Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,069: Line 1,069:
::::::::I'm such a hopeless Westerner, every time I see "WP:KURDS", I think "[[Little Miss Muffet#Wording|WP:ANDWHEY]]". [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I'm such a hopeless Westerner, every time I see "WP:KURDS", I think "[[Little Miss Muffet#Wording|WP:ANDWHEY]]". [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
*Obviously, this is to be decided on AfD. Therefore, bringing this to WP:AN is an example of WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. Speaking on the matter of bias (and I am not accusing anyone of any bias here), this is complicated. Based on [[Rashism|the peculiar nature of the regime]], one could reasonably argue that [[Wikipedia:No Nazis]] should be applicable in that case, but this is not a position generally shared by WP administrators if I understand correctly. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
*Obviously, this is to be decided on AfD. Therefore, bringing this to WP:AN is an example of WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. Speaking on the matter of bias (and I am not accusing anyone of any bias here), this is complicated. Based on [[Rashism|the peculiar nature of the regime]], one could reasonably argue that [[Wikipedia:No Nazis]] should be applicable in that case, but this is not a position generally shared by WP administrators if I understand correctly. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
*:I don't understand what you mean. Should I have been the one to bring the article to AfD even though I don't want to delete it? Or should Volunteer Marek have done so, and refusing to bring it to AfD is an example of WP:BATTLE? I asked the admins what was the right way (talk page discussion, AfD or RfC) to resolve an editorial dispute. How can this be an example of BATTLE? [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 12:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


== Range block for mobile editor, vandalising NHL team pages ==
== Range block for mobile editor, vandalising NHL team pages ==

Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2022

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    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


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (47 out of 8846 total) (Purge)
    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)[reply]

    Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here Second Perso-Turkic War, where a stream of new accounts are making nationalistic edits. I am also still occasionally reporting new socks, just see the now larger SPI archive of one the discord members for example (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~StyyxTalk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk68 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~StyyxTalk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • :"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) [reply]
      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[reply]
    (Writing so thread doesn't get archived tomorrow). --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]

    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[20] and being unethical[21]. 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.[22]
    • 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. [23] Then SchroCat went to InvadingInvader’s TALK and made accusations against myself, InvadingInvader, and EnPassant.[24] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    All roads lead to infoboxes
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I neither need to un-retire, nor wish to. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:65FE:FE8:B65C:3BC4 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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:
    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).
    point by point rebuttal to accusation of HOUNDING
    1. 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: [25]
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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
    1. 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. [26][27] [28]
    2. 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) [29]. and that I "gaslight" them [30]. 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.
    3. They have accused me of edit warring, without evidence, and without me providing more than a single revert. [31] [32]. 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".
    4. 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. [33] [34] [35] The user's only response has been such comments as: someone isn’t in listening mode [36] 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 [37] Wrong place. Wrong message. Ignorance of BLP violations is no defence [38].
    5. 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) [39], they blanked and said "tv bad faith"
    6. 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)
    7. 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: [40] [41]. 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): [42] [43]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just as WP:NOTHERE admits more than one reading, so too does WP:LOUTSOCK. Just sayin'. EEng 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [44] [45] 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. [46]
    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)[reply]
    lmao Xx78900 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    There wouldn't even be any way to tell. The logs are purged every few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Katietalk 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't know about that. This ARCA is what I remembered. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Fix ping: @Gerda Arendt:. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    I don't think this particular defense applies to comma splices, semicolons, and whether "London Underground" needs a definite article. Although I agree it is often true. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    In the process :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I'd support it, too. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: CBAN 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)

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

    all the reasons
    1. 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 [47], but fails to cite any policy, MOS, guideline, or FAC which support their position [48][49]. It mostly boils down to personal preference, when they revert to their preferred version (which they claim to have written).
    2. Incivility and failure to assume good faith. Any user who disagrees with them is arguing in bad faith. (at least foureight I can count [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]) Any user who has different opinions than them is stalking them[60][61], harassing them[62][63][64][65], 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"[66], etc. The range blanks any and all attempts of discussion on their user talk, without engagement[67][68][69][70][71][72]. They have done the same for User talk:SchroCat[73][74][75]. They say "Comment on the content, not other editors" [76] 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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][77]
    5. 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.
    6. WP:BLUDGEON They get quite close to bludgeoning discussions about infoboxes, if not over the line.
    7. 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.
    8. 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!): [78]. They have tried to have a (albeit hidden) WP:CLEANSTART twice [79] [80] 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. [81][82].

    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))[reply]

    Survey

    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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • Support a CBAN of SchroCat per the above megathread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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. I'm disappointed by a few of my fellow editors who have decided that unfounded accusations of harassment and stalking are just a perfectly normal part of Wikipedia as long as you've produced quality content. In this case, the editor in question has been banned for unproductive behavior in the past and has received several second chances. To allow this to continue is a disgrace that should not stand. This kind of interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is a cancer that should be carved out quickly and without prejudice. Defending and ignoring this behavior turns its nose at editors who argue in good faith and it makes a mockery of the entire project. Hopefully the closing editor will do the right thing recongize the double standard defense for what it is... weak. Nemov (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a CBAN for all the reasons mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support with the echoing of "SchroCat is wasting everyone's time here". casualdejekyll 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've clicked through most of the diffs that have been added to this thread now (thanks for adding them). So let me be clearer: the arguments that SchroCat has, since "retiring", violated sufficient behavioral policies/guidelines to merit a cban are unconvincing. It seems like half of the people don't like the way he argues, but haven't provided sufficient evidence that we typically expect to cban a long-time editor, and half of people just want him to unretire. In the latter case, what are we really even doing here? Nobody has provided evidence that his IP activity even violates any policies, and the fact that several people would ignore the rest if only he unretired his main account shows how flimsy the evidence of behavioral problems are.
      Look, I feel weird being in this column. Like I said, there have been times that I've been appalled by things SchroCat has said, but that was years ago now. I'm just not comfortable issuing the most extreme sanction we have at our disposal based on the evidence that has been presented. Upgrading "weak oppose" to "oppose" for that reason.
      Side point: Can we please just say "all articles get infoboxes" already? I mean, I don't actually care much, and know it won't happen because Wikipedians don't like firm rules, but that's clearly the direction we're headed by strength of numbers if nothing else. Our PAGs don't give any real guidance about when to use them, ultimately coming down to personal preference, so RfCs are basically votes, and the votes are tending to favor inclusion these days. I'm still in favor of primary contributors to articles deciding whether or not there's an infobox, and I've never understood why so many people care so much about them that they're willing to disregard the opinions people who dedicated so much of their time to the subject, or why it's so triggering to so many of those major contributors, but oh well. It'd be nice if we could find some clearer rules is all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Still support. Elsewhere in this thread, SchroCat is arguing that the use of {{ipvandal}} with his IP constitutes an WP:ASPERSION. That's exactly the kind of combative nonsense we would be better off without. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm being accused of casting aspersions, and the individual accusing me is tagging me as a vandal, which is casting aspersions. I raised the point that it was misleading and the said (in summary) "I'm a little bemused by this, but I'll let it go". Hardly "combative nonsense", and I've thanked the editor for changing them to a replacement. Again, not "combative". People's mileage differs, I guess, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I think what isn’t getting across here is that your tone is a big part of the problem. No one likes working with you when your replies are combative. If you enter every slight disagreement as though the other person is (for example) trying to label you a “vandal” by using an extremely common template, then it escalates tensions. You are, in essence, assuming bad faith. Instead of the much more reasonable alternative, that I just went with the first template that came to mind. Your tone told me “I am painful to work with”. From the very beginning. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • My first comment about the templates was "{{IPuser}} would be a better template to use: labelling my activity as "IP Vandal" is misleading." If you wish to see it that as "combative" or a problem of tone, that is entirely your prerogative: it was not how it was written, and perhaps it may be that if you assume an editor is writing in bad faith, that is how you will perceive it. Just a thought. I don't think continuing a thread on template selection is beneficial, so I will step away, but again, thank you for changing the template to an appropriate one. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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 [83], 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 [84]. There’s probably more if we combine the edit histories from the various IP ranges [85][17]. There 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" [86] 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)(strike range that very probably wasn't SchroCat)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • Support, per nomination, with particular reference to the evasion of scrutiny. XAM2175 (T) 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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: [87][88][89][90][91] 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: [92] 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: [93][94]. 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @Kusma: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If the changing IP addresses are the main issue here, then that could be a not unreasonable extension of the current restriction (and I haven't looked into the prehistory of that), but it would need to be carefully worded. Accidental logged out edits, especially if the user notices and owns up to them reasonably quickly, should not result in sanctions to avoid this becoming a "gotcha" remedy. —Kusma (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Kusma, please see this post, below. Thanks - 86.155.193.84 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would certainly welcome it if you come back with an account, whatever its name (if you can't get your old one back). I'm not sure formal restrictions are needed other than a reminder to abide by WP:LOUTSOCK should you ever edit without logging in. —Kusma (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Mackensen You are, of course, entitled to keep your !vote how you wish, but just to clarify that a. the only restriction I have ever had is over my account name; b. that's not accurate; and c; Errr.. yes, OK, you have a good point there: my log is not my proudest achievement at all. As I have posted below, I cannot re-open my account for technical reasons, but I am hoping that the WMF boffins will be able to rectify the issue. Once they do, I will edit only under that name in future. Thanks - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your response. Given your undertaking to resume editing from a single account (hopefully your existing one), I withdraw my support for a ban. As I've said above, I think the nature of your editing as an IP unnecessarily exacerbated editing conflicts. I want to be clear on one other point: these conflicts would have existed regardless and they need to stop going forward. Several dozen editors are ready to ban you outright and probably still are, even though they think highly of your contributions. Most don't do this out of malice; they just don't think you're capable of editing productively in a collaborative environment, and we don't get to pick all of our collaborators here. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      So editors who produce quality content are above the law? Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't actually have an opinion here, but the principal is that we don't punish for wrong-doings, we restrict to prevent future damage. The question is: is the user-with his good and his bad-a net positive or negative? If he does more good than bad, a site CBAN is more harmful than helpful, although some more limited restriction may be appropriate. Animal lover |666| 17:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      What I would tell you is that the editor has attempted WP:CLEANSTART twice before, and got banned both times [95] [96], and attempted to WP:VANISH once [97][98]., 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 [99][100][101][7][102][103][104] (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: [105][106] I don't think any more WP:ROPE is beneficial to the project in this case. (edited to remove ip range that very probably wasn't SchroCat 07:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shibbolethink: My suggestion is not meant strictly to be an alternative to the proposed sanction. It could very well be passed in addition to a CBAN, so that's why I suggested it be considered separately. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support - per Mackensen. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      That's why we seek community feedback, because it isn't up to the people who started this to ban him or not. And there is no policy anywhere on Wikipedia that gives an editor with a bannable pattern of behavior a get-out-of-jail-free card, just because they have umpty-zillion edits, and seventy-eleven FA's. If their behavior is bannable, then ban them; if it isn't, don't. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As someone who was a long term IP editor before making an account there is definitely a bias against IP editors, but please stop trying not make this case about that. There are many thousand of IP editors doing good constructive work without causing any controvesy. This is seemingly the second recent editor who has joined there ranks because it gives them anonymity to continue some personal grudge. That is not anti-IP bias, and their actions only make it harder for those IPs trying to edit in good faith. It is always bad to lose good writers, it's not something I am good at so I try to work to support those that are. But this is a cooperative project, and that sometimes means losing and dropping the hatchet. If you can't do that you will become more of a burden on the project than a bonus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Switch to oppose if an official restriction to one account (no logged out) editing with an official warning over behaviour is put in place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ActivelyDisinterested Well, I’m back on my account and out of retirement, if that helps. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. overreaction per Aza24. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. After reading all the diffs and discussion, I agree with the characterizations of ASPERSIONS, OWN, edit warring, etc. and that, on aggregate, they well outweigh any positive contributions by this user. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As a CBAN is effectively unenforceable in this capacity. Semi-protect/Extended Confirmation for the given pages and move on. Respectfully, this never should have taken this long. As for being "retired", might I suggest using {{Semi-retired}} instead? Even if he doesn't, nothing prevents him from coming back and there is no available sanction guideline/policy that enforces the notion that "retired persons may not edit"...that path is a red herring and unnecessary to even address. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If this ban is approved, SchroCat would be banned. Future edits as an IP would be a violation of sock guidelines. That seems pretty enforceable to me. Nemov (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. SchroCat has been net negative for quite a long time, and all his FAs and GAs are negated by ownership, incivility, and overall disruption. His "retirement" was not in good faith but under a cloud of sanctions and restrictions. I'm not particularly concerned about enforcement – as with other long-time abusers, his future edits will be subject to RBI. No such user (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Using a cban to handle a noisy IP is ridiculous overreach. Writing 60 FAs does not earn you the right to be a jerk but if such a person has gone rogue something has gone wrong and a decent community would workaround the problem (with semi-protection or blocks) rather than crush one of a few giant contributors (SchroCat is #16 at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations). Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to have immediately contradicted yourself (“FAs aren’t a jerk license but we should be lenient because he wrote a ton of FAs”) Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What’s gone “wrong” is that SchoCat is probably starting to think he’s WP:UNBLOCKABLE precisely because of this kind of special treatment Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Starting to think"? Hahaha. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Writing 60 FAs does not earn you the right to be a jerk but...
      "but" doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Nemov (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's disappointing to see that several of those commenting here are unable to understand a short statement. Regarding unblockable, that's a great meme but it's bullshit. Like many admins, I would block the IPs or SchroCat myself for a suitable period if needed. If SC repeatedly posted copyvios or BLP violations or outrageous attacks, an indef would be called for. However, SC has done none of those things! Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnuniq: would you support an editing restriction for SchroCat to remain logged-in and edit under one account? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. The only reason SchroCat is posting from IPs is that they were collateral damage in the infobox wars. One day Wikipedia might be written by chatbot (see here) but until then we need to understand that not every great contributor can remain emotionless. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IP hopping is difficult to police, but a CBAN will make it easier to deal with the disruptive behavior. There have been plenty of chances for SC to productively work with the community, but they are very much not interested. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AGF isn't a suicide pact. Schro was a very good editor, but these post "retirement" edits have exhausted the community's patience. Like a block, a retirement should apply to a person and not just an account. If he won't edit collaboratively, the community should retire him. Star Mississippi 17:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No one is bigger than the project. I do not care how many GA/FAs he wrote, the behavior warrants a ban at this point. SC has been given countless number of chances to work collectively and refuses to do so. To say "Oh but they wrote x number of GAs, we can't block/ban!" is exactly why we have WP:UNBLOCKABLES. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Per most of the opposes above, although both DBak and HJ Mitchell seem to strike to the heart of the matter and Kusma's logic seems irrefutable. (Not of course that such a thing ever stopped anyone from trying.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see any evidence of a persistent behavioral problem. It is relatively easy to cherry-pick isolated examples of conduct from an editor's contribution history that violate one policy or another. Looking at Moorgate tube crash I don't see any evidence of WP:OWN, just a content dispute over grammar and punctuation. Maybe the judgment of somebody who has guided ~60 articles through GA and FA reviews shouldn't be immediately discounted as WP:OWN? I also question how User:shibbolethink came to be at that article anyway? It seems like a bit of coincidence that a Pittsburgh med student would suddenly develop an interest in London Underground. I think sometimes SchroCat can come across as overly hostile and that perhaps alienates people from viewing his contributions objectively, but on the other hand he is the closest to an artist that Wikipedia has, and I guess he has the temperament of an artist too. If he is only semi-retired now then perhaps his user page should reflect that, but while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit (anonymously) then I don't see why this is a right that should be denied to SchroCat, simply on the grounds that he used to edit under an account. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      but on the other hand he is the closest to an artist that Wikipedia has, and I guess he has the temperament of an artist too.
      Ah, the "temperament of an artist defense" for an editor with multiple blocks for bad behavior and continued hostility to others. Some of these arguments read like WP:FANCLUB. No wonder SchroCat has gotten away with this behavior for so long. Nemov (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As a rule of thumb, I think indefs and bans should be reserved for editors whose persistent poor behavior has proven detrimental to improving the encyclopedia, not for editors who have a substantial track record in improving the encyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of the former. Looking at the trajectory of this whole dispute, it seems to have sprung out of a RFC on one specific article which then proliferated to a bunch of others, and that wasn't really SchroCat's doing. Why is the other prominent party in this dispute being permitted to effectively "run the prosecution" and propose sanctions on SchroCat? Why hasn't User:shibbolethink been invited to explain how he suddenly ended up editing unrelated articles that SchroCat had recently edited? Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why hasn't User:shibbolethink been invited to explain how he suddenly ended up editing unrelated articles that SchroCat had recently edited?
      I actually explained this in detail above. [107] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The point you're missing is that SchroCat could reasonably imagine that hounding was occurring. Sure, you have reasons that you developed an interest in the articles where SC happened to be involved in infobox disagreements and more, and SC should have assumed good faith and been less confrontational. However, a decent person would see that there was room for SC to feel under siege even if that belief was ill founded. When dealing with anti-science POV pushers, it is best to bulldoze them out of the way. That approach is not helpful when dealing with someone who is a top content producer and who is currently in trouble because certain articles are being picked off one-by-one due to the infobox wars. It looks like that battle is lost and that should be enough satisfaction for those who feel SchroCat was out of line. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      While I can't speak for anyone else, I don't want to punish SchoCat in any way or give them their just desserts or care about getting "satisfaction" in any way. I would strongly oppose and support an instant siteban for anyone who is trying to add infoboxes or change articles to punish SchoCat for any past or current misbehaviour let alone disagreement. While I acknowledge people can easily fool themselves and also that people can do stuff without realising they are doing it, I think there's good reason to feel the vast majority of edits which are changing article SchoCat have nothing to do with any attempt to target SchoCat's contributions. There are many editors who do like infoboxes some of these may have some knowledge of the infobox wars, but even among those many of those may have very limited knowledge of the participants, their histories etc. They just think infoboxes are useful and when they find articles which lack them, they want to add them. (Likewise for any other particular preference of SchoCat that another editor may try to change.)

      SchoCat continues to strongly dislike infoboxes which in itself is fine. This strong dislike causes somewhat understandable annoyance or perhaps even anger when people try to or do add infoboxes to articles they've significantly contributed to, again fairly understandable. However while we can have sympathy with how they feel, we should not have sympathy with inappropriate behaviour here on Wikipedia that results from this annoyance or anger, that's unacceptable. They need to learn to somehow deal with their annoyance or anger in a way that doesn't cause significant problems here such as walking way from the discussion, at least for a few days.

      On a personal level, I generally find infoboxes useful, but care so little that I think the number of times I've expressed an opinion on whether an article should or should not have one is probably in the low single digits. So while I may technically disagree with SchoCat on infoboxes, I don't really care and there is no reason why I'd want to do anything whatsoever to get "satisfaction" over my disagreement with them on infoboxes. I'd further note there are many aspects of Wikipedia that I dislike as I think with nearly all editors here. Sometimes I do let my annoyance or anger out too far, but I do generally manage to force myself to walk away.

      So the important question is, does an editor let their dislike of those aspects affect their editing here in ways that cause harm? If they do, and that harm reaches a level where it's too much, then we have to take action to protect Wikipedia, which may include banning the editor involved. We can try to encourage the editor to improve, but ultimately their reaches a point where we have to say, sorry we've given you enough chances.

      Coming back to your comment, what would truly give me satisfaction is if SchoCat continues to edit productively here, continue to oppose infoboxes or other changes they disagree with in a reasonable fashion, and accepts the result of any community consensus for or against them. However a lot of that isn't on us as a community. And so if that isn't possible, then what gives me the least dissatifaction is dealing with situations that arise in the way that causes the less amount of harm.

      Which in this case seems to be IMO restricting SchoCat to one account and blocking/banning them if they refuse to abide. I'm definitely not going to be happy if this closes with the ban enacted but I will be less unhappy than I would be if closes with the ban enacted. Although the problem isn't that extreme so the gulf between the two isn't as wide as it is in some other cases but it's still enough for me to support.

      Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      “Temperament of an artist” what a preposterous defense. It’s the post-#metoo era, artists (let alone Wikipedia editors) don’t even get that excuse to be jackasses. Dronebogus (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support it's clear that SchoCat's usage of IPs has crossed over into the realm of evading scrutiny and so is in violation of our sockpuppetry policy. I'd note this isn't my main preference. I think it would be better to start off a one account restriction for SchoCat. They could return to their original account, or make a new one clearly associated with their old account if they wanted to. They could not edit from IPs. However this is the proposal we have and I acknowledge there's a fair chance it's pointless to try a one account restriction. It seems most likely either SchoCat would voluntarily give up on editing completely or they'd ignore the restriction and we'd just have basically the same result with a defacto ban since they continually violate their community imposed one account restriction. If SchoCat gives any indication they'd be willing to accept such a restriction, I'd no longer support this proposal. I'm unconvinced by a number of the opposes which give too much leeway to an editor just because of past contributions which even if those contributions have been highly positive is not something I support. At least one of the opposes comes from an editor who attacked the proposer track record without proper analysis, and frankly was what convinced me to take the time to look in to this. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nil Einne Well, I’m back on my account, if that helps. And yes, the ‘restriction’ you refer to is how I behaved while I had an account (ie, I never logged out to edit as an IP and then logged back in again): that will, of course, be how I edit in the future. SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Switch to oppose, provided SchroCat only edits from this account. SchroCat's behaviour has been problematic and unfortunately their comments make it unclear it's likely to improve. However it's borderline enough that I'm willing to give them one last chance when combined with the fact they can no longer escape the scrunity every regular editor is under by editing from frequently changing IPs. Perhaps we'll be back here in a few months, I hope not. To be clear, even without a formal community imposed one account restriction, I will continue any significant editing from IPs as enough to support a site ban since I consider it already well justified without the need to demonstrate any clear misbehaviour from these IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (as subject) I have had a couple of years trying to stay away, but have legitimately come back and edited as an IP from time to time. While editing occasionally as an IP was OK, my activity has been rising recently and it is clear from this thread that I cannot continue as an IP editor, regardless of any other decision is reached here. There are technical problems in re-accessing my account that I will have to get the WMF boffins to rectify, but the SchroCat account will (hopefully) return shortly. SchroCat, editing from - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction, per SchroCat's comment immediately above this one (and per other things which are hopefully now moot). SchroCat, it'll be good to see you back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: Is it only me who finds it amusingly appropriate that, due to technical issues, we can't tell whether the SchroCat account is alive or dead? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Schrocat has been behaving badly, please stop being so buddy-buddy. People aren’t citing WP:FANCLUB baselessly, and making your personal biases obvious weakens your argument. We have talk pages for this. Dronebogus (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You really should have a read of WP:NPA and WP:BADGER, you know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn’t a personal attack. Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      <Moved to user talk page> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. Welcome back, SchroCat.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to break up the celebration but issue raised here is the editor and not the IP. Returning to SchroCat does nothing to address the years of problematic behavior and bans that have occurred. It just obfuscates the issue. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue raised here has been SchroCat's IP edits, and "evading scrutiny" has been one of the major points. If SchroCat edits from an account again instead, this does the exact opposite of obfuscating issues. —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for wikisplaining to me my own notice. I didn't bring this here because SchroCat was editing from an IP. Nemov (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You might not have done, but a lot of commentators in favour of sanctions have indeed focused on the IP aspect. So stopping editing from IPs is definitely relevant to the entirety of the dispute (even if not to your personal complaint). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -- I'd certainly prefer to see Schrocat editing under a named account again but cannot support a ban in the current circumstance either. Aside from the record of creating and maintaining high-quality content, I've had nothing but positive interactions with the editor, in any guise. I've also seen how the editor can put aside serious disagreements from the past and re-establish a cordial working relationship -- naturally it takes two to tango there... Wasting everybody's time? The subject didn't open this thread. The idea that Schrocat's defenders are nothing more than a fan club? Maybe the earlier suggestion of a lynch mob struck a nerve. Obviously a lot of people here are going to disagree with each other but I hope we can put enough trust in the closer to determine the key arguments themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ian Rose: Would you support an editing restriction to stay logged-in and under one account? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather pointless. I have never logged out of an account specifically to edit as an IP except; I gave up my account to leave before deciding to do some light occasional editing as an IP (which is a legitimate course to take). As to "one name" editing, you'll find ArbCom got there before you 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1E8:2D44:8B40:EBA5 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So, wait, are you saying you would or wouldn't comply with such a restriction? Above, you said: I cannot re-open my account for technical reasons, but I am hoping that the WMF boffins will be able to rectify the issue. Once they do, I will edit only under that name in future. It sounds like you'd be okay with such a restriction. And, of course, you could always do so under a new account name even if you were unable to regain access to SchroCat. I think, as many others have pointed out here, there are other problems with your conduct which necessitate a CBAN. But this would help allay some concerns. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad to see that SchroCat commits to editing from their account if they can get access to it. But, of course, there's nothing preventing that from editing at any time from, for instance, "SchroCat2", "SchroCat too", "SchroCat again", "SchroCat returned", "SchroCat redux" or another other new account. Further, returning to editing from an account, while preferable, does not sove the problem of their behavior towrds other editors while editing as an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Beyond SchroCat is available. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Somehow I doubt they'd be interested in that one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      dibs Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Schrödinger's Cat exists, but only has two insubstantial edits 16 years ago, so could probably be usurped. Bishonen | tålk 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      "Light occasional editing", but you also claimed that you wrote an FA as an IP? Those aren't even in the same league. casualdejekyll 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, he only wrote it once, and digital files weigh nothing at all. (Pay no attention to the other hundreds of edits from the last six months.) Levivich (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose if and only if SchroCat returns to editing under a single account (as he has stated he will). I don't think there is enough here to warrant a CBAN, but certainly he should stop editing from IPs that have the effect of avoiding scrutiny, even if that isn't his intention.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose What a waste of time this is. I wish SchroCat would restore his account and return to editing here but it's up to him what he does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions. I agree with Boing here, especially per ScroCat's unequivocal undertaking a little higher up in the thread to edit only from their own account once they're able to access it. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      Just to point out the obvious, SchroCat returning to editing from their account does not solve the problem of their behavior towards other editors while they have been editing using IPs, which is really the core of this CBan proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boing, Dr. Blofield, Bishonen, et al. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose site ban. I do see some of the behavior highlighted here as unfairly aggressive and unnecesssarily confrontational, but not to an extent that justifies banning "the person behind these IP ranges (and User:SchroCat) from editing the English Wikipedia". Nowhere near, not even close, in my view (I'll admit that it takes a lot for me to wish seeing a fellow editor site-banned. I believe this is the only site ban I've ever supported actively). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose Support - Reading over the years of behavior issues it is clear they are a net negative. Them being logged out at the time really has no bearing on this situation, nor does them saying that they will only edit under their main account. That misses the large body of evidence against them, and frankly their statements here do nothing to alleviate the concerns brought up here. In fact if their only take away from this is they should not edit as an IP then they are completely missing the point. They have wasted the communities time enough. PackMecEng (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Suppose"? is that mixture of "Support" & "Oppose"? GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, not so much. Thanks for the catch. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that which has been reported here really warrants the existince of this CBan survey. I see in what i read a great deal of effort towards sticking up for article quality and doing so in a collaborative manner, and in the recent interactions there was still some effort at collaboration on content. Sometimes it is difficult to be a fan of Wikipedia, but for that work i read and wasn't aware of then sure sign me up for the "club". Really i just wanted to see if someone would write the Linnemann spade article and then you told me to vote. fiveby(zero) 07:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I'm probably totally dense, but your "explanation" is totally imcomprehensible to me, and I suggest that if this proposal is ever closed, the closer should ignore your !vote as it has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, as far as I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A lot of opposes above seem to suggest there is no issue editing as an IP. In many cases that is true, but to have an IP claim to be an account is problematic, and especially problematic when it is from an account which has declared themselves retired and thus is unlikely to log in to confirm. Imitation and joe job opportunities abound, so declaring yourself retired and then editing from IPs should be considered deeply disruptive and not a legitimate use of IP editing. CMD (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boing. I'm not seeing anything here that warrants an AN thread. Blocking a highly productive editor simply does our Wikipedia readers a disservice. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. SchroCat has logged in/found their password, so that's one problem out of the way. They were and still are a productive editor, and while I am no fan of editing while logged out, we're making too much out of it. We should close this and move on, and future ... disturbances can be handled on a case by case basis. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban SchroCat is a great editor, and I believe he's here to build an encyclopedia. As it appears that he's returned to his old account, I oppose a CBAN if he pledges to avoid IP edits. ~ HAL333 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [108][109][17]) 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) (edited to remove range that probably wasn't SchroCat)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Agreed, I've converted to a CBAN proposal — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    See my talk page. Says it all really. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Regrettable, that he's letting himself be destroyed :( GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I do not believe that is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • (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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        Harry, that's saying the quiet part out loud, and I generally don't advise doing that. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say it's worse than that. Call it shooting the messenger. Call it a deliberate attempt to create a chilling affect. Whatever anyone wants to call it, it's unacceptable coming from anyone, let alone an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I call it bullying or attempted character assassination. It's ugly and inappropriate for anyone anywhere, but especially for an admin on an admin noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @HJ Mitchell: happy to answer your Qs:
        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
        Hi, I answer this in extreme detail below: [110]. Part of it, btw, is that I make lots and lots of tiny edits, instead of few large edits. So edit number is probably not the best way to examine my contributions in general. But that's beside the point. I did put a lot of work into this. You're right, and I don't apologize for that.
        More than anything, this user has spent the last year as an anon getting into bitter heated disputes, preventing others from changing any of their favorite articles in various minor ways, and contributing some to the project. They have made a lot fewer actual FAs/GAs etc than in the past, they admit this below. But I don't think their conduct was be totally fine even if they had created 1000s of FAs. It doesn't excuse their behavior.
        why do you bother editing here when your interest is clearly not in adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia?
        If you believe I'm WP:NOTHERE, feel free to bring me to ANI/AE/AN, I'll happily respond in that instance. Until then, please don't cast unnecessary WP:ASPERSIONS or personally attack me, thanks.
        What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned?
        My behavior isn't at issue, here. It also isn't one or the other. It's not as though banning me would somehow make SchroCat start collaborating and being a great person to interact with. As I say below, I only wrote this proposal because many other editors have taken issue with SchroCat's behavior. That's why they've gotten blocked like 7 times I can count (probably more, if we count the ranges who are also probably that user that I detail below, getting up to 10 or 11 times).
        I'd like to point out, I have never gotten blocked, not once, in 8 years. It's truly not hard to not get blocked. SchroCat has not just made zero effort to avoid getting blocked, they have actually gotten worse over time. You should examine the net total of the ways SchroCat affects the project and its collaborative culture, the ways they prevent others from editing articles in any way, etc. It's not as though I'm the only one concerned here. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You, a non-admin (who spends very little time in the mainspace) have made more edits to the admin's noticeboard in the last 48 hours than I (an admin) have in the last five years which is an unusual dedication to getting one person banned. And if you think anything I wrote was a personal attack or an aspersion then you are everything that is wrong with this thread and you have no business editing the project space. Go and research and write an FA. Spend two months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong. Then tell me that doesn't frustrate you just a little bit and you didn't have to take a deep breath before responding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Spend two months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong.
        I spend most of my time on wiki editing medical articles, especially infectious disease stuff (an area I have a PhD in), so yes, I understand how frustrating it can be to have non-experts tell you you're wrong, or you need better cites, or your phrasing is incorrect, when you literally have spent years of your life researching something in extreme detail.
        I've also done this with my patients, with whom I've had long conversations about vaccines and other such things. I've had patients tell me I'm a government shill, that I must be "gay for Fauci", that I drink children's blood. I've had patients tell me I must be getting paid by pharma to get them to take their diabetes medication. But you know what? I still manage somehow to not raise my voice with them, and convince them to do the things that keep them alive. That's also one terrible thing about peer review in academia, that people who are really experts in something totally different in your field tell you how you're wrong over and over again and you have to figure out how to please them. Trust me, I know the feeling you're describing.
        But, you know what? I somehow manage to edit here without calling other people names, saying they stalk me, WP:OWNing articles, or edit warring, and again, I manage to do it without getting blocked. I don't even think it's that bad for users to slip up and get blocked sometimes. But 10 or 11 times? And getting in several other unnoticed edit wars?
        I also tend to give a lot of leeway to long term contributors who are dealing with disruptive editors. I absolutely think that's a fair thing to do. It's easy to get exasperated in such situations. But eventually, there's a point where it's unacceptable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Go and research and write an FA a journal article. Spend two >8 months having your thousands of words picked apart only to have somebody a reviewer who learnt everything they know about the subject from your article tell you you did it wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Precisely. You've spent months or years working on something. You have an emotional attachment to it. Now imagine your reviewer is me, somebody with no scientific background, and I'm adamant that your placement of a comma is wrong, for example. But from your perspective it reads fine as it is and my change alters the meaning of a crucial sentence. You would be a little bit annoyed. That, of course, would not excuse you losing your temper but you would be entitled to some sympathy if somebody then proposed to ban you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering you posted What would we stand to lose from you if you were banned? to Shibbolethink earlier, that's quite the double-standard on your part. You're expending a lot of effort to intimidate and excoriate a user here, when you yourself admit you rarely spend time on this board. It does not reflect well on you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        My comment was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone who has published multiple biomedical papers in high-profile journals needs to go through the FA process to understand the frustrations of peer review. Not that you would need to have any writing experience to empathize with someone who was threatened with a ban merely for being grumpy occasionally about others changing wording on their FAs. But that's also obviously not a faithful digest of the conflict here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        In reality, if someone became abusive with a reviewer of an academic journal, I'm fairly sure there's a good chance they would be banned from making any submissions to the journal, possibly for a very long time. If they continued to be abusive years later, they'd find themselves in even deeper trouble, possibly under investigation from any institutions they worked for or are associated with. They'd have receive very little sympathy from anyone involved. Any other authors of the original paper, even if they also felt the criticism was unfair would likely be extremely pissed off at this person way more than they were with the reviewer. There's a fair chance they'd never work with them again. I don't think comparing the situation here to academic review of a journal submission is particularly comparable even if this does show how silly User:HJ Mitchell's comparison is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        This is shockingly condescending, bad-faith, and intentionally chilling. Can another admin please deal with this appalling behavior? 67.80.122.184 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I am everything that is wrong with this thread and [] have no business editing the project space. Good to know where I stand, at least. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Likewise. I guess it's okay to make personal attacks as long as you do so in the context of insulting people for daring to think you had previously made personal attacks. But it's hardly surprising to see a user with a lot of FAs belittling someone who doesn't meet his standards. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @HJ Mitchell: FWIW I've edited with Shibbolethink in the past and at that time primarily saw them in the mainspace, with a good understanding of sources and immensely helpful in resolving intricate content disputes on medical content. Not that any of this is really relevant to the discussion IMO, but I'm not sure your analysis on Shibbolethink's editing contributions is accurate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah I've seen Shibbolethink around a lot and they are very helpful and an incredible asset to Wikipedia including mainspace. I have not seen anymany such contributions from HJ Mitchell. I strongly suspect HJ Mitchell does contribute incredibly productively probably way more than me, but if I was to go solely by my own experience HJ Mitchell does not contributive productively but Shibbolethink does. This is why we should be very wary about casting aspertions on another editor's track record without careful analysis of said track record. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry a poor wording on my part. I said any, should have said many. I've seen HJ Mitchell occasionally. I can't recall exactly where or what they were doing but I'm sure most of those I did see were were productive and either in mainspace or related directly to mainspace. However it still pales significantly by comparison with the productive edits I've seen from Shibbolethink as others have said especially for medical content and for past nearly 3 years now this has often meant COVID-19 related stuff. Again I'm not intending to compare their respective histories since I have not done any analysis. I'm just illustrating with it's a terrible idea to make such comparisons without having done a proper analysis. As further illustrated by the several editors who have defended Shibbolethink's editing history in response to HJ Mitchell's indeed ill-conveived and evidence free accusation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What an appalling, ill-conceived, evidence-free accusation by HJ Mitchell about a top WP:MEDRS editor with an impeccable record, clean block log, 500 mainspace edits in the last two weeks, 10k article edits in the last twelve months, and a highly respected contributor at the WP:WikiProject Medicine board. What have you been smoking, to get this so wrong?
        The only way I can account for your comments, coming from a respected admin, is that you've been a bit over-subscribed (I get it), you assumed there must be some he-said, she-said, or some balance needed, and you thought providing some pushback on what seemed too lopsided a tally with too few admins involved to establish some "balance" would be a good idea. Unfortunately, you didn't do your homework.
        I can tell you why they have 200 edits here: it's because like any scientist, once Shibbolethink decides to participate in some piece of research, then they are all in: doing all the research, exposing all the data, and being completely transparent about data that either supports or challenges any prior impression they may have had, as well as entertaining any well-founded comments about data or methodology.
        Finally their 200 edits are not "to get an editor banned", but rather to lay out the data to the community, like any scientist publishing a paper for their peers, and let the paper stand or fall on its own merits. Like any author of a published scientific paper, this doesn't preclude the author from drawing a conclusion when the data merits, and they have done so, perfectly in line with scientific publishing, here intended for the community audience at WP:ANI to read and either ignore, thumbs-up, or thumbs-down.
        If you knew the first thing about Shibbolethink, or had spent minimal effort (say, a dilettante-sized scoop, not a scientist-size in-depth one) looking into his contributions and history, you would have discovered this for yourself. It's regrettable that you did not. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I have mot levelled any accusations. You clearly haven't read what I wrote. The rest of your comment is simply playing with semantics. One of the accusations levelled against SchroCat is that he has a persecution complex. Another is that he is bludgeoning discussions. I would think I was being harassed if somebody put that much time and effort into arguing with me on talk pages and advocating banning me on a noticeboard; most reasonable people would. And if this isn't a textbook case of bludgeoning then I've been discussing and sdminning wrong for the best part of a decade and a half. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But does he care about feeling harassed? SchroCat made those damaging/"Battleground" edits well before people noticed/brought it here. As Beyond My Ken says, SchroCat is essentially giving the community the middle finger. That's what this boils down to, not if he actually cares (which he very clearly doesn't). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      Do you have any evidence that this is some kind of coordinated hit? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would tell you, @Ssilvers, I actually actively tried to discourage other users from bringing this here to AN [111], for exactly this reason. It becomes a giant cluster-F, and people question you every other way, assume you're acting in bad faith, etc. I'm quite certain my behavior will be hyper-examined with a magnifying glass for months after this, by SchroCat's advocates. I hate bringing things to AN/ANI. I tried to discourage this because I wanted it to be a better case. But if it's here, I'm not going to hold back. And it turns out lots of other people have problems with this person's behavior, and it's a pretty clear cut situation all things considered. So I'm glad they did. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other ranges not included in this proposal to keep an eye on moving forward

    2A00:23C7:2B86:9800

    2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · 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:

    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)[reply]

    2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00

    2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · 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. [133][134]— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not SchroCat

    2001:4451:8124:4900

    2001:4451:8124:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · 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)[reply]

    86.155.193.0/24

    86.155.193.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Contributions from SchroCat in the above thread.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not SchroCat given that the telecom is Sky

    2A02:C7C:A400:EF00/60

    2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:0:0:0:0/60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Contributions from SchroCat in this thread and on Nemov's talk page [135][136] as well as a few on SC's old haunts (e.g. Sophie Dahl [137][138]).— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nope. Not me, I’m afraid. 77.249.149.237 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which one are you referring to? I had no idea this anonymous user was or wasn't SchroCat until you said "This is the fourth time". Since you're an anonymous IP I've never seen before. This is why you should make an account. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am talking about this latest thread (obviously), which is not me. Wrong ISP for a start. Feel free to strike my name from this, or you are making a false accusation. You should probably take note that I have not said that any of the other IP addresses do not contain some of my edits, but this one is not me. 77.249.149.237 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Sure, I'll collapse it based on the telecom not being right. But, as an FYI, I don't think we can go simply off of your word since the entire nature of IP addresses are anonymous. Someone could claim to be you and be on a related IP and start misconduct, for example. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    requeset to use a different userlinks template
    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:[139][140] (User:Tim riley/sandbox), [141]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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    nope, no problem. Not accusing you of any misconduct here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([142],[143]) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oh, and 47 FLs. Added 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6486:7533:98F3:7C9F (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm simply pointing out that the stats I originally cited were for article which were created by SchroCat, and the status they are currently in, while the stats cited by SchroCat are for article they actually brought to FA etc. and were accepted. I think that his stats are the more relevant ones, which is why I struck-through mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Ssilvers wrote:

      [They].. disagree with him [about infoboxes] and so they wish to get him banned.[emphasis added]

      Really? That is an accusation of bad faith retaliation on the part of those editors. If that is what you are alleging, then that is a serious matter, and you should raise this separately in a new section at ANI against the editors who brought this AN action against SchroCat, along with your evidence of same. If I misread you, and that is *not* what you meant, or if you've changed your mind, then you should indicate your disavowal of your previous statement by redacting it using <s>strikeout type</s> to indicate the part that you recant. In blunter terms: put up, or shut up. Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A topic-ban from anything to do with adding/deleting infoboxes, might be another alternative. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring approach

    In the event that SchroCat & his IPs are not c-banned? There's another way to deal with his behaviour when it's deemed problematic, in infobox discussions. Ignore his posts & notify a closing RFC editor, to do the same. Denying recognition, has its advantages. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are plenty of IP editors who make fine GF arguments. I'm not sure how we're supposed to carve out a problem users who uses multiple IPs. This behavior is just going to continue to cause problems. Probably more so if he's able to avoid getting banned this time. Who would want to raise the issue again after this? I'm kind of stunned that people are defending it. Nemov (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm understanding many editors here, identifying SC's IPs isn't overly difficult. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if someone looks it up, but 6 months from now on some random discussion, newer editors (especially if they're not familiar with this case) won't know the identity of the IP user. Nemov (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes and no. Most sockpuppets/returning editors get caught because they can't help themselves--favorite articles/disputes, rhetorical style, users they don't like. I don't doubt there are banned users editing productively because they stopped doing the thing that got them banned and no one noticed them. The issue is that the way SchroCat edits creates conflict, whether anyone links that disruptive behavior to the main account or not. All the rhetoric from his supporters above doesn't change that fact, and doesn't offer a sustainable path forward. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say, if the user is not CBANned, the correct approach would be to wait. See if this experience had any beneficial effect on the user, and attempt to collaborate as we always should in this project.
    If the user continues to be disruptive, display OWNership, cast ASPERSIONS, throw personal attacks, and edit war, or resumes this behavior in time, then the approach would be to go to WP:AE (if in infoboxes or another similar DS notice area), or return here to AN/ANI and show the behavior has not changed. Long-term abusers are given a lot of lattitude on this project, but there is a length, a pattern, and an unrepentance for which this community trust is no longer extended.
    And aside from that, it's still true that basically 2/3 of respondents believe the user should be CBANned. It hasn't been closed yet. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give SchroCat or whoever's behind the IPs, some credit. They're smart enough not to annoy me, at those infobox keep/delete discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you talk about anything else? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't even (including here) try it. At best, you'll merely entertain me. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In hindsight the fan club is off topic

    Fan Club

    I guess I was unaware that SchroCat had a WP:FANCLUB willing to simply ignore his problematic behavior and also celebrating his returning. Embarrassing really, but I want to make it clear my issue here wasn't that he was editing as an IP user. His return to the original account doesn't solve a problem. The problem was the editor's behavior towards other editors. It doesn't matter that his edits are coming from an IP, the problem are the edits. SchroCat doesn't get a "get out jail free" care because they made unfounded accusations from an IP. Editors need to quit obfuscating the issue. SchroCat is a hostile editor who continually makes unfounded accusations towards other editors. That's all you need to know and the evidence in the edit history is overwhelming.

    The editors blaming other editors for this behavior are disappointing. Favoritism blinds the ability to see clearly and that's it certainly happening after reviewing some of the arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe there are "fans" who would excuse absolutely anything (and maybe a couple long-term grudges for whom the recent stuff doesn't even matter), but I suspect most of the rest of us who don't support a ban simply don't agree with you that there's enough justification for one. That doesn't mean SchroCat has been a model of prosocial behavior, but that we're being asked to assess whether we should issue the strongest sanction at our disposal, and the evidence just isn't sufficient. Wording of "WP:FANCLUB" aside, yes we absolutely do -- and should -- weigh contributions to the project when determining something like a CBAN. There are times that the same 5 edits that gets a brand new user indeffed are outweighed by 50,000 preceding good edits. The challenge is figuring out where that line is, and the reality is it varies by person. You don't have to be a fan of SchroCat to be a fan of high-quality article work, and to have a subjectively high bar for sanctions that would stop someone from producing that work. It's frustrating when people skirt the lines of acceptability for a long time, but thankfully it doesn't happen all that often. I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling like the bar for problems is too high when it comes to FA writers. There have been times I've felt that way myself, including, as I said above, with SchroCat. In this case, however, looking I think we're solidly on the "oppose" side of that line.
    Beyond that, there's also the extent to which infobox disputes are so fraught. There are people who view bad behavior coming out of those discussions in a different light because of the dynamics in play. I wish infoboxes weren't so triggering to SchroCat, et al., and I wish we didn't have people so quick to disregard the opinions of those who put hundreds of hours into building out articles when it comes to how best to present the information. Yes, you could reframe that and say "per WP:OWN, devoting you blood, sweat, and tears to a single article doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to drop in and have just as much influence in an RfC", and in many cases I'd agree. The issue is, with many cases we're dealing with things like NPOV, V, NOR, and other policies where consensus can be based on application/interpretation of policy. With infoboxes, there is no real policy guidance, and it's just personal preference in the guise of "what I think helps readers" or "why I think they make sense in X domain but not Y". For something that's about personal preference, surely you can see that someone who labored for a subject might be bothered by the fact that some people go from article to article contributing nothing to an article except to argue about an infobox when there's no policy-based rationale? Again, not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have a say, but I don't find it hard to empathize, or to understand why some see behavioral issues arising from infobox disputes in a different light. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about infoboxes and I wish editors would quit hiding their bias behind this nebulous argument. This is an editor with a long history of hostility and an editor who continues to do it without fear from punishment because editors like yourself just make excuses for the behavior.
    We don't own anything on this project. Our job is simply to improve it with the help of the community. When you endorse an editor who doesn't respect other editors you in turn endorse disrespectful behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be falling into the same kind of behavior you're accusing SchroCat of, making accusations of bias and "fan clubs" and masking bad intentions using "nebulous arguments" and "endorsing disrespectful behavior" when I'm doing nothing of the sort. I don't have to endorse disrespectful behavior to decide that it's not disrespectful enough for a ban. A look through my editing history would reveal many times that I've been critical of people defending bad behavior just because of FAs. The difference is, in those cases, the behavior was worse. You're making accusations based on what you think my motivation is, when the reality is you just haven't made as good a case as you think you have. IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My conscious is clear on this subject and I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious. As you admitted, SchroCat hasn't been a model of prosocial behavior. When a user has been banned in the past for this behavior and the behavior continues then it's on the editor to either acknowledge a long term problem or ignore it. It seems like you've made your choice. I don't know what your motivation is, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:ASPERSIONS cannot be any clearer.... It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. If you can convince yourself SchroCat doesn't routinely do this then we're at an impasse. Nemov (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, I have never been banned. - 86.155.193.84 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I meant you've been blocked with cause 5-9 times? It's a chore combing through the wreckage. Nemov (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is not a ban. Please keep that in mind especially when you are citing WP:ASPERSIONS. You do little good for your case when you're not even sure of the accuracy of the facts you are citing. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said "my mistake" but I appreciate your feedback. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every one of these threads is Lynch Mob v. Fan Club. I believe those are the names of the WMF's softball teams. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm just trying to use the softball field to play fetch with my dog. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Put me in coach! I'm ready to play! Jip Orlando (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Is this the equivalent of an Army–Navy Game? Dronebogus (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing sideshow featuring thoroughly disruptive IP who is apparently *not* SchroCat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • is in London
    • is also a person who hates infoboxes
    • on the same /64 ranges which frequented several of SchroCat's old haunts (e.g. Sophie Dahl)
    • is now in-depth reading this thread (enough to understand the "fanclub" discussion)
    • and is posting on Nemov's talk page, just to harass the user about this thread
    • but isn't SchroCat?
    Definitely sounds like a case of WP:LOUTSOCK to me.
    To be fair, it looks like this user is a customer of Sky Broadband [144]. But it very well could be a work vs home situation. Or work vs coffee house, etc. I wouldn't think the isp alone would be enough to differentiate this when the user behavior is so glaringly similar.
    I just hesitate to believe that London is a hotbed for infobox extremists. (kidding, kidding) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes, I can think of several former editors who fit that criteria. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm just not up-to-date or in-the-know about the infobox wars, and so I have literally no idea how many people it could be. But it is overall interesting.
    I hope they all get together for tea and crumpets and talk about the latest articles that have had infoboxes added. That would just warm my cold dead heart. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean I did hear this one theory once: that it's always been just one person, who hates infoboxes, and in Wikipedia's early days, he started using multiple accounts to fight against them, eventually going so far as to hire actors to portray these other editors at London Wiki meet-ups, but then--much to the chagrin of this editor--the meet-ups kept happening, year after year, and after like a decade and a half, the editor just didn't have any more money to pay the actors, so he had to self-destruct each alt account one by one before the next meet-up, but then--to the further chagrin of this editor--the pandemic happened, and all of a sudden meet-ups were online, and the editor didn't need the actors anymore, he's a skilled actor himself so just like a hat and some sunglasses would do fine, so now he's been trying to resurrect each account one by one... but, I think it's more likely that it's actually several different likeminded people. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two-year old mystery solved! Now I *finally* understand why my hat and sunglasses Amazon store went through the roof two years ago, but has been slowly withering ever since. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't want to connect users and IPs by naming [them]..." then don't...oh, you have. Futile. See WP:ASPERSIONS 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What suggestions do you have for how others should be able to examine your conduct, as they do with most wikipedia users? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arrogant enough to make suggestions on other people's behaviour. Live and let live - sticks and stones, blah blah blah.... 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:3DE9:3F2:337:22BD (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I call this a spade. - BMK Why does WP call it an MPL-50 and not a Linnemann spade?

    Suggestion

    Unproductive section that won't lead anywhere. Consensus will be evaluated by the closer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Could I ask why you want to close this as No Consensus? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wait 'til you figure out that none of them are actually reading any of it. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Then you're not seeing clearly -- understandable because they're a friend -- because the answers are "yes" and "yes". And as a quick look at some of the opposes above will show, there are Wikipedians who sincerely believe that the quality of an editor's contributions constitute a permanent "Get out of jail free" card, excusing socking, incivility, personal attacks and ownership behavior well beyond any reasonable WP:STEWARDSHIP. I would contend that quality of content creation only goes so far, and SchroCat has crossed over the line. They have already received numerous free passes because of their value as an editor, and really the only question that's being asked here is "Is it finally too much?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yknow, we really need a bingo card for these things. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to remember to include the Lamentations of the Decline of Wikipedia and the Counting of FAs. Levivich (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “I miss ye good olde days of Deletionist-Inclusionist civil war and 5 million articles about Pokemon!” Dronebogus (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Light v. heat ratio much too low. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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, the absolute flaunting of block evasion and flippant attitude, all shows me SchroCat has no interest whatsoever in changing how they behave, and some sort of remedy had to be discussed. The fact that they are so unrepentant, so flagrant, and have been sanctioned so many times over the years, is why it has come to this. That is no one's fault but SchroCat's. They have no one to blame but themselves.
    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 and great to interact with Tim riley, but I do find your acceptance of their behavior despite all the evidence here, confusing. Sure, they contribute a lot. But no one is so valuable that they can behave however they want. Our community has standards. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can but repeat that I have yet to see, above, anyone actually making a reasoned complaint about SchroCat's treatment of him/her. Tim riley talk 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you really aren't paying very close attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SchroCat, in the little time we have interacted with each other, has been more than a little bit nasty in his/her/their phrasing when speaking to me, despite their intentions. I personally think that he/she/they have contributed greatly to the encyclopedia in the past, but he/she/they give the impression to me that he/she/they tend to game the system and wikilawyer a little bit too much. I support some sort of sanction against him/her/them because of this, and a CBAN seems like it's what's gonna happen. Good editors or not, we're all expected to be civil, and being that SchroCat looks like to me that he/she/they been on this wiki for a long time, he/she/they should know that.
    As an additional comment to Tim, I can't tell whether you're neglecting (intentional or accidental) to pay attention to the debate or if you're trolling. If it is the former, please try to examine everything and give us specific rebuttals rather than ignore the above; if the latter, really man? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah! The old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Am I trolling or neglectful? Neither. The above editor's assertion that SchroCat has been "more than a little bit nasty" is worthless without specific examples of the alleged more-than-a-little-bit nastiness. Please back up your assertion with some actual examples. Tim riley talk 23:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See this section of my talk page for more context. While the message of what he/she/they has been trying to say likely was a good faith attempt to defend himself/herself/themself, SchroCat, instead of saying "Please stop with what I perceive as personal attacks", says "Nice little batch of personal attacks and untruths here", and when talking to @EnPassant, SchroCat speaks in what I perceive as a commanding and imperative tone similar to a parent or school headmaster/principal (see "so feel free to strike that lie"). SchroCat has no authority over me nor anyone on this wiki. I would also criticize you in your above comment for doing the same thing; see "Ah! The old 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' question". I would request that when speaking to me, be more open and take less of a defensive/commanding tone. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. You feel at liberty to accuse me of either trolling or neglectfulness, but take offence when I challenge that false dichotomy. You seem reluctant to reply to my request to cite specific examples of an editor's being offended by SchroCat's comments in discussion. Tim riley talk 00:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular conversation appears to be at a stalemate and it's probably better to just move on at this point. It's not productive. Tim has mentioned that SchroCat is a friend IRL so his comments should be viewed appropriately from that perspective. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem reluctant to reply to my request to cite specific examples of an editor's being offended by SchroCat's comments in discussion
    On wiki, people generally respond to other people being a jerk by:
    1. ignoring it,
    2. pretending its fine, or
    3. being a jerk back.
    Of these 3 options, 3 will get oneself also sanctioned if it ever comes up. 1 or 2 are a lot easier. Raising a stink about it tends not to help, so people don't do it openly. Indeed, doing it openly in places other than user talk or noticeboards is a possible violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. But as I describe above, I was offended by many of the things SchroCat has said to me over the past several days. I just have a really high tolerance for these things based on the nature of my IRL job. It wasn't until it became clear to me that others felt the same way that I said something.
    All of which to say, don't take the appearance of other people keeping their cool to mean it's totally fine for SchroCat to act like a jerk. it's not. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take offense to the challenge itself but the way you phrased your challenge. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How odd! What is offensive about citing the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question and gainsaying your accusation that I am trolling or neglectful? Do please explain. Tim riley talk 00:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never directly accused you of trolling with certainty. My comment was that I could not tell whether your ignorance of details and previous evidence was neglect or intentional, the latter of which I personally would interpret as trolling. Could I ask you to refrain from bludgeoning this? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread's becoming too long to parse, and at this point I'm not sure what proper remedy is being discussed. I saw a survey for a CBAN above, but it got a bit muddled and it doesn't appear to have a supermajority consensus. I agree that this should also be no consensus closed, and editors warned to do better and be better in their exchanges with other editors. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The current survey is 21-10 give or take. Seems pretty clear to me. I can understand not wanting to read all of this, but there are clear examples of a formally banned user routinely accusing others of stalking/harassment. The only question here is does the editor get a free pass on bad behavior. I brought this issue to light and I can't be warned for doing that. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tally is currently (as of 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)):
    • 24 [Support] - to - 8 [Oppose] - to 3 [Unenforceable] - to 2 [Restrict to one-account logged-in editing]
    But this isn't a vote or a straw poll of course. The strength, quality and number of different unanswered/answered arguments on all sides, and policy-base of these would have to come into play in any reasonable close of a massive thread with harsh consequences like this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOFAKECLOSES (yes, it's one I wrote). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE, and I would think we should need more than a simple majority to determine whether someone should be banned from Wikipedia with no recourse other than appealing to the community. Is Schrocat's behavior at times abrasive? Yes. Has he committed a bannable offense? I'm not sure. Are there other options that exist for controlling this incivility other than the finality of a ban? Yes. We should exercise those first. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    24-13 isn't a simple majority, it's 65%. And, we have tried other things before. There was an arbcom case, there was an AE, there was an ARCA, I don't remember how many ANIs, and allowing SchroCat to abandon his account and edit as an IP was the most-recent thing we tried short of a CBAN. It's not like this is the first or second or third or fourth or fifth time this has come up... Levivich (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If he isn't banned this time, "abandon[ing] his account and edit[ing] as an IP" looks like it might be a great roadmap going forward for any highly productive contributors with multiple blocks who wish to go rogue and avoid scrutiny or consequences. WP:HOWTOGOROGUE should point here. Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We prefer the term WP:CLEANSTART. ;-) Levivich (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 9 opposed, not 8 (you missed one that is labeled 'forget it'). However, of the nine, only two are actually quasi-policy based (as "unconvinced" or "overreaction"), and seven derails: 2 unenforceable/unimplementable, 2 "great contributor", 3 counterattacks (2 retaliation-based , 1 IP-phobic). Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot - I was separating out those participants whose entire argument was that it was unfeasible, not that they opposed the action itself, into a separate category, hence 3 "Unenforceable". But yes, these clearly are not "support" votes that much should be uncontroversial — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The CBAN discussion is hardly muddled. Moreover, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by suggesting that unspecified editors should be warned for unspecified actions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom & infoboxes

    If I recall correctly. Arbcom made a ruling on how editors should behave at infobox discussions. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Here. Standard discretionary sanctions were authorized, and editors were "reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." The committee also recommended further community discussion re; infoboxes. Specific remedies addressed to SchroCat did not pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific remedies addressed to SchroCat did not pass
    • He does have an edit restriction to disclose future accounts, to ArbCom. [145]
    • The finding "SchroCat has historically exhibited battleground behavior around the addition of infoboxes" failed 6-to-5 with at least one of the opposed votes (a vanished arb) saying: Conduct [from 2016] is relevant when establishing a pattern."
    • another noted "SchroCat seems to have consciously stepped back from infobox debates for the past 18 months"
    — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also this amendment request at ARCA, which didn;t result in any action being taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who filed that request, what got me mad at the time, and frankly gets me upset again reading that ARCA now, was JzG's decision to overrule 3 admin and Newyorkbrad's idea that a single administrator deciding to not levy a sanction deserved deference. As one of the original drafters of the DS reform about to pass you can draw a straight line from that ARCA to the fact that this won't be allowed going forward. The fact that it was about Schrocat, Cass, etc was incidental to me. The choice of Cass and Schrocat to retire did have some bearing on the ARCA's outcome but I think it's important to realize how much of that discussion was not about Cass, Schrocat, any of hte other editors, or infoboxes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    London Beer flood

    I’m having a problem with another editor who does not log in and edits by IP address, which I consider suspect, why do this if you are a reliable editor? He stated in our Talk:London_Beer_Flood#Mass_of_beer conversation that he is “the editor formally known as SchroCat, editing as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:710B:FCB:E462:EC60”. Note there is no profile or Talk page for this editor.

    I read this article and realized from my knowledge of physics regarding density and the volume of the litre that the mass of water quoted was not only incorrect, but off by a factor of about 18. Despite his insisting it is my own original research, it is not, it is a scientific fact of density and volume, easily noticeable by anyone who knows the Metric system. I’m amazed no one at Wikipedia noticed this error prior to naming it one of the best articles produced. Getting this error corrected has been difficult, the other editor decided the mass was important when it was incorrect, but now I have a source and it’s been corrected, the mass of the beer is no longer important.

    I’ve also edited the article because it was missing metric units contrary to [[MOS:UNIT]. This has been reverted a number of time with the other units hidden “in a citation”. Readers outside the UK may know of Imperial Gallons but the rest of the planet may or may not, and as per the MOS it should be “visibly” included. Readers in the USA may assume their gallon is the same imperial Gallon. The SI unit and US Gallons should be visible without checking citations.

    As mentioned in an email with the author of the book used in this article, the vat contained the equivalent of a number of barrels which was a unit used in the 1800’s, these barrels contained 32 ale gallons or 38 imperial gallons, the physical size of the barrel did not change. wp:Reference English brewery cask units. I emailed the author of the book used as a reference in this article (attached).

    It seems no amount of additional information will persuade this editor to accept the figure I gave for the mass of beer in the flood or the inclusion of units other than Imperial Gallons, which are not even used in the United Kingdom except in conversation.

    Email from author of book used as reference: Avi8tor (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi8tor, just wanted to ping you to let you know that there is a larger thread about SchroCat and I have folded it in to that. I also had to remove a few weird bits of text that got added in (see Special:Diff/1127546933), so please make sure your original message is still largely intact without any major disruption (it was just a few stray headers and AN notices). Primefac (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this being brought up here, rather than discussed on the talk page (which hasn't been touched for two weeks)? This noticeboard doesn't adjudicate on content questions. Girth Summit (blether) 09:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth I did not notice the time stamps, so if this just needs hatting/removal feel free; my actions were mainly to keep related threads together. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Avi8tor: I see you have been in discussion at Talk:London Beer Flood but it's all over the place. When you return there, please make a new section with a proposal to change specific text. It would be preferable to stick to one issue at a time and the question of whether the stated volume is accurate is obviously important and should be addressed first. I work on {{convert}} and have seen the issue of historical units being a problem many times. It needs calm investigation, not administrative action although I will watch the article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. I've been getting nowhere with the editor using an IP address (SchroCat) who keeps reverting what I add and has been accusing me of Original research which it is not. I ended up writing to the Author of the book used as a reference in this article, but could not see how to attach a pdf of the email with addresses redacted. I will do as you suggest. Avi8tor (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth on the specific point of the placement of conversions, MOS:CONVERSIONS is the direct shortcut to the guideline specifying inline conversion in all but a handful of types of article. XAM2175 (T) 12:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's get back to the proposal

    Just a reminder to all that there's a serious Proposal being considered in which the Wikipedia community is deciding whether or not to ban a long-time editor from contributing here. That's a serious matter in this context, but it's spawned a lot of side discussions and other distractions. Can we please get our focus back to where it belongs, on the ongoing survey? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cat came back. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sad

    Levivich made an astute comment above, about "Lynch Mob v. Fan Club", which I think encapsulates the problems of this forum. So often I see the supporters of a sanction seeing the opposers as a fan club, and the opponents seeing the supporters as a lynch mob (not necessarily using those words, but along those lines). Usually, both sides of a dispute have valid arguments, and the fan club/lynch mob polarisation is nothing more than hyperbole. It serves only to generate heat, and no light. Yes, someone can behave badly, and yes, sometimes a ban is justified. But there are often valid arguments that the most severe sanction we can impose is not necessary. The real world is rarely black and white, but mostly consists of various shades of compromise. The whole approach of hurling mud at one's opponents, and making accusations about their motives and biases, is greatly facilitated by this faceless online medium. And I just wish people would stop and think whether they'd say the same things, make the same accusations, to the same people in real life, face to face. I know it's an impossible dream, but I'd love to see this community moving back closer to one in which we all respect each other's rights to disagree, even strongly, without feeling the need to attack, insult and demean in response. Wouldn't that be lovely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is a general lament about what happens at AN all too often, then I agree with you; however at the same time, that would mean that your musing is O/T for this discussion, and this subsection should be collapsed before it goes any further. If, on the other hand, you believe that that is what is happening now in this discussion in a way that's potentially relevant for the outcome, then you'd need to address why you view it like that *this* time, and not before. Or, were the nine or ten previous blocks all "wins" for the "lynch mob", each time? Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "Or, were the nine or ten previous blocks all "wins" for the "lynch mob", each time?" - way to completely miss the point, while providing an example of it. My point is that there should be no thinking of "lynch mob" or "fan club" (or winning or losing, as that's not what it's supposed to be about), because those are damaging hyperbole, and I don't think of either camp in that way. It only serves to dehumanise those who disagree with us, and it's anathema to civil discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Yes, I do think this is relevant to this specific case. Not in the sense that it's likely to change the Yes/No outcome, but more that I hope that if we think more kindly of those with whom we disagree, we might achieve a more understanding consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Your point was crystally clear; you repeated it in S3, S4, S7, and everything else supported it. Way to miss the quotation marks around wins and lynch mob, though. And I still agree with you, and it's still O/T, and it should still be collapsed. If you insist on agreeing with me repeatedly, I must warn you I will take you to WP:Agreement resolution forum for stern action. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But to head off the risk of too much agreement, I don't think it's O/T and should be collapsed. I posted it in the hope that people on both sides of this specific discussion might see some value in cooling the confrontational approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't possibly agree with this any more if I tried. I would also hurry to suggest that if it's not too much to ask, perhaps we could all benefit from making a choice to deescalate, disengage, walk away, whatever you want to call it. At this point, the current state of the discussion is not producing anything beneficial, unless one considers mass sanctions a benefit for an online encyclopedia somehow. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternate Proposal?

    It appears that many members are unwilling to move forward with a CBAN,but acknowledge the problematic behavior of the editor. Moving back to the original account does nothing to address the established history of problems from this editor. Is there an alternative solution? A topic ban perhaps? I'm not sure that would work either since there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior everywhere this editor goes. I'm open to suggestions, but it would be an appalling result if he simply carries on from the original account after this long discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My view is that getting the focus back to editing only from their registered account will help focus SchroCat more on the project and on better behaviour. It's very different between using your known account and editing logged out - it brings easier scrutiny, for one thing. Wouldn't it be nice to have an old contributor back, having put a period of perhaps slight bitterness behind them? Punishment for past deeds is not a thing here, and we should only consider how we might improve the future. And I think having SchroCat back, with a committment to only using their logged-in account, is worth trying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)a am[reply]
    PS: I'll just add that I think someone who has produced multiple FAs and GAs, and who has made huge content contributions to the encyclopedia, is worth the extra effort to keep them here and contributing. Does that mean I'm biased towards those who create content above those who do very little of that and mainly frequent the drama boards? Hell, yes! I'd rate a contributor like SchroCat as far more valuable to the project than someone who has never worked on a single GA or FA, and has less than a third of their edits in article space. (And before anyone thinks I'm attacking them, those are my statistics.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it’s worth, I have never logged out just to comment or edit. And “appalling? Really? 95 to 98 per cent of my life on WP is stress free, enjoyable, collaborative and positive. What people often forget, as they paint me as the bad guy, is that it takes two to tango.
    This thread, for example, started because I was stopping a BLP violation by someone misrepresenting sources. Standing up for that article (not one I have edited much) led to this thread. If you think that is “appalling” and something to trigger a ban or a block is something upon which we will have to disagree. SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: If the community isn't going to c-ban, so be it. I have proposed a t-ban from anything to do with adding/deleting infoboxes from bios. Ain't gonna lose sleep over it, should it not be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have downgraded my previous !vote for a site-ban to Weak Support as a second choice, and am waiting for the formulation of a clearly worded alternate proposal that addresses both logged-out editing and infoboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community ban proposal is not going to make it. Someone uninvolved should close it. Ponyo, are you around? I don't think you've had dealings with SchroCat or fought over infoboxes; this could be the biggest AN thread you ever closed! GoodDay, I can't see your t-ban tree in this c-ban forest, but if someone does close the community ban proposal (which, if it isn't 50/50, is certainly not 70/30--with a stern note about logged-out editing), and perhaps the entire thing as "having run its course" (in part because SchroCat has logged in), that would be something to put up separately in a new thread. Right now there is probably too much in here to discuss that properly and with some distance, and I think discussing a topic ban from infoboxes is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I've never had any involvement with the dreaded infobox wars of yore, I tend to shy away from adminning contentious discussions as this leaves me wholly uninvolved should my checkuser bits be needed in those same contentious areas. It's also why I avoid WP:AE and Arb cases. Plus I'm very very lazy. -- Ponyobons mots 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought this here and I'm fine with withdrawing since it's a stalemate. It's disappointing that the many members of the community have no issue with WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm not interested in a topic ban for infobox stuff. This was never about infoboxes and that discussion is running its natural course. SchroCat isn't winning any minds with his behavior there and those comments are easy enough to ignore. I brought this here because of how he was communicating with other editors. If the community won't do anything about it there's nothing left to discuss. Thanks for everyone's commentary. Nemov (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would tell you this is one situation where mandating logged in editing may be a justified sanction. Because otherwise SchroCat could just decide next week to log out again and we'd be right back where we started. It would erode the community's trust of course, but the hill to climb would be still quite high to do anything about it. And we have quite a few users here (support and oppose) who would support such a targeted sanction. That's something that would not be possible if you withdraw. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I dare say the only sanction which logically follows this thread IMO is for the logged out user who is not SchroCat. The other person has not connected their other on-wiki identity, seems to have appeared only to snipe and create chaos, and has run afoul of at least a couple bulletpoints of WP:ILLEGIT. And if, perchance, they happen to be someone whose main account is under an arbcom-issued "infobox probation", all the worse (this thread in no small part stemming from infobox discussions, and an active sanction making one ineligible for a WP:CLEANSTART). ...Not that we need a separate thread about it. Any admin might be inclined to simply look into the matter and take action if merited. As for this proposal, I'm not inclined to support a tban on infoboxes. Fix the guidance about infoboxes to be about something other than personal preference, and people won't resent others imposing their personal preference at lots of articles they've never edited before. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @eeng: what, this one? lettherebedarklight晚安 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed the one. EEng 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    45.8.146.215

    I reported 45.8.146.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at AIV 45 minutes ago, but that report has apparently received no investigation. The IP is very rapidly removing {{portal}} templates, seemingly constructive wikilinks, and other content from a wide range of articles, currently focusing on the geography of the western United States. The IP's Talk page contains numerous warnings over the past 45 days, but the IP has made no effort to respond to any of them. Could someone take a look and see if the IPs edits appear to be constructive? While some appear to be so, or at least defensible, the vast majority do not. General Ization Talk 05:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm an admin but not an AIV watcher. I just happened to stumble across this IP editor via my watchlist. I'm combing through their edits now. They do have a lot of helpful edits (including sourced additions to articles using citation templates), but a lot of nonsense too. Among the nonsense, randomly removing portals from some articles, while adding them to others (with no apparent rhyme or reason as to which have the portals removed and which have the portals added), also removing redlinks. I'm tempted to block as they apparently have been warned adequately. But I'm also concerned this may be a bigger issue, like maybe a block evasion. This editor clearly knows their way around Wikipedia more than the average IP vandal. If anybody can clear up what's going on please advise.Dave (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the IP stopped about the time that another editor started systematically reverting their edits, and appears now to have started again using IP 80.71.157.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with some overlap on the previous IP's edits). General Ization Talk 05:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch, thank you. I didn't notice they switched IP's. So yeah they know how to game the system. I blocked the 80.x IP. Now we see how many more IP's they have at their disposal. Dave (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Saintstephen000 (talk)
    Since we seem to agree this is not your run-of-the-mill vandal, and my report at AIV had received no attention anyway, I removed it. Thanks for looking into it (and to @Saintstephen000 for reverting many of the IP's stranger edits). General Ization Talk 06:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor resumed the same mostly non-constructive editing pattern using the 45.x IP around 0217 EST and continued through around 0500 EST. General Ization Talk 18:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    they are back at it, removing flags and creating frivolous categories. Saintstephen000 (talk)
    And also back to using 80.71.157.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to make edits that fit the same pattern. General Ization Talk 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirecting Vita Zaverukha, taking it to AfD or what?

    The article on Vita Zaverukha has been repeatedly transformed into a redirect to Aidar Battalion.

    Originally there were both notability and WP:BLP concerns (02:14, 9 December 2022, 18:13, 10 December 2022, 19:17, 10 December 2022, 10:25, 11 December 2022) but then the article was significantly changed, new sources and content were added, and unsupported claims were removed: I restored the "new" article at 01:55, 12 December 2022 and this is latest version of it [146]. Nonetheless, the article continued to be deleted via redirect (07:16, 12 December 2022, 02:53, 13 December 2022, 05:05, 13 December 2022) while an IP address kept restoring it.

    In the meantime, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Since the issues of poor sources and misrepresentation of sources were soon addressed and IMHO also solved, the discussion turned to notability. My doubt is that AfD should be the right forum to deal with notability rather than the talk page, where there are few editors and they inevitably are the usual EE regulars (my arguments here [147] and here, also on the issue of notability [148]).

    Could you please tell us if that discussion should continue on the talk page, be moved to AfD or to an RfC?

    I ping the involved editors @Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, OsFish, and Mhorg:. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid the foregoing isn't a neutral account. Not only is there still clearly no consensus on notability for the subject as an individual separate from a singular event, editors continue to express concerns with sourcing, directly citing BLP concerns. By the way, I am not an "EE regular" as far as I am aware, have never been under sanctions, and as far as I can see, other editors mentioned here aren't mentioned on the EE sanctions page just linked to. But put all that to one side, why not take this issue to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you want more eyes on it?OsFish (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I neither said nor implied that you or others had been sanctioned. I myself have never been sanctioned or warned. And I said that the issues with sources have been addressed and "IMHO also resolved" - you are free to disagree. I'm fine with moving this discussion to BLPN, AFD, RFC, or anywhere else really, but I'd like to know from the admins which is the best forum to discuss your notability concerns; I'd also like to see an end to these massive and unwarranted removals of text and sources via redirecting, which have recently occured also at Torture in Ukraine. I believe they are highly disruptive and I hope the admins can help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gitz6666 - You restored the "new" article to this version which has errors and is lacking sound sources for WP:BLP article. I'm astonished that you believe this is okay. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I belive it's okay. I noticed the issues with references and fixed them immediately, plus I made a bit of copy editing, so after a few minutes the article looked like this: [149] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is absolutely the right place to challenge the notability of a subject, especially when bold redirections have been challenged. Any editor who disagrees with the restorations should open that discussion instead of engaging in edit warring. Per WP:CONRED, If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. Iffy★Chat -- 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is not negotiable and BLP1E applies. We’re not going to host attack pages on non notable people (even if they’re the awful sort) and let them sit there for months while the circus, WP:SPA accounts and trolling and all that included, plays out at AfD. No consensus on BLPs defaults to “not include” for a good reason. Volunteer Marek 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack pages can be speedy deleted per WP:G10, and BLP violations can be removed even if only a stub remains in the article. What non-admins can't do is to use BLP as a sword to effectively delete a page without a clear consensus to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 14:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of “BLP is non negotiable” are you confused about? We even have discretionary sanctions when it comes to BLPs for this very reason. She’s obviously a non notable person and the only reason this article exist(Ed) is because she’s a trope in online Russian propaganda. And you have it backwards when it comes to consensus required, as already pointed out. Volunteer Marek 14:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I have move-protected Vita Zaverukha for now. Can be unprotected IF an article should be written about her. Lectonar (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry but an article about her has already been written (and removed), this one: [150]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this edit (restoring the "new" version) is OK: [151]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god. You know VERY WELL that “this edit” is NOT ok!!!! This is the BLP violating edit that has been reverted by multiple editors so you know 100% that you have no consensus to do this! This is a perfect illustration of your disruptive behavior and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which you’ve displayed across a dozen articles in this topic area. Volunteer Marek 15:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the sources that speak of this subject, in my opinion, notability has been achieved:
    International sources:
    Ukrainian sources:
    Mhorg (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s already been pointed out (including by others) that most of these are regional “police blotter” kinds of sources. And the “international sources” are mostly passing mentions. For example *it’s already been pointed out to you* that the Bellingcat source is not at all about her and the only reason her name appears in it is because she happens to be in a photo that has a caption (that is the only mention of her in that source). Yet here you are, once again trying to pretend that this is significant coverage even after your attempts at misrepresentation have been pointed out. Volunteer Marek 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are writing inaccuracies, there are few 'regional' sources, like "LvivskyPortal", "KievSegodnya", "KievVlast", "Vinnytsyanews", "20minut". All the others are national and well known sources.
    About Bellingcat, I specified precisely how it is cited. I ask you, please, to at least read the things I write, before accusing me of 'misrepresenting' something. Mhorg (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lectonar:, I'm afraid, despite it being clear even from this discussion let alone the talkpage, that there is clearly no consensus that the subject is notable, user:Gitz6666 has just made this edit to restore the disputed BLP material. Despite this being the wrong forum to raise the original dispute, I wonder if that is in line with the spirit of your move protect.OsFish (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gitz6666 - @Lectonar protected the article and you move it back in 10 minutes? How is that possible? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. You can’t get more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME than that. This BLP violation has been reverted by at least three editors yet Gitz6666 waltzes in and restores the BLP vio in a middle of discussion about it. This would make it his,what, fourth, fifth? [197] [198] [199] [200] Attempt at restoring the BLP violations? Both BLP and EE are under discretionary sanctions. It’s time for a block here. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting page 23 of this 2019 book by Georgetown University Press:

    Other women appear to glorify their newfound ability to engage in violence. Vita Zaverukha stands out in this respect. The teenager became notorious in the Russian press for her cals to wipe out all of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population and for posting neo-Nazi propaganda...In November 2014 the magazine Elle France profile Zaverukha...she was arrested in MAy 2015 for her role in an armed robbery in Kyiv...after she was released on bail in January 2017, Zaverukha and her partner were attacked by fellow members of an ultranationalist group to which they belonged. In July 2017 both Zaverukha and her partner allegedly led an attack on transgender activists in Kyiv.

    BLP1E? No way. She is definitely notable, having been profiled over multiple years by multiple RSes in multiple countries. The article still needs cleanup (it's good that DM is gone; there are still op-eds being cited), but AFD would be a waste of time, and I think her biography would be UNDUE if merged to any other article. She's 100% notable though, I can't believe I'm saying this but bold redirection as a backdoor to deletion is not OK. Take it to AFD if you want. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    She’s a neo Nazi. There are, unfortunately, not thousands of such people in all countries in the world. She posts on social media. There are hundreds of millions of people who do that. She was involved in an armed robbery. Again, millions of people commit armed robbery. She got beat up by her friends. Etc. There is absolutely nothing notable about this person, except that Russian propaganda have seized upon her existence as “proof” (sic) there are “neo Nazis in Ukraine”. If we had an article on every neo Nazi in Russia (or US for that matter) that posted stupid shit on social media and was involved in an armed robbery we would easily double the number of articles on Wikipedia. Gimme a break. There’s absolutely no freaking way this person - a teenager - is notable. What exactly is she notable for? Volunteer Marek 16:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, unfortunately, not thousands of such people in all countries – Presumably now what you meant. EEng 14:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes typo. No "not". Volunteer Marek 03:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is she notable for? "The teenager became notorious in the Russian press for her cals to wipe out all of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population and for posting neo-Nazi propaganda...In November 2014 the magazine Elle France profile Zaverukha...she was arrested in MAy 2015 for her role in an armed robbery in Kyiv...after she was released on bail in January 2017, Zaverukha and her partner were attacked by fellow members of an ultranationalist group to which they belonged. In July 2017 both Zaverukha and her partner allegedly led an attack on transgender activists in Kyiv." That's what she is notable for. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ”became notorious in Russian press”, I.e. “became a Russian propaganda trope” does NOT actually make someone notable on English Wikipedia. Come on! I’m sorry but there’s no way I can believe that you’re making this claim in good faith. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GCB now edit-warring to restore the redirect. Whatevs, the rest of the community can deal with it. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich Stop moving it - the article is protected (glich?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    VCM & GCB tag-team edit warring to push a POV... what else is new? Levivich (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (!) Watch what you are saying @Levivich - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich showing up to a discussion that they’re not involved in just because VM or GCB are involved, just to throw WP:ASPERSIONS and pursue old grudges? What else is new? Wait. Didn’t you actually have an IBAN with Gizzy? Volunteer Marek 16:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek No IBAN. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is actually even more interesting that that, Levivich. The armed robbery in Kyiv was probably an attack on the policemen of thw Berkut, hated by many because they are held responsible for the violence against the Automaidan and the Euromaidan. The trial against her became a political event for Ukrainian far-right circles, with an MP handcuffing himself to her wrist, the Patriarch awarding her a medal (allegedly), and demonstrations and clashes with police near the courhouse. Since Zaverukha is young, beautiful and sexy, and liked to be photographed with a machine gun while giving the Nazi salute, she obviosulsy rose to fame both in Ukraine and Russia. To delete this article would be idiotic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    young, beautiful and sexy - @Gitz6666 please read WP:BLP yet again - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She didn’t “rise to fame” in Ukraine. She was mentioned in a couple regional sources in their crime reports because she, like millions of other people, committed an armed robbery. These regional sources include user generated content. Other than that she “rose to fame” in Russian online social media because they used her existence for propaganda purposes. Guess what? Just because pro-Russian trolls post about her on twitter and Reddit doesn’t mean we need to have an article about her. And it’s getting really tiresome watching some editors repeatedly take whatever the latest garbage that’s circulating on Putinist social media is and try to turn it into Wikipedia articles. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The funny thing is that it's you who systematically monitor Putin's social media. I don't even know what these social media are, I never check them, and frankly I don't give a damn about them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - [201] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please take such arguments to the talkpage or another appropriate forum such as BLPN, not here. Levivich, it doesn't help to misrepresent the reasons why multiple editors have disputed notability, which are categorically NOT about whether her name has been mentioned in RS at all. When going to forums outside the talkpage, one should endeavour to represent both sides fairly. OsFish (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lectonar said I have move-protected Vita Zaverukha for now. Can be unprotected IF an article should be written about her. We have an article about her. If you doubt her notability, please go to AfD and stop disrupting other editors' work. You have to realize that your concern about Russian propaganda being occasionally true is YOUR concern, not Wikipedia's policy; I, for one, never read Russian propaganda, have no idea what it says, and have no intention of checking it before deciding whether or not to publish something on Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    oh ok, so you didn’t get it from Russian propaganda. Sure. So… how DID you arrive at this article? Care to remind us? Oh, that’s right, you were WP:STALKing my edits [202] (wait, I’m sorry, you weren’t “stalking” my edit, you were just “checking (my) contributions” and “following (me)” to articles I recently edited. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz6666 - Please wait for additional comments from Lectonar, as far as I know, they move protected the article - please don’t move it until then. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The phrase was IF it SHOULD. We are plainly in dispute about that. The strength of any one editor's conviction about how right they are is not how disputes are resolved.OsFish (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mysteriously, a very new account has turned up out of the blue to ignore the lack of consensus and reinstate the disputed BLP material.OsFish (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment @Black Kite: because he is a talented and prolific obfuscator who keeps other editors busy trying to AGF as he contends straight-faced that "likes" on a YouTube video are proof of notability, that Viktor Medvedchuk has [nothing to do with media and NOTFORUM, and that speaking Ukrainian is mandatory for receiving health care there.
    Because he is always the one who files the AN/I complaint:(for example [203][204] declarations on child rapeas "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine -- much later: I should mention that while looking these up, I did see one 3RR case brought against Gitz by My Very best wishes) Then he creatively misunderstands what he is told, and when the thread inevitably erupts in outrage, the AN/I answer is always to go work it out on the talk page. There is , no working it out. Currently there is no agreement at Human rights in Ukraine on "what is Ukraine". All of the sources are fifty-page reports with no page number given, many of them from 2005, 2010, and 2007, ie before the uprising caused by those very human rights abuses.
    I am not in this particular (Vita Zaverukha) knife-fight, but I have been watching it while attempting to discuss at Human rights in Ukraine. I found this thread because I was expecting this complaint or something similar; Gitz had been suspiciously silent. It's an attempt to shoe-horn the text in question into a page about a regiment. I was considering whether to alert @Dennis Brown: that Mhorg is once again working on an attack page about a Ukrainian female. I decided that the prior round of *that* had been a month or so of my life that I will never get back, and that it was more important to try to protect Human rights in Ukraine from being used to make it seem that Russia's purported concern for the rights of Russian speakers seem well-founded. Gitz announced that he was no longer going to read reply to my posts, which I am sure will do wonders for that whole working it out on the talk page thing; look how much it's done for us already!
    I realize that administrators are busy people... I get that, really. But so are most of the rest of us also, and we have fewer tools. Writing this plea for help probably will transform me into an involved editor, so be it. I may as well make it worth the aggravation: if English Wikipedia is to have any hope of an accurate and balanced portrayal of the current war in Ukraine, it needs to take disinformation very seriously and either begin enforcing its policies, or create a team of editors to follow certain editors around.
    I thought Mhorg should have gotten a stricter sanction at the time. He appears to have learned little about either RS or BLPs since then. I thought Gitz should also have been sanctioned, but here we are, and perhaps Gitz sincerely still believes that I have some crazy bias in favor of Ukraine, and that he needs to stand up for oligarchs, who knows. I would prefer to peacefully disappear into medieval French law or the formatting of articles on villages in Tamil Nadu or whatever. But here we are. I am mostly just tired. However I believe that truth is important. Oh and: there appears to be no particular basis for saying that human rights violations by one country in a different country should go in the "human rights in x" article for the country where they took place, that that is just how it is done, unfortunately. This was not a day well-spent.
    I realize that Gitz is an AE matter, but the dizzying array of problems with Gitz' determined effort to find and amplify a war crime or human rights violation that might have been, or [can be portrayed] as having been, committed by a Ukrainian simply doesn't fit in 500 words, and the last time we were there he was excused from this limit. Please send whiskey and trained psychiatrists. These two editors at a *minimum* need remedial coaching on the reliable sources policy, and there is no telling how much Wikipedia articles on this war could be improved if these geysers of misinformation] weren't wreaking whack-a-mole havoc ,all over the topic area, always mysteriously in ways that appear to support Russian propaganda. Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may interpolate, so that the diffs are in one place for future reference. I just had this exchange where Gitz6666 butchers a source to make it say something it doesn't, then makes a bizarre accusation against me of wikistalking for questioning that and demands an apology, only to reveal that they knew all along about the content in the source about which they originally feigned complete innocence.. By the by, in that last comment they also reveal they had misused a source to make a stronger claim about the criminal evidence against the BLP topic than even that problematic source would support. A claim that may have had a material impact on the AFD.OsFish (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to nominate Just Prancing, who was showing up on talk pages to agree with Gitz, until I told Gitz to feel free to refrain from having the account sign in. Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the time being, and without prejudice against other actions, I've notified them of WP:GS/RUSUKR and WP:ARBEE; note that the former authorizes blocks as an enforcement mechanism for the extendedconfirmed restriction if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that BLP is also under discretionary sanctions [205]. Also, Gitz6666 just broke 1RR [206] [207] on related article Human rights in Ukraine. The 1RR was imposed on this article after Gitz6666's edit warring on original Torture in Ukraine article [208]. Gitz6666 has already been banned on Italian and Spanish Wikipedias [209] [210] for edit warring and block evasion. There was also an earlier proposal (in November) here on English Wikipedia of an twelve month topic ban for Gitz6666 for very similar reasons [211]. Volunteer Marek 22:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ooops, almost forgot this part [212]. On top of the breaking of 1RR and other disruptive behavior Gitz6666 also wrote this recently: "I could speculate that it's because your English sucks; or because you're an ignorant, or stupid persons, who is incampable of understanding an exclusive disjunction; or because you're are blinded by ideology and only interested in winning an argument." It seems they think that by writing "I could speculate" right before a barrage of gross direct insults and personal attacks that somehow "protects" them or makes them immune from following WP:NPA. Volunteer Marek 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I unadvertedly broke 1RR and immediately self-reverted when you pointed it to me [213]. I think you did at least twice as many reverts as I did at Torture in Ukraine, as anyone can see from the edit history. Since you draw attention to my blocks (not banned) on other wikiprojects, my explanations on this can be read on my useropage in the collapsable box "The history of my blocks on it.wiki and es.wiki". Regarding our recent exchanges at Human rights in Ukraine, the diff you shared should be read carefully [214]. Since you've been abusing me and other editors for months, always complaining about our bad faith, lies, dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentations of sources, I was instructing you on how painful it can be to be treated this way. I wasn't insulting you, but I was making a counterfactual reasoning ("how would you feel if I were to tell you this and that?") in order to elicit a spark of empathy, so that you would once and for all stop the behaviour that has made you famous in this community and that everyone, for some incomprehensible reason, willingly accepts. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite, @Star Mississippi, @Tamzin: One of you (or some admin reading this) should consider indefing Goodrover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious LTA sock. Their 17 edits consist of: 10 edits, revert GCB within 1 hour at an article they've never edited before, 1 edit removing vandalism, revert GCB again, 1 edit avoiding a redirect, 1 edit removing vandalism, revert GCB within 2 hours at a different article they've never edited before, 1 edit adding a missing word. Too obvious. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks @Levivich. Declining to do this myself as my revert of Goodrover's edit before protecting the version @GizzyCatBella had reverted to (vs. protecting the "wrong" version) was already IAR/out of process and imagine a subsequent block would lead to unnecessary drama. Agree with your suggested course of action though. Star Mississippi 21:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsFish - This is (the same, as always) usual stocking me always around 🧐 - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I'd missed that. Blocked as NOTHERE/avoiding scrutiny, probably Icewhiz. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. And of course all of this is happening on DS pages, but the last time AE was suggested Gitz took it as validation and filed a case there himself. "There is no appetite" there for his walls of text, so "anyone else" is left to deal with it. I am not sure why he edits as he does, but it is very consistent.
    I have diffed myself into incoherence above, but am willing to answer any questions. As a TL;DR I would point out that Gitz started this thread on this, the wrong noticeboard, with a somewhat aggressive header, and that that header now links to an AfD discussion where OsFish has made a heroic attempt to explain BLP to him. If not ArbCom then who? Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, ArbCom; perennial disputes, perennial disputants. But coherence is only half of it. Broadly speaking, I don't think there are admins who subscribe to the Russian narrative, not least because even if they were to fail to strictly follow a Western prism, the Sorkovian approach to the dissemination of dis/information is just so jarring, especially to the uninitiated. However, just because one side is mostly lying, doesn't mean the other side if only telling the truth (I hope that doesn't come as a revelation to anybody). Still, those admins who don't subscribe to every thing said by disputants who advance the Ukrainian narrative — well, it's sort of expected that a not insignificant group of editors will grind them down (if lucky, softly) until they do... do that. Or, more likely, until those admins just walk away because it gets too much.
    Whereas any admin who'd be inclined to just automatically side with those editors (advancing the Ukrainian narrative), they'd usually be cognizant enough to either be aware of the extent of their biases, or eventually they'd run into issues with Wikipedia:Independent sources. WP:GAME, etc., which would be difficult to ignore (because it isn't as one-sided as either side claims). Either way, admins have a limited mandate. The most a single admin could for hope is the ad-hoc committee that an WP:AE Results section represents. But ArbCom members have two mandates: WP:RFA + WP:ACE (I think all ACEs have had non-admins candidates, but it is my understanding that only admins have ever been elected as Arbs, feel free to collect me); and they have a fixed body; and-and after all, these are their Discretionary sanctions (or Counter-Terrorists, whatever). So now the secret is out! El_C 23:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You indented this under my question so it appears to be an attempt to either answer me or mock me; maybe both. I don't know what a "Ukrainian agenda" is and apart from a playmate I had when I was six, I have never spoken to any Ukranians. I think you're telling me that I am shouting at the sky, and I guess I am. I do apologize for that, even though I didn't start this dumpster fire on the wrong board, and am just here to say that this prolific editor starts these fires all over the topic area, constantly constantly constantly. I will go away now, but I want to mention first that my agenda is merely that I like the things we write in Wikipedia articles to reflect some version of the truth, and to be supported by reliable sources. I have no interest in running for admin, if that is what you are suggesting. I just had always thought that editing standards applied to all articles, DS or not. I stand corrected. It's a AE matter and they "have no appetite." EE is a sacrifice zone. Check. I will now cease from trying to alert someone to the dumpster fire. Peace out. If I am misunderstanding you, I am sorry and please feel free to post on my page. Elinruby (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are misunderstanding me. These are very broad generalizations directed at all disputants. You yourself was not highlighted as far as your role in these overarching disputes (the extent of which I'm unsure of, anyway). Disputes, plural, not just whatever this particular thing here is (which I only skimmed). Anyway, you asked about ArbCom, I explained why that would be a yes. You mentioned issues with diff/summary coherence, which I'd largely attribute to this chaotic, structureless forum, and which is why I argue WP:AE / WP:RFAR are better for these matters. For my part, I explained why disputants had been receiving so little assistance (of significance). Assistance either from individual admins, like here at AN or ANI, or even a quorum of admins at the WP:AE board. And it doesn't have to be an AE matter — anyone is free to make it a community matter. I just have doubts decisive action will come from that avenue. But the option is there. The option of the AE board is there. The option of RfAR is there. How from all that we got to me somehow mocking you, or anyone, I'm at a loss. Also, when I mentioned RfA and mandate, that's from the admin perspective. Just like when I mention ArbCom's mandate and the ACE; their double mandate (RfAs + ACE). I realize it's all rather deep in the theory sauce, but how you went from any of that to me suggesting you run for admin... other things... truly the farthest thing from my mind. Again, my above treatise didn't especially concern you, its indent flow notwithstanding. El_C 04:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,that is the problem with these walls of text; nobody reads them. Imagine what they do to discussion. The behavior has been to AE. They "have no appetite",and ANI has no time. I appreciate your clarification, of which I was notified at another project. Glad to hear that I was confused about why you were telling me this for the good reason that you weren't.
    However.
    If English Wikipedia doesn't care that the dumpster is on fire, I guess I'll stop trying to put out the flames. I have no appetite either, never did, just thought it was.important. I was only ever here because of some silly notions I had about the truth. Ta for the answer, and thanks for all the fish. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The English Wikipedia is not a monolith, though. And in fairness, pretty much everyone views themselves as wanting to advance neutrality. But diametrically opposing sides exist nonetheless. These problems I point to are ingrained in every fraught topic area, ones covered by sanction regimes or not. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine facet of WP:ARBEE is probably the most acute of them all right now, because it's contemporaneous and because of its intensity and scale.
    As noted, this (here) forum available to the community is limited, since it's so susceptible to disorganization, text walls, etc. Which is why it is unlikely to accomplish anything beyond the simple WP:XC tenure mandated by WP:GS/RUSUKR. Which, don't get me wrong, goes a long way, but has little impact on veteran editors.
    Even the AE board, where admins might have the added benefit of a group (quorum), seems to have reached its limits wrt perennial problems in this area of the EE editing ecosystem. So what's left is a full case @WP:RFAR. But that's a major time investment which brings its own uncertainties (including not even making it passed the preliminaries). Still, for quelling the flames in a serious way, I can't think of anything else. But I'm open to ideas. El_C 06:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's procedural channels of dispute resolution are too obscure and intricate for me to have an opinion on how to proceed. I confess I have difficulty in following your discussion about RFA, ACE, RFAR: I simply get lost, sorry. I trust that you admins will find the most appropriate way, if there is an appropriate way, to sort this out. But from what little I understand, I point out the following:
    1. you yourself was not highlighted. No, Elinruby is by all means part of this dispute. In any proceedings aimed at addressing the EE controversy globally, Elinruby should have an appropriate standing as one of the main actors, who have made notable contributions to the discussion on Azov Regiment, Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan, Torture in Ukraine, Human rights in Ukraine, and to various AE, ANI and RSN discussions, such as this, Raping and killing a 1-year-old in Ukraine as alleged by Ukr. politician and reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News, where we first met and interacted.
    2. While globally addressing the EE controversies may be difficult or even impossible, time-consuming and probably unfair because of the various strongly felt POVs, I think that addressing individual behaviours by editors should be possible: e.g., Elinruby's repeated personal attacks on me, bordering on harassment, could be sanctioned immediately; Volunteer Marek's disruption and uncivility here and at Torture in Ukraine are quite apparent and could be sanctioned; and I myself inadvertently violated the 1RR rule yesterday on Human rights in Ukraine, and this is also sanctionable behaviour. So when we do something wrong in the EE area, and it happens quite often, admins could perhaps warn us and/or apply proportionate sanctions to de-escalate the conflict and establish boundaries.
    3. However, if we are to deal with this dispute globally, something must be very clear from the outset: I am not a Putin supporter. I have been saying both privately and publicly for at least 10 years that Putin is a dictator, and it would be ridiculous and unacceptable for me to be made out as a Russian sympathiser in this war. I have a deep interest in international law and human rights activism, and a commitment to NPOV as a core value of this encyclopaedia - that's all. From my point of view, the EE controversy stems from the fact that there are 3 or 4 users who cause disruption by engaging in nationalist editing and pursuing an anti-Russian agenda. I may be right, I may be wrong, but from my point of view this is the "global" issue of the EE area, and it affects the war in Ukraine only indirectly.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz, this has happened like four time already. There's an ANI thread which you're involved in, either started by you or about you. In that thread there's multiple suggestions, including by uninvolved parties, of a topic ban for YOU [215] on account of your WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yet somehow what you get out of these discussions, reflected in your subsequent comments, is that you were in fact vindicated and the discussants actually were critical of those who disagree with you. Basically, the opposite of what you *should* get out of these discussions. Which, in a way, is a perfect illustration of... your WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
    And seriously, trying to scaremonger about "nationalist editors pursuing an anti-Russian agenda" after everything that's happened in the past 10 months, since Russia invaded Ukraine, just sounds... sad. Volunteer Marek 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your last two sentences. Nobody here is going to do anything about that. Levivich (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, few whose contributions generally oppose the Ukrainian narrative are pro-Putin. Supporting Putin outright would be as unpalatable as Polonium on the English Wikipedia. So, it's obviously not black and white. It is degrees on a continuum. Similarly to how at WP:APL, VM and GCB are not outright supporters of the revisionist narrative espoused by the Polish sate, but their edits still lend credence to its more nuanced, more subtle, more palatable components. This is not a new thing, not for EE, not for fraught topic areas, in general. Above all else, be realistic. Statements like: admins could perhaps warn us and/or apply proportionate sanctions to de-escalate the conflict and establish boundaries, just seem unrealistic. Wikipedia arcane rules are indeed not easy to comprehend. Hopefully, what is contained in yesterday's announcement by ArbCom (see below: #Contentious topics procedure adopted) will help to alleviate in that in the long run.

    But for now, if the two of you and others are serious in making meaningful progress, you could do so by... focusing. By largely avoiding various sidetracks. Because that is, has been, and always will be the Achilles' heel of this type of forum, with its free flowing threaded discussion and no character limit. Otherwise, like countless similar threads before it, this discussion will get too long, too drawn out, too convoluted for anyone except those already deeply involved and familiar with its intricacies. Which probably already happened. My view, then, is that now's the time to compile evidence, organize it coherently, so one could make a convincing argument to ArbCom that a major intervention is, in fact, not just due but overdue. El_C 14:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "is, in fact, not just due but overdue". Hmmm. Let's see. How many WP:AE reports have there been regarding Ukraine since the war started (i.e. past ten months). Let's see... ... ... twoooooo? That's all I can find. One, early was quickly and rightly resolved and the other one where you "concurred with me" ... not sure what happened there. Two AE reports in ten months is really nothing though.
    But you know what would help to NOT escalate the disputes? If outside editors, who are not editing in this topic area AT ALL, would stop showing up to these discussions and brining up irrelevancies from other contentious topic area (APL! APL! APL! <-- what purpose does that serve? And why did Francois Robere "pre-strike" it in some weird kind of WP:POINT) just to get their kicks in against editors whom they have long standing grudges against. I mean, that's like dictionary definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
    also, your characterization of my views on the Polish state "narrative" is completely off the mark, but oh well, whatever Volunteer Marek 03:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby: If that's any consolation, I've been in your position more than once, and have received the same replies about a lack of "appetite" and "bandwidth" from that admin. Drinks on me if you're still involved in this TA this time next year. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW for some reason, François Robere often writes topic area as "TA," which for some reason always takes me a while to parse as such. Now that's how you sidetrack (ST)! El_C 14:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would've written WP:TA instead, but it's already taken by Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts, and we don't deserve the kind of wholesome discussions they have there. François Robere (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised that no one snatched the WP:KURDS domain wpname before Arby's. Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders has WP:EE, so it's in good hands (probably). El_C 18:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm such a hopeless Westerner, every time I see "WP:KURDS", I think "WP:ANDWHEY". Levivich (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, this is to be decided on AfD. Therefore, bringing this to WP:AN is an example of WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. Speaking on the matter of bias (and I am not accusing anyone of any bias here), this is complicated. Based on the peculiar nature of the regime, one could reasonably argue that Wikipedia:No Nazis should be applicable in that case, but this is not a position generally shared by WP administrators if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand what you mean. Should I have been the one to bring the article to AfD even though I don't want to delete it? Or should Volunteer Marek have done so, and refusing to bring it to AfD is an example of WP:BATTLE? I asked the admins what was the right way (talk page discussion, AfD or RfC) to resolve an editorial dispute. How can this be an example of BATTLE? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block for mobile editor, vandalising NHL team pages

    A mobile editor with a 2604... 2605... range, has been messing with the owners section in the infoboxes of all 32 NHL team pages, for several months. Is a range block possible? or will attempting to get long term semi-protection of those 32 pages, be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some diffs might help work out the ranges - or at least some links to the articles involved. (I'm afraid I don't know what the NHL is, or what the teams in it are called...). Girth Summit (blether) 18:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're going to have to help us here. I looked at 6 different NHL teams and only found 2607:FEA8:E99F:9610:0:0:0:0/64 which I have blocked for a year, and that's not a 2604 or 2605 IP. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went a few months back through the history of the articles for the teams in the Western Conference (NHL) and found a few patterns. First, the cases I saw:
    So, what's the point here? Well, these are all opposing players, so I guess the joke is that they "owned" the other team in the slang sense (see definition #5 here if you don't understand). Note how shortly before the vandalism, the team that the player is on beat the team whose page is modified (e.g. Oilers def. Predators on 1 November). From the diverse locations, teams/players affected, and timing, I'm guessing this is a group of friends or online community that is vandalizing these pages, not a single user. As for what to do about it...just whack-a-mole I guess. There are often IP editors making reasonable contributions and updates on sports team pages in general (including these NHL ones), so wholesale protection is probably not useful. Nashville Predators could have used a short semi on the 2nd, but it's probably not worthwhile at this point (although they did just play the Oilers again yesterday, so maybe). ansh.666 20:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The third definition of "own" applies even more that the fifth: To defeat or embarrass; to overwhelm. I will own my enemies. If he wins, he will own you. I am not a big team sports fan but I have a few professional sports teams on my watchlist, and have seen this pattern of vandalism three or four times previously. Not just hockey but basketball, NFL football and baseball as well. Team A beats Team B, and the vandal replaces the real owner of Team B with the star player of Team A. Now, sometimes wealthy pro athletes do buy teams. But it takes about 30 seconds on Google to verify that most of these so-called purchases are spurious. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Would permanent semi-protection of all 32 NHL team pages, be too drastic? GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think that is called for. Good faith IP editors frequently make productive improvements to professional sports team articles, and this specific problem is not limited to National Hockey League team articles. Maybe our brilliant edit filter coders can develop a filter that draws human attention to team ownership edits to professional sports teams. I do not have the technical expertise to evaluate whether this is possible. It is not a gigantic number of articles. There are 30 Major League Baseball teams, 30 National Basketball Association teams, 32 National Football League teams and 32 National Hockey League teams. So, only 124 articles are subject to this type of vandalism as identified so far. Most are in the United States but some are in Canada. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, far too drastic. These are pretty heavily trafficked and watched pages, so this type of childish vandalism is caught and reverted quickly. There are far more useful IP edits than bad edits as well, so it would probably end up being pretty counterproductive. Also, obviously, there isn't an issue during the offseason (the NHL season started in October, and there wasn't anything from before that). ansh.666 10:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

    Is it possible to restore the old delete article? Harry Kane is now the current joint top scorer for England with Wayne Rooney(List). I asked on WT:Football two days ago but got no response. So please, can anyone help? Provide an answer? Govvy (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The list is already in the article, so it sounds like the best way to deal with this is discuss the matter on Talk:Harry Kane and see if it's large enough to merit a page split. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No discussion is needed. He is the current all time England scorer ([225]) which is grounds to have the article restored! Harry Kane page is 178,149bites page length, that alone makes a perfectly valid content fork. I never got peoples arguments for deletion at the last time. Still can an admin not restore the old page or not?? Govvy (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how we can overrule a well-attended deletion discussion without a discussion here, just because one editor thinks the topic is warranted. It may well be warranted now, but given that the majority of the AFD !voting was not based on him not being the top scorer (was mentioned, but not the predominate cause for deletion), there ought to be a discussion before recreating this. Hog Farm Talk 15:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, but what you say is wrong, his record passes GNG, [226], ]https://www.nationalworld.com/sport/football/world-cup/who-has-scored-the-most-england-goals-where-is-harry-kane-in-the-all-time-highest-goal-scorers-leaderboard-3459648], [227], [228], [229]. I can go one, those are some of the top hits. No a discussion does not need to take place, if you want it to take place, that is just cat and mouse. Forgive me, but not one person has answered the question. Can an admin restore the article or not. It's a simple yes or no! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I say is not wrong There was a discussion. It came to the conclusion to delete the article. You should not act unilaterally to recreate the article unless you establish consensus first. Everything else you might have to say here is irrelevant absent a new discussion to establish consensus to recreate it. I am an admin, and I am telling you that the article will not be recreated until after there is consensus established via a discussion. Not before. --Jayron32 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However, if the main problem mentioned at the AfD - that the topic had no reliable sources specifically about the topic - are addressed (which they will almost certainly be when he breaks the record) then any appeal should easily pass DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't need to pass DRV for someone to just write a new article. Anything restored at DRV would need to be massively updated anyway, and since the "meat" of the information is already at the main article, might as well just start from there. If someone still thinks it is not worth having, they can nominate a second time at AFD. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, except for a couple of things. 1) The original article shouldn't be restored because the prior AFD still applies unless consensus says it doesn't and 2) any re-creation of such a list would be eligible for WP:CSD#G4 if it were substantially similar to the original deleted list. Given the narrowness of the subject, I can't imagine that a list of such goals wouldn't be substantially similar to what was deleted. Which is why I advise against re-creating it unilaterally by anyone until after a new discussion is held to determine if there is the AFD consensus has been superseded by new information. That discussion needs to happen first, such a thing can't be unilaterally declared by one user. --Jayron32 13:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure review of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC on Denials

    User @Sideswipe9th has requested that I ask for a closure review of the discussion that I closed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC on Denials as they do not believe that the reasoning that I gave at User talk:Gusfriend#Closure of RfC on Denials was sufficient and it should be closed by an uninvolved administrator or someone intimately familiar with core content policies.

    Apologies if I overstepped by closing the discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    On you talk page you describe some additional comments you would have made if closing the discussion now. Can I suggest you amend the close with the those additional thoughts, as it will likely reduce any issues anyone might have with the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse closure Regardless of the closing statement, the consensus in support of Option 1 in that discussion is clear and obvious. The closing statement was perhaps a bit badly worded but in the end it's a minor issue. If the closer wants to amend their statement to make it the rationale better, that's fine, but there's no need to negate the result as the end result is the same. Option 1 was the clear consensus choice. The rest is just window dressing. For future reference, closing statements should avoid mentioning vote counting, because someone who voted for a different outcome will go apoplectic and cry "zOMG! WP:NOTAVOTE!". Instead, weigh the relative arguments (and the number of people making and endorsing certain arguments is a major factor in assessing consensus) and avoid mentioning the counting of votes the way you did. --Jayron32 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse closure The close, though succinct, clearly represents the consensus emergent in the RfC. If the additional comments from Gusfriend's Talk page are added to the closing statement (and I would strongly urge they not be added), it would be better to exclude the parenthetical (including the sections WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE); there was significant argument in the RfC that FALSEBALANCE does not apply to allegations or assertions which have not been the focus of commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 21:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block or edit filter

    Hi all - this concerns Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leaves38, and Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48. Long story short - this user is adding copyright violations in form of puffy content from a book at lots of different articles, mostly (but not exclusively) in the Sri Lanka subject area. They started out as User:Leaves38, but are now bouncing around the /48 IP range doing the same stuff. They've ignored my attempts to reach out to them on the account's talk page. I could put a range block in place, but the collateral would be non-zero. Is this something a clever person could do something about with an edit filter? Girth Summit (blether) 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to have another set of eyes look at the range before we make a decision, but when I look at it, I see a mix of editing that may be indicative of multiple users. It's pretty varied in subject area and style, and some of the edits don't appear to be from Leaves38, though others are. Can someone check my analysis? I'm not against blocking, but I also don't want to pull the trigger on the rangeblock if it's being used by constructive editors as well. --Jayron32 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I mean about non-zero collateral. This has to be stopped, but there are other people using the range for sure - if a filter could catch it, without inconveniencing those people, I'd prefer that, but I'm not a big whizz on what filters can do. Girth Summit (blether) 23:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement that there's definitely editing by others than Leaves38 on the talk. I imagine that one could create a filter that checks to see if some any X-word-long string from the full text of the document was pasted into an article, but I feel like this probably would run into technical limitations (my understanding is that filters can only check so many conditions in one edit, and we wouldn't want it to check a large number like this . It might be better to outsource it to somethink akin to a special-purpose bot that's like XLinkBot that would check to see if any long strings from the source text were copied, and revert when an editor first introduces the copyvio to a page. This doesn't seem like it would be terrible to write in Python; my only concern would be about whether it's worth the community effort to have something like this go through RFBot if we're essentially dealing with a single user. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Contentious topics procedure adopted

    The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

    The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

    This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

    For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted
    A "tl;dr" summary would be appropriate, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeclared paid editing?

    I was mentioned in this tweet, apparently due to Commons deletion, but it looks like we have undeclared paid editing here. May be administrators more experienced in handling these issues could have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be undeclared COI (paid or unpaid) editing as well, but that tweet looks like it is talking about commissioning an artwork to be created and then complaining that it keeps getting taken down from commons as having inadequate permissions. If so, the permissions are a matter for commons rather than here and paying for an artwork is not problematic from our point of view. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, this makes sense. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I thought Ymblanter was talking about this SPA, who seems to show a very determined interest in Connor Ratliff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I actually thought this is the same person as mentioned in the tweet. Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I suggested there may be undeclared COI as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User with multiple accounts and IPs disrupting Vietnamese articles

    1. Nurlac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. Qiure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 2405:4802:1CD:D40:5D2A:A173:3282:A792 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    4. 2405:4802:1CD:D40:C518:5AD2:F112:B168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    All these accounts are involved in changing the name of the Vietnamese opera genre from "cải lương" to the fake term "cairoless", which has zero uses and mentions all over the internet. They do this simultaneously on wikicommons, wikidata and enwiki. This user also has been engaged in multiwiki vandalism on adding fake emblems and logos on Vietnamese articles. Each account is currently banned on wiki-commons and several other wikis or globally banned. Yesterday they've renamed the entire article about the genre to Cairoless and reworked its content, also added a YouTube video as a fake source, where the term is never mentioned. The whole thing looks like ongoing vandalism. Solidest (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Solidest Accounts blocked for sock puppetry, both IPs blocked last month by [[User:NinjaRobotPirate]] what I don't understand is how the accounts were editing using globally locked IPS. Anyway, I suggest you revert them. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Air Force One (film) needs some type of protection from sockpuppet

    The article Air Force One (film) has been hit by a sockpuppet so many times and they have been blocked, but are evading bans to continue on that article, among other film articles as you will see on their contributions. I requested protection from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in the past, but they didn't anything enough to help protect that article and I don't think pending change protection will be enough. Here is the evidence by page links and the sockpuppet in various sock accounts.

    Page links: Air Force One (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Sockpupput contributions:

    Cartoon State (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Funky Beckles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Colonel Reid Evans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please, find a way to protect that page from being vandalized by that sockpuppet. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a month of extended confirmed protection. If it continues, I can extend it. I'll also look into harsher range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a weird thing to spend your time sockpuppeting over. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I requested protection for it. That sockpuppet also did so in other film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Birthdates of judges and justices under DAJSPA

    This is probably too soon to be overly concerned, but information including the full date of birth of judges and justices may be illegal to publish online if the DAJSPA remains in the NDAA bill. As we publish this information on Wikipedia, is this something for us to be concerned about? I imagine that this portion of the law would be struck down for being overly broad. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a 100% chance this is enjoined by the courts. It's completely incompatible with first amendment protections. I wouldn't put any thought in to it at all. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 07:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be very USA focused. Is that a problem? What about the rest of the world? --Bduke (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this bill is coming before the US Congress, so of course it is focussed on that country. We have a large number of editors in the US, and many articles on American judges, so it is still a potential problem even though the bill does not apply to the rest of us. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked the WP servers were in the US so US law applies to them. That may have changed in the last 10 years, so If I'm incorrect and its primary host is elsewhere then the (potential) law doesn't apply to the project at all. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The law (if it becomes law and if it's enforceable - both very big ifs) would apply to editors in the US wherever the servers happen to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, but it wouldn't apply to a foreign project or create any sort of possible liability to project itself. It would be up to the users to maintain their own personal compliance like we do with Thailand's Lèse-majesté law. That said, I looked it up and 3 of the 5 servers the foundation uses are in the US: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the ongoing discussion of this topic at the Village Pump, Section 4(d) of that act states:
    (ii) EXCEPTIONS.—Clause (i) shall not apply to—
    (I) the display on the internet of the covered information of an at-risk individual or immediate family if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern;
    (II) covered information that the at-risk individual voluntarily publishes on the internet after the date of enactment of this Act; or
    (III) covered information received from a Federal Government source (or from an employee or agent of the Federal Government).
    Wikipedia coverage of judicial officers arguably constitutes "speech on a matter of public concern"; additionally, most information we have on federal judges originated as "information received from a Federal Government source", specifically scraped from the database of the Federal Judicial Center. Even if the FJC is required to remove that information, we have already received it. BD2412 T 14:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Orphaned .js and .css pages in User space

    A few editors have taken on Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space recently, reducing the population of the report from about 1,500 to about 120 pages. Most of the remaining pages are .js and .css pages, which are actionable only by administrators. Having these pages on the report makes it less easy to see any remaining actual pages.

    I can't really make sense of most of them, which appear maybe to be redirects that may or may not work. Many or most (or all?) of them appear to be connected to user renames.

    Taking one specific example, User:Érico Júnior Wouters/CommonsHelper Labs.js does not have any incoming links in What links here (although with a .js file, I don't know if What links here really works to know if the page is being referenced), and the file exists at its new location. The page appears to be safe to delete, since there is no user to log in and load it.

    Is there an admin here who would be willing to look at these pages and do something appropriate with them? Deleting or moving comes to mind, but there may be other options. Thanks for your time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have linked this from WP:IANB. Some of them are double redirects from users who got renamed twice and need to retargeted. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They really shouldn't be "re-targeted", they should just be deleted or moved. — xaosflux Talk 16:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of search might be more thorough than looking for links. This would hopefully catch things like importScript('User:Érico Júnior Wouters/CommonsHelper Labs.js'); that may not have a proper backlink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will work on this. Izno (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleared out the set that were trivial.
    These 3 remain as protected JavaScript 'redirects' (I understand why). Several users import them directly. We really should make a gadget that can provide a couple functions to move people to the supported name directly and/or consider moving Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts to gadgets. I can also myself make the edits which move people over and then delete the redirects. Xaosflux as the protector, though those requests and/or discussion of them might be better for IANB. Izno (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno my protection was as an antispoof measure should someone register that old username, as a stop gap. The not-a-redirects probably should just be deleted; if Kaniivel wants to keep supporting these they could notify the people using the very out of date loads. It's possible for intadmins to go change everyone's imports, but I really don't love getting stuck with that sort of maintenance... — xaosflux Talk 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I deliberately didn't say why it was protected. ;)
    Should be able to get a list of the users using something of his (search + some processing in Notepad) and send a mass message telling users to update and then delete it in Soon time. That leaves us not significantly stuck with the maintenance.
    AWB run over them is also trivial, but whether users should know it has happened has some split in int admin corp.
    Or we can just delete and post in a reasonably central place it's deleted, but then the page has to be reprotected, which is lowest effort. Izno (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We can put an alert() on it saying HEY YOU - YOU HAVE A BROKEN SCRIPT, FIX IT BUDDY! :D — xaosflux Talk 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: So long as other users are importing an orphaned script, it's probably best to keep it in exactly the format left over from a page move: /* #REDIRECT */mw.loader.load("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_TARGET_PAGE\u0026action=raw\u0026ctype=text/javascript");. If it's in that format, apparently it will be automatically protected by the software from editing by non-intadmins. For example, I just locked myself out of editing one of my own .js pages. But User:Cumbril/IPLabeller.js has an extra comment before the /* REDIRECT */, so the automatic protection won't apply. This also means that deleting the script is a bad idea: even with full create-protection, there's nothing to stop a compromised admin from removing the protection, registering the account, and then recreating the script. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Wonder when that was added. Let me go remove that comment. Izno (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2019 it would seem. Also, the RefConsolidator scripts should have & changed to \u0026 for this trick to work. Yes, it really is that fussy. You'll know you've got it right if visiting User:Cumbril/RefConsolidate.js actually takes you to User:Kaniivel/RefConsolidate.js. Here's the "is this a redirect?" check for JS pages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neat change. I'll look into it. Izno (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two are fixed now. Izno (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So long as other users are importing an orphaned script ... @Suffusion of Yellow @Xaosflux Note that it is not possible for anyone to import orphaned scripts. Try it - you get a 403. – SD0001 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SD0001 thanks, that used to work...hmmm. Still the possibility that someone gets that name in the future; so perhaps we should delete it and also try to help people that have the import. Importing other people's personal scripts is a buyer beware situation of course! — xaosflux Talk 09:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all. The report looks a lot more sane now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting additional admins to comment on problematic behavior

    Motion of cloture. Please, can we do something else? (non-admin closure) Jip Orlando (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A recent ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deor incivility) appears to have a serious incivility issue coming from multiple otherwise-respected users. As an uninvolved user, I'm concerned about how it was handled and would like to request further input. Admin Deor was reported for saying you were just trying to be a shit. User Levivich replied to the report saying things such as You are being a shit and Please, stop being a shit. Admin Drmies then closed the discussion without further comment. Was the OP being a "shit"? Maybe. But I would expect zero tolerance for conduct like this from any user, let alone admins, and I'm surprised and disappointed in the community to see this play out the way it did. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You are literally shit-stirring. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respectfully suggest that your expectations are not in line with Wikipedia's historical norms. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't block editors for cussing, within reason. You might want to read WP:SPADE too. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want anyone to be blocked, I want users to abide by WP:CIVIL and to be nudged in the right direction when they don't. Toleration of incivility only results in the growth of incivility. Also, I prefer WP:NOSPADE whenever possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding, right. I'm going to move right along. "You're acting like a shit" is not worth ANY of this. You are welcome, of course, to start proceedings with ArbCom or report to the Ombudsperson. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Would someone please take a look at the comments posted on Talk:Pope Pius XII by User:HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst? I believe them to be copyright violations, and have redacted some and collapsed others, but I'm not certain that those are the correct actions to have taken. I redacted long excerpts of copyright material, and collapsed a series of short excerpts which individually might be acceptable, but which collectively seem to violate the copyright holder's rights.

    I would appreciate someone more familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies looking at the comments as posted and my actions in relation to them.

    The user has also commented on Talk:Hitler's rise to power, and these might be worth looking at as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible threats made by this user

    From a concern received from a user, I have found multiple counts of threats to other users left on the summary edit and their talk pages [230], [231] on the article Morrigan Aensland because they would not follow this user's point of view.

    I am reporting this user for WP:THREAT, WP:NPOV, WP:ORIGINAL Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    やれやれ。Blocked as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) The editor has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE which is probably for the best. I'd note that while their edits were very problematic, I'd be reluctant to say they can reasonably be construed as making legal threats even considering the risk of a chilling effect. While they did sometimes leave some vague mentions of reporting people their talk page comment seems to make it clear they were just referring to reportings editors to "mods". So while demonstrating a common lack of understanding how Wikipedia works, I think it's fair to say when they said "report" it clearly wasn't a legal threat. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was overreacting, but thank you! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 06:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a discussion with this user. I'm not suprised that their editing career ended this way. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Review Anomie's mass rollback

    Background for this I have been categorizing the past subtemplates of {{TFA title}} by year like this. To those who are not aware, the daily subtemplates of {{TFA title}} store the name of TFA of that day and is used to display an editnotice at the article when it is linked from the mainpage. My checks before going with this categorization task showed me that only the present and future subtemplates are of active use. Beyond 2 days after the TFA has come off the mainpage, they do not any function and gets abandoned. They are flagged as uncategorized templates and I was looking to take out this easy group. I have noincluded the categories as is normally done when categorizing templates, so that their functionality does not break on transclusion or substing.

    I made approx. 2,100 edits between December 6 - 15 in several batches by carefully selecting pages. Yesterday Anomie mass rollbacked them and alleged that I am running an unauthorized bot and claimed that it was "breaking various uses of those pages" [232][233]. When asked for an example of a tool that was broken from my edits, they linked to this which involved a previous incident of a future template that was causing problem to TFA Protector Bot when someone had added a HTML comment. That is not relevant since all of my edits have been to past templates from 2010-16 and I was not adding any comment. When asked which tools use past templates, they refused to explain saying "I'm not going to play that game" [234].

    As I have explained in my talkpage, I am prepared to do this from a bot account if necessary. I had not done so because I felt the number of pages involved did not need a bot and a lot of AWB users do edits of larger scale and with a faster edit rate than what I have. These were not completely undiscussed edits on my part, I had asked for temporary Template editor rigths explicitly for this purpose (link). I have looked further today and I cannot find evidence of any tools broken from my edits. What is troubling is that Anomie mass rollbacked 2,100 edits without discussing anything with me, as if was causing active harm and needed urgent rollback. This a serious misuse of rollback and refusing to discuss it is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. I am requesting review from more admins on this. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion seems to be happening in the appropriate location (your talk page). I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia from your edits, and if there is a potential issue, rolling back quickly is the correct first response. If you want to do mass edits, you have to be prepared to defend them. —Kusma (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why "if there is a potential issue, rolling back quickly is the correct first response", and where is that in policy? What does "If you want to do mass edits, you have to be prepared to defend them" mean and where is that in policy? I don't think our policies are so aggressive as to state that if there is a potential problem, edits should be rolled back quickly as a first response, nor that anyone needs to be prepared to "defend" their edits. Levivich (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:BRD. The bar to bold editing is higher for mass edits. I don't know whether this is in written policy, but this is how we treat mass editing in general. —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma I am prepared to defend my edits, Anomie has explicitly refused to defend their's, which is why I have brought this here. They have refusing to follow the D part of BRD, which also involves their use of admin tools (mass rollback). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is the point of your edits? They don't seem to do anything useful at all. If you have a grand plan what to do with these categories, please say what it is. If all you want is try to make sure that every page that happens to be in the template namespace is in some category, please stop, this is at best pointless, and arguably disruptive. Whether pages are in the Template or Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespace often has nothing to do with their function, just with what people fifteen years ago randomly wrote without much thought, so do not infer from that whether they need to be categorised or not. —Kusma (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncategorized templates appear in maintenance reports, my edits take out thousands of easy bits and unclutter them to make them more useful. I had vague plans to nominate these populated in categories for TFD later, since they are abandoned templates with no future use, something which WikiCleanerMan had brought up before. Putting them in a category would have made them for easy tracking, which is the whole point of categories. I am not adding categories to every single page in template namespace and nothing at all for WP and WT pages. If you are arguing that they are dsruptive, how exactly is it and what exactly does it disrupt? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It leads to this pointless arguing? Seriously, the "unused templates" and "uncategorised templates" reports appear to do more harm than good. Being listed in such a maintenance report is not a problem. It just points out that there might be a problem (if you ask me, the problem with the template namespace is that it does not contain enough currently unused templates, as deleting templates breaks old versions of articles. We should have never started deleting harmless unused templates, but focus just on harmful ones). If you try to solve this non-problem by mass edits instead of just ignoring these pages on the maintenance report (or even better, change the maintenance report so it ignores these pages), well, you end up here. I don't understand why you would want to categorise subpages of a given page, as they are already neatly trackable by being subpages of that page. —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Kusma: Without regard for the other topics under discussion, I just want to say in response to this: if you ask me, the problem with the template namespace is that it does not contain enough currently unused templates, as deleting templates breaks old versions of articles. We should have never started deleting harmless unused templates, but focus just on harmful ones A-fucking-men. Every time I view an olddddd revision of a page and see redlinked template invocations my blood pressure rises. It's not like deleting them saves server space or something, as the revisions exist forever. Better, if anything, to protect them in their last functional state and put a big notice at the top that they're deprecated. Maybe even add something to MediaWiki that can flag a template as unusable in current revisions so they can't accidentally be used for current work. Anyways, carry on. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    (edit conflict) As far as I can tell from Special:Diff/1127691929 (and their reply just above), "try[ing] to make sure that every page that happens to be in the template namespace is in some category" is exactly what they're doing: I have been picking them from uncategorized templates reports. Although which report that it is not clear to me, since these don't appear on Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates. They also pointed to Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/36, which was apparently intentionally broken by a maintainer and there's now Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered) as a usable version of the broken report. Anomie⚔ 15:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate it if Anomie (talk · contribs) could clarify here, on this page, what pages/tools ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ broke with their edits. That appears to be a specific disputed factual point and I don't understand what they mean by "not playing that game." If they made a mistake then that's fine, we all make mistakes, but letting the question go unanswered is clouding the issue. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not playing the game of having to be aware of every possible Lua module and external tool to find one good enough to satisfy random demands. I already pointed to one example of breakage when one of these contained content other than the page title (which is how they've been since they started to be created in 2010), but that wasn't good enough for ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ because they hadn't gotten to today yet with their mass edits. Anomie⚔ 15:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify then, your mass rollbacking was not based on actual breakage, but on the assumption that some module or tool somewhere would break? That's what you appear to be saying here, but that's not what you said to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. To be clear I think that's a facially reasonable position, though if no breakage had appeared over a ten-day period the edits were probably safe? Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out, at least one tool was broken when one of these pages had extraneous wikitext for a different reason. I don't find it particularly convincing to dismiss that example because it happened to be the current day's page at the time rather than a past one. And if for some reason we did want to change the format of these pages, it would be best to have a bot do them all, including all those going forward, rather than stopping at 2016 or some other past date. Similarly there's no reason to have arbitrary year categories in order to list these at TFD, as already proven by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Old Template:POTD_protected/YYYY-MM-DD templates for example (which, again, succeeds where ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's stated plans fail in considering the future too, although in this case I'd !vote to oppose the TFD). Anomie⚔ 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have no evidence of anything that was broken from my edits and mass rollbacked them just because there might be something? You can't be bothered to see what my edits broke yet mass rollbacked them anyway. How is this not an egregious misuse of rollback? Asking for evidence of what was broken from my edits that you mass rollbacked is not a "random demand", it is basic WP:ADMINACCT. Noincludes do not interfere with Lua usages and nor does it disrupt any substed usage as the template doc says. Leaving things be beacuse it was always like that is not the wiki way of doing things. If you had asked me before rollbacking them, I would have told you I had no intention of adding categories to present and future templates. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in WP:ADMINACCT or anywhere else does it say I need to prove to your satisfaction that your specific edits broke something specific? And it seems to me that that makes your categorization project even more pointless, if it's not going to be done for future templates too. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get why you and Kusma are being so hostile to this editor, like he's a vandal or troll or something. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have used your admin tools to mass rollback over two thousand of my edits, without evidence it is breaking something. I am perfectly entitled to ask how my edits were causing problems and you have to justify why it needed mass rollback without any discussion. I was not going to categorize present and future templates on my own since I was aware from before doing this task that it was used by TFA protector bot and a modification to it was needed beforehand. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand WP:ADMINACCT, to be fair. You are free to criticise Anomie's actions and to ask him to explain himself; however, Anomie only has to respond civilly to queries, which, as far as I can see, he has done. Policy does not require him to persuade you or to continue debating the issue until you feel you have received a satisfactory answer. For my money, this thread should be closed and the discussion should be moved to a more appropriate venue, to see whether your edits are supported by consensus or not. Salvio 16:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their justification has been, to paraphrase, "it broke something". By their own admission above, they have no evidence that my edits had actually broken anything when they decided to mass rollback. They have mass rollbacked 2 thousand edits without any evidence of problem. I have seen editors having their rollback perm revoked after a few misuse. And yet this is supposed to be okay just because they have responded civilly, that too after I brought this here? If a non admin rollbacks someone's 2 thousand edits giving the same reason of "it broke something but I can't be bothered to look what", are they not going to get blocked without hesitation? Please don't be so quick to close this thread. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvio giuliano Well, I think we got a full explanation after Anomie was dragged to WP:AN and queried by multiple editors. It remains the case that the initial explanation was inaccurate, at best, and that the justification amounts to "because I felt like it." We can and should do better.
    @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ there isn't much left to do here. You deserved a better explanation from the outset and you didn't get one, and I'm sorry about that. I suggest starting a discussion (not sure where, to be honest) to gain consensus for the changes you want to make. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who complained last time someone accidentally broke the TFA title templates because it broke TFA Protector Bot, I don't see anything wrong with Anomie's actions nor response. The whole point of these templates is that the entire wikitext is *just* the page title. Adding anything else, like was done here, is actively breaking the templates and is rollback worthy IMO. For those not aware, this discussion explains some of the uses of these templates, in addition to my bot and probably other tools out there.
    The fact that it took 10 days to notice resulting in 2000+ edits doesn't really change the fact that these edits were harmful in the first place. To me using template editor privileges in a way that requires such a mass rollback is a much larger issue.
    @Anomie: maybe we can add the Bot use warning in a group editnotice so people don't try to mess with these templates in the future? Legoktm (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether categories are desired for these pages or not, adding them shouldn't break bots. If a bot is incompatible with categories being added to a page, I'd say the bot needs to be fixed. We shouldn't be blaming users for not behaving in the way bots expect them to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: That logic usually makes sense for normal pages, but that's not what is at issue here. These templates are explicitly for bots and other tools to get the page title of that day's TFA, nothing else. Humans are the ones who shouldn't be using these pages! If we want to discuss bots taking humans into account, I already took the time (building on MZ's work) to set up a separate database report that explicitly excludes these templates to better accommodate the humans that work on uncategorized templates. Legoktm (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised you don't have a problem with the response. A block threat is a lousy way to start a discussion, and dismissing requests for explanation is a lousy way to conclude one. It doesn't actually matter if they were good or bad edits. Sure, bold edits can be reverted, but BRD isn't BR-block threat-refuse-to-D. Levivich (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to read that again, as you seem to have completely misinterpreted Special:Diff/1127670633. The block warning was clearly in reference to the apparent running of an unauthorized bot, per WP:Bot policy which states The operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in ways outside their approved conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator.
    Note that the edits were not reverted for being part of an unauthorized "bot" run, but for the fact that they broke the intended use of the templates as has already been described above. As for BRD, it's also not "BR-irrelevant-arguing". Anomie⚔ 19:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A block threat is a lousy way to start a discussion about unauthorized bot-like editing. I'm not sure that 2000 edits over 10 days with AWB is bot-like editing, but still, is it a big ask not to open with a block threat? This would not have escalated if you had written something like this instead of talking about blocks and breaking things: "Hi. I reverted your edits to these templates because I think there is consensus to only have titles in these templates and nothing else." Levivich (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I don't think it's appropriate to make bold edits to pages that are 1) auto-template protected, 2) used in interface messages (editnotices), 3) control what adminbots do. Given all of those, it seems appropriate to exercise caution; so learning that it was done on such a mass scale seems incredibly reckless to me.
    I'm mostly confused by the actions taken, because there seem like much better options to have handled this. If you see a bot is creating pages that require manual cleanup, the first thing to do is ask the bot operator to fix the pages so they don't need to be cleaned up. That would've surfaced that adding a category is problematic and we would've avoided this. Or if the assertion is that it's OK to break the templates because they're unused (which seems to be the current argument), just follow the normal process for unused templates - nominate them for deletion. Legoktm (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you've written is about the response. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I thought it was implied but to be explicit, my impression is that the community generally takes a dim view of people causing disruption on a mass scale, especially when automation is used, hence the provisions in the bot policy. So, making that large scale of edits, that have no apparent justification, without discussing it first, saying that continuing to do so will result in a block doesn't seem out of line. (And I'd generally defer to Anomie on these kinds of matters anyways.) I personally would've not threatened a block simply because I have no intention of rollbacking 2000 edits; rather I would've told them to clean up their own mess.
    As retroactive justification, when I read comments like I have spread ~2,100 edits in batches over 10 days, it is not an unauthorized bot and citing the non-filtered database report, to me it shows a lack of understanding the bot policy (specifically WP:MEATBOT) and consideration whether making these edits was a good idea. Legoktm (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A block threat is a lousy way to start a discussion, even if -- and I want to be absolutely clear here -- even if the other person did something blockable. I'm stunned that you or anyone else would have trouble with this rather simple concept. Don't start a conversation with a block threat, duh. Levivich (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of discussing too much of a hypothetical, is a block threat not appropriate if you actually intend to go through with it (should the disruption continue)? Compared to not issuing the threat, and then blocking, then getting complaints that you didn't properly warn them that a block was a possibility. Legoktm (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, a better sequence of events is: (1) ask the person politely and non-threateningly to stop, (2) only proceed to threaten if they refuse. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a block threat is appropriate when you actually intend to go through with it. Intending to go through with a block, however, is not appropriate at the beginning of a conversation. One shouldn't start a conversation by talking about blocks because that's aggressive and likely to prompt a defensive reaction rather than a cooperative one. "Don't go in hot and heavy," as the saying goes. Levivich (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue with this not the block warning, it is their use of mass rollaback and refusal to discuss it, which left me with no choice but to bring this here. When I first saw the mass rollback, I thought "God I must have screwed up something epically if such a drastic action was needed". Only to get told here that they did not actually have evidence of anything broken and can't be bothered to look for it.
    Legoktm has said below that TFA protector bot does not use past templates and they had used it to generate a report which appear to have been by substing the templates, something which my edits would not break. I take responsibility for any mistakes I make and am open to learn from it. The crux of the matter is Has my addition of noincluded categories to pre-2016 templates broke anything badly enough that it needed urgent mass rollback?. Anomie's characterizing it as "random demand" and "irrelevant-arguing" is their attempt to deflect blame away from their mass rollback done without any care. If you are saying I have irresponsibly broken or harmed something or created a mess, at least have the decency to show what I have broken, coz I am yet to see anything that is broken or would break. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's...not at all what I said. I was looking up that date's TFA title, then passing that wikitext to the API to load page history so I could easily look at diffs. Anyways, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in understanding how the templates are supposed to be used. Legoktm (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legoktm does TFA protector bot use past templates? All I have edited so far was from before 2016. Even you are saying "there are probably other tools out there" but don't know which one actually broke, yet it was rollback worthy!? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: the automated routines don't, I was recently using old templates for the purposes of putting together this report. Anyways, like I said above, if you think they're unused, just nominate them for deletion instead of breaking them. Legoktm (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legoktm: The edit notice seems like a good idea to me, although Template:Bot use warning didn't seem quite right so I wrote a custom message. If anyone wants to discuss the wording, let's do that elsewhere. Anomie⚔ 19:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Twitter suspensions AfD

    Page semi-protected. Those who desired attention have received it. Nothing left to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Uh, a user just deleted half the comments at this AfD [235] and somehow they cannot be restored. What’s up?

    Also, might wanna take some action here - Musk and others have been amplifying existence of this article/AfD on twitter and it’s likely to turn into a complete wreck. Volunteer Marek 21:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also relevant [236]. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no objections to the AFD being semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Who cares how they’ll see it? Volunteer Marek 21:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sympathetic but oppose as all these issues resolve around censorship on the internet and sunlight is the best way to show Wikipedia does not censor. Could support re-factoring or some other method of making IPs/nee users less disruptive including directing their posts to a subpage so relevant comments can be moved back to main discussion. Also would welcome an RfC to make all AfDs semi so it's no longer an ad-hoc process that looks like it's disproportionately asked for everytime twitter comes up. Slywriter (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the semi-protection to be honest, but not because it may be viewed as 'censorship', I give a rat's arse about that. There are of course a few nonconstructive additions such as [237], but I see a surprisingly high amount of !votes with actual rationales. The closing administrator can decide how to weigh each vote, but just because of its huge participation I don't believe it should be protected. Sockpuppetry accusations can be handled at the appropriate venues. I will however keep an eye on it for a bit, and have no issue with another administrator protecting it if it evolves into a shitstorm. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, seems like I talked too soon. I've protected the AfD for a week. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Elon already found from last time just the other day that sending a swarm of his SPA followers at a discussion here is a great way to create the desired outcome because, for whatever reason, the closing admins don't completely dismiss all of the SPA statements in these discussions. He's just going to keep doing this over and over. SilverserenC 22:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also [238] [239] Volunteer Marek 22:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A user keeps to undo my edits with no further explanations

    I really didn't wanted to come to this, I left a message on their talk section, but since they deleted it, I had no choice but to report.

    User:WikiMaster2K15 keeps undoing my edits. For example, I edited the World of Stardom Championship, where I made equal space before any = sign to make it more comfortable for the editor to read, but they removed those spaces even when I explained why I'm asking not to remove. I also seen another user complained sbout it to them on their talk page at November.

    Also, I use the sortname template on any championship reign section so it would able to organize it alphabetically, you can see the same on List of WWE Champions, but they removed it as well.

    I do not asking for that user to be banned or removed, but I tried to voiced my frustration about this which they ignored. User talk:SeosiWrestling 03:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    206.172.185.116 IP editor is blanking any reference to Syria with rare explanations and no sources to back his/her edits.

    1. 206.172.185.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    206.172.185.116 IP editor is blanking/removing any reference to Syria in article after article with rare explanations and no sources to back his edit. This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Here are the diffs:

    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 )

    Over here the ip editor reverts 4 times after their initial edit, with one explanation, but with no source and questionable intent considering their previous edits: 7 I did not engage with the IP editor due to the clear bad faith displayed in their multiple and consistent edits. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1128110958"