please look at your own actions and words with regard to all of these matters, some assumed I was a banned user, some assumed I was new or fake, some stalked and your specific threats, actions, behavior and lack of good faith during this and post the close and ask yourself is this how you would want to be addressed and treated, I have replied at all times politely and in a very restrained way, no threatening, no assertions, no implying anthing or any other bad-faith actions, as I feel I have been subject to balatantly.
2404:4408:638C:5E00:F1B8:4D:6290:8EE7 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Close

Recommend this report be closed, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please pause any close for now, I may have one other item to add in the next day or so, thank you. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I came here because my name was mentioned. I notice that the thread does not begin by mentioning what the RfC is, what is wrong with it or provide a link. The thread has now become hopelessly long and should therefore be closed without prejudice, i.e., allowing the IP editor to come back with a concised complaint.

The purpose of this noticeboard is to alert administrators that an administrative action is required, in this case presumably an administrative close of the RfC. But non-administrators also participate. TFD (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI

Moved from WP:ANI

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Original heading: "RFC that is malformed and misleading" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I reference my badly formed original post here [[31]]. I now provide this post and move to the correct noticeboard, this evidence of this users chronic, intractable behavior and disregard for other users thoughts on these matter as an example of such behavior and actions.
Regarding a discussion that evolved into several discussions on the Mass removal of Prime Ministers, Governors etc. all during Aug 2021 which were held on this matter at [[32]] which was moved to [[33]] which was moved to [[34]] the same three individuals voted for removal on all three discussions, namely User:Surtsicna, User:GoodDay, User:Golbez While Surtsicna acknowledged direct redundancy was a good guide to judge use of delete and Golbez added a caveat for the US POTUS only, Golbez otherwise noted oh my god i am so happy right now'.

Those that objected in some manner to this approach, either Totally or as a on a Case-by-case or on a Direct redundancy basis including User:Skyring, User:Reywas92, User:Newyorkbrad, User:NebY and Surtsicna (before changed approach)

While User:JackofOz left a pertinent comment, but did not clarify his end position.
While User:The Four Deuces left a comment I have no idea about [[35]]

Although none of these were structured in an effective and clean RFC they provide some guidance in that:
6 users including myself believe at the barest minimum a case-by-case approach and a direct redundancy must be established.
1 user wants to nuke everything and does not know or read Australian history and still attempted to forcefully express his opinion anyway.
1 user believes it should only count for the US, otherwise fine to remove all and so happy.
2 users for now abstain.
I note one user (Surtsicna) has now changed their approach and is now not checking for any direct redundancy and overriding objections and other editors.
If this mock RFC ended at this point and the discussion was not rehashed and Surtsicna actions in this manner ceased there would be no issues.

However, this core group of User:Surtsicna, User:GoodDay, User:Golbez can be met on various user and article talk pages, project pages and the RFC in question, each supporting each other views in almost 100% of matters, similarly to supporting the delete discussions above, however, I found one curious example of cross-editing, I place little relevance on this. I think the above and the timing of the first edit on the RFC in question by GoodDay places Surtsicna defence [[36]] of not canvassing, into a questionable frame or it could be termed coordination or other less favourable terms .

With regard to 3RR violation this [[37]] is shocking and this [[38]] is probably as bad, to not take anything to the talk page to seek consensus to again try to dictate to all other users and by inference all of wiki it must be my way cannot be acceptable and again explanations in edit summaries are misleading at best. Engaged in support mode, GoodDay joins in here [[39]] with the edit summary including i'll join in and nuke this, when there's an rfc we can calm, although probably a bit late to save the violation of the 3RR in this instance.

So if we add all users, whom were the reverter's, IP or registered user, of the Surtsicna and GoodDay deletes, 1st, 2nd or 3rd or more reverts, and many many other not detailed here from this same coordinated group and include, even a very, very small percentage of these, into the numbers above (in this new section only) the values change and I think we would have an overwhelming consensus to ensure at the barest minimum a case-by-case approach and direct redundancy must be established.

I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason to structure the RFC so badly by such an experienced user, omitting mentioning all of the lack of direct redundancy items, other than an attempt to gain such authority.
I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason why do any of this in the first place, there is so much more that can be done, that actually adds something, anything to wiki.
I would like the user to explain for what purpose and reason they have, that overrides actually improving any part of wiki, although they are not obliged to.

To close this OP out, I do not want to draw attention to the the lack of good faith, the threats and other poor behaviours exhibited in the first instance of this matter on the AN, however, it needs be mentioned and not repeated here and we can leave all aspersions and allegations aside and try to deal with this constructively for the good of the project, if you do not agree, that is your call.2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFC & I never was canvassed. TBH, I've little clue as to what is (figuratively) ailing the mobile editor. Will be happy, if folks smarter then me, can clarify all of this. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This has stopped being funny. Your walls of lies and delusion are now disturbing as well as disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, that's not really an appropriate thing to say about another editor on-wiki, irregardless of their conduct. casualdejekyll 23:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

nah I'll back 'em up on this. This sealion has been harping on how they deserve good faith when they have failed to give it to others, consistently. Nothing Surtsicna just said is out of line. A little irked that after the half-page screed slyly accusing long-standing editors of sockpuppeting and misrepresenting everything we say, but what really grinds your gears is a mild insult. --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read through the latest post above, time I will not get back, and I am not able to work out what the problem is, or what the OP is asking us to do about it. This needs some serious condensing. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Girth Summit this type of action [[40]] and how it affects other users is the problem. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am none the wiser as to what the problem is, or how you want us to deal with it. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I propose OP be WP:BOOMERANGed (might need a rangeblock to be effective) as they are seemingly WP:NOTHERE, as they are seemingly incapable of communicating via talk while editwarring (ironically something they themselves accuse others of doing) yet are capable of making walls of text that go absolutely nowhere on AN and ANI, in addition to their seemingly constant disregard of WP:AGF. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, however, everything I have done is in good faith, I sincerely believe this user has disrupted wiki, removed information and upset multiple users for no good purpose. Further, none of the other items you suggest are valid, I am trying to stop this destructive editing and edit warring and seek to use all of these wasted energies and time in building wiki. I apologised for a mistake, which I now retract, as per my referenced items in the first post on ANI. I was not aware of the forum shopping rule and when I uncovered the their aged knowledge of each other and thier 100% agreement between these parties I placed on ANI as this is serious ongoing and chronic issue affecting large amount of editors and pages. No lies, no delusions, the evidence items above prove this is ongoing and consistent and upsetting multiple other users. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

lol --Golbez (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Protection of AfD

Can Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation be semi-ed? Musk tweeted about the AfD and you can imagine the result. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Noting that this is also at WP:RFPP, I'm not currently convinced a semi is warranted. There's a lot of bad !votes but most aren't vandalism or such. I'm more inclined to clerk it a bit and move the off-topic comments to their own subheading or to talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Support an admin saving everyone's time and speedy keeping as the original rationale no longer makes sense. Alternatively, definitely needs some clerking by someone(s) uninvolved in the discussion, rather than scarlet lettering of SPAs and apparently semi-SPAs (who knew being active was a requirement to have a say) by those involved including tagging of those who have made policy compliant arguments. Slywriter (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Since a significant number of the "Keep" nominations make no reference to any policy, or are simply nonsense ("certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias", "minus the left-wing biased media, this is relevant and important information", "To keep Wikipedia a free speech platform") they can be effectively discarded so there is certainly no speedy keep here (even if there could be per WP:SK, which there can't). Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it takes one policy compliant keep rationale to determine that an article should be kept. If an article is policy compliant, no amount of delete votes can change it.

Regardless, I have hope Tamzin will keep it under control and in a week some poor soul will read an epic novel to only say keep or no consensus while we watch Wikipedia get attacked further on the outside and the bonds fray further on the inside as editors with bias wiki-lawyer policy to try and say that an article with seven sources does not meet GNG and V. There's a rich history of AfD and policy discussions to look at that foretell the ending and it would be virtually unprecedented for such an article not to survive. Slywriter (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually lol. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have hope Tamzin will keep it under control @Slywriter: Don't you put that evil on me. :P I just saw this pop up in a bunch of places at once and thought I'd do my part to find a solution short of excluding IP/non-AC voices from a high-profile AfD. But I am not this AfD's keeper. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, I do hope the collective of admins and veterans help (but truly appreciate you stepping in). Though watching the chaos less chefs would do, too many opinions of what is good content and too little trust that a closer has the capacity to tell the difference. Slywriter (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I get that. I felt like setting up anything more formal than I did would stray into unilaterally making policy. If we do want something stricter (like changing "uninvolved editor" to "uninvolved admin" and saying admins must discuss before restoring a moved !vote), it would probably be best imposed as an AMPOL DS remedy. But I'd just as soon not be the one to do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, you state that "Actually, it takes one policy compliant keep rationale to determine that an article should be kept. If an article is policy compliant, no amount of delete votes can change it." There is no policy which forces us to keep any article for any reason. It is impossible to give a keep reason which trumps all delete reasons by default. Even if you demonstrate in your "keep" that the reason the nom gave for deletion is false, there still may be other reasons why an article should be deleted (or redirected or merged or...). Obviously, for many articles no good policy reason to wholesale delete it could ever be found, so I'm not arguing that we can never have speedy keeps, far from it. But not because one editor found a policy which somehow forces us to keep the article. Such a thing doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Did an initial round of clerking, moving off-topic comments to an archivebox on talk. Would appreciate any help going forward (and reäppraisals of the ones I left; many are borderline, and I erred on the side of not removing). Still don't think semi-protection is needed. It would be the convenient thing to do, but I don't think it would be in keeping with the protection policy. Bad !votes aren't on their own grounds for protection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  While I understand the decision and won't protect because there is active moderation, I do have to point out that WP:SEMI does explicitly allow the use of temporary semi-protection in cases of disruption caused by media attention, which is a pretty fine summary of what is happening there. "If blocking individual users is not a feasible option", that is, but that's also arguably the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Unless the discussion degenerates into attacks, doxxing, etc., leave unprotected. Seems to be headed towards a keep, anyway, but regardless, any editor may clerk an AfD by tagging new accounts with {{canvassed}} or {{spa}}. Canvassed users may still have their say, their preferences will simply not be given as much weight. Because while an open forum, this is still a private website, not a government one. A private website where rules concerning account tenure are a thing. Just like $8 is (was?) a thing for others privately-owned twebsites. Note: that I procedurally declined the protection request for this, deferring to this more substantive discussion, instead. El_C 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Could an admin close Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Attempts to delete the page to point users to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: Sandstein closed the AFD here. --Jayron32 19:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Twsabin unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Twsabin (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Twsabin is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. Izno (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Twsabin unblocked

Stephen arbitration case closed

The Stephen arbitration case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Stephen arbitration case closed

User Cardboardboxhd is continuously inserting content sourced to an unreliable source

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Isi96 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy (again)

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

---

There has been quite a bit of unrest at the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article since the closure of this RfC about using the word "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop and the subsequent close review that took place here about a month ago ending in a lukewarm "no consensus here to overturn the RFC close". In addition to slow edit wars involving multiple users, there are currently 10 threads on the article's talk page discussing the issue, including a messy new RfC that will almost certainly be closed as malformed, and a thread at the BLP noticeboard. I think the situation needs some intervention.

I think some of the problem stems from 2 issues I see with the original RfC closure:

1. People don't respect the close because of how it was made. I think Compassionate727 (talk · contribs), despite having good intentions, essentially made a poor "supervote" close through a combination of not writing a thorough closing statement and lacking the social status/currency to make a supervote stick. The explicit lack of endorsement in our close review didn't help.
2. In a less conspicuous addendum to the close, Compassionate727 made the mistake of answering a question the RfC didn't ask and took a position that there was not obvious consensus for. The RfC only asked if Biden's ownership of the laptop should be described as "alleged". Yet C727 sated, "the consensus is against qualifying the belonging in any way, unless a new RfC determines otherwise." (emphasis added) This shut the door on a lot of potential avenues of compromise.

Rather than just letting things continue spiraling, I suggest two possible courses of action:

1. Overwrite the original close with a new close by a volunteer admin (or admins). It doesn't matter if the close has the same result, you just need to write a nuanced close that gives fair consideration to both sides of the argument.
2. Investigate and possibly overturn the problematic addendum to the close, as that is being used to enforce a specific wording and reject potential compromises that don't explicitly say things like "...laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden."

I don't want this to turn into anything like the last close review where people waste time restating their arguments for the nth time. If after 24 hours this seems to be "no consensus" territory I would ask any passing admin to consider this request withdrawn and close it if I haven't done so first. ~Awilley (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Please no more than one top-level comment

• If the closed RFC ends up being over-turned, ignored, re-interpret, etc. We might end up setting a bad precedent. GoodDay (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with GoodDay. The close was appealed, and there was not a consensus to overturn. A new RfC can be held, once sufficient time has passed, but until then the consensus must stand. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Awilley. The non-admin closer overstepped by ruling on a question never presented at RFC, prematurely forestalling most potential resolutions. Feoffer (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• How is this not a mere re-litigation of the RFC close review? The consensus is clear and admins should be willing to use AP2 and/or BLP discretionary sanctions to enforce it. Also, there's a new RFC and consensus there could easily supersede the previous consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 12:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Per BilledMammal, given that an appeal did not have a clear consensus to overturn already, I don't see any reason to keep relitigating this at the time being. While consensus can change, this is starting to feel like forum shopping. I would prefer if people gave this some time to cool down, and waited until the news stopped covering this so we can reach a stable version at some point in the future. Being in the midst of competing narratives out in the real world creates chaos at Wikipedia, and it's best if we didn't add to that chaos. --Jayron32 13:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• I don't really want any further part in this dispute. FWIW, I think the current drama shows that there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments, even if Floquenbeam didn't feel like he could find as much. I believe a new RfC to clarify the community's exact sentiments would be helpful. I also believe some editors on both sides of this dispute have been disruptively wikilawyering and bludgeoning and that sanctions are merited. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  the current drama shows that there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments I wouldn't go that far, Compassionate727. The latest discussion was ignited by one new editor, and has been largely participated in by editors from the old discussion. I believe your close was a fine summation of the opinions expressed by the community at that time, a belief shared by many others the AN Close review discussion. "The Community" here, in general and in any smaller subsection, is not a monolith, and is subject to change - which is what it seems to have done in this case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate the humility/introspection here, but I also think you might be taking it too far. I'm not convinced that you arrived at the wrong conclusion. My best guess is just that the path things took to get where we are makes it difficult for half the community to accept. And despite my criticisms, I do appreciate your willingness to step into the line of fire to close something that many people wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. I've been there, and weathering the criticism can be exhausting. ~Awilley (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seriously, please don't take any of these concerns personally. The emphasis on your personal beliefs made by some was especially wrong! Your work here is truly appreciated. Feoffer (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• For any other admin who may be reviewing this request, here's a link to the previous AN discussion.

A couple of salient points here: Awilley was one of 4 admins who voted/opined in that discussion, and their opinion at the time was that, while they had concerns about the quality of the close, they did not vote to Overturn, noting "I suspect a new close could very well come to a similar conclusion." The opinions of the other 3 admins were "endorse" (Masem), "overturn" (Black Kite), and "dunno" (slakr). I'll also note that part of the reasoning for Black Kite's vote was considered very controversial, and was singled out by many other editors and admins in a long side-discussion as being inappropriate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize so few admins had commented in that discussion. (I think I either mistook several people for admins who weren't or my mind conflated it with the JohnPackLambert appeal that happened around the same time.) ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is just relitigating the RFC, and I disagree strongly that C727 was "lacking the social status/currency to make a supervote stick". It wasn't a supervote and tbis has nothing to do with social status or currency. The problem is a very small group of editors refusing to accept the RfC result. Less than 5 editors I think. That's the only problem, it's a extremely common problem we call IDHT/tendentious editing, it's designed to win by outlasting everyone else, and the solution is to deal with the individual editors, not throw out the RfC and appeal because a few people won't accept it. To do otherwise would set a poor precedent as GoodDay points out above. Levivich (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is a very small group of editors refusing to accept the RfC result. Less than 5 editors I think. That's the only problem It's really not. Having never edited the article or participated in any of the RFCs and knowing almost-nothing about the subject, I came to the article as a reader. The article began by saying the laptop belonged to Biden, only to insist a few sentences later that it could only be a copy, not a device that belonged to Biden. You don't have to have any strong feelings or prior knowledge about the topic to recognize that a seemingly-self-contradictory lede is a problem. Feoffer (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are still bound by the global consensus of the RFC. Your OP at BLP started with: The article begins with the unsourced sentence: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden". We need a source for this claim, so our readers can check our work, but a search hasn't yet produced a good one. We of course have lots of sources that literally use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar verbiage, but none that feature an unabiguous, straightforward assertion the laptop is known to belong to Biden. That's something. Aside from the fact that you're flat incorrect about it being unsourced (the lead sentence is sourced in the body as usual), you're also admitting there are lots of sources that call it his laptop but then saying there isn't any source that says it belongs to him. That's contradictory. The sources were examined in depth at the RfC; they don't contradict each other; they all say it was his laptop, some say nobody disputes this, and none say it was anyone else's or we don't know whose it was. Unless you have some new sources for us to consider, your posts at BLPN and the talk page about this is just rehashing the RfC. I disagree with Awilley that "People don't respect the close because of how it was made." A few people--5 or fewer I think--don't respect the close because of its outcome, not because of how it was made. There is no problem here larger than the edit warring of a few editors. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• The original close was problematic. Two big issues: a clear misreading of the extent to which arguments were supported by sources, and a major overreach in the post-close clarification (both per what I wrote when the review came up). The review suffered from early sidetracking, with wrongheaded emphasis on the personal beliefs of the closer, which made it easy for lots of people to push back on the challenge without providing any real justification for the closure itself. The actual issues (representation of consensus, sourcing, and the post-closure extension) should've been the focus.
  But here we are. One thing the post-close extension helped to make clear is the RfC perhaps should've been more specific with regard to what was being asked. Regardless of who closes it, there's going to be some misery in sorting out interpretations and wordings and we may wind up with a new RfC anyway. My suggestion, which is also miserable, is to run a new RfC, and to require people who disagree with one another to collaborate on the framing of the question and options for wording, if applicable. Don't leave it up to one person to come up with the framing. Let's actually put this to bed. Since a large part of the debate will likely be unpleasant rehashing of familiar arguments, maybe we can even run an RfC with a shorter timeframe (say, two weeks) in order to minimize disruption. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  The question the RfC asked was to chose between the two disputed versions of the wording. What would you have asked? TFD (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  chose between the two disputed versions - No it doesn't. It asks Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?. That's not about any specific sentence/version -- just a question about a word. And as we saw from the follow-up to the RfC and discussions since, there's been some difference of opinion as to how well other wording (widely believed, purported, claimed, etc.) and framing (using different language for the emails vs. laptop, distinguishing between how the sources treated ownership early on vs. later, etc.) may fit the situation. I'm giving examples not to be exhaustive or because I actually want to debate any of them here, but to highlight that there are ways to make the question tighter. If I were to throw something out, I'd probably ask if reliable sources support claims and/or implications of ownership in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution (avoiding wording debates altogether). If yes, then that's that, but if not there could be a set of concrete language choices to choose from... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would be appreciative if you would answer how you would have phrased the question. I had not expected that when it was agreed the term alleged should not be used, some users then supported "purported" and when that was rejected they would come up with "involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership."

  This is a clear example of tendentious editing. These editors are unwilling to accept that the article say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden and will use whatever arguments they can no matter how the RfC is worded. Don't blame me for not coming up with iron clad wording to prevent them from doing this, because it wouldn't have worked. TFD (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would be appreciative if you would answer how you would have phrased the question I just did. The "set of concrete language choices" would require some workshopping. Don't blame me It's not about you. It's about making it as watertight as possible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites, I think you're right and the "miserable" new RfC is probably the path forward at this point. Thanks for the input. ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• I was involved in the discussion, the close review, and the new discussions. I mostly agree with Rhododendrites on this, including agreeing that this isn't a great solution either. I think it's natural that since this topic is current and evolving, people are reopening closed topics and engaging on the topics even though they were seen as settled only a short time ago. WP:CCC, and the community has to determine what is the reasonable limit of how often. I think if the users that opposed this current round of reopening had gone to AE or another place to have the consensus of the RFC enforced, it well could have been. I'm not sure if a re-close of the close or close review would help because this is going to be contentious regardless. On the other hand, if the community continues to be roughly split on issues, what's the point of having a new RFC just to lead to another no consensus result. Except - the previous result was not no consensus, despite some feeling that it might have been, and so, if we move to a no consensus result, that is different from the ostensible status quo ante. So this is a good example of why a close that was borderline-overturned but upheld, is kind of like a wave baby: it's a vulnerable swing state incumbent if you will. Andre🚐 00:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• There should be more room for overturning non-admin closures in general. An admin's number one purpose is to find and enforce consensus, so having non-admins do that work can introduce errors (though obviously if the non-admin makes a good close then none of that applies.) casualdejekyll 13:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  The current procedure which is followed by the community is that non-admins may close RFCs. Non-admin closures may in many cases be considered inappropriate (WP:BADNAC), but even in those cases, the close shouldn't be undone simply because the closer was a non-admin (WP:NACRFC).

  If you think policy should be updated, that's what the Village pump is for. But we have a framework to work with here already. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Non-admin closures should never be considered less valid than admin closures except in cases where the admin would have to actually use their tools to enforce the results of the closure. Any experienced editor should be able to close any discussion in good faith and assess consensus without being under any special scrutiny for doing so if they are not an admin. More to the point: it doesn't matter if the closer is an admin or not, except in cases where enacting the consensus of the discussion strictly requires admin tools. The instructions at WP:BADNAC, things like "lack of impartiality" and the like, apply equally to admins. --Jayron32 16:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  The reason that WP:NAC is an essay is because it doesn't represent consensus. "An admin's number one purpose is to find and enforce consensus" -- no way, that's not consensus either. Anyone can close an RFC. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Per Levivich NO WAY is an admin's purpose to find and enforce consensus. Admins have no special power to "enforce consensus". Admins have additional access to a small suite of tools that normal users don't, and that allows admins to stop disruptive editing. That's it. Consensus is determined by the community and any sufficiently experienced editor can close and summarize a discussion. Admins are by definition sufficiently experienced, but it is their experience at Wikipedia, and not their access to the admin toolset that gives them that authority. Other equally experienced editors without the admin tool set have the exact same authority. --Jayron32 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Reporting two users for WP:Stalking, WP:Harassing, WP:Canvassing and WP:No personal attacks

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

---

Good morning,

About one month ago Ermenrich reported me on the page of another user with whom they apparently collaborate frequently. They purposefully avoided to ping me in their report, where they apparently tried to start some kind of argument regarding my edits, though they themselves claimed they couldn't see anything overtly wrong with them (1).

Ever since we had more than one heated discussion, where they always tried to imply that I am some kind of nationalist, or, at any rate, that there was something wrong with my edits, which I assume they don't like for some reason (or maybe they don't like my username, I am not sure).

Meanwhile, I had a conversation with Borsoka at another page. They reported me at ANI, but the case ended in my favor, and I won the argument on the relative page. During our argument, Borsoka took the liberty of stalking my edits and join the other user on the other page against me (2). I would have expected Ermenrich, an experienced user, to say something in this regard. Instead, they joined Borsoka and literally declared themselves my personal stalker(s) (3).

Sure enough, they stalked me to another page, apparently reverting my edits just to revert something I did, just to "be against" (4). Again, I won the argument against them at that talk page (5). In this argument, I also reminded them of their stalking an harassing tendencies again (6).

This, however, did not stop them from stalking me yet again at Mundus (magister militum) (a page I was editing and watching), right after I had discussed this page with another user on another page, in a conversation where they had not been invited (7). At Mundus, they started removing well-sourced content, just because it claimed Turkic etymology for certain words, and also made their first direct accusations of nationalism and "pan-Turkism" (8).

Today, I opened Wikipedia and found that Ermenrich had again called up his friends at the Mundus talk page, perhaps in an attempt to finally win an argument against me (9). This alone qualifies for Wikipedia:Canvassing. But Ermenrich should learn that unless they assume good faith and use reason before criticizing, they will always lose their arguments.

But this latter action of them is not what caused me to open this case at ANI. Indeed, both Borsoka and Ermenrich finally openly accused me. They accused me of sock-pupettry this time (10), (11), 12).

Needless to say, I am not a sock puppeteer, and I am not a nationalist. My edits are in good faith, which these two users lack. They are earnestly harassing me now and I am tired. This is almost racism, because I can't find a reason for all this fury against me unless it's my username (n.b. Giray Altay is a Turkic name. By the way, geniuses, would a bad-faith Turkish nationalist choose a Turkish name?!?!). Ermenrich and Borsoka have already been proven wrong, but this has not stopped them from keep on stalking, harassing, and canvassing against me. EDIT forgot to mention Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Giray Altay (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a big nothing burger of a report: there is no rule I have to ping someone to discuss them on another users talk page if I’m concerned they may be a sock puppet (there isn’t even such a rule if I bring someone to WP:SPI). The OP has continually made accusations of various sorts against me since I first discussed my concerns at Erminwin’s talk page, posting long WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

After that, I stopped the user from edit warring on a page I’ve been watching for years; I made an edit to a page removing something that was not added by the OP; I pinged two people who have previously edited a little remarked upon page for an opinion [41] [42] (one of whom the OP has previously asked about the page [43]), which I do not believe counts as canvassing.

I will provide diffs later, but the OP seems to think that they can complain to remove scrutiny of their edits, which show suspicious knowledge of WP policy for a new user.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You focus on minor things, distorting them, and fail to address the chief causes of alarm!

I have never said you had to ping me, but it would've been nice. That, however, gives the reader of this report a first glimpse into your prejudice, which is what is causing all this trouble. Instead on focusing on that, address Wikipedia:Stalking, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. How long will you keep on stalking and accusing me, reverting my edits on other pages just to be proven wrong? Can you see that yours is disruptive behavior?

Second, you didn't think I was a sock puppet at first. In fact, you talked about nationalism (1). Whatever. It is clear you didn't assume good faith at all, and wanted to find something wrong against Giray Altay (cf. I thought I’d cleaned up this sort of misuse of etymology in articles for pan-Turkic purposes a long time ago).

You jumped in at Odoacer against me, misunderstanding my edits, and reverting them without even clearly justifying your actions (I agree that you're edits were not improvements as they are overemphasizing the very disputed idea that Odoacer was a Hun. That's all I have to say 2). Eventually the matter was understood by the other editor involved (the one you jumped in to support just to try an recruit some Tag teammate maybe?), and settled, and your not-very-clear objections dropped. You did not help at all at Odoacer. The other editor did, as he /she, similarly to Erminwin, is interested in practical matters, in improving Wikipedia. You seem only interested in harassing me.

You did not ping "two people", you pinged editors with whom you are well-acquainted and who supported you in the past (3, 4). This qualifies or WP:Canvassing.

"which show suspicious knowledge of WP policy for a new user." Now you copy Borsoka (5) and make your second open, personal attack against me (6). Can you see how prejudiced you are against me? It's been more than a month that you put in your head that I am a nationalist, sock puppeteer or whatever (7). You and Borsoka wasted a lot of my time (which I could've spent writing/editing articles) and also the administrators'. Further, you caused me distress. And this is why I decided to come to ANI. Giray Altay (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You’ve presented no proof I’m stalking you and I’m not going to read this enormous WP:WALLOFTEXT to respond in detail to each of these wild accusations. You are the one who brought this to the admins, not me, so I obviously have not been “wasting their time.”

It’s strange that you use my edit summary for removing something that was not added by you as proof I am prejudiced against you.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

For the evidence of stalking read here (1). I will not waste yet more time to repeat things to you.

You forgot again to address harassing and personal attacks. Smart; considering what you did.

You and Borsoka wasted my time by starting unnecessary, infinite discussions at Erminwin and Samuel Aba, where you argued without common sense, and sure enough lost your arguments. Borsoka took it further, by opening an uncalled for case at the admins (2) which was dismissed (3). You, OTOH, started disruptively editing articles and jump in arguments against me just to undo my edits or Turkic-related stuff on articles I'm working on (3), (4). Even though your objections were dropped at Odoacer, you continued with your tendentious editing ad Mundus, where you also canvassed (5).

And beside this harassing, you made four personal attacks against me in just 24 h (6, 7, 8, 9), adding to the others done in the past month and a half.

It’s strange that you use my edit summary for removing something that was not added by you as proof I am prejudiced against you. You edited Mundus, a page I had already edited and was watching (10) after declaring yourself my stalker (11), after expressing your concern regarding Turkic nationalism (12) and right after I had discussed Mundus at Erminwin, in a discussion to which you were not invited and did not participate (13). And sure enough in your edits you made some critic against Turks and expressed your concern regarding Pan-Turkism (14). Your edits at Mundus, in which you got rid of content supported by sources just because it claimed Turkic etymology for a name, look to have derived from your stalking practices and prejudice against Turks and Turkic-named users. Giray Altay (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clear from the above that Giray Altay doesnot understand what a personal attack is. Asking whether anyone finds Giray Altay reminiscent of a sock master on an editor's talk page is not a personal attack (diffs 6, 7) posting that something was likely originally added by sock-master user:WorldCreaterFighter that Giray Altay did not even add to the article is not a personal attack (8), and there is no personal attack in my reply to his accusations made here (9). I am confident that anyone who looks into the other diffs he has posted will find the same disconnect between what is alleged and what the evidence shows.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack is defined as: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc.. Wiki's relative article also regards as personal attack: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. You implied I were a sockpupet and nationalist almost 2 months ago (1, 2), and now accused me of being a sock puppet master without any evidence whatsoever (3).

And to reply to your previous question (just to lose some more time) the evidence of you stalking is here, you declared it yourself: Well, it seems obvious something's going on here. Any sock-like tendencies recognizable? Otherwise, I guess we should just keep an eye on them. And imperative edit summary of: key an eye on them (4).

The evidence is in you popping up at Odoacer (5) right after I edited it (6), being the only editor out of 20,000 monthly viewers and 227 page watchers to jump in an argument against me at the talk page (7); the evidence is in you popping up at Mundus (8), which I had just previously edited (9), right after I raised the subject at Erminwin's, in a discussion to which you didn't take part and didn't concern you (10).

And evidence for stalking against Borsoka is here, when they joined a discussion against me at Erminwin's. They did so during our heated discussion at another page (an argument which they lost, and out of which they started an ANI case that did not end in their favor). They had heretofore never edited on Erminwin's page, and the only possible way to get there was stalking (11). Giray Altay (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am still convinced that Giray Altay is not a new editor. New editors are rarely able to quote texts from WP policies. Giray Altay's battle ground mentality is obvious: for them editors are winners or loosers, often with hidden agenda. I did not approach Erminwin on their talk page by chance. After entering into a conversation with Giray Altay, I was sure that other editors must have also concluded that Giray Altay was not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the reason for stalking was. You stalked.

I also have an opinion about you, but I don't stalk, and I keep it to myself, and if I really wanted to vent it, I would use diffs and do it properly. You two are making accusations out of the blue just because my username is Tukic (and maybe also because you lost one argument each against me, so maybe you are sore now). Because, what other reason could it be? All we know is that my username is Turkic, that Ermenrich does not find anything wrong with my edits (1), and that they dislike/are distrustful of Turks and/or have some Pan-Turkism fear complex (2).

You should think before accusing editors, even if you do it implicitly. Just because I know Wikipedia's policies I am not a new editor? And, is not being a new editor intrinsically wrong? Do you realize that Wikipedia's policies articles are freely available online? Do you realize that people may edit as IP's for years and then create an account? Do you realize that sock puppetry is something done maliciously, but there are users who simply forget the password of their previous account and create another? Do you realize there are people who may change account for a number of reasons which do not have to be malicious?

But regarding me, I don't even know about the policies, I am reading about them now, if you really want to know.

Reading and knowing about Wiki's policies is not against any wiki rule. But harassing, tag teaming, stalking, canvassing, and personal attacks are.

EDIT: I may understand the concern about real socks and nationalistic or otherwise malicious editing, but when an editor tells you multiple times they are editing in good faith, and when you see and yourself admit there is nothing wrong with their edits, you have to stop stalking them, harassing them and making personal attacks against them. Giray Altay (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously it would have been easier to form an opinion on this conflict if Giray Altay had provided a link to the ANI report by Borsoka that they (GA) say ended in their favour, instead of expecting admins to scrabble for it in the multitudinous archives using the lousy AN/ANI search function. I did try, but it was a waste of time. Hint to GA: it's not too late to provide that link now. If you want admins to pay attention to your report, you shouldn't make it so hard for them. But I will nevertheless give my impression of GA's case: no, discussing your possible sockhood on their own pages is not harassment, and if it was, it wouldn't be "almost racism", and you should be very careful with accusations of racism, whether "almost" or not. Also, Ermenrich saying, on another user's page, that "I guess we should just keep an eye on them" cannot be interpreted as "they literally declared themselves my personal stalker(s)", as you say in bold text above. Keeping an eye on a user one believes to be disruptive is allowed here, and is not defined as "stalking". Admins do it all the time. And I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study. As for your repeated complaints that Ermenrich fails to assume good faith, that's pretty rich coming from someone who writes "you jumped in to support just to try and recruit some Tag teammate maybe?", with a link to the somewhat notorious Tag team essay. Your general attitude does seem to be battleground, and my general impression is not good. But I'm prepared to change my mind if you do supply the link I've asked for, and if it throws a better light on you than this report does. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, I believe the OP is referring to this report at WP:AN3. It did not "end in their favor", the admin, Daniel Case posted: I can see why tempers are frayed but this does not quite reach (IMO) the level of actionability here. Yet. I really suggest going to AN/I or, better yet, taking some other step like an RFC or noticeboard posting to bring knowledgeable editors in to resolve the underlying dispute about the validity of the sourcing. Without doing that, no actions of any kind against any editors are really going to resolve this..--Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I did provide a link to the ANI report (1). but you must've missed it I guess.

Though I (likely) mistakenly used the words "the case ended in my favor" at first, I later (before this reply of yours) corrected myself and stated that the case was dismissed (2),

I didn't say it was racism. I said almost racism. Because, user says my edit are ok, then says they are afraid of Pan-Turkism and distrust Turkic users, and my username is Turkic; so well, you know...

That they literally declared themselves my personal stalkers was humorous. Nonetheless, I did provide diffs attesting that stalking has actually happened (2; 3 and cf. 4 & 5). And that statement may or may not add to it.

Keeping an eye on a user one believes to be disruptive is allowed here, you've gotta have some reason for this belief. They do not, by their own ammission. (6); and here we go back to wonder the whys and my username comes to mind again.

I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study What is the remarkable fairly subtle knowledge of fairly subtle policy wrinkles? Also: so? Is it a crime to be able to read? Can we go back to no personal attacks and no harassing?

As for your repeated complaints that Ermenrich fails to assume good faith, that's pretty rich coming from someone who writes "you jumped in to support just to try and recruit some Tag teammate maybe?" Yes, I did say that that may be possible after two months this thing has been going on, this thing which they started, and after they pinged their own friends against me at another page (7).

But I'm prepared to change my mind if you do supply the link I've asked for, and if it throws a better light on you than this report does if you think this report is bad for me and not for them you might also not argue at all in my favor. Actually, I ask you not to argue for me. Stay in this conversation on their side if you want. But not on mine. Thanks! Giray Altay (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to agree with Borsoka and Bishonen. In the first few days of editing Giray Altay was using complex referencing(2nd day of editing)(3rd day of editing), made their own sandbox(6th day of editing), added infobox to an article(2nd day of editing) and introduced galleries of photos over multiple articles (6th day of editing).

• "I agree with Borsoka and Ermenrich that you show remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles for a user of less than two months' tenure. You must be a quick study What is the 'remarkable fairly subtle knowledge of fairly subtle policy wrinkles?" "Also: so? Is it a crime to be able to read? Can we go back to no personal attacks and no harassing?"

Yeah, no. This is clearly, not a new user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear As I told Borsoka (1) there are just so many reason why I am able to use Wikipedia, and there are people who are quicker to learn. But this does not justify stalking, harassing, canvassing and personal attacks, and it does not justify you from disregarding the subject of this section and follow them in attempt of argument ad hominem. It doesn't have to be malicious, as those users (those same users who couldn't get it their own way in certain arguments) imply it to be. Also, that wasn't even their problem in the first place. They (actually you) are citing this now, after I complained about something (the subject of this section) which you haven't even attempted to address.

The fundamental problem, even more fundamental than Ermenrich's apparent prejudice and my ability to cite (well, I guess? Considering your comments) in Wikipedia, is that I am new user and they are older users. But neither this justifies such treatment.

Yes, I missed the AN3 because you called it an ANI report, GA (causing me to waste my time with the ANI archives) and curiously you still do. Anyway, no, that discussion doesn't improve my impression. A detail: if you want to do yourself a favour, stop talking about users "tag teaming" against you, as I see you do repeatedly at the AN3 noticeboard also. It makes a very bad impression, and is the ultimate assumption of bad faith. As for "disregarding the subject of this section" and taking a critical look at your editing, GA, yes, that happens not infrequently at AN and ANI, and is quite appropriate. See WP:BOOMERANG. And criticizing your editing (not your person!) has absolutely zero to do with "ad hominem", what nonsense. Kansas Bear, thank you for your early diffs by GA, they're certainly striking. Bishonen | tålk 20:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC).

Yes, I missed the AN3 because you called it an ANI report, GA (causing me to waste my time with the ANI archives), mistaking AN3 for ANI, something someone with remarkable knowledge of some fairly subtle policy wrinkles would do, right? By the way, you could've just asked instead of wasting time! You didn't find it: you asked me, I told you. Simple.

I used "tag teaming" far less often than "harassing", "stalking" and "personal attacks", yet most people here seem reluctant to address those points.

This is bad faith 1, 2, 3, and this is trying to be practical and work for Wikipedia: 4, 5; but though the users were involved in such kind of constructive conversation, they did not want to participate in them.

An argument ad hominem is directed against a person (or the editor in this case). Kansas Bear, instead of addressing the issue at hand, joined the other user in an attack against my editing capacities, learning abilities, etc. They could've disagreed with my accusations of stalking, harassing, etc., but should've at least addressed the matter.

The article WP:BOOMERANG is interesting, but it doesn't change the actions of the other users, and it does not worry me since I know I did nothing wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that you're violating the Law of holes, right? The impression you're giving gets worse and worse with every post you make. If you're lucky, someone will step in and close this discussion before it reaches WP:BOOMERANG proportions. If you're not lucky, it'll stay open, you'll keep on digging, and the end result with be a sanction for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I was hoping they would get a sanction or reprimand tbh. Not because I have anything against them. But because all I ever wanted was editing in peace, and I still want this; I met some editors willing to help or at least have a discussion on practical matters, but I also ran across these two editors, who did stalk me and made personal attacks, and I have provided enough diffs to prove that.

While I can understand Ermenrich may have had some concern a priori in the beginning (because they explained the topic where I edited is subject to nationalist-minded editing and sock-puppetry), Borsoka really just jumped in after things didn't turn out how they wanted. Giray Altay (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You are obviously unable to understand other editors' motivations. WP is not a battle ground for all of us. Perhaps you should try to accept that other editors are not here to win, but to improve articles. That you wanted to refer to hundreds of pages in German and Hungarian anthologies of various studies and to books published more than a hundred years ago to verify a statement is still a fact. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the matter wasn't that I wanted to refer to hundreds of pages in German and Hungarian anthologies of various studies and to books published more than a hundred years ago. The problem was that you wanted to keep certain information out of the article (an important, subject-related passage from the famous Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum by Simon of Kéza). And, judging from the talk page, you attempted do it in the past as well.

I initially published 4 valid sources to support my addition, but you rejected them with various excuses, including calling the commentary of a 21-st century scholar a primary source. Thus, I retrieved 9 sources to support the claim, and among them there was indeed a source "100 years old", and as soon as you saw it, you started using that as an excuse to keep the aforementioned information out of the article.

I wasn't on battleground mentality, I wanted to reason with you but you kept rejecting that insertion for no apparent reason, criticizing the sources. Eventually, after the admins took notice of it, the content was finally included in the article.

The very first words of the WP:Battleground article are: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges. However, this is what you did shortly after I begged to differ at Samuel Aba: 1 (n.b. following me to the page of another user, which Borsoka had never edited, to join two other users' conversation against me). So, imo, you should not mention WP.Battleground at all.Giray Altay (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Need I mention that “following me to the page of another user” to discuss someone’s edits is not stalking? You yourself appear to have followed me to Erminwin’s page originally to complain that I hadn’t pinging you to my discussion with another editor about your edits [44] (why would I?). When I a month later prevented you from reinstating your preferred version without first gaining consensus at Odoacer ([45], [46]), you immediately accused me of stalking and harassing you and acting in bad faith (plus some made up claim that I was reported to an administrator)[47] when I had been following the page for years and hadn’t even been the original one to revert your additions. It’s clear you do have a WP:battleground mentality when you make such (frankly) crazy accusations against someone.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From Wp:Hounding:

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. [...] Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

And check this 1. Borsoka never edited Erminwin's page before, but had just confronted me on another page.

I already explained you that I saw your comment about me at Erminwin's because you didn't ping me at our discussion at the Huns, though I had asked you to do so 2. You didn't have to ping me of course (and in fact you never did even after I asked you). It was stupid to ask, and at the time I didn't have the Huns in my watchlist. I loaded your page from the google bar to check if you had replied, instead of the Huns' one, and there I saw your creation of Prolific new editor on Hunnic topics (2).

I accused you of stalking at Odoacer, because you were the only editor out of over 200 page watchers to join the conversation with me and another user, and you did it against me, maybe, a priori, because in the end me and the other user resolved the misunderstanding, made up and worked together for the article (3). But you never contributed practically to this or any other conversation involving me. Only jumped in to undo my edits; claim I am some other user; etc.

I had some reason to believe you didn't assume good faith with me, but I openly accused you only after this: 3, 4.

I didn't accuse you of stalking me just at Odoacer, but also (and chiefly) at Mundus. (cf. 5 and right after 6, 7). But you still haven't addressed the latter. Giray Altay (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Other than a couple of side comments by Bish and Kansas Bear, there's nothing happening hear other than arguments started elsewhere spilling over into this discussion. I'm going to give this a few more hours to see if someone uninvolved in the initial dispute can propose some solutions we can enforce moving forward. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to close this discussion down, as it is not really generating any useful progress in fixing the dispute. I also don't think we need to hear any more from any of the disputants; if they comment I'll likely close it down even sooner. Let people who are uninvolved disentangle this mess. Otherwise, there's nothing useful going to come from this. --Jayron32 13:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I tried to wade through but the walls of text prevented me.

  @Giray Altay, you're very new. When you come to a noticeboard, you need to:

  1. Have a specific concern that you can back up with diffs provided in your first post
  2. Write as short as possible. No one wants to read long repetitive explanations. No one is even expected to. Writing shorter takes longer, but it's a skill worth developing if you want to get along here on Wikipedia.

  You also really need to understand policy a lot better than you currently appear to. From the skim I did, I think you're lucky someone hasn't blocked you for repeatedly making after being asked not to what seems like an awful lot of unsupported allegations and assumptions of bad faith. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Conciseness is the greatest talent a person may have, and writing shorter does take longer. I absolutely need to develop this skill.

  I thought I had provided enough diffs; I guess I was wrong. Giray Altay (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not the number. We don't want more diffs, we want ones that really show the problem, accompanied by a ten-word description of the issue. Five great diffs are better than 10 iffy ones, and five good diffs should be sufficient for most concerns. Even one diff that doesn't actually show the problem can make someone who opens that diff first think, "This is nothing. I'm not going to bother with the rest."

  If I were you, I would request this be closed. It's not likely to go anywhere in this shape, it's just way too long, too many diffs added too late, and apparently diffs that don't actually show what they're supposed to show. Go edit somewhere noncontentious for a while, it's really hard to start out at contentious articles. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• The patience of administrators never ceases to amaze me.

With regards to this filing, I do not see anything actionable at this point. I do believe there has been quite enough incivility here to go around but it is something that can be corrected by simply reminding the disputants that this is a community with people from all over the world making edits to this encyclopedia. We are expected to respect each other and assume good faith, even when we believe there is a violation of policy. Our administrators, as an extension of the community, show us this every day. They interact and sanction many tens of hundreds of user and IP accounts every day, protecting the encyclopedia from harm, yet they do not go to user talk pages to make accusations about editors with out providing clear and concise evidence. And they do not allow their personal feelings to rule their actions or read into every comment in an attempt to infer some slight that simply is not there.

I understand @Giray Altay's feelings when being accused of being a sockpuppet on this project. It is one of if not the worst accusation that can be made about an editor here and can be considered a personal attack of the highest order. I understand their feeling about going to another talk page and seeing two or three editors, that have been reverting their edits, discussing them, regardless of merit. While not necessarily the case, I can see how the OP could misconstrue that as "tag-teaming". I also understand the perspective of @Ermenrich and @Borsoka's positions in the discussions. It can be frustrating to deal with some editors, especially those that dominate discussions and write walls of endless text. I believe this is a case of everyone involved, including the OP, contributing to this spiraling event by minor actions they took and things they said.

A warning about civility and maintaining the assumption of good faith to all involved is all I see warranted at most. If @Ermenrich truly believes that @Giray Altay is a sockpuppet or master then they should open a SPI case and stop talking about it on other user talk pages. Likewise, @Giray Altay needs to stop accusing other editors of being racist, or some form of it, or tag-teaming against them. --ARoseWolf 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This topic appears to be dying out finally, but I'd like to say this in response to ARoseWolf's comments. While I certainly appreciate that someone might not like being discussed as being a sock puppet, as long as it is unclear who the master is, there's no way to file a report. I believe Kansas Bear has supplied some very convincing evidence that this is not a new user, but since no one can figure out who it is, the only way to advance is to discuss until someone figures something out. It's not like this is being discussed outside talk:Erminwin.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of mentality that caused all this. You are in bad faith. You have put in your head that I am a Turkish nationalist, sock master or whatever, and now you are willing to waste yours and others time as well. But please do. I don't mind you do it at this point, just don't accuse me again at pages; go and open a report. All this happened even though I told you I am in good faith, told you I am not a sock puppet master, not a nationalist, not doing anything malicious. Even though none of my edits show signs of it (I know it must be so, since I am none of what you accuse me of, nor anything malicious).

And even if I was a nationalist, a sock puppet master or whatever: it's like I told you: even if I was a Hungarian or Turkish or whatever nationalist, what do you care as long as the contributions are constructive? (1). Let any admin or viewer here look into my edits and see if they find something disruptive; something nationalist-minded, sock-puppet minded, etc.

You never tried to discuss constructively; you never criticized or assessed my edits; you would ping me or reply to me (when you didn't try to hide it 2) only to make some insinuations against me as a Wikipedia user.

You didn't just discuss me at other users' pages, you also made open insinuations at public articles (3)

I believe Kansas Bear has supplied some very convincing evidence that this is not a new user, no they haven't. They provided evidence that I learned to use Wikipedia. They may be able to prove I learn quickly, but they would have to provide some statistics and diffs from other users to do that.

And besides, it doesn't have to be malicious, you know. I believe that IP address-editors turned into users and people who create new accounts for no malicious reason are pretty common occurrences. Yet you have to use this to fuel your wrong belief that I am doing something wrong. No matter what it is. You don't even know yourself. Giray Altay (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

AIV Backlog

A backlog is forming over at WP:AIV. I recently posted about a person and saw the backlog notice.SniperReverter (Talk to me and what I've done) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Cleared EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lovely. SniperReverter (Talk to me and what I've done) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM

There are backlogs at WP:PERM in at least three sections/categories (AutoWikiBrowser, Page Mover, and Pending Changes Reviewer). Some additional eyes would be appreciated. For full disclosure, I do have a request there myself, but I excluded my own request in evaluating the backlogs. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of those three always have a backlog. They do not any more. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Retired editor SchroCat

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

Sorry to bring this to light, but the editor in question just refuses to stop WP:ASPERSIONS against multiple users. This is a little confusing because SchroCat is a retired editor who is using multiple IPs to edit.

• SchroCat accused of Shibbolethink of stalking[48] and being unethical[49]. Even after Shibbolethink attempted to clarify the dispute in a GF manner SchroCat against made an accusation and went further by calling it gaslighting and disgusting.[50]

• At this stage I contacted Shibbolethink via TALK to warn them that SchroCat was a hostile editor. SchroCat was less than friendly towards me in the past, but I just let it go and moved on.
• This seemed to move things along, but a few days later SchroCat accused Shibbolethink of edit warring. [51] Then SchroCat went to InvadingInvader’s TALK and made accusations against myself, InvadingInvader, and EnPassant.[52] Again, I attempted to steer the editor away, but everything becomes a WP:BATTLEGROUND it seems.

Generally I would just this behavior go and move on, but this editor's actions on several articles are watching at the present is becoming an unnecessary distraction. Based on the editor's history this isn't the first time this type of behavior has been a problem. In light of the editor not listening to advice in GF I bring it here hoping that brings it to an end. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Either an editor has retired or hasn't, it can't be both. If SchroCat is behind the IPs? I wish he'd would stop continuing 'signed out' & officially un-retire. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, User:GoodDay, you are mistaken. The editor cannot be determined to be in a retired or non-retired state, like the cat whose living or non-living state is indeterminate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have linked to where the user said they were SchroCat, but the identity wasn't in dispute. For example, the IP removed the notice from SchroCat's TALK. Nemov (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor signs their comments as "The editor formally known as Schrocat and now editing under IPs" or something similar. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

1. I'm not an expert in policy, but I'm getting a feeling that this could constitute as some form of sockpuppetry. I won't further entertain the feeling unless there is solid proof.

2. I would fully support the initial comment as a neutral testament of what happened.

3. To respond to GoodDay's initial comment, during an ongoing discussion on whether to include an infobox on Mackenzie Ziegler's article, the IP 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:EC7C:7CCE:D2B2:CF59 opposed the idea and listed them as formerly being known as SchroCat. That's when Nemov first alerted me to SchroCat's history and the Infobox debate, and upon our discussion about the past, the IP 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F9F0:EEDB:4180:806C started accusing us of personal attacks left, right, and center. Based on their responses, though no verbatim admission has come from the latter IP, I have reason to believe that both IPs are SchroCat. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the diffs of where I have “accused you of personal attacks left, right, and center”? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've contacted SchroCat & asked him to either un-retire or stop continuing forward signed-out, if he's behind the IPs. We should also take caution, that it's not someone else claiming to be SchroCat, just to get him banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I neither need to un-retire, nor wish to. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If that's your attitude? then you're on your own. If you end up site-banned? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My attitude? As far as I am aware, that’s long-standing practice, given there are no policies or guidelines that say the opposite. I pop back in from time to time, which is acceptable, rather than “an attitude”. Cheers 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:302F:5717:579F:6EE8 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I said Shibbolethink was disgraceful. I stand by that. You don’t infer editors are delusional. For someone who purports to be a medical professional, that is a disgraceful statement to make.

He called me delusional because I said he had stalked me between articles and harassed me by removing or moving my comments. He has:

• removed a comment I made;
• said I have opened the RFC in bad faith;

The stalking began after he claimed sources saying Rylance should be described as British American. (He shouldn't be – the sources even come close to backing that up). He stonewalled on the talk page, so an RfC is in progress. Since then, he has appeared after me at the following articles (some are obviously natural links, others are definitely not).

• List of awards and nominations received by Mark Rylance
• James Joyce
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
• Claude Debussy
• Moorgate Tube Crash
• Laurence Olivier
• The Shoes of the Fisherman (film) (I hadn't edited the article, but I had altered the link in the Olivier article)

• I have also received a series of posts on my talk page from him including veiled accusations. This was the one message he has dropped into the middle of the RFC, which is more than a little inappropriate. I am unable to leave a message on his talk page about this as it is semi-protected. He has also moved part of one of my comments (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1125987334&oldid=1125922063)? I reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1126045730&oldid=1125987334) pointing out it was an answer to his previous comment, but he again moved it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurence_Olivier&diff=1126112389&oldid=1126078039).
  As to the comments on InvadingInvader‘s talk page. I have pointed out that they are hardly in good faith, and one of the accusations (from EnPassant, was untrue. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Every one of those talk pages has either an entirely benign reason, or my participation is completely unrelated to "stalking/HOUNDING", or otherwise unconnected to this user:

point by point rebuttal to accusation of HOUNDING

The article List of awards and nominations received by Mark Rylance is directly related to the article I first encountered this IP at (Mark Rylance). It doesn't take a genius to figure out how I got there. And honestly, truly, I never noticed this was the same IP. I think the user has said they aren't all the users in that range: [53] There are other editors involved in these discussions, who I respect (but sometimes disagree with and sometimes agree with), and I often find the discussions they participate in interesting. (e.g. User:SMcCandlish, User:Dronebogus): Talk:James Joyce, Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Talk:Claude Debussy, Talk:Laurence Olivier. These are also, if you notice, all infobox disputes, a thing I literally just found out about, and am trying to get as far away from as possible now that I see how ridiculously inane and contentious the disputes are. Moorgate tube crash: This is the only one even remotely connected to the user. They have discussed quite often how many FAs and GAs they have created, in an attempt to bolster their arguments or give their opinion more weight (Again, no idea if this user is truly SchroCat). I looked at FAs and GAs SchroCat has created, and this one looked interesting. As far as I know, the IP hasn't edited that article in a very long time (if ever). and I don't think I edited any area of the article they also edited recently (if ever). Shoes of the Fisherman: This user (I think same person?) posted on WT:RM about the article Special:PermanentLink/1125936398#Requested move, a place I frequent (as an active page mover). They didn't sign as SchroCat as they have elsewhere, but I'm thinking that must be where this comes from. Again, had no idea it was the same user.

So how exactly would any of the above constitute WP:HOUNDING? Should I never edit articles the editor has ever touched? That would be a de facto SchroCat TBAN, something I would not be in favor of. I have no interest in interacting with or avoiding this user. I have no interest in checking each and every article for whether this /64 range has ever edited (especially since they occasionally edit with other ranges, how would I even know?) I have no interest in interacting with this user whenever possible, they have made doing so an extremely unpleasant experience. I care very little about the content of these disputes. I am happy to go with consensus in each and every case, and have said as much repeatedly.

In response to any attempt to create consensus via compromise, or follow BRD, I have been met with numerous WP:ASPERSIONS and bad faith accusations:

Examples of this user violating talk page guidelines

The user has gone to discussions we are both in (as described above, unconnected to this user), and accused me of only participating because of them. [54][55] [56] They have said they feel "chilled" and "threatened" because of my actions. (e.g. moving comments to user talk, or in order of contribution as is customary) [57]. and that I "gaslight" them [58]. In each situation, I have defaulted to their preferred formatting, given that they appear to have strong opinions about it. Truly doesn't matter to me. Happy to go with whatever they wanted, and have done so. They have accused me of edit warring, without evidence, and without me providing more than a single revert. [59] [60]. This, btw, is when they boldly remove content. Any revert of their actions is tiresome. Reverts the user does are good quality contributions. In this case, I reverted ONCE and was told I was "edit warring". They have accused me of harassing them, when I and other users have simply attempted to discuss their actions in good faith on their talk page. [61] [62] [63] The user's only response has been such comments as: someone isn’t in listening mode [64] and As a former editor with a stack of GAs and FAs, I am aware of how WP works, what BLP is and how sources are misrepresented in disputes [65] Wrong place. Wrong message. Ignorance of BLP violations is no defence [66]. When I had no idea which user this editor previously was (as I had not and still do not care to check their anon IP history) I asked them if they edited under other accounts and if they were blocked under those accounts (a question I ask every anon IP who claims to be a longstanding user) [67], they blanked and said "tv bad faith" They discuss all issues on article talk, especially those which are unrelated to the content of the article in question, in blatant violation of WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (and resist any attempt to move discussions to more appropriate venues) Any user who disagrees with them is arguing in bad faith. (at least four I can count) Any user who has different opinions than them is not arguing in good faith, harassing them, etc. I encourage anyone to try and find a place where they've disagreed with someone in a productive way. I could not.

I neglected to say above, as SchroCat and as other IPs, they have been blocked a total of FIVE (maybe six?) times for creating a battleground, for edit warring (on ArbCom of all places, with arbs!), and for sock-puppetry: [68] [69]. For many of the same behaviors I describe above.

Add to this: the explicit WP:OWN behavior (this user is a filter placed upon every article they have ever edited, in which they will create controversy and edit war over minute changes such as adding spouses to an infobox), the WP:BATTLEGROUNDs they create (everyone is with them or against them, a friendly editor whose actions they like, or someone who harasses them). And so on.

I am happy to provide diffs showing any of the above.

As far as I can tell, this user edits on anonymous IPs partially because of their previous block log and history. Not to mention the ArbCom restriction that they must declare themselves when asked by Arbs. If anything, their behavior has become more brazenly standoffish since going full anon IP. And it's taken longer for admins to catch up with their many addresses given that behavior is stretched across different IPs (block evasion): [70] [71]. Why is this something the project is tolerating, given the past disruption? What does this user, in their current state and behavior, contribute to the project? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has contributed a large body of very well written articles on interesting topics. These articles continue to have new readers which constitutes an ongoing contribution to the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and I commend them for those efforts and contributions. But that does not outweigh the sheer number of personal attacks and edit wars, the overall WP:OWN behavior, and general pattern of BATTLEGROUNDing, OWNership, and lack of collaboration from this editor. I encourage you to find an instance when this editor was able to collaborate with someone they disagreed with about a fundamental "preference" disagreement. I could not find a single one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is anything further that admins can do about this. I can think of no sanction more severe than being condemned to spend your free time arguing against infoboxes as an IP editor. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t just to that. I occasionally make sure standards are kept on sourcing and that sources are no misrepresented while someone tries to crowbar petty nationalism onto an article. Then I get bored and go away do something useful with my life for a couple of months. - 86.162.16.154 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. From this time onward, whoever the IPs (mobile or computer) are, they'll likely not be trusted again, going forward. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo that the IPs are actually SchroCat, this is a fairly textbook example of evading scrutiny, given SchroCat's history in this area. If you're retired, retire, or scratch the Wikipedia itch in such a way that you're not noticed. If you're not retired, please log into your account so editors understand who they're working with. You can't have it both ways.

If it's not SchroCat, arguing about infoboxes is a privilege (punishment?) that really ought to be reserved to logged-in editors. Mackensen (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Evading scrutiny? I signed my !votes using my name, so there is no evasion. I cannot log back in: my password was scrambled a couple of years ago and I have no wish to return to full time editing, just drop in. And no, discussions over things like IBs is for all users, registered and unregistered. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's still an email address associated with your account, which generally means the account is recoverable. You could also register a new account under a new name. Editing as a logged-out IP when your IP changes frequently (not your fault, but it's a fact) makes more work for the editors trying to work with you. You need to make a choice here. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made my choice, thanks. I will continue to return as an IP editor when I feel like editing. If there is a policy or guideline against that, please show it me and I'll adhere to it. If there isn't, then I will continue to edit as an IP, signing my old user name when appropriate. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:LOUTSOCK? As everyone else has said: you can't retire and then continue to edit actively, especially not logged out in a way that people could be deceived into thinking you don't have an account. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 23:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just as WP:NOTHERE admits more than one reading, so too does WP:LOUTSOCK. Just sayin'. EEng 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Loutsock? I don't edit under my old name, so Loutsock can't apply (my last edit as SchroCat was September 2020). As I have already said, when I occasionally return, and where appropriate (!votes in contentious areas, etc), I sign saying what my former account was so as not to be accused of evasion. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to note about WP:LOUTSOCK and whether or not this user will be an issue for the project moving forward: If this IS SchroCat, they have tried to have a (albeit hidden) WP:CLEANSTART at least twice [72] [73] and got a CU-block both times, as a result of their behavior. They have also tried to be vanished at least once, and had it reversed due to their behavior. [74]

I would say it is absurd for the community to not see this logged out editing as yet another way to have their behavior less scrutinized. SchroCat seems to want their cake and to eat it too, to be anonymous, but also able to cite their "long history of FAs and GAs" as experience AND ALSO avoid the baggage of their many prior blocks and their current editing restriction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for a checkuser to comment on whether the IP editor may be SchroCat? (possibly not, as checkusers are usually loath to link an IP to an account for a range of good reasons concerning privacy). Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There wouldn't even be any way to tell. The logs are purged every few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We can infer certain traits from the CU log from past checks of the named account. We do normally avoid linking a named account to an IP, but SchroCat has self-disclosed right here, so he's waived the privacy to which he would otherwise be entitled. Because of this self-disclosure, I don't think it's necessary right now to run a check. I also don't think his motives are malicious, but if the community believes this to be disruptive, we can handle it through normal admin actions. Katie^talk 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

How do we know these IPs are the same person and that person is SchroCat? Also he was party to an AE or ARCA or something about infoboxes when he retired, so, there's that. Ritchie333, didn't you deal with this already once before? Levivich (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

According to this, the only logged editing restriction I could find, "SchroCat is required to disclose any future alternative accounts either publicly or privately to the Arbitration Committee." Question is, are the IPs the person who now claims to be SchroCat is using "accounts" under this restriction, and have they been reporting them to ArbCom as required? The other possible concern is when SchroCat (if this is SchroCat) doesn't identify themselves as an IP, is that "avoiding scrutiny" of their editing per WP:SOCKPUPPETRY? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that. This ARCA is what I remembered. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• While the random IPs in multiple discussions are confusing, the real issue is the consistent behavior towards other editors. This has been a problem in the past and now is continuing post-retirement. I don't have objections to the editor leaving comments on articles as an IP editor, it's the comments towards other editors which need to stop. Nemov (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt asked the candidates for ArbCom whether we still have infobox wars. Maybe the answer is that, due to quantum entanglement, we may or may not have infobox wars with an editor who may or may not be active. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned: today is the last day to vote. There have been few discussions about infoboxes over 2021 and 2022. When I saw Laurence Olivier, however, I sadly noticed that the topic is still not at peace. After I asked in my survey, we had even more such discussions. - I don't understand the problem, because I strongly believe that a lead and an infobox can coexist in an article, serving different types of readers, - why was that ever a reason to fight? - I asked the arb candidates about ideas for peace, and they offered none. My simple approach: 1) every editor please stick to two comments per discussion. (Can anybody count how many comments the various IPs named SchroCat made in Laurence Olivier alone? On top of edit-warring over the new infobox.) 2) treat infoboxes just like other editing, in civility and respecting WP:BRD. Better ideas, anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda:, don't worry too much about Infoboxes; that's only tangential to this topic. This thread is not about that, but about a possible community ban of an editor. You're welcome to opine in the #Survey section above, if you wish to. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix ping: @Gerda Arendt:. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I opined clearly enough, but if not:

• I don't worry about infoboxes (at all). They come, and they come without me, I don't have to worry.
• It is SchroCat who worries too much about infoboxes, getting into trouble again and again over only this topic, instead of just accepting community consensus.
• I do not support banning a valuable content editor, when a topic ban or a two-comments-per-discussion restriction (best for all participants) would be enough to stop disruption.
• As expressed before, multiple times, I'd prefer if SchroCat would edit under the user name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, your two posts preceding this one are disingenuous and a very selective reading of the origin of WP:BLUDGEONING in infobox discussions. Perhaps the reason this thread has not boomeranged on those editors is that other editors don't want to engage their behaviors, as they should land those editors in arb enforcement. And I'm not referring to SchroCat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The people who oppose infoboxes are good content creators, not drive-by disruptors. Let them have their say without bitter argument. If the IP bothers you, ignore them. You don't have to counter everything the IP says. If you respond to them, they are entitled to reply. Post on this noticeboard if the IP is a problem after people stop arguing with them and stop fiddling with their comments. An editor can stop using their account and later post as an IP if they want—nothing nefarious is going on. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  This has zero to do with infoboxes. I can't be clearer about that. This is about a single editor who continues to accuse others repeatedly after being asked to stop. That is a problem. Accusing others of stalking, harassment, and lying isn't a simple content dispute. When an editor has been blocked for this behavior in the past and refuses to stop what other recourse is there? Nemov (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Pay no mind to the old he-wouldn't-be-such-a-jerk-if-people-didn't-bother-him-so-much defense. Frankly I'm surprised it took 12 hours to appear in this thread. Levivich (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's a little troublesome that some editors seem unconcerned about this issue. This is a clear case of an edtior accusing others of lying, harassment, stalking, and gaslighting. WP:ASPERSIONS is very clear on this subject. It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. This is the routine for SchroCat. Nemov (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Don't think there's anything to do here. Yep, this is obnoxious; nope, doesn't seem to be against any of our policies (although we do need to verify when an IP claims to be a registered user; just saying "hey it's me" isn't sufficient). Requiring SchroCat return to their account won't actually solve anything. If his behavior becomes abusive, the next step is proposing an indef here, but there would need to be a lot more (and more egregious) evidence for that. History also tells us that proposals to sanction someone are least productive when filed by someone at the other end of an infobox battle, for better or worse. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  The current situation isn't great. SchroCat's user page says he's retired. His talk page was protected yesterday. An IP who is probably SchroCat, given his conduct, is signing himself as such but his IP keeps changing. This mode of editing has and will continue to cause confusion and create friction, even leaving aside that SchroCat's conduct toward other editors hasn't improved over the years. I don't see why the project has to sign up for more of this; we do get a choice after all. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this WP:SPI? WP:OWN?

Today multiple IPs have edited the Moorgate tube crash page, reverting grammar improvements, and then going on to my talk page (where at least one of them admitted to being SC) and the article's talk page. This includes:

1. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 1, 2)
2. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 3, 4, 5)
3. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DD88:3C8D:2FF1:1800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 5, 6)
4. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:B4FF:A37A:49BB:D5B4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diffs: 6, 7

Is it worth launching an SPI regarding this? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: and @Shibbolethink: have also had interactions with one or more of these, whether it be on the main page or the talk page. On my talk page there were signs of WP:OWN as well. Troublesome and tiring. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These IPs are all from a single dynamic /64 IPv6 range (the first four groups of numbers are the same), meaning it's all one device, presumably one person, who claims to be SchroCat. No need for SPI here. There are other concerns but this is normal for a dynamic IPv6. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Basically this is just more and more evidence this IP range tries to WP:OWN articles edited by User:SchroCat. Even very small changes by multiple users are reverted with various antagonistic edit summaries rv stalker, Care to give a reason? I did when I made the edit: it’s consistent with the rest of the article and not needed. It’s also the version that was present since it was made an FAC until an IP added the needless commas a month ago.. They appear to have improved their language a bit since the opening of this AN discussion, but the actual OWN behavior of any and all edits reverted through this person as a "filter" is still the same. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After Shibbolethink reported these edits to ANEW, I have blocked 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for violating 3RR over things like whether to join two sentences with a semicolon and whether "London Underground" takes an article or not. Just thought you'd like to know. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s just not true. I reverted the parts of your edit that were not an improvement to an FA, that is all. That’s not ownership, that’s having standards. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Its a dynamic IP that my system changes. That’s not something I control.

It’s a misnomer to describe the edits as “grammar improvements”. They weren’t, which is why they were partially reverted. I have given my explanation of why on the talk page.

It is untrue to say there are signs on OWN, as I explained quite clearly. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address really changes 4 times in one day, between ones you have already used a few hours or minutes earlier? Really? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty common for IP6. But also, SchroCat, what you're doing is exactly what WP:OWN is about. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Removing problematic or sub-standard edits isn’t ownership. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR and get back to us, see what you think. You did say on my talk it was a page you had taken through FA... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the IP range exhibits every single one of those behaviors. The thing is, they just cite WP:FAOWN to justify it.

And, to be fair, to WP:STEELMAN, FAOWN does say: Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.

But extremely importantly, the language in this policy is:

1. a suggestion for courtesy, not a mandate
2. Described as for significant changes
3. Asking those FA editors to [Explain] civilly why sources and policies support a particular version to avoid "ownership" behavior

This IP range reverts and "filters" even extremely small changes that are all about user "preference", not about policy, sources, MOS, or actual FA criteria. They have cited none of these four things to justify reversions here (or honestly, elsewhere). They have only cited that they are restoring the "version that went through FA review" or similar. AKA their preferred version that they claim to have created. That's not FAOWN, that's OWN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Significant" may not be apparent to editors unfamiliar with all the sources, and can often involve only one word that introduces subtle inaccuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are all the contribs from the 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801::0/64 IPv6 range (I think). You can see the claim of "occasionally" editting is a lark: in fact, SchroCat (or an IP claiming to be him) has been editing almost every day on this range. The last 500 edits go back to September; 1000 to May, when this range made its first edits. Before that, it was likely a different range. There is also at least one IPv4 range here claiming to be SchroCat, 86.162.16.0/24, which has made edits like this one a week ago and this one a year and a half ago. There are probably more ranges. Anyway, if someone wants to make a proposal to block these ranges, I'd support it, for any number of reasons: impersonation (we have no idea if this is really SchroCat), edit warring, evasion, incivility, ownership, or my favorite reason: to stop this poor soul from spending any more of his life arguing against infoboxes. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Brilliant, except a large number of these aren’t me. I’m spinning through the list and while many of them are mine, a significant proportion are not. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Housekeeping comment: IP 2A00: please follow WP:THREAD for your replies; your 18:01 response belongs at the same level as my 17:38 comment below, and just below it, if you are replying, as did I, to Levivich's 17:29 comment above. Going forward, please observe standard reply protocols. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Impressive research, thanks! I'm worried that launching some sort of proposal might take months' worth of diffs and IP addresses, not to mention the vast swathes of editors involved at any level!! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I'll do it. I'm clearly involved, but I will try and word it as neutrally as possible (and am happy to incorporate any and all constructive criticism). I think it can be done here as easily as at ANI, anyone correct me if I'm wrong. And if this needs to be moved to ANI, I would be fine with that as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You can just add a section below for the proposal so it's attached to this discussion. I'd support that. Nemov (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In the process :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I'd support it, too. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Community proposal: Ban the person behind these IP ranges (and User:SchroCat) from editing the English Wikipedia

(AKA CBAN the person formerly known as, or claiming to be, User:SchroCat)

• 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 86.162.16.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person should be indefCBAN'd for the following reasons:

all the reasons

WP:OWN - as demonstrated above, the user acts as a filter placed upon any and all articles brought to FA by User:SchroCat. Any changes, even extremely small ones, are reverted. (see this recent edit war over whether to join two sentences with a semicolon and whether "London Underground" should have a definite article) The user defends this behavior with WP:FAOWN [75], but fails to cite any policy, MOS, guideline, or FAC which support their position [76][77]. It mostly boils down to personal preference, when they revert to their preferred version (which they claim to have written). Incivility and failure to assume good faith. Any user who disagrees with them is arguing in bad faith. (at least foureight I can count [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]) Any user who has different opinions than them is stalking them[88][89], harassing them[90][91][92][93], etc. I encourage anyone to try and find a place where they've disagreed with someone in a productive way. I could not. The user has a variety of unfriendly ways of describing others: "stalkers", "harassers", "someone isn’t in listening mode"[94], etc. The range blanks any and all attempts of discussion on their user talk, without engagement[95][96][97][98][99][100]. They have done the same for User talk:SchroCat[101][102][103]. They say "Comment on the content, not other editors" [104] while failing to follow this themselves. They template regulars, while simultaneously blanking/reverting any templates on their talk, and saying they should not be templated. Overall, it is a criticism for thee, but not for me mentality. WP:ASPERSIONS - The user regularly accuses others of misbehavior, of edit warring, of stalking, and of "threatening" them, without evidence, and on article talk and edit summaries. There is no attempt to engage with the accused on any user talk (their own or the accused) or on any noticeboard or typical dispute resolution process. They also label others as "stalkers" on discussions, in an attempt to besmirch others' credibility or good standing, and to discount contributions they disagree with (see above). They also have used the same ASPERSIONS argument against others in the past, so they know how damaging it can be. Violations of numerous talk page guidelines - see point 3, these actions are done on article talk regularly, and in ways which derail numerous talk page discussions. They regularly fail to properly WP:THREAD their discussion replies in a way which places their replies more prominently than those they disagree with. The user also regularly edits archives to litigate old disputes[105][106][105] Creating a battleground. They bring up irrelevant things in the middle of unrelated discussions, in order to label others as not acting in good faith, as worth discounting, or as uncivil. They create an environment for users who disagree with them in which it is extremely unpleasant to contribute. See also point 2, I encourage anyone to find situations prior to this discussion where the user disagrees in a friendly manner focused on achieving consensus via compromise. I could not find a single one. This is especially true in INFOBOX discussions, where the range gets quite uncivil with users who want to introduce infoboxes, a longstanding disruption area for the user and past accounts. WP:BLUDGEON They get quite close to bludgeoning discussions about infoboxes, if not over the line. WP:LOUTSOCK. They have attempted to evade scrutiny in the past via renames, VANISH, etc. and are now doing the same thing using IP addresses. They want to be able to edit anonymously, and only have their conduct examined collectively when they agree to it. E.g. they claim to not be all the contributions on their /64 range, despite this being pretty unlikely. Additionally, they would like to reference their "stack of FAs and GAs" when convenient, to bolster their arguments, and identify as a long time editor when helpful, but then default to anonymity whenever possible. I am not sure how a neutral observer could view this as anything other than an attempt to WP:EVADE scrutiny. WP:TE and WP:ROPE. This user (if we agree they are User:SchroCat) has been blocked at least 6 times, under various IPs and usernames. They have been blocked for incivility and for edit warring (with Arbs! at ArbCom!): [106]. They have tried to have a (albeit hidden) WP:CLEANSTART twice [107] [108] and got a CU-block x2, as a result of behavior. They have also tried to vanish at least once, and had it reversed due to behavior. [109][110]. SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Bounder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) UtterBuffoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would overall summarize the above as:

A user who has had many chances to reform their behavior, and has been blocked many times for this exact behavioral pattern, is now doing it from a set of IP ranges.

Many editors have, in good faith, encouraged them to return to their account and stand behind their contributions, but they have refused. Others still have felt confused about who this editor is, and if this counts as sock-puppetry. In essence, in policy, it may not. But more important is the intent, and conduct, of the person behind these IP addresses. Examining even the content they stand behind, it does not paint a good picture.

I would say we should take this user at their word, and entertain the idea that they are SchroCat, and judge them based on this. If the real SchroCat disagrees, they should speak up. They can return to their passworded account at any time with a simple password reset.

If the real SchroCat would please stand up, please stand up...

Let's collapse the waveform and open the box...

And stop wasting everyone's time from this user's continuous disruption. Happy to provide any and all diffs as requested. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (converted to a CBAN proposal 18:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC), trimmed slightly for length 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC), added diffs 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

Survey

• Don't know if it's appropriate here, but just wanted to add here my support for the WP:CBAN proposal. Other editors - @Nemov:, @GoodDay:, @Robert McClenon:, @InvadingInvader:, @Levivich:, @Mackensen:, @Casualdejekyll:, @Nick-D:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Johnuniq:, @Rhododendrites:, @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - may wish to comment specifically on this here as well. If this is SchroCat, congratulations to him for wasting the time of 15+ editors. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Responses to previous proposal

Support (2nd choice) - but, unfortunately, admins won't (can't?) indef IPs, let alone IP ranges. The most they will do is give months-long blocks. I think 3 year IP blocks are the longest I've seen. Even that would be helpful, but it might be worth considering framing this as an editing ban for the person behind the SchroCat account. They claim that they cannot help that their IP is dynamic, but of course they can, all they have to do is edit with their account. In the spirit of their existing editing restriction, why not a ban which requires them to edit from their account (or to create a new account which is clearly linked to the SchroCat account, which amounts to the same time) and not use IPs? This could be accomplished with a community-proposal here -- or, a longer shot, a complaint could be filed at AE that SchroCat is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of their editing restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC) A very salient point. I'll change it to an editing ban on this user, but I would support those other proposals as a reasonable second choice. At this point, I think we should prioritize whatever prevents disruption of the project the best and most effectively. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support a CBAN of SchroCat per the above megathread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support as proposer.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBan - Given that SchroCat is essentially giving the community the middle finger (and if they weren't aware of it before, they must be after the comments in this thread), and their past incivility and socking, I think this is the best solution for the community, with the previous proposals (IP blocks and/or SC editing restriction) as second choices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Ban for "disrupt[ing] progress toward improving an article [and] building the encyclopedia...extend[ing] over a long time on many articles", and per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1 and 5, and for WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN. This editor does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. This has been an issue in the past and the behavior has continued now as an IP editor. Nemov (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN for all the reasons mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Totally support a community ban, for all the reasons which have been raised. As for comments to the effect of "if it is SchroCat..." I have looked at enough of the editing history to leave no doubt about it. JBW (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the echoing of "SchroCat is wasting everyone's time here". casualdejekyll 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This isn't easy for me, as myself, SchroCat & Cassianto often agreed on opposing the over-usage of infoboxes in bios. However, I came around to accept that they're going to eventually be added to all bios. I wish SchroCat hadn't chosen this topic, as the hill to die on. But, he can't continue on in the manner that's been shown (signed in 'or' signed out) in these infobox discussions. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• This is tough. There's a very small number of people (now mostly retired/banned or otherwise inactive) that feel their high quality articles entitle them to be however patronizing or abusive as they wish, and find in requests for basic respect a form of persecution. I absolutely do think we should afford long-time productive contributors a lot of leeway, and do think we need more people focused on writing high-quality articles than we do people focused on, well, most other activities. But this is ultimately a collaborative project, and I've seen SchroCat hurl enough abuse at people that there was a time I would've supported a ban. Then he sorta-kinda "retired" a couple years ago and things have been quieter. On one hand, if someone avoided accountability because of their FAs, and they stop producing FAs, there's less motivation to leap (Struck after Tim pointed out he's continued to contribute along these lines) While this logged out petulance is tiresome, I'm not convinced there's justification for a CBAN in there. This proposal for a CBAN starts out with a long list of accusations, but that list has very few diffs. I want to see bannable diffs from the time since his retirement. I feel myself wanting to support, but I know that it's based more on a years-old perception than on anything recent, and I'm not comfortable taking such a drastic step without a recent smoking gun. So weak oppose until more (and more egregious) recent diffs are provided. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. I think the behavior is egregious enough to support a cban, but if this turns out not to be SchroCat, then my apologies to SchroCat. The IP ranges should be blocked for some appropriate period of time regardless of how the CBAN vote turns out. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Tim Riley has confirmed below that these IPs are in fact SchroCat, so that ends any doubt in my mind. Unequivocal support for using IPs to continue the infobox disputes, edit warring, incivility, and general battleground editing. Levivich (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a community ban, primarily on account of personal attacks, and of avoiding scrutiny for the personal attacks by being logged out. The editor has become a net negative to the project after rage-quitting and then coming back anonymously. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• support, there’s no legitimate reason an established editor with a reputation like SchoCat has would be editing anonymously; they should be cbanned for repeated bad behavior and attempting to avoid scrutiny for such behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. It is a very sad fact of life that some people who are highly intelligent and very talented are either unable or unwilling to collaborate effectively and behave properly. The person who goes by SchroCat is another one of them who needs to be removed from this project. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN of the IPs and SchroCat unless SchroCat can log into his/her/their account and confirm with a CheckUser that they aren't behind the range of IPs, or some other method of proving that the IPs claiming to be SchroCat wasn't that person. If the IPs can be proven to not be tied to SchroCat, then undo the ban. However, the ban should not be punitive but preventative, just like blocks. A community ban with blocks to enforce it would do what it could to prevent this in the future. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to unless SchroCat can log into his/her/their account and confirm with a CheckUser that they aren't behind the range of IPs, WP:CHECKME is explicit that while [o]n some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted (emphasis mine). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I try not to get involved in these matters but this just seems to me like a massive pile-on caused by two registered editors who thought their edits to the Moorgate article shouldn't be reverted. (Mostly, they should have been, because it was better before.) In other words, a content dispute. It's then been blown up into a huge thing about editing from an IP (which as we all know is illegal) that changes (which as we all know is technically impossible) and then just flinging as much as possible at him in the hope that some of it sticks. I can see the inevitable outcome here and I don't intend to participate further (don't ping me: I won't be interested) but I just wanted to register my view that something ludicrous and vengeful is taking place here and people are enjoying a proper oldschool Wikipedia lynching. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was about one account. What it boils down to is that established editors are biased against IPs and that it's mildly annoying that they have a dynamic IP. Their conduct is nowhere near the level that would rise to a community ban or even an indef block for a long-term registered editor. I won't defend the edit warring and incivility but I offer in mitigation that this bias leads editors to behave much more aggressively than they would with an account. Almost every editor with multiple FAs has been involved in an edit war or heated discussion to preserve the quality of an FA. That's because it takes weeks or months of researching and writing to get an article to that standard but seconds for somebody to make an edit without checking the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Forget it as it cannot be implemented. Just give short blocks to IP that cause trouble. People that care can add the FAs to their own watch list to see if there are edit wars relating to them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett Though exceedingly rare, there is actually a precedent for community banning an IP user with a long pattern of incivillity and edit warring [111], enshrined into WP:CBAN. Of note, that was for an IP range blocked 15+ times before anyone bothered to talk about it. SchroCat has been blocked at least 7 times, with 3 more previously unreported edit wars that went unblocked as I describe below [112]. There’s probably more if we combine the edit histories from the various IP ranges [113][114]. here are also numerous personal attacks going unreported. They've also openly flouted these blocks in the past, e.g. instead of appealing a block, "Never mind ... time to reset the router" [115] I would ask: how many blocks does it take for us to realize someone needs a CBAN? How many edit wars with the user failing to learn any lesson? No one should be above scrutiny. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not true that it cannot be implemented. A ban attaches to an individual person, not to an account, and a CBAN certainly can be implemented. What I think you meant to say, is that it wouldn't be 100% effective because of dynamic IPs. That may be true, but it is certainly not a reason for the community to throw up their hands and not issue a ban, if they believe that a ban is warranted. For one thing, without a ban, the SchroCat account could be used again, whereas with a ban, it could not. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination, with particular reference to the evasion of scrutiny. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the "all the reasons" box contains insufficient proof to ban (just allegations). The diffs I have seen further up on the page mostly look like garden variety content/style disputes to me, and most of the IP edits referred to here are actually good. I am surprised to see this level of support for a CBAN for such a long time productive editor. I would very much prefer to see SchroCat editing from an account, but using IPs to edit isn't prohibited, and their behaviour doesn't look like socking. If a ban is desired, I would suggest to go through an ArbCom case and also consider alternative remedies; ANI isn't great at deliberatively finding solutions to problems. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's nice to know an admin for Wikipedia thinks accusing other editors of stalking, harassment, and gaslighting is just a part "garden variety content disputes." Do we just throw out WP:ASPERSIONS if the editor is perceived as productive in other areas? Someone else raised this question, but if this behavior isn't considered violating ASPERSIONS then I'd love to know what would. Is there a sliding scale? If you have 4 FA articles can you violate other Wikipedia guidelines? Is there a double standard guideline for productive users? Nemov (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Productive users have the right to a fair trial. I find the evidence presented above confusing and generally unconvincing. —Kusma (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Are there specific points in my collapse box above that you find have insufficient evidence? (or perhaps the 1-2 you find most unsupported?) I would be happy to provide more diffs of their behavior, but there were honestly so many and so deep into the edit histories that it would take a long time for each and every point. I went ahead and added more diffs to that collapse box, let me know what you think. I am happy to do it for any particular point as requested, as I described in that comment. I completely respect your right to disagree in good faith in our interpretations of their behavior, but I want to at least know which ones you find unsupported. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The "editing an archive" complaint is unfounded (SchroCat was editing the live talk page, later archived by moving). There is no evidence for "aspersions". The edit war at the London Underground thing doesn't have diffs. "Bludgeon" has no diffs either. Not convincing. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  diffs on aspersions are up there, I think we are just disagreeing on interpretation, and that's fine.

  The edit war for London Underground is linked to the EWN report, here are the diffs: [116][117][118][119][120] and I think there's one more revert as described by Daniel Case above, but can't pinpoint it. Anyway clearly over 3RR.

  Re: archive editing, I didn't recognize the two as an edit history move, thanks for pointing that out, I see you are absolutely right. But this appears to be a pretty clear cut example: [121] Are you really saying that diff is from someone editing a talk page that was later archived?

  Here's the discussions the user BLUDGEONed/derailed imo: [122][123]. You'll notice I also commented a fair amount in those discussions, but mostly in response to attempts to besmirch my reputation and generally discount my opinion based on unfounded accusations. Hence, ASPERSIONS. I also attempted several times to get the user to move the offtopic discussions to their user talk to UNBLUDGEON the discussion, unsuccessfully, so I stopped trying. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The Moorgate crash is a rather silly edit war over minor stylistic points (that might have looked different had the edits not come from an IP). You are right about the second archive, and I have no excuse for that (many recent archive edits are the result of "reply" being active on archives, something the developers need to fix by introducing a new magic word, but that doesn't seem to be the cause in your example). The infobox discussion is far longer than necessary, but the IP is essentially correct that being inside an infobox is not an excuse to have uncited information in a FA (and it now seems resolved by sourced information). As infoboxes are notoriously bad at nuance, any precise-looking information in there should be excellently sourced. Problematic edits? Yes, sure. Worth a ban? Not seeing it, sorry. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It's unacceptable for a user, however prominent, to be evading scrutiny as an IP editor when (a) they are subject to editing restrictions, (b) having a history of socking, and (c) have a lengthy block log. I understand the mentality that leads to people bending over backwards for long-time productive editors but I can't agree with it. If SchroCat reassumes control over his account, as I believe he's capable of doing, I would reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as SchroCat is responsible for a lot of high quality article content that readers continue to benefit from, and I don't believe they should be thanked for that with a community ban. Many of the IP edits were improvements, and I see no need to prevent that from continuing. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know if I support a CBAN at this time since I haven't fully reviewed the evidence, but I completely think that the community is well within its rights to require the editor formerly known as SchroCat to make a new account and be limited to just using that for the future. A community-imposed one account restriction should seriously be considered alongside this one (separately). IP editing is a privilege, yes; but if SchroCat is going to be getting in these sorts of disputes then they might as well make an account so people can immediately know they are talking to the right person. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  What I would tell you is that the editor has attempted WP:CLEANSTART twice before, and got banned both times [124] [125], and attempted to WP:VANISH once [126][127]., and had it reversed, all 3 due to this exact sort of misbehavior. They've been blocked at least seven times I can count across IP ranges and usernames [128][129][130][131][132][133][134] (I think actually more but it's such a complex history I have difficulty counting it all) All due to misbehavior similar to what is described in this report. They've also actually openly evaded those blocks in the past: [135][136] I don't think any more WP:ROPE is beneficial to the project in this case. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is sufficient, clear and problematic, indeed it is part of a long-term pattern of regular problems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per Mackensen. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, due to the continued drama. This ban makes it clear that IPs with SchroCat's MO aren't welcome and can indeed be blocked at first sight, as implored above. When you leave, you leave, you don't get to be Schrodinger's actual cat. IznoPublic (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• At a minimum, I'd support MJL's idea of making the editor actually register a new account (or return to their old account) so that something can be done about tracking their incivility. While, yes, stewardship of an FA does mean that editors will occasionally get into disagreements with other editors and that sometimes those can get heated or become protracted, it's also quite possible to not turn those disagreements into some of the instances of incivility that have been highlighted here. The only reason I'm not totally on the CBAN wagon is that I'm not sure we CAN effectively CBAN someone who edits from a rotating IP address - but that shouldn't excuse the bad behavior on display here. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a massive—and frankly, somewhat cruel—overreaction. I can't imagine a thread like this even close to developing if the user in question was a registered account; i.e., this is a continued bias against IPs. If SC continues to provide objectionable actions after this thread, I would consider something like this. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Not willing to support or oppose this. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. SchroCat is a productive editor. The people who started this AN campaign often disagree with SchroCat at infobox discussions (including at least two current ones), and so they want to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re: proposal

Pinging @Ritchie333, @Bradv, @GoldenRing, @Euryalus, @Bbb23, @Mike V, @Doc James, @MSGJ, @HJ Mitchell, @Lord Roem, @King of Hearts, @JBW as current/former admins who were previously involved in some of these blocks/unblocks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Pinging other users/admins involved in prior disputes/blocks/unblocks/appeals from the various ranges listed above: @Black Kite, @Serial Number 54129, @Sro23, @Blablubbs, @El C, @RoySmith, @A. C. Santacruz @Firefangledfeathers @Ceoil @George Ho @Spicy @DatGuy because I'm honestly not actually 100% those past ranges (not included in this report but mentioned: [137][138][139]) are this user (although I suspect they are) and would like input from the original folks involved in those disputes/admin actions/SPIs.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Whilst making no comment on the rights and wrongs of the arguments in relation to this block proposal, assuming it is SchroCat surely a CBAN would be preferred if action is felt to be required here rather than a block, which would be ineffective as the user could make a fair argument that they're eligible to clean start as they're not subject to any active community sanctions/active blocks on their primary account? Whilst I won't actively support as I've not got enough familiarity with the wider situation here, I just think that considering they've attempted clean starts before a block without accompanying ban would be sending the wrong message, if the community does support this proposal. Mike1901 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've converted to a CBAN proposal — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I need undisputed proof, that the IPs are SchroCat & not somebody impersonating him, to get his registered account banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See my talk page. Says it all really. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone has gone to all this trouble to impersonate SchroCat to get him banned it will be one of the most amazing things I've seen on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Regrettable, that he's letting himself be destroyed :( GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If it weren't SchroCat, all they'd really need to do to get that USERNAME unbanned would be to start a community unban request with a CU privately verifying that they do not have a long history of editing in that IP range while logged in to the account. As far as I know, there's only a prohibition on publicly connecting users and IPs, not differentiating them. CU's please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't think there's any precedent on that, or I don't know of any, but I don't think that automatically extends to saying, in effect, "this user is not those IPs". Importantly, as @KrakatoaKatie describes above, the IP range has waived the right to being identified as "not SchroCat" by claiming all the time that they are SchroCat. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a way to get Wikipedia administrators to wipe clean your password, so you can create a new one & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think, as User:Mackensen said, SchroCat can actually reset the password since they very likely have access to the email address connected to the account (and probably get emails every time we mention them, come to think of it). All of this is somewhat moot since the IP ranges have said they edit anonymously intentionally, and see nothing wrong with it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Though it had no effect on my decision to support a CB. Any editor (signed in or not) isn't going to impress me anymore, with their FA/GA, this A or that A record boasting. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Then he sorta-kinda "retired" a couple years ago and things have been quieter
I understand your hesitance here. I hate CBANs. I have personally maybe proposed one I can think of, and participated in one or two others. It's drastic. It should be done only with great care and attention paid to not misfiring or causing collateral damage.

I think what really swayed me towards writing this as a proposal (and supporting it) was Levivich's stats showing this IP range has been basically editing every single day since May 2022. In a way other folks who have dealt with SC before have said is exactly SchroCat's modus operandi. And on other ranges prior to that even, if we went deep into the histories of these articles. My thinking here is: It's probably been quiet because no one's been paying attention to what IPs are doing, because that's basically how it always works on Wikipedia. No one has been connecting the dots, or starting RFCs that SchroCat hated enough to start concerted efforts to harass other users. In effect, it's quiet because they were skating by as anonymous IPs. But, as in most things around here, it is your opinion and I respect it (and your right to disagree) greatly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that editing from an IP (through which he identifies his registered account) is grounds for a cban. I'm not even convinced it's against any of our policies. What would the difference be if he lost his password instead of retired, then started editing from an IP? Like I said, it comes off as petulant, but CBANs are too much for petulance. I'd want to see more and/or more egregious evidence of problems from those IPs -- evidence that deeply problematic abusive behavior didn't actually stop when he "retired". That there might've been problems but people weren't paying attention isn't IMO sufficient (speculation, after all). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Rhododendrites, you should note that while a list of edits from an IP range has been produced, these are certainly not all me. They are from users of BT in London. Yes, a number are mine (especially over the last couple of weeks), but a significant portion are not me.
    It used to be that if an editor inferred another editor was delusional, that would lead to sanctions on the person making that personal attack. Nowadays, it seems that is no longer the case. Some changes are rather sad. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • It's entirely up to you to edit from an IP. The identity of the person/people making edits is not our problem, in all honesty. The attitude of the problem editor is. That's the point of this proposal. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
      • You missed the point, but never mind. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Which of the example diffs of disruptive editing in this proposal are not your edits? Levivich (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Your blanket search of edits undertaken under an IP range. There’s a hefty proportion that are not mine. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Doesn't really answer the question. Any in particular? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I guess what I'd ask is: how many edit wars and bitter disputes with various people would it take? Just looking back in the IP history, the user self-identifies either before or after engaging in several edit wars on articles near and dear to SchroCat's heart. (see below "9800" for example) This is a long-standing thing that has run under the radar given the fact that it's all IPs and nobody noticed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

    I'd ask two questions in return, Shibbolethink. Why do you feel that expending so much time and energy (over 200 edits so far) to get an editor banned is beneficial to the encyclopaedia, and why do you bother editing here when your interest is clearly not in adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia? What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The editors who began (in concert) this AN action against SchroCat often disagree with him at infobox disputes (including at least two current ones), and so they wish to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that this is some kind of coordinated hit? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Other ranges not included in this proposal to keep an eye on moving forward

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800

User:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed there's an extremely close range just outside of this /64 that has some problematic behavior similar to what's described here:

• disagreements with anyone who wanted to fix comma splices or unclear phrasings over at Talk:Moorgate tube crash (see here) and this edit war over "theories" vs "hypotheses": [140][141][142][143][144]
• not following BRD for others attempting to improve the style at Operation Mincemeat [145][146] [147]
• personal attacks, not following BRD while telling others to follow BRD [148]
• calling good faith edits vandalism [149]
• edit warring to keep out good faith edits and editors concerned about the length of a lead [150][151][152][153][154]
• edit warring to keep preferred version of infobox at Fight Club [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] and then aggressively blanking attempts to talk about it [160]

This "9800" range edits right up until May 2022, which is when @Levivich identified this current "9801" /64 as starting. I don't think we should include it here, because, as mentioned, it hasn't done anything since May and I think we should minimize any and all collateral damage. But I would emphasize: it's important to keep an eye on these similar ranges. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 23:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC) only to add missing links and fix typos, not for any significant changes to arguments or content thereof)

---

2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00

User:2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This range has a very similar style to SchroCat, but I'm not 100% it's all them. They do have a pretty long block history, though, escalating up to 6 months in June 2021 for disruptive editing. They also frequent many of the same places, e.g. Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, ARCA, User talk:SchroCat, Wikipedia:In the news and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. As I said above, I don't think we should block these ranges, given the age of the contribs, and our interest in reducing collateral damage. But I think we need to keep an eye on them. Especially since SchroCat has admitted in the past that they reset their router, etc. to game blocks. [161][162]— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Probably not SchroCat

2001:4451:8124:4900 User:2001:4451:8124:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This one as well, very few edits, but edited User talk:SchroCat and has a /32 block stretching ALREADY into March 2023. Unclear if connected to SchroCat, though, since a /32 is way way way more addresses than the previously mentioned /64, and it doesn't look like the /64 was involved in the /32 block. I think this is probably a different person (looks to be a pro-trump troll) who was harassing SchroCat. I leave these particular things up to the admins.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

---

digression re: above-board connections to User:Tim riley as an IRL friend; Tim riley confirms the IP ranges are indeed User:SchroCat

Probably worth mentioning that all these IP ranges have edited one of Tim riley's sandboxes:[163][164] (User:Tim riley/sandbox), [165]User:Tim riley/sandbox4). There's a good amount on-wiki showing Tim riley and SchroCat were good friends, so it makes sense. But just an interesting thing. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC) It’s good manners (and, I think, in the guidelines) to ping editors you mention at AN, so you should have pinged Tim riley, particularly if you think the connection is “an interesting thing”. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC) oh sure @Tim riley:. I figured tagging their sandboxes would, so didn't want to overping. but happy to. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC) To save me ploughing through the suffocating quantity of prose above, would you be kind enough to explain in one sentence why you have asked me here and what you want me to comment on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC) IP user formerly known as SchroCat thought it would be a good courtesy to do so, because I was commenting on the overall fact that the user has a bunch of different IP ranges but they have all edited your sandbox. I have nothing else in particular to say. Thanks!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC) As the ex-SchroCat is a close personal friend IRL and moreover one of Wikipedia's finest editors, with more than 50 FAs to his credit, I have been more than happy to offer him access to my sandpit for drafting, given that IPs - as he has alas been driven to editing as - have no sandpits of their own. Is there a problem here, Shibboleth? Tim riley talk 22:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC) nope, no problem. Not accusing you of any misconduct here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC) The discussion above should put to rest any doubts about whether the IPs claiming to be SchroCat are or are not SchroCat in aactuality, since a "close personal friend IRL" has confirmed that they are SchroCat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC) So I should hope, but at a quick glance at the screeds above it seems that there is a concerted campaign by those hostile to him to ban one of Wikipedia's most eminent editors. As he has contributed so many FAs and helped so many others (including many of mine) to FA I find such a campaign incomprensible, unless driven by spite, which I am reluctant to suppose. Tim riley talk 22:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC) That is certainly your right to theorize and suppose. On my end, it is entirely driven by seeing a number of policy violations which went under-examined due to them coming from IP ranges no one was paying attention to, and believed were unconnected. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Tim Riley: You won't see it this way, but SchroCat has absolutely no one to blame here except themselves. How many FAs or GAs have they created since they "retired" their account and began editing with IPs? I'm guessing that the answer is "zero", because they're too busy edit warring, attacking other editors, and otherwise behaving in a manner that they must know is disruptive. Your defense of your "close personal friend" is admirable, but it seems that the community -- and not just "those hostile to him" -- has a take on things that is somewhat different from yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) IPs can’t go through GAN or FAC, so the answer is obviously zero, but there are a couple of articles that are high enough standard for consideration for FA, and many that are above GA standard. Of course I know that punctures your opinion that all I’ve done since retiring is edit warring and attacking, but that’s because that view is wrong. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Personally, I think you've made quite a few positive contributions to the wiki since going full anon. I just think that is all outweighed by the many multiple times you've broken policy, edit warred, attacked other users, and generally been obstinate and difficult to work with in that same time period. I wish you'd learned to edit collaboratively so we wouldn't need to weigh those contributions against all the negativity and disruption. But, alas, that is true of most long term editors who get CBAN'd. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Personally I don’t think editors should strongly infer other editors are delusional. I don’t think they should follow them round. I don’t think editors should misrepresent sources, nor do I think WP:VERIFY should be something people choose to ignore, regardless of where it is in an article. I don’t think editors should make good article mediocre either. I cast no aspersions to any individual with this, just highlighting some things I believe in strongly on WP. I will add that I learned to edit collaboratively when I first started as an IP back in 2006 and I’ve continued it since. It’s why I’ve been able to improve so many articles - no-one can do it without positively embracing collaboration. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Personally I don't think you're SchroCat. The midwife of all those FAs and stuff wouldn't keep mixing up infer versus imply. EEng 01:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Looked at the IPv6 range's talkspace contribs and didn't see a lot of collaborative editing, but I did see this edit to an archive to reply to a 20-month-old comment. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC) IPs can go through GAN. It's just editing a talk page, there's no page creation involved. CMD (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC) I started this process and I want to clarify it wasn't done out of spite or simple disagreement. I have disagreed with Tim riley, but he appears to be a fine and respectful editor. The same can be said about the editor GoodDay with whom I've agreed with and disagreed with on a myriad of issues. Disagreeing is a natural process of this project, but the examples listed in this notice show a long history of an editor who struggles to be civil with other editors. That's a shame, because it seems like a lot of good could be accomplished if the editor could be nice to others. Nemov (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

On a point of accuracy, the former SchroCat has to my certain knowledge at least one new FA to add to his impressive total since he renounced his user-name. It was something we had worked on together and I took successfully to FAC in July. I think it would be barmy of Wikipedia to prevent further such FAs because some users have a gripe against our colleague. Tim riley talk 00:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I’d forgotten about that one! According to Beyond My Ken, I’ve been “too busy edit warring, attacking other editors”, etc to do anything like that, but this is AN, where anything goes. Anyway, I’m on leave from tomorrow morning, so TTFN. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors who are excellent content creators, such as yourself, get a lot of behavioral leeway. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, maybe it's appropriate, but we're not going to settle that here. Instead, we're wrestling with the question of whether you have finally reached the limit which the community is willing to put up with, even for an editor of your quality. You've been here a long time, as have I, and we've both seen excellent content editors push the envelope until the community finally banned them or they got indeffed by an admin. That's where we are now, and your appeals to your excellence as a content creator are really beside the point. I don't see anyone here denying the quality of your career output, they're protesting about the lack of quality in your behavior, which you've done nothing to explain or excuse, just outright denied that it happened. That simply won't fly, the evidence is there and it won't go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, this says that the SchroCat account created 89 articles excluding redirects, and that 24 of them are Featured Lists, 9 of them are Good Articles, and 1 is an FA. The rest are a mixture of everything from stubs up to Bs. This is the editor that Tim riley called "one of Wikipedia's most eminent editors ... [who] he has contributed so many FAs...", an "impressive total"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two different automated processes give vastly different numbers. See the IP's comment below.

Before anyone jumps to make the comparison, no, none of the 232 undeleted articles I've created ([166],[167]) are FAs, and only one is a GA - but, then, I don't go around extolling my own virtues as a content creator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

9 GAs is nothing to scoff at, but it's also not an excuse for their behavior and Tim riley et al. seem to think it is. casualdejekyll 00:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations: 58 FAs as SchroCat, 2 as The Bounder, one as an IP. I lost count of the number of GAs. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and 47 FLs. Added 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I also have a bunch of FPs and an FT, which I’d forgotten, plus some DYKs and ITNs - I probably have more ITNs as an IP than I had as a regular editor, but these are all small change things really. Added 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

60 FAs is both nothing to scoff at and also not an excuse for the behavior. It could be 1000 FAs and I'd say the same thing. casualdejekyll 01:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed it was: I’m just correcting the misleading figures put out. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Two different automated processes give vastly different results, so I've struck-through my comment above, since its accuracy is suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

But I also note that the two processes are measuring different things. The stats I posted above are for articles created by SchroCat. The stats cited by SchroCat-as-IP (at least some of them) are for articles nominated for FA/GA by SchroCat and accepted.

But, of course, Casualdejekyll is completely correct that the issue here is not the quality of SchroCat's content editing, but the quality of their behavior, especially as -- only partly identified -- IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, BMK. "Nominate" is one of those terms we use to diminish the value of our contributions on Wikipedia. Nominating an FA is not like nominating at RfA, for example, where you say your piece and back off. Nominatiors at FAC are expected to be major contributors to the article and must be familiar with the source material. In practice that means reading just about every word written on your chosen subject and becoming an expert on it. That's why FAs are so rare and why their writers should be given a lot of deference. Or should be if we're truly about writing an encyclopaedia. I'd be happy to mentor anyone reading this who wants to put the effort in to get their first FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The editors who began (in concert) this AN action against SchroCat often disagree with him at infobox disputes (including at least two current ones), and so they wish to get him banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I brought this here and have disagreed with you in the past. I don't want you banned. You seem to be a fine editor who is capable of giving your opinion without casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Do you have a specific defense of SchroCat's long history of accusing other editors of harassments, gaslighting, and stalking? This isn't a content dispute and I would hope an editor of your experience would recognize the difference. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Does WP:TLDR or WP:DRAMA apply here? Or, perhaps, SchroCat would like to WP:VANISH? My suggestion is to close this entire thread with a WP:NOCONSENSUS rationale – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"No consensus"? The proposal to CBan Schrocat has had 16 responses: 15 of which support the CBan, and one which weakly opposed it. I don't think that remotely qualifies as "no consensus". And SchroCat, editing as an IP above, had made it quite clear that they like the current situation, with their account retired and the person behind the account editing using IPs, so I doubt they'd be interested in vanishing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, SchroCat previously requested to vanish in September 2020, but the vanishing was reversed a few days later when it was discovered that he was continuing to edit while logged out, which is contrary to the terms of WP:VANISH ("used when you wish to stop editing forever", "you will not be returning", etc.). The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions (September 2020) mentions the vanishing and the reversal of it, plus allusions to previous socking and a previous clean start. --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Could I ask why you want to close this as No Consensus? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My favorite part about AN and ANI in general is that you get two wildly disparate comments: 1) people saying the case is unsupported and has insufficient evidence and 2) people like the above saying it's too long and unreadable. Do you get why getting both of these criticisms simultaneously can be pretty frustrating?

It takes a lot of evidence, a lot of diffs, to show a long-term editor has gotten to the point of a CBAN. I'm sorry for the length, but it's a long section for a reason. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait 'til you figure out that none of them are actually reading any of it. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of the survey responses are appalling. Apparently if an editor is confused that's cover to dodge questions about their position. Also, if an editor is perceived as being productive in the past then they can't just insult whomever they want without fear of being called out. I could understand if this was a one off thing, but this is an editor who has been banned for this behavior in the past. The defense cases here are puzzling. Nemov (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is quite similar to how some people were willing to totally excuse Doug Coldwell committing massive copyvios because "he's one of our most productive editors!!!!" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and in that case it was even more nonsensical because the "productive" edits WERE the bad behavior. casualdejekyll 17:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is what grinds my gears so much about the WP:UNBLOCKABLES argument! When it actually comes time to question the longstanding history of disruption (and numerous escalating blocks from same!), there are actually some of the same people who say the community never wants to block longstanding users, arguing here that we should not block a longstanding disruptive uncollaborative editor because of their contributions! It truly boggles the mind. Wiki culture will never cease to amaze.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So far we've seen here the Productive Contributor Defense, the Baited Defense, the Call for No Consensus Close, and the Lynch Mob Counterattack, all common features of these discussions, leftover vestiges of a bygone wikiera when such arguments were considered persuasive. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are really only two relevant questions about this editor: are his contributions to Wikipedia outstanding and have we heard from anyone who has felt justifiably slighted or upset by his comments on article talk pages? Yes and no, as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 18:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yknow, we really need a bingo card for these things. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

SchroCat spent a lot of time and effort here and I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of reading some of their articles, which include (among many others) several top quality biographies of impactful women in history. I doubt I would have ever read these articles nor been inspired by these exceptional ladies had SchroCat not used a bunch of his volunteered personal time to write them. I'm no stranger to how these community ban discussions go, and decided to offer a moral support (well, oppose) as a final thank you. I'm sorry someone's gears were ground, but imagine being subjected to a bunch of anonymous strangers judging you for something. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Imagine being subjected to a bunch of anonymous strangers judging you for something. Is there some version of Wikipedia where that isn't everyone's reality, every day? This is a collaborative project where, by definition, you don't know most people. I've been an editor on this project for nineteen years. I've met in person I believe two people whom I didn't already know IRL. If an editor can't handle anonymous strangers critiquing their work without lashing out then they shouldn't participate here. If we're taking the position that creating high quality work is a license to be abusive then that's where we part ways. If that's your position then fine, you should say so and it's cognizable, but please don't then turn around and "apologize" for taking that position. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is foolish to accuse SchroCat of objecting to critiques of his work. He has taken more than 50 articles through FAC and been subject to the relentless critiques we all face there, as anyone who has submitted an article for FAC knows. And I have yet to see, above, anyone who has made any reasoned complaint about SchroCat's interaction with him/her. But he has nonetheless attracted enemies: 225 edits from Shibbolethink in 24 hours to seek a ban, if I have the arithmetic right, seems rather extreme. Tim riley talk 21:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The level of dismissive, childish spite on display here is quite surprising. I suppose these editors will get what they want and can then be proud of making Wikipedia a safer and better place for all of us by doing away with the scary IP Revenant. What an accomplishment that will be. Well done. DBaK (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

True, but I fear your irony may be over the heads of those at whom it is aimed. I hope I am wrong. Tim riley talk 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Any time I bring something to AN, especially a proposal for banning someone, I try to do it very carefully and put a lot of work into it, hence the sheer number of edits. I want to make sure I'm including as much evidence as possible, because I don't want to do the wrong thing, or to undersell something I think is necessary. This is also why I don't do it lightly, or for any problematic user, or typically for someone who is only affecting me.

I only do it when I feel its necessary, and its affecting many other users. Given the level of disruption, the number of users targeted over the years, the sheer number of edit wars and blocks across multiple accounts and IPs, the tenor of personal attacks, the consistency of those attacks, the consistency of their behavior, all shows me this person has no interest whatsoever in changing how they behave.

Indeed, it appears neither they, nor you, see anything wrong with how they conduct themselves on wiki, despite the clear fact that the community finds it an issue.

I am only assuaged by your tenor of interaction being so collegial Tim riley, but I do find your acceptance of their behavior despite all the evidence here that it's a problem, troubling. Sure, they contribute a lot. But no one is so valuable that they can behave however they want. Our community has standards.

I'm glad you behave yourself so well and enjoy interacting with you in these discussions, but I'm troubled that you take no issues with this user's behavior. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A user changing season order on year-by-year United States network television schedule articles

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

---

Nostalgia Zone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user name Nostalgia Zone has been replacing seasonal order on year-by-year United States network television schedule articles without seeking consensus, such as 1995-96 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff), 2006-07 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff), 2011-12 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff) and 2022-23 United States network television schedule (as seen in this diff). More on this issue with that user in the userlinks.

BattleshipMan (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly was this issue discussed, prior to raising it here? What adminstartive action do you think is called for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I call upon for a resolution to this if it should be "Mid-October" and "Late October" or as "Winter" and "Spring". BattleshipMan (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you object to the changes for some substantive reason, you could revert them (per WP:BRD), or you could begin a discussion with the user on their talk-page or on one of the article talk-pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. If you do not have any substantive objection, this seems pointless. And the administrator noticeboard is not going to settle a content question. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not the page for that; as noted at the top of the page: "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators". Again: Where exactly was this issue discussed, prior to raising it here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Andy, surely it's obvious that it hasn't been discussed anywhere. I've already made suggestions of where it should be discussed; if there's something wrong with my suggestions, you could make a better one, but repeating the question rhetorically is not constructive. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP stated "More on this issue with that user in the userlinks." As that is hopelessly vague, I asked "Where exactly was this issue discussed..?". As for unconstructive comments, please get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I was just simply trying to make the dates for changes in the TV schedules more specific. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nostalgia Zone, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. End of story. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Help needed rescuing edit filter false positives

Due to a misconfigured edit filter, for 2 hours and 23 minutes we blocked most edits by new users containing the letter "j". I've been going through the hits, most of which are net-positive edits and should be restored, but it's slow going, and I was wondering if I could get some help. User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper.js​ makes it just two clicks to proxy a filter-blocked edit, so with a few people we could clear this backlog quickly. Posting here as it's a private filter and thus only admins and edit filter helpers can do this. (Will cross-post to EFN.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Made it through the first 150... so all of 16 minutes. It's tedious, but rescued a few full articles in the process! If anyone wants to pick up where I've left off, that'd be here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to remind folks that it is not recommended to make changes to filters which are set to disallow without using the AbuseFilter's testing functionality or at least first dropping back to log-only temporarily. It's very easy to make a mistake :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I dropped a note at WP:EFN but there's a userscript to help do a FP check before saving. (Posting here too for more awareness, it's a useful script to have; I'd recommend it to all EFMs) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't we have a page wherein are memorialized great feats of klutziness like the time someone deleted the Main Page? EEng 15:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@eeng: what, this one? lettherebedarklight晚安 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed the one. EEng 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for the schadenfreude, but I can only chuckle at the WP:DDMP-level silliness of disallowing all edits with the letter "j". Brilliant. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @ayron32: Don't Say Jay? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  😆--Jayron32 17:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me like it's time to dust off the old WP:STOCKS - if those responsible are in support, of course. casualdejekyll 17:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

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

---

Francewhicker1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Franciswhicker1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has edited under both names here and at en.wq. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:BADSOCK though? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Koavf, you seem to have blocked someone for changing their account name on Wikiquote without using the mandatory renaming process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I posted on that user's talk page. If he wants to change names per the process at Meta, he can, but this appears to be someone just breaking the rules. If en.wp admins think this is a mistake and not some sneaky evasion, then I'm happy to learn more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no message on the blocked account's talk page. If there is an actual problem with policy violations such as edit warring, I guess that should be the block reason, and both accounts should be blocked. Anyway, I don't think there's currently something for us to do here. If this changes, I think WP:SPI would be the best place for a new report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We get these reports from time to time at SPI; I think of them as "poor man's renames". If en.wikiquote has a rule against such things, that's their prerogative, but it breaks no policy here unless there's evasion of scrutiny. (Even in cases where there's possible evasion but it's minor (e.g. a level-1 warning on the old account), we usually just instruct them to disclose, or in less AGF-y cases softblock the old account and leave the new one {{uw-sock}}.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Writing "Hey don't so this anymore" is a valid response. I am leaving up to admins here to figure out the best course of action, but I also agree that this is not an obviously critical matter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a message: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Franciswhicker1996 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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