Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

POV edits

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

---

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

Portwoman made a change to the lead of Hindu Terrorism, where they removed the word "alleged" [1] and then edit warred over it [2][3] when I tried to revert to the status quo version.

When asked to explain their rationale, they refused to do so, and instead told me I had no consensus for my version. I found this behaviour weird, and upon checking, came across several problematic edits.

[4] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of either Hindutva or Terrorism.

[5] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of Terror/Terrorism of any kind.

[6] - Removed a large section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "miscellaneous".

[7] - Removed the same section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "WP:SPAM".

[8] - removed mention of a man converting away from Islam with the edit summary "false: Harilal Gandhi did not reconvert". The source cited in the article clearly mentions the reconversion.

[9] - Removed sourced material and citations and placed citation needed tags in their place without explanation under the edit summary "better source, reliable source tags where needed"

[10] - Removed mention of violence by Muslim Rohingyas with the edit summary "facebook not a reliable source"; The material was cited to the India Today newspaper, not Facebook.

[11] Deleted mention of a radical organisation that targeted atheists (well sourced) as "trimed out the unrelated part". Also removed a statement regarding radicals cited to a spanish website under "no spanish links for inline citations".

The above is limited to what I could find easily; There are over a thousand edits in the two months since they joined. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing. Pretty obviously they're not a new editor. Their edits should be carefully reviewed (and probably mostly reverted). --Cavarrone 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Since they seem to have caught a case of ANI flu, I have gone ahead and put a noarchive template for seven days. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding the repeated attempts by User:Portwoman to add defamatory claims about the son of a politician at Bandi Sanjay Kumar, from 22 - 23 July. Highlights:

[12], adds a subsection titled "Criminal activities", claiming multiple attacks on multiple students by the son

[13] reverts my move of this section about his family to the end, placing it up between the Early life and Career sections

[14], slaps an edit-warring warning on my talk page with Twinkle

[15], pads the section out with vague allegations about the subject of the article

[16], reverts my correction from references that the charges were about a single attack against a single student, with the edit summary "restored content"

[17], attempts for the second time to semi-protect the article.

The rather WP:UNDUE section about Kumar's son being charged (but not prosecuted) for a fight at college remains up near the top of the article. It's been a busy month for me on that article, having up to now been busy reverting attempts by IPs and a SPA to whitewash Kumar's involvement in a scandal. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Can this please get dealt with, Portwoman is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Didnt want this to be archived without action for lack of interest, so here's another such edit, made after this ANI filing :
[18] - Added an "unreliable source" tag with reason a community website like think print.in is a reliable source. The Print is one of India's most reliable and objective news sites, not a community website.
It seems they wont reply here, can an admin close this now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit removes The Commission later dropped the case at the request of the woman in question, who wrote that she and Surya were "good friends" and that the complaint against him by the Congress was "politically motivated", that is, it removes sourced content on the Karnataka State Commission for Women dropping a case of sexual harassment filed against Tejasvi Surya. The edit summary is "spacing and sentence format corrections". I agree this user should be blocked. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I can’t quite tie Portwoman to any blocked accounts, but I can say with conviction they are  Confirmed to Jewishblood. I need to do some more digging when I get in to the office. Courcelles (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't prove anything to my satisfaction for a block beyond NOTHERE and creating that Jewishblood account. Which, quite frankly, is enough. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged Jewishblood as a Portwoman sock, but I'd bet good money this is not the true first account. Portwoman is basically at the age CU ages out, so I'm not surprised my search didn't turn up anything definitive. Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Achar Sva editing restriction violation

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

---

• Achar Sva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion permalink
• Logged editing restriction
• Initial notification of editing restriction

Editor Achar Sva has repeatedly violated their community-imposed editing restriction over several months without acknowledging these violations. The editing restriction is copied below:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any other appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

Despite repeated warnings that certain behaviors likely qualified as violations of their editing restrictions (prior warnings I left on Achar Sva's talk page on 28 May: 1 & 2), they again repeated this behavior on at least two occasions in the last two weeks. One occurred on Massacre of the Innocents on 20 July, removing sourced material that they had previously removed and been reverted on; there was no effort by Achar Sva to seek consensus before their reversion. Another violation occurred on Gospel of James on 27 July, reverting material that that was attributed to a source that they had previously altered and been reverted on.

An earlier, previously unnoticed violation occurred on Genesis 1:1 on 3 July, removing sourced material that they had already removed several times (1, 2, 3) and been reverted on by multiple editors (they had also further modified the in-article context of the sourced material in between the initial removals and most recent removal). This is the same article that had resulted in the 28 May warnings; they did not open a discussion or achieve any form of consensus to justify this latent reversion. Achar Sva appears to have no interest in following their editing restriction and has refused to alter their behavior despite repeated efforts to warn them of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of the restriction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I would have pinged Extraordinary Writ, the admin who formally notified Achar Sva of the sanction, but they went on a multi-week break back on 22 July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I think some of this does violate the editing restriction. I don't see Achar Sva engaging in the talk pages on these pages you linked. There should be more consensus seeking by the editor who has the editing restriction and should be even more careful to not violate the restriction at all at this point. Perhaps it is a good idea to notify the admin too since they are familiar with this situation. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the implementing admin has not be notified since they are not on the project at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I've been keeping an eye on this thread the past week. The latest ~violation seems marginal compared to the previous two. It's edit-warring, but the bit of sourced info it removed isn't actually the crux of the dispute. So I dunno. I'd really like to hear from Achar Sva, to confirm they understand the scope of their revert restriction. Otherwise I'm inclined to treat this more as a communication is required issue, where the remedy would be an indefinite block (albeit a relatively gentle one). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for commenting. Because of lack of initial admin response, I used the find-an-active-admin feature EW kindly linked on their talk to speak with Rosguill, a discussion that can be found at User talk:Rosguill#Request for admin action (note: Rosguill was the third admin I contacted personally, with no immediate response from the first two). I favor Rosguill's approach: wait until Monday because AS edits mostly on weekends and then implement a short block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, any further thoughts? From a bureaucratic overhead perspective, I think that a wrist-slap remedy of 2 weeks block is the simplest way forward, signaling to Achar Sva that this pattern of editing will not be tolerated without adequate explanations on their part, without slamming the door on their face at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill I think both approaches have their merits—both gentle in some ways and harsh in others—so I'll defer to your judgment. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, blocked for 2 weeks as I suggested (comment several hours belated from the block placement). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Cleanup help needed Ladyoftrees' contributions

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

---

Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account is blocked (thanks @PhilKnight and all who caught them quickly) and I went through and mass deleted the attack redirects, but her contributions could use some eyes in case there was more subtle vandalism. Thanks in advance for anyone who has bandwidth. Star Mississippi 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

CU indicates it is not a (recently) compromised account, for what that’s worth in deciding how far back to verify contributions. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This search is ones that she created and was the last editor on. None look harmful but they don't appear particularly necessary either.

Note there's an unformatted unblock request. I don't see any way to "apologize" for these creations. Star Mississippi 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi They seem to have been going through the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and making redirects for all the nicknames in it. It was a really bad idea as without context these would be attack pages, but this seems more a case of "really poorly thought out" than "deliberate vandalism". 192.76.8.66 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User Yaujj13: systematical POV pushing

Yaujj13 keeps POV pushing systematically across several articles with mass copy pasting of pre-prepared content. For example, they added human cannibalism (especially on Japanese) to Liver (food), which is WP:COATRACK: Special:Diff/1153777435. They also added misleading material or WP:SYNTH: Special:Diff/1166222240. Some of his edits are either not pertinent to the article subject (Special:Diff/1166205921 Special:Diff/1166205620) or not written in a suitable tone. Besides, their edits are mess structurally and WP:CITEBOMB. All their articles have been draftified for these problems. See the former discussion on Special:PermanentLink/1149954015, Talk:Jambi Sultanate and User_talk:Johnuniq#User_Hounding_Me_Problem. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with user NmWTfs85lXusaybq. Although the sources are valid, Yaujj13 likes to overcite and engage in original research, completely misleading the reader.

examples: the user made the same original research edit in three different articles.

1. [19] and [20] and [21]

user wrote: "General Ishii Shirō's mistress recruited Japanese girls as prostitutes for the Recreation and Amusement Association where up to 70,000 Japanese girls were forced to serve US soldiers in brothels.

source: "Of course, prostitution on a large scale continued but as a privte business activity." and "At is peak more than 70,000 women worked for the organization. As the demand for women to staff the organization outstripped the supply of professional prositutes, geishas and the like, other groups of women were drafted..." (it was a mix of professional prostitutes and forced girls, not all 70,000 of them were forced, and it was the japanese government, not the general's mistress, who organized and implemented the system.)

2. [22]

user wrote: members were forced by USA to conduct live experiments on humans.

source: members were funded. american coercion was never mentioned in source.

i rewrote the information to reflect what was in the article. [23] LilAhok (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@LilAhok can you provide the diff where they wrote that members were "forced" to conduct experiments? This[24] just talks about funding which seems consistent with the Guardian article.

Also, the claim about prostitutes isn't that far off, is it? @Yaujj13 claimed (1) the general's mistress recruited girls, and (2) there were "up to" 70K at the brothels. Source says the mistress ran a brothel, and says "more than" 70K worked at the brothels. Consistent, certainly not "completely misleading."

The "liver" thing was added in May but reverted in July (some potential WP:BOOMARANG drawing attention to the hounding accusation?).

I'm not taking sides here, at least not for now, but there is a history on both sides of harsh words and failing to discuss. The worst seems to have been in April when @Yaujj13 was a new account - I called out @Yaujj13 out for their editing behavior and @NmWTfs85lXusaybq for harshly worded edit summaries and pro-China POV accusations. The next time @NmWTfs85lXusaybq posted anything to @Yaujj13's talk page was the ANI notice. If you think I'm misunderstanding what's been happening feel free to explain. Oblivy (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

See this diff: The US military forced Japanese members of Unit 731 to conduct experiments on Japanese people in Japan in 1952.

The claim about prostitutes is pre-prepared material copy-pasted to several articles including United States war crimes, Unit 731, Japanese war crimes and Shirō Ishii, which could be a type of POV pushing regardless of its sourcing.

Besides, I'm asking @Oblivy to focus on POV pushing and mass copy-pasting material added by Yaujj13, not the interaction between Yaujj13 and me. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On "forced", fair enough, that was wrong, although there was factual material in the paragraph which you just reverted when a change of wording would have fixed the problem.

I think your history of interactions is relevant, and you yourself added links to the April talk page discussion and their allegations against you of hounding. The closing admin can disregard but I think it belongs in the mix. Oblivy (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still misleading this discussion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the situation of POV pushing and mass copy-pasting. My accusation is contesting NPOV of their material, not verifiability.

I added these links to help others learn the background and the scope of articles affected by Yaujj13's edits. However, I see you're just complaining about your mediation, which is unhelpful to this discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am here to address my case on my actions and the accusations against me.

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I believe your argument is in bad faith here as the edits you kept reverting has an agenda. I believe you are a pro Japanese vandal who target my edits for anything anti Japan. The reverts you do wasn't because it was breaching the neutral POV. It is because it conflict with your view in the world.

You also edit articles relating to China vs USA and Japan and edit articles of China dealing with Hong Kong, Taiwan etc in the Chinese Wiki on his other account. All the articles he reverted on me was barely or never about China government with focus on the Asian people and its history (all before the CCP) like Filipino Chinese, Peranakan, Battle of West Hunan, Jambi Sultanate, Persecution of Muslims, Japanese migration to Indonesia, China Marines, Alawites etc.

@LilAhok While you are also a player in this edit mess, I think you are just a victim in the mess (I think you are just a PRC nationalist and putting your own POV in the Japanese war crimes page).

You thought NmW is an anti Japan editor for deleting excerpt that paint Japan in a bad light. However, he just deleting the facts that Japan have instance of incompetence that exist for every nation that happened in history, like poisoning their own men with the ineffective cholera and prostituting their own people. Not because he want to paint Japan as the belligerent aggressor.

You are kind of no better as you try to mix two contradicting sources by original research on the comfort women rape and the rape in Nanking.

For the liver food article, it wasn't just Japanese doing the cannibalising, I also mention other instance of cannibalisim who are not Japanese and especially the Moro who cannibalise the Japanese.

My edits may be a mess but I always try to edit according to the sources. I would never add my own bias into the edits even in my Fandom account (plus I mostly done cleaning and organizing in the Fandom wikis), in short, his accusation back in Jambi Sultanate talk is just straw argument. Whereas the two users who accuse me for inserting my own POV, those two revert my edits because it contradict their narrative. I never had been pro CCP or current China government, in fact I do not like them for reason diggressing the topic.

I also noticed the very pro Japan and west POV by NmW along with another user Rastinition pushing in Japan related articles and especially Japanese war crimes. These users delete all Japanese war crimes against non Chinese people and like people in Quora, are hired to propagate their own view and disguise themselves as neutral. While in Quora are pro China, in Wikipedia, I believe some users are pro Japan and USA due to a Cold War between China and USA & Japan. Yaujj13 (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of my contribution to English Wikipedia is anti-vandalism. I was attracted to Yaujj13's edits on Peranakans by multiple CS1 errors and tried to solve them here before I realized his editing behavior is actually systematical POV pushing starting from 30 March 2023 and the contravention of his claim on user page: I will not edit any Wikipedia pages unless there are minor error. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I also like to add my further suspicion on users like NmW and Rastinition. Like knowing how to fix template errors or editing for their POV. It might not be suspicious for an average user but the user I accused started doing those when their account are brand new along with the fact they are using bots or script to remove content farms and fix template errors. While it can be excused by saying they read the Wikipedia rules, but that implicated them in planning their editing before starting their account. A new users would not immediately do editing that only experienced editor would know. I believe that NmW account is only a single purpose for the China Japan Western political topics and using template fixing as a disguise for his malicious actions.

Also these type of users have been removing kknews.cc sources

Rastinition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-12&diff=prev&oldid=1062345056 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-34_variants&diff=prev&oldid=1054956976 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aerial_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=prev&oldid=1055041072 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Ying&diff=prev&oldid=1054956666 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunming_Changshui_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1054956582 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donegi_Abena&diff=prev&oldid=1054955633 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wang_Wenfeng&diff=prev&oldid=1054412851

EpJjgOa8rVvvsRmZL:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%98%BF%E5%AF%AC&diff=prev&oldid=77138842 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%B4%85%E9%B8%9E&diff=prev&oldid=77138839 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%A5%AD%E5%A4%A9&diff=prev&oldid=77138837 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%BA%AB%E6%9F%94%E7%9A%84%E5%AD%90%E5%BD%88&diff=prev&oldid=77138835 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%97%E5%90%BE&diff=prev&oldid=77138833 Yaujj13 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire dispute, but from what I have seen, I agree with Yaujj13 that users here are assuming some bad faith of each other that doesn't exist. I saw one of the most problematic things Yaujj13 did was something over 4 months old. I think users here are just very testy about their policing of articles related to WW2 era Japan. Maybe you all should back up a bit, take a break, and make sure to utilize the talk page when there's a problem, instead of telling each other to use the talk page and then not doing it yourselves. We want to work together, not again each other. Otherwise, we're creating personal frustrations for each other that aren't even going to matter in the long run. This is Wikipedia. It's all subject to change long after you lose interest. Also, Yaujj, you are free to edit your personal talk page as you like, but it's not against the rules for a non-moderator to add a notice about an edit war (although discouraged if the user adding the notice is involved in the edit war) or to give you notice of an ANI. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that LilAhok seems prone to seeking and threatening "litigation" and using aggressive language that 1. makes users not want to deal with them 2. foments conflict. They've also characterized Yaujj13's two replies here as "arguing with users in the administrative board" as a defense for their own aggressive and non-consensus-driven policing of the Japanese War Crimes article. Yaujj13 has a right to defend themself, and responding to an ANI doesn't mean that they are in the wrong. Now I want to amend my opinion that, although still at cursory inspection, it looks to me like users who are proficient in metagaming Wikipedia are trying to force out someone they marginally disagree with to not have to deal with them. I don't know for sure, I just got involved because I wanted help finding a reliable and meaningful source for the upper limit on Japanese war crime casualties -- but it looks like the WW2 eastern theatre portal has a few serious community issues. And one last thing, I've gone through LilAhok's profile and I feel pretty confident that, as Oblivy said of the user with the random letters for a name, they seem to be following a pro-Chinese slant. For example, last year they deleted someone's comment for claiming that an article of clothing was Korean in origin, not Chinese, and that the article was heavily biased by Chinese sources. Reading Yaujj13's comment from the start, they seem to also be saying that they themselves are implicitly also pro-Chinese. I don't fully understand what's happening here, but it seems like it'll be difficult for all these users to stop letting their biases run rampantly into ill-considered action. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that IronMaidenRocks is engaging in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. User engaged in direct rudeness by making ill-considered accusations of dishonesty, being rude, and now, through this dispute page, engaging in personal attacks WP:NPA. Also, user is quoting me out of context to give the impression I said or did something I didn't say nor do.

User created a subheader under a talk page of an article titled Edit War [25] and made weird, groundless accusations against me, after I reverted one of the user's edits. I reverted it once and stopped. rationale is in the link. [26]

(if there is proof of my misconduct, feel free to share it.)

user accused me of the following:

1. "LilAhok is approaching edit war with myself and several other editors in the history." [27]

I decided to ignore this, as there is no evidence for this. I was not in an edit with IronMaidenRocks or with "several other editors." It was not even close to approaching an edit war.

2. "For me, I'm just trying to get them to explain the context of the extraordinary claim mentioned in the above section of discussion (death toll related to japanese war crimes), but they've so far refused to do so or to enter the talk page. Instead, these users are fighting in the edit summaries."[28]

this one confused me because not all of my edits were related to the death toll. editors aren't limited to edits about the death toll in the article. I provided rationale for my edits about something unrelated to IronMaidenRocks and encouraged users to take disagreements to talk page. [29][30][31]

3. roughly three days later, user used weasel words to accuse me of using a sock puppet to revert one of user's edits, and posted the compliant on the article's talk page.[32]

I did not do this. it was after this allegation that I defended myself (sock puppetry is a bannable offence) and told the user to take disputes with me to the appropriate forums, and to follow wikipedia guidelines by avoiding uncivil behavior.[33] it was only then did user decide to take their grievances with me here.

Posting accusations on the article's talk page was unnecessary and overly aggressive. All of user's grievances against me could've been avoided if user reverted the edit, told me to take it to the talk page in the edit summary, and moved on. Instead, user began uncivil conduct by posting unfounded accusations against me on article's talk page.

In fact, I had an interaction with a user who reverted one of my edits, and politely told me to take a look at the talk page.[34] [35] I read the talk page of that article and moved on. LilAhok (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps User:LilAhok, who has requested that I not use the "you" pronoun in refering to them, was confused by my language. From looking at the logs, they had reverted Yaujj13's edit 4 times in 2 days, which seemed to be "approaching" edit war, which seemed to be spilling out into other edits. I had been reverted 4 times on the page in the last month for editing with consensus. LilAhok in particular reverted me even after I asked in my edit summary for users to engage me on the talk page. Instead, they ignored 2/3rds of my comment's reasoning and totally ignored the request to engage on the talk page, and violated a 6/1 consensus. The user deleted part of the talk page discussion, which I restored per WP:Talk. I also never accused the user of creating a sock puppet account, I asked that if they had made a recent edit reinforcing their previous edit while logged out to please not do so. In any case, I'm ready to move passed this, but I was not happy with my first few days of engaging with User:Ahok and I am not confident in their accusations of Yaujj13. I feel like we need to understand that all users have their biases, some more than others, and that's a reason for behavioral adjustment and not a ban. I also ask that User:LilAhok not wikilawyer me with policies that, by and by, are not rules but policy guidelines which we should kindly help each other follow, and not use as a method of 'throwing the book at someone' or to suppress directly addressing user concerns. I have done no similar nitpicking with them, my concerns have been general; I expect similar consideration. I also request User:LilAhok refamiliarize themselves with talk page rules not related to behavioral concerns and recommit to allowing users to freely express themselves within reason, without significant (or exclusively) tone policing or discussion deletion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Civility and possible WP:CAMP issues

There's been a back and forth about the nature of the Panspermia article on Fringe Theory Noticeboard and the way that it's being presented. Just as some background, since this is pertinent:

• There are two conceptions of Panspermia. One is undeniably a fringe theory, the other is not and is frequently cited in the scientific literture. I am not a fringe theorist, nor do I hold any beliefs on panspermia outside of the scientific mainstream. I am not someone here upset that my favourite fringe theory is being treated as such. Note that the Pseudo-Panspermia distinction used on Wikipedia is not even close to universally used when publishing, meteoriticists and astrobiologists refer to what Wikipedia calls Pseudo-Panspermia as "Panspermia" regularly, which I provided references for.

There's a discussion about how the article should present Panspermia as fringe. I've been trying to porvide scientific sources that reference the form of Panspermia which is not fringe as Panspermia instead of Pseudo-Panspermia. Essentially my issue is with the statement "Panspermia is a fringe theory" is it isn't in all forms, just some versions of it are. User User:Hob Gadling responded

"Took me a while to understand what you were trying to say here. You made it unnecessarily difficult by, for no apparent reason, nowiki-ing the legal term bright line, which I had never heard before, and by using lots of multiple negatives.

But the brunt seems to be just a repetition of the statement that one obscure science branch you bloat to "the sciences" - uses the word "panspermia" with a different meaning than the rest of the world."

When they simply rejected any counterevidence, I called out WP:CAMP behaviour not as an explicitly calling out the behaviour of the poster in question, but a sort of unintentional situation that has been created by FTN enforcing a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the scientific understanding. The response I got was hostile:

"This is so boring, I regret reading it. Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not. This will not lead anywhere."

Please note that I proposed multiple soltuions and even generally agreed with one of Hob Gadling's proposals. I want to improve this article, I have a pile of sources to do so but it seems that the current state of people's burnout on the FTN is creating ownership issues. If people can't disagree with the FTN's edits, with credible sources, then there's a WP:CAMP issue in my opinion. I don't think this is a real Wikipedia:Tag team issue since I think that the FTN's general tag teaming is probably necessasry to avoid fringe and I dont't think any editors (except the one in question, at this point) are attempting to engage in bad faith. However, a hallmark of tag team behaviour includes:

Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".

Which feels pretty much like exactly what's happening here. Either way, feels like a pretty heft civility/bad faith issue. This seems to be a pattern:

"I don't care for your opinion though, and I do not need it here."

Warrenmck (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, despite your invocation of WP:CAMP (which is merely an essay), the discussion on FTN looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I see that Hob Gadling ran out of patience, but I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part and I don't think his comments to you are at the level of WP:Incivility. My advice would be to first read through the talk pages (and their archives, if there are any) for Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, as well as discussions of 'panspermia' in the FTN archives, to familiarize yourself with the history on the articles on wikipedia. (Notice how the subject heading at FTN ends with "(again)"?) After catching up on all that's gone before, you'll be better equipped to perhaps propose a solution that addresses your concerns as well as the other editors'. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part"

Friend:

:"This is so boring, I regret reading it." Warrenmck (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, What good/bad faith means on wikipedia: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. An accusation of bad faith means that you're saying the other person is deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. I don't see evidence of that in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors."

I don't think this is an active, explicit interest in harming wikipedia. I think this is behaviour which unintentionally does which requires a willful abandonment of civility and critical evaluation of sources. I've been editing for 16 years and would frankly expect to get ANI'd if I acted this way. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not trying to bludgeon the process. Warrenmck (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Warrenmck, there are two topics that bring out the worst in editors who patrol the fringe topics, extraterrestrials (including UFOs), and panspermia. It’s been this way since the Internet was invented. Part of the problem is that the claims themselves are considered extraordinary (I don’t believe general panspermia is extraordinary, but the idea that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere is impossible to prove at this time). The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated. The best advice I can give you is to find a quiet area to work in; perhaps create articles related to the subject with good sources and develop the topic area as best you can. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated.

Incivility becoming normalized does not make it acceptable. I stand by my decision to post this here, particularly in light of other uncivil behaviour from the poster in question. If WP:FTN regulars can’t avoid burnout and incivility then that’s what either WP:WB or this page are for, but neither I nor anyone attempting to edit in good faith and within the guidelines should be greeted with that kind of response.

Don’t get me wrong, I would completely understand the distinction in this kind of response if I was trying to push a fringe POV, but that’s not what’s happening here. Warrenmck (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn’t communicate well? I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse? Let me explain by way of a somewhat tortured analogy. If I, a progressive liberal, traveled to the most conservative part of the US wearing a Joe Biden shirt and waving a rainbow flag, do you think that maybe, just maybe, I might be treated a bit harshly, albeit undeservedly? All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening. And there’s nothing you can do about it, just as there’s nothing I can do about being treated unfairly in a red state. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse?"

No, actually! My exposure to panspermia is entirely professional and I'm essentially unfamiliar with its reputation online. If you checked my profile I'm sure you saw I'm a meteoriticist, a.k.a. the field that's actually publishing on this besides astrobiology. I don't get to claim my expertise as a justification to ignore Wikipedia's rules, I need to play by the same playbook as everyone else, provide the same sources, work to build the same consensus, and treat people with respect.

If users of WP:FTN cannot engage on a topic in a civil tone, they need to stop engaging on that topic. Plain and simple. I can understand their frustration, I can recognize it, and I can still be here saying I have no interest in accepting it. Incivility is incivility and there's not a huge carveout in the rules around cilility for WP:FTN regulars. I've seen more than a few well intentioned new people (making terrible edits, to be fair) eaten alive by the FTN and this continues to be an issue. There seems to be an attitude that verbally berating people is acceptable for posting fringe content, and that's apparently spilled over to simple content disputes from people who are ostensibly on the same anti-fringe mission.

"All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening."

You're potentially describing WP:OWN. They don't have to like Panspermia or discussion around it. If an edit improves the article, is factually accurate, and meets all guidelines for inclusion for a given source then they're free to try to build consensus for why something shouldn't be includeed. I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain this, and I definitely understand their frustration. However, I do not think that being frustrated to the point of incivility because you're puppy-guarding a specific version of an article should be considered acceptable. Warrenmck (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's acceptable because it's house style (bias). Wikipedia has it's own house bias, just like other websites. Is this the first time you're encountering this phenomenon? Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely fail to grasp how that is in any way different from just saying “power users are allowed to act like jerks when frustrated.” Warrenmck (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I took panspermia off my watchlist years ago when they did the same to me. I suggest you do the same. You could be the leading researcher in your field and they still won't accept what you have to say. There are various, long-term reasons for this, but it's outside the scope of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, since this is ANI, perhaps we could get the issue addressed at an admin level if this has been going on that long? Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, nothing you can do. The bias was here when Wikipedia first went online. As I said previously, it's a carryover from pre-Wikipedia. This has been going on for a very long time. What I recommend doing is publishing a paper in your field describing the bias and then waiting until it is used as a source in the article. This will be my last comment on this. Pick your battles. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of people from the Indian subcontinent who engage in undisclosed paid editing, but the mind boggles trying to imagine someone being treated with prejudice by a new page patroller due to their nationality, and then being told at a noticeboard that they deserved to be given a hard time because of how many people from there write bad articles. Like, I understand that there are a lot of POV-pushers and grifters who try to use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate deranged views, but there's got to be some limit to how hostile people are allowed to be on the basis of "oh, sorry, you mentioned outer space, so I figured you must be a Scientologist". jp×g 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Did this accidentally get posted to the wrong thread? I feel like this reply was intented for the Nazi Flag section above. Warrenmck (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried to indent it properly, and probably failed. It was meant for this. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• On one hand, this would seem to be a content issue, but looking at the noticeboard discussion, the situation becomes more and more baffling. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my reading, but it looks like Warrenmck (the OP)'s claim is something like this:

"Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"

This seems to me like a reasonable enough question. But reading through the thread, the responses are perplexing; basically, the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet, so the Wikipedia article about the word he uses to describe it takes precedence over any other use in scientific publications. Again, let me know if I am missing anything. jp×g 03:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much essentially correct. Just to be clear about this though:

"Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"

Panspermia (bonkers crackpot theory) would undeniably hit WP:NOTABILITY, and the use of pseudo-panspermia is noted in the literature, particularly in astrobiology, but it's far from universally used. "Panspermia" is frequently used in scientific publications without qualification to refer to what wikipedia is calling pseudo-panspermia.

"the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet"

Unfortunately he's actually a serious academic, just also someone who said in a paper:

"The presence of complex organic molecules including the building blocks of life in comets is now amply confirmed; so it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is fully fledged microbial life in comets"

Which I hope doesn't require a specialist education to see the problem with. It's like saying we found metal in a meteorite so naturally Rodin's The Thinker can be found on chondritic bodies in the Solar System. His notion of panspermia is undeniably fringe, but that fringe definition isn't the one widely used in the field and as someone who is in the metoeritics field myself Wikipedia's elevation of a mathematician's contributions to astrobiology were literally my first exposure to it. I think the conversation above with someone else who gave up on this exact situation years ago makes me think there's a serious WP:OWN issue at play which is manifesting as incivility. Warrenmck (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I still do not understand why anyone would write "[[bright line]]" instead of "bright line" or "bright line". It's more work for them as well as for the readers. If you annoy people like that, you can expect them to get annoyed. When I point out that they are making communication difficult, and also point out that the tiny branch of science that looks at life in space is not "the sciences", they start talking about civility, instead of justifying what they did or acknowledging that it could have been done better. Such behaviour is counterproductive for problem solution. Also, boring. They continued in the same vein, making accusations while saying they were not making accusations, which I subsequently pointed out. But, again, pointing out suboptimal communication methods is viewed by the bad communicator as incivil. I have experience with such people - usually, they are not scientists but pseudoscience fans, or maybe lawyers of pseudoscience fans - and I try to avoid them because they want to talk about all sorts of tedious stuff except the actual subject.

Fred Hoyle is a big name in astronomy, and some people say that if it were not for his panspermia ideas and his silly attacks on biology, including the junkyard tornado misconception and his allegations that Archaeopteryx was fake, he would have been a candidate for the Nobel. The Hoyle meaning of the word, however stupid, has been much more notable over the last decades than whatever astrobiologists do, in my opinion. Biologists still have to fight against that nonsense. A discussion about the exact names of the disambiguation pages would take that into account as well as Warrenmck's quotations from astrobiology. But I cannot see any attempt on their side to find an acceptable solution. Instead of discussing the page names, which could have been interesting, they talk at length about concerted, explicit efforts and then drag me here, both of which is too far down on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to be not boring. I will now avoid this person more actively than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Under any reasonable assumption of good faith, a misplaced nowiki tag is almost certainly a typo (the buttons are right next to the edit box), making it rather confusing why you have responded to it with a pointed accusation of deliberate malfeasance on two separate noticeboards. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so there is a button that does that? I do not use those. They are for clickers, I am a typer.

I really do not know where you got the deliberate malfeasance from.

When I make a mistake, and someone points it out, I say it was a mistake. I find it extremely weird not to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced and likely not particularly familiar with the myriad aspects of wiki formatting. There is a very good chance Warrenmck had no idea what you were talking about when you said what you said. There's a good chance they still don't know. If they carefully reread and looked at the formatting of their reply, maybe they will figure it out. But I really see no reason why they need to and can easily understand them partly ignoring that part of your reply as something they didn't understand but which didn't seem important (since frankly it wasn't).

This is a minor mistake which shouldn't matter to anyone, it's trivial for an experienced editor to visit the bright line page. And frankly most editors are likely familiar with the concept to some extent since the bright line aspect of 3RR is something that comes up a lot. Still if for some reason this mistake matters so much to you, you should approach Warrenmck on their talk page and properly explain what you're talking and preferably also why it matters so much to you and they will hopefully take a bit more care in the future.

Hob Gadling and jp×g. As for how this mistake happened, I think the more likely scenario here is the editor used the 'visual' mode of the reply tool whether by accident, or on purpose without understanding the implications. If you use the visual mode, and type the two square brackers to make a wikilink, it will open a menu for you to make a link. If you ignore this and click back onto the editing field, or x out or probably even in some cases if something goes wrong with your browser and the menu doesn't show, it will keep the two square brackets like so [[ and you can then proceed to make what you may think is wikilink. When you save it will put nowikis around this wikilink attempt.

See here for an example where I intentionally did that [36] This makes sense since the visual editor isn't intended to be used by typing out wiki code. If you type something that it thinks will be interpreted as wiki code, it may first try to help you by providing a tool for you to add formatting which will appear as formatting in the visual editor. But if you ignore this help and proceed to just put wiki code, it will put nowikis around it.

It's assuming this is what you want as it's intended to be a just what it says, a visual editor. WYSIWYG, so when you have [[Bright line]] it's what you will get when you save, just that as I manually did it here. The visual editor for editing pages tags edits as being made with the visual editor but the reply tool visual editor apparently does not as my example showed, so I expect there might be no way to know precisely what happened without Warrenmck remembering.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the only time I ever typed out nowiki was when I made the above reply. I didn't do so in my own talk page I just typed two square brackets then clicked away from the menu that popped up. While I don't use the visual editor myself, adding nowiki tags is a well known feature/bug partly for the reasons I explained but also in the past I think it did so even when it was unneeded. So when the issue of stray nowiki tags came up, I had an aha moment, checked the edit but found no tags but then tested the reply-tool and confirmed that it doesn't seem to tag replies as any different, whatever mode/s you used when composing your reply. And as I expected I was easily able to replicate the nowiki issue by just closing the menu for adding a wikilink and then typing out the rest of my wikilink as normal. Oh and it just occurred to me if you paste a reply into the visual mode of the reply tool with a formatted wikilink, it will likely do this as well. (I'm lazy to check.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You hit the mail on the head, I minimally edit with the visual editor and every now and then just sort of use it because it loads, and have had some slight issues with it, particularly on mobile.

I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced

Just to be clear this is a Wikipedia:Clean start mainly to edit under a real name account, I doubt the pipeline for new user to RfCing with twinkle consistently is quite as quick. But experienced users can make mistakes, too. :)

I mostly ignored the comments on the bright line thing, in addition to some other particular comments made, since civility seemed to be faltering and I’d rather drop something than try and drag it out into some spat. Warrenmck (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find an image for you hit the mail on the head so I had to settle for "mail hit you on the head": [37]. EEng 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

It does not "matter that much" to me. I just intended to mention it once, but, having been dragged here, had to do it again here to explain the situation. I was not aware that this is such an inexperienced user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Premature comic relief

• Just to point out that the FTN discussion linked [38] at the top of this thread contains the unfortunate choice of words trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. And for those who don't believe in lightning striking twice in one discussion, above we've got conceptions of Panspermia. Oy vey. EEng 08:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was pinged here. My quick impression is that there is nothing going on that requires admin action. EEng, does this have something to do with sperm? (Don't answer that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Normal discussion resumes

• Wouldn't the easiest way to resolve this be having two separate articles using disambiguation. The disagreement seems to come down to the naming of the Pseudo-panspermia, and Panspermia articles. Opening a move discussion on renaming the articles, with disambiguation to separate the two articles. As the most common usage is the pseudoscience nonsense, but the common scientific usage is the hypothesis this would seem to be the way to resolve the issue. I don't believe everyone's behaviour has been perfect in the discussion, but it doesn't seem to meet the standard of incivility that would require any form of sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  This seems like the most reasonable way forward, but would likely require an RfC. And honestly, given the sheer glut of pseudoscience around panspermia, it would be an ugly one.

  Probably what we need is to swap the two articles: Psuedo-panspermia becomes the Panspermia article, while the current Panspermia article is moved to Panspermia (fringe theory) or something similar. But I expect any RfC around that to be a bit of a fight, as people have PTSD from literal decades of dealing with the pseudoscience variant being pushed both here & on various other sites. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage, so either the main article should be about the conspiracy theory or both articles should have disambiguation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  “ The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage”

  I don’t think this is blanket true, and we should all be cautious of extrapolating how often we hear a specific term and what our bubbles are. I unfortunately think the reality is that WP:COMMONNAME applies to both, and the article needs to either reflect that or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory), because there is not an easy case that Pseudo-Panspermia is the common name of that idea. This is why I thought the disambiguation page was a decent idea, despite accusations I wasn’t willing to engage in discussions about solutions. Warrenmck (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)", or similar. The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  When that is being pushed to IDHT levels. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble"

  Undeniably, but I think that there's no easy way of evaluating whose bubble is more or less valid. My bigger concern comes over using Pseudo-Panspermia to refer to what the literature often calls Panspermia, but we're really getting into the content discussion here and I don't have any strong disagreements with any proposals, we just never even got to the point of evaluating the facts since things were shut down pretty hard.

  "You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  I think this is what I said? I may be misunderstanding you, sorry:

  "or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)" Warrenmck (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well you definitely appear to be misunderstanding. I might agree pseudo-panspemia is wrong, but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic. Ignoring that many editors have said the same thing is not a content issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic"

  Sorry, I think I'm clear on what you're saying now. As I said, I didn't get too far into the content discussion of how to approach it considering the brick wall. I obviously disagree vehemently with the quoted line above considering the huge number of scientific publications that refer to Panspermia without the pseudo- qualifier, but I don't really have a verifiable way of demonstrating which common use term is more accepted. I think the real answer is there isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME in the way we'd both like, as most people have simply never heard of Panspermia at all. The common name depends entirely on which bubble you've approached Panspermia from, as far as I can tell (see: the "surely you're familiar with how Panspermia is percieved online" comments). Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I think I missed the distinction you were drawing between

  "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  and what I suggested

  "Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)"

  I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear. Warrenmck (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The difference is that there isn't a clear primary topic, so both articles require disambiguation. This was, again, my whole point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  No argument from me on that, sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Warrenmck (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories. That's a plausible claim, and consistent with my own perception of FTN. Really, I question whether in 2023 we still need it. Anti-fringe thinking has been thoroughly integrated into the communal ethos, much more than it was in 2007, and FTN procures a lopsided sampling of people who favor the most maximal interpretations of related policies, sometimes (perhaps as here) to a fault. (True of all single-issue noticeboards, but we collectively do a much better job handling fringe issues than we do with NPOV, BLP, etc.) But that's another issue for another day. No one did anything sanctionable here IMO. If Warren wants to merge the articles, he should propose a merger. The closer of that request should be wary of any arguments, from either side, of "that's how I always hear this term used", instead looking to empirical evidence of how sources treat the topic(s). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  ”So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories.”

  This, and that greeting counter-evidence with “this is boring, I regret reading it” is not civil and that attitude has no place on a noticeboard. How can I improve an article if those puppy guarding it refuse to evaluate evidence (which meets all standards for inclusion) because it counters their crystallized notion of a term? If my sources are dismissed out of hand by those who would instantly revert any changes I make, then my incentive to improve the article is pretty low, which is why I referenced WP:GANG. Like I’ve said, I can recognize the burnout, but above in this ANI thread is someone who unfollowed the same article in question years ago due to this behaviour and I already bowed out of trying to actually revise this because I think it’s going to be a huge cluster given the history and, frankly, the lack of concern from admins at some of the behaviour displayed.

  I’m not trying to bludgeon the process, and I’m sorry if I come across as doing so here, I just can’t imagine wanting to spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia in a field I am familiar with if there’s essentially going to be a cadre of power users are simply going to shut down discussion.

  I maintain that if FTN users can’t engage with civility due to burnout the solution is a wikibreak, not tolerating burnout manifesting poorly, and there does seem to be a lot of that explicitly going on. In all my time editing on Wikipedia I don’t think I’ve every just said “This is boring and I regret reading your contribution.” Sometimes I may not reply, but I don’t try to Molotov a discussion. For the same reason I never fear WP:BOOMERANG, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and Wikipedia is better without it, even if it’s from me. Warrenmck (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:ACC0:16F0:2AF:BBF0:34B5:4E09 and Disruptive Editing

This user keeps removing people from List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, arguing that donations do not qualify as endorsements. S/he completely ignores the fact that the sources I cite make mention of the donors' explicit support for DeSantis, which means that they aren't just donating to his campaign. The user doesn't have a talk page, so I think that an IP ban may be in order. User may be User:JasperLL. TheClubSilencio (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, so you should contact them on their talk page and/or discuss on the relevant talk pages. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheClubSilencio A donation does not qualify as an endorsement, see the guideline WP:Political endorsements, specifically point 3. To add someone to that list they need to have been explicitly described as endorsing Ron DeSantis' 2024 presidential campaign primary, you cannot add them on the basis of donations or expressions of support. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Some donors "spread their bets", especially early in the United States' primary season, donating to more than one candidate. Or they donate to more than one because they change their mind.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

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

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

In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of WP:OWN at least 6 times ([39][40][41][42][43][44]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([45][46][47][48]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([63][64]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [65], and whatever this is: "You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...", which seems to be an accusation of meatpuppetry. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([66]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics (Xtools), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically User:ReyHahn and User:Kingsif. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([67][68]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([69]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([70][71]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([72]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS), which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received.

Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [73][74][75] [76], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([77]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([78]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

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

Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([79][80]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([81]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a move request at Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt that was prematurely closed.
• 22 April NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion
  • 19 May WMrapids relists the discussion and oddly does not ping WP:PERU (tagged on the talk page), but does ping WP:Socialism (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
  • 12:26, 24 May the move request closes, not in the direction WMrapids preferred
• Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[82][83] (WP:POINT) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. One closed 31 May, the other closed 21 June
• WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History (WP:CANVASS)
• Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
• 5 June, the series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began.
• 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP.[84] See #Case study. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Case study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP vios continue

See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at WP:AN and at WP:RSN,[85] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I pointed out the first BLP issue, and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down (ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs), WMrapids returned to Nelson Bocaranda to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent disruption/vandalism by Aditya Greatest to WP:BLPs

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

---

Most of Aditya Greatest (talk · contribs)'s edits have been properly reverted, though they continue to delete sourced content and edit disruptively, without explanation or edit summaries, after receiving a final warning a week ago. No action was taken at AIV at that time, so I'm trying here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in form of diffs if possible. In this case here, the edit warring was clear enough for me to take it as a block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, ToBeFree. For starters, the edit warring you responded to was a persistent removal from the infobox of an actor's name--prominently included in the body of the article--without explanation at Udaariyaan. Prior to that, [86]; [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]; [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; [106]; [107]; [108]; [109].

Many of the edits removed sourced content. Others removed content that was supported by subsequent text. A lot of it looks arbitrary, the fingerprints of someone who is just determined to mess about, indifferent to quality, so WP:CIR may apply. At any rate, thank you for blocking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Dexedream

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

The editor is engaging in persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

• Addition of unsourced material (in addition to POV-pushings) into biomedical articles:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardioversion&diff=1168879391&oldid=1168016300
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudodementia&diff=1168653766&oldid=1168646810
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebound_effect&diff=prev&oldid=1157077808
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alprazolam&diff=prev&oldid=1168517952
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_laughter&diff=prev&oldid=1168311550
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel&diff=prev&oldid=1168819245
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renal_colic&diff=prev&oldid=1168514558
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atherosclerosis&diff=prev&oldid=1164771170

• Persistent WP:DISRUPT:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methamphetamine#Methamphetamine_Hcl_=\=_Crystal_meth?_Also_physical_dependence
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cocaine#Cocaine_and_liability/degree_of_%E2%80%9Cdependence%E2%80%9D
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLinuz&diff=prev&oldid=1159556266
• "Take your own advice"

They were previously blocked by 331dot for the same reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADexedream

They persist WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and addition of unsourced information into biomedical articles. Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from biomedical articles.

Their previous edits should also be reviewed since they engage in this style of editing for a long time. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Dzkk9

I've been advised by an admin to bring this here - User:Dzkk9 appears to be a new user with (at best) a shaky understanding of what is expected and wanted here. The (now reverted to redirect) page they created was unencyclopedic, unreferenced and looked like vandalism. Their userpage is a bit worrying in my opinion (in the sense of what they appear to think they can do on en.wiki). I'm not sure the best course of action but perhaps someone could give some relevant advice to them. JMWt (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did my page that i edited is down? you could tell me something is wrong and correct me not delete everything that i wrote on this website randomly with no reason?!?? You deleted my page because of VANDALISM??? For just editing a page about a micronation that has been put on wikipedia randomly by a user like 4 years ago. reply about this! Dzkk9 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

as a point of information, I didn't delete anything. JMWt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

and where is the "edited" page that ive done. even my user info? Dzkk9 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt This isn't a very helpful comment - new editors almost universally refer to "removing the words I wrote" as deletion, and the article the editor wrote was redirected and indeed deleted for copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt, FYI, you should have notified Dzkk9 on their talkpage as stated at the top of this page. However, it seems moot at this point – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies I misread what I was supposed to do. I have belatedly rectified this. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt: Have you tried discussing anything with them at all? CityOfSilver 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also FYI, this version of the article is largely a copyvio of this Daily Mail article. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to the page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done without comment on the rest of this Star Mississippi 01:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt: Isn't all the stuff in that article true, or at least plausibly true? The fact that it's poorly written aside. jp×g 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's plausibly true, but we don't deal with "truth", we deal with verfiability, and the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a reliable source. Aside from that, the article was not really about the "Kingdom of North Sudan" as a geographical entity, it was about the guy who declared Bir Tawil to be that, and his family. If someone wants to write an article about them, and take the chance that it would pass notability, using non-Daily Mail sources, they should do that, under that person's name as the article title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a not-even-with-an-extra-long-bargepole source. Narky Blert (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am not the one who wrote the article, nor do I really give a hoot either way -- I am saying that, given we have a long newspaper article that confirm all the stuff it says, it was probably not a bad-faith attempt to vandalize, even if we think the newspaper sux0rz (and indeed even if it DOES sux0rz). jp×g 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree there was probably no BF involved, more like CIR issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I too AGF; looks no more than a beginner's mistake. Narky Blert (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Ed instructor not engaging with community concerns

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

As is clear from this EDUN discussion (Permalink), despite having taught 23 Wiki Ed courses, Berrgmanucsd's students have consistently produced subpar output, demonstrating clear failures to understand basic principles of article writing like the need for independent sources. Concerns were raised in 2019 and Wiki Ed staffers assured the community that measures would be taken to ensure that the problems stopped. Evidently, they haven't, and Bergmanucsd's sole contributions since concerns were re-raised in July 2023 have been to delete a chunk of the initial complaint, and to continue moving problematic student work into mainspace.

For the prior reasons, and as I previously stated in the EDUN thread, I am proposing that the community ban Bergmanucsd from teaching further Wiki Ed courses. Alternatively, if an uninvolved admin wants to step in and indefinitely block on WP:ENGAGE grounds, I think that would be a much lower-bureaucracy resolution at this time, and any question of teaching courses can come after a successful unblock request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I left a message at their talk. Further action might occur if there is no response within a short period. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as I have been now for 6 years. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) in a discussion about your perceived engagement, an acknowledgement that doesn't acknowledge anything is pretty... brave. SN54129 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid that we’re past “brainstorming” here. You need to demonstrate that you understand the problems with both your past courses’ contributions and your own failure to communicate about them when concerns were raised. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I, like you, am not in control of other wikipedians contributions. I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. WikiEdu's training is something that they have control over. I assign my students ALL the lessons available. If students do not complete the lessons, they do not receive full points for the assignment in my course. As it relates to their actual contributions, if they rely to heavily on a single course, the grade they receive will not be full credit. In my capacaity as an instructor, my role is to model best practicies, ensure they are aware of the policies of Wikipedia (through the WikiEdu portal and trainings), and then assess them. I'm not sure what else you'd like for me to do. The WikiEdu portal would need to be changed for this to happen. All of this has been documented in my communications with WikiEdu. If you require furhter information, then I would suggest you ask for greater access to their records and actions they take to improve the program. On my end, I can only access what I see as well. As always, thank you for your multiple messages while I was on vacation. Now that I am back, I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. Actually, you do have the power to edit these pages. In fact you have a responsibility to do so as the person in charge of these student editors. That you don't understand this is the root of the problem here. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a conflict here, with the same page trying to serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a piece of coursework? If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability. It's hard for one page to do both jobs simultaneously, and the encyclopedia has to take priority. Certes (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, this is a problem with using Wikipedia in teaching in general. There are ways to use Wikipedia as part of a course that don't result in this dilemma (for an instructor, the course/students really ought to take priority! so your assignments should avoid putting the two aims in conflict). -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It should surely to navigate ways around this, such as establishing that coursework should be conducted purely in the sandbox and only be migrated/copied to mainspace upon the nod and approval of the instructor? And then be checked again in mainspace? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit stunned by this response given that you are quite obviously aware of your ability to edit other wikipedia editors' contributions - you removed a part of the initial post on WP:EDUN that you found objectionable. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This also doesn't explain why you chose to move patently unready articles like Draft:Iraq and the World Bank or Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund to main space. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This behavior I will refrain from in the future. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to interpret this as "I don't have any control over anyone else's edits", which is true; everyone can make whatever edits they want. But when you went on to say you couldn't edit anyone else's contributions, you kind of lost me. @Bergmanucsd, are you aware that all of us here, not only everyone in this discussion but everyone in the world, can edit anyone else's contributions? Literally everyone in this discussion can edit anything that isn't fully protected from editing, which is a minuscule portion of pages, and hundreds can edit even those. You can edit anything that isn't fully protected, too.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to get at? Valereee (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that everyone in the world can edit any page. What I meant to say is that I can't put my name on the edits or specific contributions of my students, only after they have been posted. Maybe I was misinterpreting some of the comments, but it seemed as if editors were asking me to make changes to what students post. As I mentioned above, the course structure does require students to acknowledge that several aspects of their contribution conform to wikipedia standards. If they claim it does and publish it, that's on them. And edits should be made on their contributions and discussions on their talk pages to remind them of the wikipedia standards. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

But it's very much also on you, since you are the reason they are editing wikipedia in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd:, you wrote: I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes... Co-signing what other have told you that yes, you do and you have a responsibility to keep an eye on them and minimize or reverse the damage they do. Instructors and students who turn up once or twice a year to dump these inferior drafts, and often edit-war over them, are harming the project. I think we need to treat them the same way we do any other user who disrupts. As some of them have done this repeatedly, they should know better than a new disruptive user. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm kinda concerned about the seeming lack of communication. That said, after looking through various things for Wiki ed (including Wikipedia:Assignments_for_student_editors#Advice_for_instructors), I think maybe having a set guideline might be nice to give everyone more of a sense about where they stand in regards to accountability. I don't think it necessarily needs to be anything as strict as WP:ADMINACCT, but at least the same thing we ask of discussion closers - that they at least should respond to an initial request for clarification when asked. This shouldn't require an AN/I post every time. - jc37 06:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Brianda, and Ian for their thoughts. - jc37 06:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Education), Frank Schulenburg, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Liannadavis - jc37 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Jc37 In the area I edit, WikiEd has provided ample materials, which apparently the instructors don't access or teach. I agree that perhaps more on instructor accountability might help (particularly in a case like this one where the instructor is coming off as blaming WikiEd and being combative).

But anyone concerned about WikiEd's materials or lack thereof should know some history. While the WMF was quite happy to promote, advertise, and piggy back on the very limited successes in 2008 of Jbmurray and Awadewit with generating student-edited FAs with considerable use of resources (meaning time from numerous FA regulars to get the articles promoted), WMF has since provide insufficient funding for WikiEd, which even resulted in layoffs some years back. WMF will not devote the necessary resources to addressing these issues, and that is the direction anyone who is concerned about student editing might focus. We can't ask more of WikiEd if WMF is unwilling to give them enough resources to make encounters with student editing less tiresome for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this would be helpful.

As I have mentioned to the WikiEd staff through my collaboration with them for 6 years, I am available to brainstorm ways of how to improve their training and overall programming. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And we are available to respond to non-copy pasted comments, if you'll give us that courtesy Bergmanucsd. You have been asked to engage; I recommend doing that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be patient. My read on things is that the instructors may not be as wiki-fluent in the back-project processes as you or I might be. Please let's give everyone some time to work this out. - jc37 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd can you explain why you chose to remove part of Rosguill's complaint as your opening action in the discussions? I would also like both Bergmanucsd and Brianda/Ian to lay out what actual concrete steps got taken in 2018 and 2019 to resolve these issues. As a more general point, while instructors obviously don't need to be back-end savvy in the way that we are, I do expect them to be more responsive to concerns than the average editor because of the nature of their role. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed my non-Wikipedia name Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd, FWIW, your full name is publicly displayed at Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/IPE_Money_and_Finance_IMF_WB_2023_(Summer_2023). If you are concerned for your privacy, and want to edit outside of your courses, you may wish to open a second account for your own editing. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that googling "Bergman UCSD" gets us immediately to your non-wikipedia name. If you're worried about your name being on Wikipedia I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, since anything I can come up with is a real "closing the barn door after the horses escaped" kind of solution. At any rate, I would warn you against following Valereee's suggestion and starting a new account until this ANI discussion is resolved, so that you don't look like you're trying to evade some kind of consequence or to create a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this explanation. You also unnecessarily removed a full paragraph the entire sentence along with it, and you seem to have no problem linking to 23 pages which prominently list your name on your user page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I only see the removal of a single sentence, am I missing something? Here's the diff I'm looking at: [110] -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Asilvering, I misremembered the length of the text in question and have corrected my comment. Thanks for the ping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do actually find it believable from someone who may not realize everything onwiki is public and even if removed is visible in history unless oversighted. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're correct, that's very worrying. Either this prof has misunderstood something in WikiEdu's materials or WikiEdu isn't sufficiently clear on this. Because this is a major issue for student privacy, I hope one of the WikiEdu staff tagged into this discussion can clarify which it is. This would cause serious privacy concerns under various FIPPA rules and, I presume, American legislation as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The students are private, except for those who use their names for their user accounts, or those who edit with IPs (which I'm not sure I've actually seen). Valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Their work, however, is not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think grades are public, if that's what you're getting at? This is probably getting to be a tangent. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

if after 6 years they are not "wiki-fluent", then that appears to be a competency issue. ValarianB (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd: Voicing concern about another user's competence isn't necessarily a violation of those policies/guidelines. If someone's ability to edit this site is far below where it should be based on the amount of time they've spent on here, editors are expected to call that out. CityOfSilver 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it". Valereee (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think something ADMINACCTesque would actually be that strict a bar to meet. As ArbCom recently reaffirmed, admins don't have to give a good answer, just a reasonably prompt and generally coherent one. (My gloss; some might leave it at "any answer".) It seems reasonable to hold course instructors to a similar standard—a trade-off for the exemption courses get from WP: MEAT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin WP:MEAT allows students to operate within what would typically be considered meatpuppery for other users, but should it disallow admins from blocking problematic courses? The many and long-documented probably with student editing can be addressed in some cases by stopping the bad courses from editing. Disallowing them from working with WikiEd, as Rosguill suggested, does nothing to stop the bad course-- just allows them to continue without someone watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Well, there isn't any explicit exception to MEAT for courses. (There's an explicit exception to SOCK for the students themselves, but that's separate.) We generally don't consider courses meatpuppetry because, at least where the master isn't blocked and there isn't intentional deception, there must be disruption for something to count as meatpuppetry. (Otherwise it would be meatpuppetry for me to email you a suggestion for an article.) Usually there isn't an issue with that when it comes to courses, because disruption doesn't exceed the standard levels for new users, and we don't hold the occasional student's misunderstanding of policy against the instructor. Or it does happen and someone chews the instructor out and they learn their lesson. If there's persistent issues with students making inappropriate edits under an instructor's direction, though, yes, I would say MEAT could apply. I have not looked closely enough at this case to say whether it does here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Just linking the instructor orientation, which includes fixing bad articles: How to clean up major problems in articles that your students worked on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiEd

Does WikiEd actually bring any real benefit to the encyclopedia, a benefit that exceeds the downsides of their activities? For example, do a non-trivial number of the students stick around to become long-term editors? BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As troublesome as WikiEd can be, when instructors run courses completely on their own the results are on average more disruptive than when WikiEd is involved. Unless we're prepared to ban edits-for-grades entirely (and police that somehow) we are better off with WikiEd. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, my concerns here are with this specific instructors’ courses (and noting as well that part of the reason for the WB/IMF problem’s persistence appears to be the changing of the guard of Wiki Ed liaisons since concerns were first raised). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's already a strong basis in policy for banning edits-for-grades: WP:NOTHERE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a sandbox for editing practice. However, we need to tolerate good-faith mistakes by newcomers, especially if misguided by an inexperienced teacher, because they may go on to become regular editors or at least make enough good edits to be a net positive during their course. One way forward might be to have some way of finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject, who may be able to provide a volunteer with adequate subject knowledge and long experience of article creation to work alongside the teacher. Certes (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject I think there have been efforts to do this in the past. Certainly with medical courses this became routine practice after the issues Sandy is referring to (I don't know if it still is). This could probably be automated in some way, but do bear in mind there are hundreds of these courses every semester, which means lots and lots of notices on pages like WikiProject Sociology and other not-very-active WikiProjects. I think the main reason this doesn't already happen is because WikiProject activity is so uneven that professors/students can't rely on help there, and not wanting to overload volunteer projects (similar to why professors are discouraged from requiring students to go through DYK, GAN, PR, or other parts of the project where community time is already spread thin). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree, neither teachers nor students are really WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia; one is here for money (it's their job) and the other is here for a grade (also their "job"). Neither is volunteering. If the teacher keeps the job and the student gets an A, neither will care about WP policies (and why would they?). I don't see what benefit it brings to require people to edit as part of a class -- I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia or to the student. Editing only works if it's something you want to do. So I'd support just removing that exception from WP:SOCK policy and saying teachers can't assign editing to students, but that's a discussion for another page. (Not to be confused with a class on editing, which should of course still be allowed, but that's different from editing as part of a class about something else, as is the case here.) Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What a bizarre take; teachers' job is "teaching", not "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia"; they aren't "here for the money", they're here because they think that it will serve a purpose for their students and the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly the edits made by WikiEd students are productive and end up sticking. The issues are created by a small percentage of classes/students - I'd estimate in the 5-10% range based on when I did a fairly comprehensive look of the edits from 15 wikied classes last year. Issues are particularly vexing for the community both because when a class goes off the rails it's not 1 editor doing so but 5, 10, 15 editors and also because the community has a harder time sanctioning editors when they're mission aligned (even if some students are quite clearly only doing it for the grade). This is how you get the fair idea of "seems like we spend a lot of time dealing with wiki ed classes" to square with "overwhelmingly productive editing happens by wiki ed". It's also not clear to me how much WikiEd causes classes to be taught that wouldn't otherwise be taught and how much WikiEd serves as an additional layer to help us make edits that would be happening anyway more productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

For me the bigger problem is that some instructors won't communicate and don't bother to educate themselves on what they're teaching. I removed a lot of cruft sourced to sales sites at Scrunchie a couple months ago, apparently just before the work was graded because the instructor quickly came in and reverted, which is how I discovered it was a wikied project. I posted to the talk and pinged the instructor, who never responded. Out of sympathy for the student being graded, I left it for a few weeks before removing it again, but it's pretty frustrating when an instructor with 228 edits over her entire career and who is teaching "Public Writing" every semester at an esteemed university hasn't bothered to learn anything about what she's apparently teaching and doesn't respond to pings. Her immediate previous edit was a similar reversion in March to removals of promo by someone else. Valereee (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth imposing some requirements on who can run courses on enwiki? I like the idea of imposing something similar to WP:ADMINACCT to require that the coordinators communicate, and considering your comment here and above (Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it".) perhaps a minimum-contribution count requirement as well? Perhaps at least 1000 edits, including at least 500 to article space and 300 to talk space? BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with requiring engaging by responding to pings. I don't mind someone well-intentioned not knowing what they don't yet know. I do very much mind someone not bothering to take advantage of a ping to a concern, which in the case of WikiEd should be seen as an invitation to learn something. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I learned about (lower-case r, not the WP version) reliable sources in middle school writing classes. The fact that a writing professor apparently can't handle it is appalling, and raises many questions partially separate to the issues in this thread. casualdejekyll 23:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the support for a ban of Bergman so far, it looks like there might be a ban in this public writing instructor's future as well. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 is there data to back that student edits are overwhelming productive? That has never been my experience in the medical realm, although it may be so in areas less difficult to edit. Colin did some analysis years ago: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013.

BilledMammal, a fine line has to be walked with course instructors to convince them to work with WikiEd, as they aren't required to, and having them work with knowledgeable Wikipedians gives us at least some small chance of stemming the bad edits. If we impose anything else on their ability to get free unpaid tutors (Wikipedians), they can just run their courses outside of WikiEd, and then we (the unpaid volunteers) end up in a worse place in terms of the amount of cleanup we are forced to (which in my case has caused me to unwatch huge numbers of medical articles, because once students descend, the cleanup takes over my editing time). It has long been argued at the noticeboard that a better way to deal with bad courses is if admins would start blocking them after repeat offenses. I believe Tryptofish might have more on this discussion-- I stopped following the Education Noticeboard years ago as the problems with student editing in the medical realm became too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't impose these requirements solely on educators working with WikiEd; I would impose it on all educators, although I don't know how difficult it is to identify those operating outside of WikiEd? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

At least in the medical realm, there are few things easier to identify than student editing. The issues are so common and repeated course after course that they are inescapable: frequent plagiarism, very very sub-standard writing, adding off-topic content to main articles rather than using summary style for content already written elsewhere, essay-like original research, almost absent knowledge of WP:MEDRS in spite of training materials, use of substandard sourcing, "peer reviews" from fellow students that have nothing to do with WP:P&G clogging talk pages, edit warring as course end approaches and they need to get their content to stick for a grade, over-segmentation of articles to make their own portions stick out, usually with faulty section headings ala WP:MSH, failure to engage on user or article talk, and disappearance from the article after the course ends. I could probably think of a dozen more (and will as soon as I hit send). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We see the disappearance after the course ends regularly at DYK. It seems some instructors give extra credit for a DYK nom, and neither the instructor nor the student will respond to pings. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for the ping. I don't have a whole lot to add in regard to what you asked about, beyond what others here have already said. I'm fine with student editing in general, and it's a fact of life here. But I feel strongly that we have to treat student editors, and class instructors, the same as we treat other editors, not better, not worse. As to whether student editing is a net positive or a net negative, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for raising this important point. I did not check courses where I knew my knowledge would be completely inadequate to judge the edits. So I did not check any medical writing in my sample. It is entirely possible that the failure rate for medical articles is much higher (the same it would be for articles within the scope of contentious topics). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm curious how often you still see issues with medical content from students? There used to be a lot, especially before WikiEd and in its early days, but since then there are specialized trainings, requirements that apply just to medical/psychology classes/articles, special flags on the staff end to monitor those courses, and other interventions based in no small part on your feedback. Back when I was involved with WikiEd, it seemed like it had improved dramatically from 2014-->2019. Are you still seeing a lot of those problems (or a recent uptick)? Just curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see them often now simply because I gave up almost entirely, and unwatched almost all popular articles (which are those typically targeted by students). I do recall there being dramatic improvement in those cases where WikiEd was successful in reaching out to the professors and making them aware of the problems, but I can't say whether those were few or most courses (only that I came to really appreciate those times when WikiEd was able to successfully intervene). After Nikkimaria posted at WT:MED recently, I looked into this class (which historically is not as bad as others). Gratification disorder has a SYNTH list of primary cases, some which were from journals that HeadBomb's script redlinks. You can look at my edits at Premenstrual water retention; as WAID said, perhaps not as bad as most new editors, but the use of primary sources and other issues is less than what I would hope for in a course with a long history and theoretically knowledgeable profs. Similarly, the commercial sources used at operative vaginal delivery surprised me, as I had the idea this course did a better job than most at explaining optimal sourcing, but I agree no worse than a typical new editor. Asynclitic birth had very bad sourcing, again, perhaps typical for a new user, but surprising relative to what I thought (formerly) of this course. The take-home message, as usual, is that with what limited time I had, I didn't look further and I barely scratched the surface in briefly glancing at those few articles, and we don't have enough active editors to keep up with the issues. It's surprising those students still aren't all fully understanding medical sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran into that particular class with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I would always encourage student editors to start fresh with a new account if they intend to do other editing on Wikipedia, since their previous work in a listed course is an obvious doxxing angle. I think it's also very likely that many student editors get interested in Wikipedia through their course, get busy with their normal life, and come back to the encyclopedia later, having forgotten their password or account and just making a new one. So I'm not sure there's any data we can really use here. I will say that in the history and biography topics I edit, I have seen some awful contributions by students, but more often I see useful ones. The problems I see more often are a) creating articles on non-notable topics and b) translating articles without checking any of the sources. The first is easily dealt with (though really traumatic for the students), and the second is hardly a WikiEdu-alone problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The original proposal -- wrote this before the subheading was added, and it partly addresses that so leaving it here -- not because I want to defend edits made in this course, but because I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction. We can block, topic ban, etc., but we can't make their pedagogical decisions and can't preemptively block people who have never edited before just because of who their professor is.
  This situation is not ideal for anyone: the community, the students, the professor, or WikiEd. Fun fact: there are thousands of students editing Wikipedia in hundreds of courses every single term. The ones that wind up here aren't the ones where students make lots of mistakes. They're newbies after all, and enhanced newbies at that because they have a support system in place. Someone sees a problem with a student edit and flags it to the student, professor, or Wiki Ed staff. Between them, they fix the problem, get the professor to work with students to avoid it happening again, and/or assign additional training modules. Professors don't want students to have a bad experience, professors don't want to be dragged to ANI, WikiEd doesn't want courses to go to ANI, students don't want to get blocked/reverted -- none of this is good for anyone, so in general, professors and students are super receptive of feedback/training, fixing problems and what not. You never hear about those. If the problems are course-wide, WikiEd can set boundaries for the class like "only work in userspace". Again, people are generally content to abide by this because nobody wants to have a bad experience and working in userspace takes the pressure off. The most common reason a course winds up here at ANI isn't that new editors made mistakes -- it's that they made mistakes and the professor doesn't understand the problem, doesn't agree that there's a problem, doesn't listen to WikiEd, or is simply too overcommitted to address problems properly. (Every once in a while problems come because a few students simply defy the professor, but that usually winds up being simpler, because the professor understands the need to block them).
  WikiEd can't force the professor to do anything, though. They can just say "abide by these best practices and listen to our advice or we won't support your classes in the future". From the thread at WP:ENB, it sounds like that support might've been withdrawn, but the course was accepted again accidentally (apologies if I've misread that).
  So that brings us back to "what to do". We can't tell a professor what to do in their class, but we can be crystal clear that if WikiEd withdraws its support for any of the reasons they might do that, your courses will have a heightened degree of scrutiny form the community and, if it has problems it's extremely likely your students (and maybe your account) will just be blocked. No professor wants to go into an assignment knowing they'll be subjecting their students to so much stress and scrutiny and no professor wants their assignment to fail, so that should be clear enough. In other words: no need to "you can't teach with Wikipedia" -- just "for the sake of public knowledge on Wikipedia and for the sake of your students, please don't run this assignment again" and keep the block button handy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction I'm not yet convinced such a sanction is called for in this case, though I am leaning towards it, but I disagree that we cannot impose such a sanction. The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwiki; we are not required to permit educators to use our platform as part of their course, and if we believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia we can topic ban individual educators from doing so.

  If they chose to ignore the topic ban then we can block them, and we can contact WMF Legal who can get in contact with their institution to make them put a stop to it; I'm sure there will be some sort of TOS violation that WMF Legal can use. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwik - We can sanction someone's on-wiki activity. The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. How else would enforcement of this sanction work? No, WMF Legal is not going to be sending a message to a university because a professor runs an assignment (this is frankly bananas). Especially not when we can so easily deal with it on-wiki. We can certainly encourage WikiEd not to support this course (if they haven't already made that decision), and we can certainly discourage him by making clear students that make the same mistakes will just be blocked. We can even block the professor's account... but we shouldn't be creating sanctions that try to reach off-wiki or which can only be enforced by preemptive sanctions against otherwise good faith contributors. Simply "if students keep making mistakes, they'll get blocked" followed by blocks. What's wrong with that? Also, I should say that I'm opposing the sanction and articulating alternatives not because of anything to do with this professor or their students, but because of the sanction. I'd need to actually look into it more before supporting these alternatives, but having seen the thread at ENB it sounds like enough experienced users have identified long-term problems that probably call for some action. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. Telling people what to do off-wiki, when it is very closely related to on-wiki activity, is implicitly part of most bans we issue because of WP:MEAT; when we issue those bans we are saying "we are banning you for being disruptive, and if you recruit others to continue your disruption we will ban them too". We also wouldn't be preemptively sanctioning anyone; we would be sanctioning them after they make their first edit as meatpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  My intent in proposing the topic ban is to prevent them from performing instructor roles on Wikipedia, based on a track record of failing to engage with criticisms of their and their students' work. It is in no way telling them what to do off-wiki, although it does preclude the possibility of continuing to teach courses centered on editing Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Support (TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed... not sure of the exact verbiage... but a TBAN such that they can no longer invoke the WP:ASSIGN exception to WP:MEAT), on WP:CIR grounds. Clearly, this person does not have enough competence to direct others to make edits, or to instruct student editing. There are the bad edits themselves, the fact that this has been going on for 4 or more years, the lack of meaningful communication (including the initial 4 verbatim copy-pasted responses about "brainstorming"), and then the whopper: "I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc." That last bit shows they not only don't understand their "power," but they don't understand their responsibilities under WP:ASSIGN. This is wasting a huge amount of editor time, we should just put a stop to it. Let WikiEd worry about WikiEd, let the prof's university worry about the classes and the prof, but Wikipedia should just bar this particular prof from "teaching" Wikipedia editing due to lack of competence. If the ban is imposed and violated (if another class is taught post-ban), then the prof and students can be blocked by any admin. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support a tban from using Wikipedia as an instructional tool unless Bergmanucsd comes in here and makes at least an attempt to address the concerns. Bergmanuscd, are you aware that the community does actually have the power to do this? That is, we can actually prevent you from using the Wikipedia portion of your current syllabus? WikiEd staff do not have the power to overrule the community. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm willing to give another day or so for the folks at WikiEd to try to communicate with the instructor, before moving ahead with sanctions. And I want to say that WikiEd deserves the support and appreciation of the community, because they really do try very hard to help the community, and they don't have many resources to work with. But when I start from the perspective of what I would expect from anyone working in education, in terms of being able to communicate with other people, I'm pretty disappointed with what the instructor has been doing here. It's not like this should be difficult for anyone to understand. If things can be worked out, then OK. But based on what I've seen so far, I think I'm quite likely to support a topic ban against being able to instruct others to edit or using Wikipedia as an instructional tool. Yes, we have the ability to do that. (Can't tell instructors what to do in their classes, but absolutely can determine what they and their students do as edits here.) And the community needs to get comfortable with making these kinds of decisions, because they are going to come up more and more frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Like Tryptofish, I am willing to wait a day for a complete and fully responsive reply from this editor as opposed to copy and paste comments that tell us nothing. If engagement is not forthcoming, I will support the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all Wikipedia editing related to educational courses, after waiting a day and seeing this infuriating non-answer on their user talk page: My conduct in future courses as it relates to the content that my students post? I will reiterate the trainings provided by WikiEdu and the policies contained therein, reiterate the course grading requires them to conform to Wikipedia policies, and show them some flagged pages as examples for the type of contribution that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. This person is clearly not taking our concerns seriously, and is either unwilling or incapable of engaging seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed. I would also like a serious re-evaluation of Wiki-ed. My experience is that the students and instructors usually do more harm than good. I can recall one OK experience and many horrible ones, including personal attacks and edit-warring. As others have said, the priority is the 'pedia, not anyone's grades. The ones I've seen don't stick around, nor do their edits. They almost always waste the time, energy and patience of good editors. So much cleanup of bad, copyvio term papers. Per WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is it possible to get a list of all editors who participated in Wiki-ed? I will be able to get some statistics on how many stuck around, revert percentage, etc, but only if I can get that underlying information. BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal The dashboard seems to record all campaigns since Spring 2015. Possibly there's a bulk data download somewhere. Shells-shells (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I notice you were already aware of this (and of Category:Wiki Education student editors). In that case I don't know if there's a collection of data on WikiEd more extensive than these. Shells-shells (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as above. The talk page non-answer Cullen328 cited is altogether too prevalent in the education field, where dressing oft-simple concepts in torrents of polysyllabic, passive voice pretentiousness is both a standard dodge to cover up a lack of content and a badge of faux erudition. Happily, while that nonsense is the norm in academia, it is not on Wikipedia. If Bergmanucsd cannot bring himself to communicate in plain, active voice English, then he surely is not capable of teaching students how to edit Wikipedia effectively. Ravenswing 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TB, per Valereee, and also per Bergmanucsd's being available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as he has been now for 6 years. And six later, nothing has changed. This dismissive, non-answer of the decade—now repeated several times—attempts to place culpability and responsibility with WikiEd rather than accepting it himself. SN54129 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Update from Wiki Education

First off, let me apologize for Wiki Education's slowness to respond. I was on vacation last week, and I'm catching up with this situation now.

• I had an email exchange with Bergmanucsd in July of 2020 where he assured me that he was taking steps so that his students would no longer use primary sources, including the involvement of a librarian who could help his students navigate sourcing, as we promised to do following incidents with his previous course.
• Bergmanucsd didn't teach with us again until the summer of 2022, and due to staffing changes we incurred in the intervening years, we did not accurately assess that course. We apologize for that, and are working on updating our internal procedures so staffing changes don't result in similar issues .
• I will reach out to Bergmanucsd to discuss under what conditions Wiki Education would support future courses he'd like to teach.
• Again, we are profoundly sorry for any disruptions this has caused, and (as always) respect the community processes playing out here and on WP:ENB.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed), thanks. Maybe also explain to the instructor that this is actually quite serious, that his ability to use Wikipedia for instructional purposes actually is in jeopardy, and that his continued interaction at ANI is necessary if he wants to keep teaching that syllabus? Valereee (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely plan on discussing the severity of the situation and the importance of interacting with the community. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed): I put this on hold for a day to give y'all time to confer. Any progress? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll be speaking with Bergmanucsd this Thursday and will update here following our conversation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed), please convey to Bergmanucsd the gravity of the situation and the necessity of engaging fully and frankly here at ANI. Further evasive non-answer answers are unlikely to be received well. This editor has been given far more time to respond than usual, and their comments are bafflingly unresponsive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thursday. Others here see this as enough of a priority to respond more promptly. Just saying. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Input request for a proposal to address related concerns

(Please do not vote, this is just one of preliminary brain storming (earlier one at Wikipedia talk:Student assignments, to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page)

Proposal  : A) Allow only limited number of student drafts - only the number which community can monitor effectively. B) Let those be topic wise common drafts and not student wise draft. C) Student's drafts be tagged as 'Student's draft' in draft namespace D) extend draft life for student drafts up to four years from present six months. - The idea is multiple number of students from multiple batches for four years will work on single draft to be improved. E) Accept content through usual WP:AFC evaluation process only.

Bookku (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mm. If you're looking for a general proposal regarding how WikiEd does its thing, this isn't really the place for it; that ought to be a RfC, perhaps at the Village Pump. Ravenswing 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether we do this here, or elsewhere, Yes, you have some good ideas here. I especially support E: the requirement to go through the usual AFC process. If this is moved, please ping me. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea; pls ping me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content and general vandalism by Prabhash2513

User:Prabhash2513 has been warned numerous and even been blocked repetitive removal of content and more significantly the persistent behaviour of adding unsourced (likely WP:HOAX) content on articles as is very apparent from their Talk page and editing history. I think a perma block is now needed unless the user shows that they understand what their behaviour entails. Gotitbro (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic Ban evation by User:Johnsmith2116

Following a recent discussion here, now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#User:Wjemather (ended 29 July 2023), User:Johnsmith2116 was the subject of a Topic Ban relating to 'preparation'-type edits. He has now made some edits to 2023 FedEx Cup Playoffs, the "preparation" aspects of which were later removed by User:Wjemather. Soon afterwards Johnsmith2116 replaced his entire talk page (which included the notification by User:Girth Summit of his topic ban) with a cryptic hidden message including the text "Me 1, them 0". At this early stage it doesn't seem to me that Johnsmith2116 is taking this topic ban seriously. I know this is a first offence (and I've no idea what the normal procedure is in such cases) but I'm adding this note here for the record. Nigej (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Looking into this, but first, here's the composite diff for others' convenience. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  So, normally a first-offense TBAN violation is somewhere between a warning and a one-week block, but from the totality of [111] I really can't look at this as anything but a deliberate violation. This isn't like an AMPOL TBAN where someone can accidentally wander into a violation as they learn the boundaries. John clearly knew what he was doing. Between that and the history of DE blocks, I have blocked for a month, and would suggest that any future block under this TBAN should be indefinite. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Article hacking and unresponsive editor

Since around the beginning of this summer, MedRobo (talk · contribs) has been engaging in destructive behavior in articles which has, in some instances, gone unnoticed. GreenC has restored sections of content that was (surprisingly) removed, but was reverted in the process. The changes include mass removal of content, removal of citation details (many times it's the URLs), and removal of the further reading or external links sections.

Looking at the most recent 500 contributions shows some potentially eyebrow-raising removals, some of which have been restored by myself [112].

The editor has made one edit in the user talk space [113] since registering in May 2020 [114]. Less than 20 posts on talk pages [115] were made, but it's this one [116] at Talk:Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (consul 177 BC) that was made in June asking an editor to not post on their talk page after being approached with a request for an explanation of this series of edits, which are of the same type that I and GreenC have been noticing.

I did post on the person's talk page yesterday after making a similar inquiry and then they stopped editing for the day and have not responded. Affected articles (some of which have been cleaned up) include: Penang, East India Company, and Peacekeeping. Dawnseeker2000 19:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No comment about the unresponsiveness, but most of these edits are good, removing things like dumping grounds of external links and further reading sections, which you've put back (along with reverting a lot of other good, minor edits) with no explanation. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This user has been aggressive at removing content, and are prolific. Their user contribution page is a sea of red. Certainly not in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. They typically justify massive removals of sourced and useful content as "excessive detail" (when neither excessive, or overly detailed). External links as "commercial content" (when it's not corporate). Look I understand sometimes we need to do cleanup operations, but it's all this user does, over and over again, and in the few articles where I know something about the topic, it's a questionable job. I support Dawnseeker2000's restorations. -- GreenC 00:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Some sample diffs:

• "rm external links to paid-for publishing" - Cornell University Press, McGill-Queen's University Press, International Studies Quarterly, etc.. is "paid for"?
• "rm". Typical useless edit summary when removing entire sections.
• "rm external links to commercial content". Wikisource, two universities, LibriVox, Internet Archive .. are commercial content?

The above is a sample of their external links and further reading deletions. But there is much more deleting in the text of the articles. While I can see some value in some of their edits, the diffs are often so complex, and their rationales so incompetent, see above, I don't trust they know what they are doing (incompetent), or are moving too fast breaking things, making poor judgements, or a vandal in disguise. Others have similar concerns. -- GreenC 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Michael21107

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

---

Michael21107 (talk · contribs) was blocked last week for a host of disruptive editing including blanking content without an adequate reason. After being unblocked, he's just gone back to the same behaviour - see the history of football in Slovakia. I'm obviously involved in the content dispute (I found it through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovak football league system) but I think the unblock needs to be reconsidered. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i gave adequete reasons for all my changes Michael H (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings @ferret and Z1720. Initial impression is very unimpressed with Michael and leaning toward reblock, but, just to get the easy bit of this out of the way, will give filelakeshoe the obligatory reminder of WP:NOTVANDALISM (in re this ES). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin can u please clarify what offense did i commit? Michael H (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

and obvisouly i shouldnt've used outdated as an reason for removal but there was other valid reason too Michael H (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just not sure this is the project you should be editing. You wrote in an edit summary, The current article (that is obviously written in the past) is just taken stuff (obviously written in the past) from other articles (or that shouldve been in other articles at some point)). Now, I've spent a lot of my life around people whose first language was not English, and I'm still struggling to figure out what you mean by this. Looking at the AfD and your comments here, I think I get it from context, but then that's nonsensical. You removed content because it was outdated (not a thing we do), so that it could be merged to articles it was already summarizing? After being told that the solution to outdated content is to update it at a related AfD yesterday. If you want to continue editing here, you need to majorly slow down. You still haven't gotten the hang of the way we do things, and you're stumbling around and breaking things based on that misunderstanding. That can be fixed in time, of course—my own first edit was a horrible AfD—but again, you need to slow down. I would suggest gaining some more experience on your native-language wiki before editing here, but I see you're serving a one-week block there for repeated nonconstructive edits, so... Sounds like this is a moment for you to stop and reconsider how you're approaching collaborative editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i removed the content (even tho i gave other incorrect eplanation in the summary) cuz its in other articles already Michael H (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. That is not a reason to remove content from an article. No competent editor could ever think that it is. We have an entire guideline about summarizing articles in broader-scope articles. We even sometimes directly mirror content from one article on another article. You need to accept that you do not understand how this site works, and seek to learn rather than wasting others' time by rushing into things based on misunderstandings of policy. There is a point where bold edits cross into recklessness. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i understand now, gonna read Wikipedia:Summary style first thing in the morning Michael H (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand what u saying, but whats the reason why i should be blocked? Michael H (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Not really surprised at this. I do not get in the way of most unblocks of this nature, if someone wants to take the time as Z1720 did. Reblock at your discretion, in my opinion. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael21107: My personal advice: stop editing articles that you think should be deleted, or removing content. This includes posting at WP:AfD and removing content from any page (even if you think that the content should be removed or on a different article). You do not know Wikipedia's deletion policies and guidelines well enough to participate in this area of the site and are causing a disruption. Instead, add information to articles that you think can be improved. If your edits continue to cause disruption on the site, I would support a re-block, and it will take a long time for an unblock appeal to be successful. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand now, gonna keep your advices in mind Michael H (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Michael21107: As I was going through Michael21107's edit just now, I noticed that he added a CSD tag on Los Angeles California diff. This is five days after I unblocked the user (as seen in this edit) with a restriction against using any speedy deletion tags. The user said that they agreed to the restriction in this edit. I think there is either a WP:CIR concern, and/or the user is pushing boundaries. Can other admins and editors give their thoughts on the matter, and determine if this action goes against the restriction placed on the editor in the unblock? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Well, after his above comments I'm willing to give him a chance to prove he gets it", but wait, this was after that? No. Last straw. I have reblocked.

Thanks for pointing this out, Z1720. I know from experience it's never pleasant to go out on a limb for someone with an unblock and have them immediately return to past mistakes, so, thank you for giving this user the chance to prove themself, even if they then squandered that chance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for your words. I would rather give a chance, in the hope that they remain productive on Wikipedia for years. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small disturbance to the site. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: they are now claiming they were never tbanned from adding speedy deletion tags despite it being on of the unblock conditions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking that part as it was their misunderstanding of the conditions being referred to as a topic ban not them denying the conditions. Although they are claiming that as it was once an indef block is not appropriate. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the update. I will leave this for the reviewing admin to consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Dude.pls.verify.pls

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

---

I'm not sure this person is here to build the same encyclopedia as the rest of us:

• Dude.pls.verify.pls (talk · contribs)
• Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General followed by:
  • Mustafa Merko
    • edit summary: "I reuploaded this page beacuse the other page was a dumb version that i created this is a true one"

Subsequent AfDs underway now:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot the great Battle of Gjinoqarit, now deleted.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S., selected article citations:

• "A genral framework for tropical differential equations"
• "Effectiveness of bio-insecticides and mass trapping based on population fluctuations for controlling Tuta absoluta under greenhouse conditions in Albania"
• '"2011 Prognostics and System Health Managment Confernece. IEEE."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Dude.pls.verify.pls: If your next edit is not to provide unambiguous proof that Mustafa Merko existed, I am going to block you from editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Update: User:Dude.pls.verify.pls is now indefinitely blocked by Materialscientist for creation of patent nonsense / inappropriate pages. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since the two articles were duplicates of each other, I have redirected Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General to Mustafa Merko. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Tamzin: they created the hoax articles and have added Mustafa Merko links to several articles, obviously to spread the hoax. Other edits include addition of unsourced content or removal of sourced content (e.g. [117][118]). As such I do not see how this editor should be allowed to edit, spread a hoax and waste other editors' time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83#please_remove_comment

I think that user @ජපස is calling my actions (possible mistakes made in good faith) were uncouth.

Uncouth definition: (of a person or their appearance or behavior) lacking good manners, refinement, or grace.

I think it's important to keep conversations here as polite and constuctive as possible and avoid any words that can be considered rude or offensive. that's why I think the comment should be removed because it's not constructive and is not assuming good faith. it's also can be very easily interpreted as offensive and rude.

I asked the user to remove their comment but they refused. that's why I'm posting this here.

Westerosi456H (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Saying that a course of action may be looked upon as uncouth is about as far from a personal attack as you can get here. ජපස is describing how others may interpret your actions, not asserting anything directly, and is using rather polite language to do so at that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I disagree. For example, is it very different to say someone is lying or to say what they said is a lie?

2. not sure how you asking for someone's comment is uncivilized.

3.the only people involved was me and jps, so others can't really interpret my actions as anything

4. regardless of all the above, you think it was absolutely necessary to call my action unciviziled? there was not other way? does it create a healthy environment? Westerosi456H (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

may be looked upon as uncouth is obviously not a personal attack. You were simply being notified you were acting in a way that is outside community norms. It's a bit old fashioned, but that is what that phrase means. I suggest you (Westerosi456H) simply apologize for the misunderstanding and move on, since right now it looks like you're trying to gain advantage in a content dispute on spurious grounds. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. your assumption that I'm trying to gain advantage may appear to some people as lacking good manners and credulous. but thanks. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're primarily demonstrating that you didn't understand what ජපස was telling you in the first place, and that you're not familiar with the actual text of our civility policy, or that you really don't understand how "uncouth" is used in modern English. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ok Well now that I'm more familiar with what is the norm here. I'd like to say that I think that your comments right now may be ignorant and uncivilized to more intelligent people. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that there might be some looming familiarity with WP:BOOMERANG, too. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

well given that you probably don't know the whole story, it may appear to people involved that your opinion is clearly ignorant. I would suggest you make more educated comments after familiarzing yourself with the whole story to avoid that impression. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for trolling, namely engaging in passive aggression in an attempt to prove a point. Haven't looked at the underlying dispute; no objection to a longer block if warranted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we really love those editors convinced that the proper way to protest a putative violation of WP:CIVIL is to hurl a barrage of insults. Good block. Ravenswing 04:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried removing this article as it seems to me no resolution is in sight and to avoid further arguments and being accused of all kinds of things. I wasn't able to removed this article so if someone can do it it's appreciated. Westerosi456H (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Editors behavior at Potter's House Christian Fellowship

Editors involved:

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

Long story short: A content dispute over including a short summary of prominent controversies in the lead of article (diff). Brief edit war. Discussion opened on talk page (diff). I questioned user's status as a potential WP:SPA + potential WP:COI since roughly 84% of their mainspace edits have been to this one article (diff). Another editor, JohnnyBflat, questioned if the user had a WP:COI, the user said they were indeed a member of the church, and they were editing the article as a subject matter expert (diff). Now the user is casting aspersions about my sexual orientation (LGBTQ bias) (diff) + (diff). I don't appreciate these unfounded allegations about my sexual orientation in relation to my editing at this article/talk page and am asking for administrator intervention. I am assuming their quotes in the aforementioned diff is from this article (from 2023), which is an in-depth analysis of the organization. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told, none of my comments have been "casting aspersions" or formed "unfounded allegations". Isaidnoway has clearly self-identified their orientations on their user homepage.

User JohnnyBflat represents 5.42% of the total edits made to the page in question and most of his edits are adding negative allegations or reverting other's edits. Requests for clarrification of his potential COI and bias have gone unanswered to date.

I strive for a better quality Wikipedia and follow the spirit and letter of all rules and guidelines. Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence in the form of diffs that demonstrate a LGBTQ bias in my editing in relation to the article in question or the article's talk page. And you have not provided any evidence that shows my research from reliable sources into this organization would certainly latch on to claims that "Same-sex relationships are classed as “sexual sin” and “perverted behaviour”; nor have you provided any evidence to support this assertion about me — an organisation you in principle oppose, or this assertion about me — your perspective on these issues is strongly contrasted with the conservative Christian values portrayed in the media for the Potter's House. Do you have any evidence at all to support your unfounded claims that I have a LGBTQ bias, or that I latched onto specific claims about this organization, or that I oppose in principle this organization, or about my perspective on these issues?

Making an ad hominem attack on an editor's sexual orientation as a means of dismissing or trying to discredit their arguments in a discussion is forbidden. Not a single editor in that discussion related to the disputed content has brought up the subject of the organization's stance on homosexuality, nor is it relevant to that discussion, and it is not relevant to me. Furthermore, those type of comments you made can have a chilling effect on an LGBT editor's ability to participate in discussions and/or edit articles that you deem are out of scope for LGBT editors, see this diff, where you asked — Why be here at all?— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The last week of discussion at Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship casts Wcwarren's behavior in a very poor light -- I see what looks like a lot of personalization, failures of WP:AGF, and obvious WP:RGW/POV-pushing activity. That's been accompanied by repeated edit-warring on the article itself. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Wcwarren failed to assume good faith with me straight out of the starting block on my talk page at User talk:Willondon#Potters House Edits. Further battleground mentality led me to post two cautions on their talk page regarding rearranging the order of the article's talk page discussion to their liking (User talk:Wcwarren#Please stop rearranging talk page sections). After reaching what I feel is consensus achieved on the talk page, I restored the status quo, and they immediately reasserted their edit [119], with the edit summary "This issue is far from resolved and the edit should not have been reversed". They seem to interpret WP:BRD as meaning their edit cannot be reverted without discussion (which was initiated on the talk page by another editor), and that "consensus" means lengthy debate until everybody agrees that they are correct. I still have not received an answer as to whether their initial post on my talk page [120] was a mistake or not. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment:This isn’t the first time Wcwarren has used homophobia and racism. He removed reliably sourced information from Rick Ross on the basis that he was Jewish and a homosexual and therefore unreliable [121] [122] and called Ross’ material “Christian hate speech and propaganda” [123]. He also failed to assume good faith with me on my talk page simultaneously with Willondon [124]. When I tried to engage in discussion with him, he accused me of being “oppositional to this organisation and its correct representation on Wiki” and not making correct and useful changes [125]. He noted that I had acknowledged something in a discussion I lodged, then immediately stated no discussion had been made [126]. He has accused others of creating a hostile environment, when all editors appear to get along fine, with the exception of wcwarren [127]. He has accused me of deleting reliably sourced information that he has provided, yet will not show what the RS’s are [128]. He is attempting to remove criticisms of the organisation from the lead and hand-waving them away as insignificant [129] [130] [131] while at the same time claiming the organisation does “tremendous good” without providing RS to support his claims [132]. Historically, he has edited disruptively on this page [133] and others [134] [135]. He has deleted reliably sourced information that criticised the organisation [136] [137] [138] [139] [140], added personal opinion [141] [142], and attacked editors who opposed him [143] [144] [145] [146].𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 03:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Has this account done anything in the past 12 years other than promote this organization? Shocked they made it this far. Blocked indefinitely—part for tendentious editing, part because hate is disruptive. Editors are welcome to have whatever personal views they have, including homophobia, but once they start accusing others of things based on their sexual orientation, that creates an unhealthy environment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, those comments about Rick Ross explains a lot. I wondered why he brought up my sexual orientation all of a sudden, when none of us hadn't mentioned the churches stance on homosexuality, and the disputed content in the lead didn't mention it either. Those comments are over a decade old, but some things just never change. Now I get it, he did the same thing to me he did to Ross, trying to discredit me and my editing because I'm gay. Thanks for digging those comments up. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No problems. I'm very sorry that you had to go through that. Have a great rest of the day. :) 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 04:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Talk:Bill Gates

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

---

Tried twice to report at page protection, but the reports would not publish. Recent vandalism is from multiple accounts in a single IP range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have semiprotected that talk page for one week due to recent disruptive activity. Surprisingly, given Gates' high profile for decades, especially during the COVID pandemic, disruptive editing of that talk page has mostly been manageable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Extremely uncouth and rude behavior by User :84.71.180.129

Special:Contributions/84.71.180.129 made disruptive edits and unprofessional remarks in 2023 Nigerien crisis. See User talk:84.71.180.129 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Nigerien_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1169311713

Borgenland (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

H 84.71.180.129 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Borgenland, I have blocked the IP for edit warring and warned another editor likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I’d like to clarify though that User:Clyde H. Mapping was the one who first spotted the other user’s shenanigans and corrected them based on what was the consensus. As such I believe warning them was a misunderstanding Borgenland (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to warn everyone of a possible sockpuppet User:Thiswaybd. Made the same edits as the same time with the blocked IP. See: User talk:Thiswaybd. Borgenland (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1169313669 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1166648691 Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Obvious persistent vandalism by User:Thiswaybd

This is to urgently notify revered Adminatrators that obvious persistent vandalism has been going on the following article pages: 2023 Nigerien crisis, Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra by User:Thiswaybd. I have previously warned them on their talk page to stop but they insisted with recent vandalism on Biafra article page which l reverted and it's occurs to me that they will continue to remove contents from other Wikipedia pages without clarifications or reasons as they did to 2023 Nigerien crisis only if they are not appropriately and adequately sanctioned.

Thanks for your swift actions. 1st Contributor (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's clearly sock/meatpuppetry going on right now with these articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to compile a SPI report, but a CU does need to have a look to see if these accounts are connected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, @RickinBaltimore, you closely right. That may be a sock. I can't do them anything. 1st Contributor (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@1st Contributor, you're required to notify the other party as soon as you make a report here. See the red-boxed notice at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}} (talk) to do this.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Already done, I also filed a separate complaint Borgenland (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland Thanks for helping out. It was a mistake on my part for not notifying them. @A. B. It's done already! 1st Contributor (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, 1st Contributor turned out to be a sock themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's weird, they had been reverting bad edits over the past few days in Biafra made by the accounts they reported. Borgenland (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Read his case and it doesn't seem to make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UniBrill/Archive Borgenland (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Delfield not assuming good faith

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was introduced to the Juan Branco article a few weeks ago via RfC and have attempted to use my experience on BLP to help. The article has been inundated with sock puppet, single purpose accounts, and even a person claiming to be Juan Branco. Delfield is an editor who has only been active on the Juan Branco article over the last six months and has strong opinions about the subject.

On July 17th Delfield accused me of POV pushing.[147]

At the time there were editors making tons of mass changes to the article. So I figured it was a mix up so I approached Delfield about the accusation on his TALK.[148] The editor never responded.

Over the last week, @Southdevonian made a few good faith changes to the article. Delfield undid most of them and when I asked for those changes to discussed in TALK there was another accusation of POV pushing,[149], gaslighting[150], siding with sockpuppets[151], lying[152], and not acting in good faith.[153]

Delfield has been asked multiple times to stop casting aspersions and apparently the advice is being ignored. The latest comment now accuses another good faith editor of POV pushing.[154] This editor apparently cannot edit this article and assume good faith with the others editors attempting to help. Nemov (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I came to this article about a week ago because it included a reference to Salah Abdeslam, an article I have been editing. I had never heard of Branco or Griveaux, etc. I thought it needed a clean-up, especially in the references section and some odd-sounding English ("intimate relation" for sex in the context of a rape accusation for example). It was obvious from the article history that there had been a lot of arguing between on the one hand Branco and his sockpuppets, who had just been banned, and on the other two single purpose - or almost single purpose - accounts Delfield, Ebtpmus, and one account that in the last six months, apart from approx 1,500 edits on mathematics, has only contributed to Juan Branco D.Lazard (I do not know if any of these accounts have been investigated for sockpuppetry). Branco was trying to promote himself while the 3 others were doing the opposite. Parts of the article appeared to have degenerated into slagging him off and I abridged those parts (although most of what I took out consisted of superflous refs). I have no POV to push. Obviously there has been some serious rift between the parties in the past but Branco's Wiki page is not the place to settle accounts. I have been knocked sideways by the venom on the Talk page and the unprovoked personal abuse aimed at me by Delfield because they did not understand the British/American English question [155] and again, accusing me of "neocolonialism" after I had asked them to stay civil.[156] [157] And I don't particularly like being called a POV pusher especially as I have been trying to inject a little neutrality into the article. Southdevonian (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Delfield for 24 hours as a result of the ANEW report. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel CaseThanks for your response, but the edit warring was kind of s separate issue. I brought this here to address the continued WP:ASPERSIONS by this user that needs to be addressed as well. Since you've moved forward with a block I would like a warning to assume good faith. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See what I just wrote at ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That's perfect. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure all this is anywhere productive and a good use of our time.

Yes @Delfield has been uttering accusations in an irritated tone and that is not really appropriate. And has openly accused @Nemov of not editing in good faith. While I have repeatedly called for keeping things civil, and genuinely believe all that ire isn't productive, I must also say that if find your position sometimes quite surprising @Nemov : there were multiple calls to refrain from edit wars, to align on the talk page etc. Including by you.

At the same you have never engaged on the content, reverted (or supported reversion) of what I find to be reasonable changes that were proposed and more or less aligned on the talk page, endorsed changes by @Southdevonian that were not discussed on the talk page. While many / most of these were useful, some others were less appropriate or even factually incorrect. (See discussions on the talk page). Yet as you have never engaged on the content nor explained your rationale for backing up / refusing specific changes, I also can understand the frustration of Delfield. Ebtpmus (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

user:Lion127890

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

---

• (1)Lion127890 (talk · contribs) uploaded a huge number of images of unknown provenance to Wikipedia. A bot tagged them.
  • IMO they must be nuked by single admin decision. (As I see user:Explicit deleted half of them) Filing several dozen deletion requests is beyond by will.

• (2) Then they added irrelevant images to some pages (reverted):
  • here with false caption
  • Here a joke
  • They dis the same in Knucker and some others a while ago. - Altenmann >talk 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• (3)This account also edited the user page of another user. Sock?
  • 07:22, May 20, 2023 diff hist +42‎ User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Fish ‎ →‎Selachimorpha thank
  • 07:21, May 20, 2023 diff hist −42‎ User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Dinosaurs ‎ →‎Primitive Ornithischians thank Tag: Manual revert

Please do something with this frolicking. - Altenmann >talk 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann, you're required to notify the other party as soon as you make a report here. See the red-boxed notice at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}} (talk) to do this.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S., great use of "frolicking".

Done. - Altenmann >talk 14:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann They are indeed a sock, see c:Category:Sockpuppets of Muzzonakhaled. The corresponding SPI here is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dranorter127, they're evading enwiki blocks on Dranorter127, Darkmoons127, Dinosaursroar127809 and Masonthetrex127 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So?... - Altenmann >talk 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They can be blocked as a sockpuppet and the mess of files can be G5'd when an admin has the chance to look at this. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

MrOllie's open hostile behavior

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

---

MrOllie waging an edit war on the D4DJ article, first deleting a section because it is based on a "crap source" and then thwarting attempts to recover the text to replace the disputed source with a source request, arguing that any information without a source must be deleted, ignoring any attempts to convey to him that I am restoring the text to try to find another source or give another opportunity to do so. The very first cancellation was generally made almost instantly, although I indicated the reason in the comment and did not even have time to remove the source due to the edit conflict. I just don't understand the user behavior pattern. I have no problem deleting a source if it's really bad, but the user seems to be pre-programmed for confrontation, not giving me even the slightest opportunity to put a source request or find another one. This is the first time I've seen him, but the nature of the topics on his talk page left me with the impression that this wasn't his first conflict, although he tried to taunt me with my bans when I pointed out that lightning-fast cancels and interfering with attempts to put in a source request created a conflict. where it could be done without. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

By way of response I'll just point out the final warning Solaire got last time they were at ANI, which you can find at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Civility_and_claims_of_harassment_by_User:Solaire_the_knight. - MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that in this way you refuse in any way to justify the edit war you started and attempts to prevent me from putting a source request, arguing that information with a source request should be deleted instantly as unsoursed? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To actually address the substance, the source was know your meme, which is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP for being user generated; "crap source" appears to be correct. Without a usable source it was appropriate to remove it, per WP:V; Solaire should not have been trying to restore it without first finding a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But I restored it just to put a source request while I'm looking for a better one. If the user really cared about this and explained to me the reasons for including the source in dubious and did not wage an edit war even for trying to put a source request while I was looking for a better one, then there would be no conflict at all. Without any context, "crap source" just sounded like a rude mentor tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But MrOllie is correct. They removed something due to a bad and unreliable source, and per WP:BURDEN you need to provide an inline reliable source if you choose to reinstate it. You do not reinstate it with a Citation Needed, but only with an actual reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What then is the point of this source request? And what prevented the user from helping to resolve this issue, and not immediately starting an edit war with cold accusations and threats of blocking, if he could simply explain the rules? The first undo was done literally less than a minute after my edit. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You've been here 8 years now, that's more than enough time for you to be aware of the core policies of the site, especially when you've been informed of them on your talk page previously. All editors should be aware of our core policies. Additionally no you edit war when you reinstate an edit of yours after another user has removed it. You should be excruciatingly aware of what constitutes edit warring and how it's defined by now with the amount of warnings you've received about it, not to mention the blocks. This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You assume that all this time I was an active user of this section, while I worked in another language section, appearing here only occasionally. And I never even thought that sections could be THAT MUCH different in the most basic rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Then it is on you to learn the policies and guidelines of this language's Wikipedia and, when pointed to them, to read them, instead of claiming ignorance of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but how was I supposed to assume that the various language sections differ so much even in the most basic rules? Especially when such conflicts have not arisen before? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules doesn't explain why you made one up to restore your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What rule have I made up here? The user removed the text due to the source by writing to me on the discussion page about the rules. I've restored the text, implying in the comment that if they don't like the source, they can delete it by putting in a source request instead of deleting it right away. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You just explained the rule that you made up (in order to ignore the rule that the editor has pointed out to you). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What? I did not refer to any specific rules and simply suggested a possible solution to the situation. I didn't refer to any invented rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you continue to plan to simply repeat the same diff several times to accuse me, ignoring my answers, then in the future I will simply ignore your remarks as persecution. I didn't create this thread to make it personal and dueling with anybody. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely intend to do just that, until you acknowledge what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My first guess regarding the speed of the revert would be that an edit adding a citation of Know Your Meme popped up under one of the filters available on Recent Changes, such as Likely bad faith or likely has problems or such. I'm not terribly familiar with those filters but I also know that things popping up on those filters are some of the fastest reverted edits on this platform. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any filters messages. Moreover, this text was in the article for a month or a half and no one had any problems with it, so I did not even think that removing it could be such a big problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight Saying MrOllie first delet[ed] a section is borderline deceptive. It was actually first deleted by Miraclepine, and then restored by you. You accuse them of waging an edit war when both of you have hit 3 reverts today by my count. Crap source is a pretty loud claim but Know your Meme is...well... a pretty crap source.

I would call this a content dispute or edit war but I think it actually is about you and MrOllie. The fact that you completely left out the part where someone else deleted the section first and you restored it, really makes me wonder where this is coming from. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention them as they only made one edit and their whole stance was that the source is bad. I have no complaints about them. This was not a conflict until MrOllie interfered. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You didn't mention Miraclepine because you ignored what they said in their edit summary (about WP:KNOWYOURMEME). M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignored? I literally removed the link to this source after restoring the text. In turn, you ignore that I have no problems with the sources, if it is bad, then it is bad. But I was not even allowed to put a source request. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You do know we can see the edit history of the article yes? Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How is your question related to my answer? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You stated that you removed the source after you restored the revert by Miraclepine, when the edit history shows quite clearly you didn't do that until after restoring it again later from MrOllie's removal. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you ignored what Miraclepine said to you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite Solaire's claim to the contrary above, we have crossed paths recently, notably at Talk:RationalWiki#Recent_edits_to_lead. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This dispute was a month ago and I even removed the article from my watchlist, but now I remember you. In that article, you also started a pointless edit war in a situation that could have been resolved much faster and in a much more peaceful way. If I remembered you, I wouldn't even touch your edit because of the potential for another pointless argument. Which is expected and happened. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight, I suggest that your best course of action at this point is to affirm that in the future you will not add content to articles without citing a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I even didn't mean to, I just wanted to TEMPORARILY restore the text with the source request so that either I find a good source myself, or another user did it after seeing the request before me. If I knew that even this would cause such a conflict, I would not even think about restoring the text, my nerves are dearer to me. But if it's needed, I promise. For all this time, I just found out today that there are some claims to this source. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a more serious problem here than just trying to use Know Your Meme as a source. Look at this edit in June, and compare it with the cited KYM source. There are many "facts" in that edit that are not verified by that KYM source (even if it was an RS, which it isn't): "catchy," "have become quite popular internet memes," "often known even to people outside of fans of the brand or anime viewers as such", and "due to the fact that users found the idea of ​​​​combining innocent animation with an added rude title funny." That's most of the paragraph, and it seems like WP:OR. Trying to use KYM as a source is bad enough, making stuff up is worse, edit warring to keep it in (1, 2, 3, 4) is even worse, and (at least) two more edit warring episodes since a final warning? Indef time. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a pretty obvious fact for anyone who is a fan of this game or even knows something superficially about it. But then again, instead of dry references to the rules and threatening me with blocks, what prevented me from simply explaining how I can solve this situation if they or you think that I don’t know the rules? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand why you need to restore the text before you have a source for it. That's the entire problem here. It was removed as having a poor source, therefore should not be restored "while you find a source." Flat-out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I temporarily restored the text, so that later I either replaced the request with a new source, or someone, having seen the request, did it himself. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN quite clearly says should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, if you don't yet have a source leave it until you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're spot on THTFY (that ok?) regarding the cause of the content dispute. {{cn}} is a finnicky tag with somewhat unclear use scenarios and I think the best option is to not use it outside of drafts. @Solaire the knight Especially after someone else re-removed the content, it would have been easier for everyone if you just copied the statement to your sandbox and worked to find the source. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know such a feature existed and no one even tried to advise me to solve it this way. Canceling with the word "crap" in a comment, which I know to be a rude word, completely distracted me and I got bogged down in an argument with a user whose behavior I thought was hostile for no reason. But if you think about it now, then yes, this is probably the most reasonable way to solve the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is your response to the editor who pointed out the rule to you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this is the fourth time you've been repeating the same diff to pressure me and ignoring my attempts to respond (and you even openly admit that you are doing it on purpose to put pressure on me), I'm honoring my promise above and starting to ignore any of your lines as persecution and confrontational. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They are factual (backed by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Writing the statement first and then working to find a source is completely backwards. First find the source, then summarize it. Don't write what you think you know, or think is obvious, and then try to find a source that backs it up (or, worse, add a CN tag and hope someone else finds a source to back up what you think you know). Levivich (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not try to shift the burden of responsibility for the source to someone else in this way. Just temporarily restored with a request that the text not be removed as original research without a source, and also to show that I removed the source that was called problematic. My words about obviousness were a response to the statement that the request is supposedly used when the information is correct, but requires a source. Why are any of my words here interpreted against me, even when I try to politely explain the logic of my actions?! In any case, okay, I stopped returning text before even making the request here, certainly not restoring it without a new source, if those are the rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you restored the edit and the source and made up a rule in the process (shifting the burden on the editor to add a cn tag). M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I have indeffed for disruptive editing, edit warring, unacceptable sourcing, and refusing to heed warnings and earlier blocks. At this point, they'll have to convince the community or an administrator that they understand the issues with their editing and will remedy them before they can resume editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

Is a WP:BOOMERANG applicable here? I don't think we are going to resolve anything here with more back-and-forthing in a 1vX discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noted above that I have indeffed. They have a history of blocks for edit warring, and a talk page full of warnings for disruptive editing. Combined with the lack of understanding shown here, I figured they need to demonstrate that they understand the problems with their editing and that their behavior will change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting advice and suitable resolution

• Non-co-operative user:

Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Contesting user:

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

• Article under discussion Harapanahalli, article history, Talk:Harapanahalli

• Dif's of re addition of contested MOS:PUFFERY content in infobox without providing WP:RS sources: 1, 2, Removed even citation needed template.
• Slow but continued edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING contesting user without providing WP:RS, did not join to resolve dispute in spite of messages at Talk:Harapanahalli, User talk:Darshan Kavadi, WT:INB#Harapanahalli - Karnataka - requesting attention

• Failure to provide WP:RS for contested MOS:PUFFERY content though WP:Onus is @Darshan Kavadi's responsibility, also fails WP:NOINDICSCRIPT consensus which states ".. Avoid the use of Indic scripts (non-Latin scripts) in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. ..".

Content dispute details

@Darshan Kavadi (almost single purpose account) adds Kannada language words "ವಿದ್ಯಾಸಿರಿ ನಾಡು" (Transliteration: Vidyasiri Nadu (Land of rich education/Best Education etc) According to contesting user SJanakiPSusheela It's actually local media sobrequet, hence undue) to the article Harapanahalli in info box 'other_name' without providing reliable source as per WP requirement plus has slow edit warred with contesting user almost since June 24th. @ WP:RPPI contesting user requested increase in page protection but got declined with either AIV or ANI solution. Since I came across the message @ WP:RPPI attempted to mediate with @Darshan Kavadi at article talk then at user talk page asking to support the change with reliable source. Not only there is a lack of expected response, but Kavadi reinserted contested change and removed citation needed template put by me. @SJanakiPSusheela is technically correct in following MOS:PUFFERY and deleting unsourced content. Though the route of AIV or ANI is always available; I was not sure to do the same for relatively small issue with a relatively novice user. After lack of response @ WT:INB too raising the issue here.

Requesting advice and suitable resolution

Bookku (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely until they are able to convince us that their repeated addition of unsourced material will stop and also that they understand V/RS issues. Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs

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

---

Pek has been creating a long list of low-quality stub pages over a period of months, many of which have already been deleted as unfit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and which tend to suffer from poor sourcing (occasionally falling afoul of WP:MEDRS), unencyclopedic content, or lack of content suitable for a standalone article. Pek does not tend to continue improving the pages long after creating them, leaving them as poor-quality stubs that other editors must then deal with.

I asked last month if they might consider a voluntary six month break from creating new pages, which they declined: User talk:Pek#Voluntary page creation restriction? As a result, and seeing how the behavior is continuing, I think it's worth considering an involuntary restriction. Here is a complete list of new pages created by Pek since June (excluding redirects):

• 8 August, Bodily weapon: Only just now created, probably ought to be redirected to Hand-to-hand combat or similar
• 9 July, Most effective tactics available: Deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most effective tactics available)
• 21 June, Caffeine-induced psychosis: Stub that likely ought to be merged to Stimulant psychosis
• 18 June, Okichitaw (martial arts): Draftified due to insufficient citations, not edited since
• 17 June, Aim trainer: Draftified by me, then G7 deleted at Pek's request
• 17 June, Height dysphoria: Transformed into a redirect due to serious WP:MEDRS issues, subsequently recreated by Pek, requiring substantial editing by Writ Keeper to address sourcing issues and apparent OR
• 17 June, Murder weapon: Deleted via PROD
• 17 June, Transmaxxing: Deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmaxxing), serious sourcing issues
• 15 June, Fever dream (sleep physiology): Draftified by me, then G7 deleted at Pek's request

The behavior goes back further, but I'm stopping here for brevity's sake. Other articles Pek has created and which have required intervention by other editors to delete, draftify, or redirect include Study partner, Pineapple boat, Intercourse denial, Dye transfer inhibitor, Pureed diet, Thematic tournament, Ghost website, Monkey slavery, Trackside telephone, and Roof collapse. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. 1st I'm going to address this; "Pek does not tend to continue improving the pages long after creating them, leaving them as poor-quality stubs that other editors must then deal with." The whole point of me creating entry-level articles, is because I don't have the expertise of these topics, so I'm creating them in hope that someone who actually knows about the topic to come and edit them. I usually prefer to create completely new article in better hope, that it will be more detailed, than in situation where I would add content to already existing article, which I also do sometimes. You didn't include here that I also recently edited the Animal suicide article, where I added new subtitle, with content in it and references too. This list you made, seems like personal attack against me, and you are mainly focusing on most poorest articles. Why don't you mention here mental illness denial or perhaps plant blindness, or even Lost Ark. You are solely focusing on everything bad I'v done. I'v done a lot of good work too. This list of yours is very biased, and I'm not sure why you are attacking against me. --Pek (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, what was wrong with fever dream? I listed like 6 or 7 references to it, which all seemed like good sources. It just seems like someone doesn't like me and start deleting my creations. Fever dream should have never been deleted or even "draftified". --Pek (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue with simply creating stubs — the issue is when the stubs are so poor quality that they suck time from other editors who have to handle serious MEDRS and other concerns. As for the "biased" list, it is a complete list of all articles you created since the beginning of June (as I stated). I've linked to your full page creation log so that other editors can get a more complete view of your contributions. As I said above, many of the pages have been deleted, and they tend to suffer from poor sourcing — that is not to say that all of the pages are this way, it's just such a high percentage that I am concerned about the net benefit to the project.

Regarding fever dream, I only deleted it per your request, so it is weird that you now say it "should have never been deleted". As for why I draftified it, sources from multiple mattress companies, meditation apps, Healthline (deprecated as a MEDRS, see WP:RSP#Healthline), and popsci websites like MentalFloss are far below what is required for sourcing on medical topics, so I draftified it to allow you the opportunity to bring it up to those requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How exactly am I suppose to know which websites are acceptable and which not, there are literally billions of websites out there, and Google search gives results to all of them, without any way to only access "trusted" websites. I don't even understand why those websites that you listed aren't allowed. Fever dream maybe is somewhat a medical topic, but it is still important to write those articles in words that even child would understand, so why popsci websites aren't allowed? Because the writers don't have medical background, is that it? There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about somewhat medical topics that don't always have the best websites, yet mine are targeted for some reason. Also, isn't there a way to make a website banned, so that it's impossible to use that website as reference. Why aren't these websites banned then, if nobody is allowed to use them? --Pek (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Pek: How exactly am I suppose to know which websites are acceptable and which not there's WP:MEDRS right there. You can also find custom google searches that filter, but acting like you have no choice or discretion in how to research subjects properly is admitting you have a competence issue. People have been giving you tons of feedback for months now, judging by the your talk page—you simply haven't taken any of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll also throw Penile dysmorphic disorder onto GW's list of things that required significant axing. I tried to redirect it to Body dysmorphic disorder, even using the one valid source to add a line to that article to forestall the inevitable complaint about the target not mentioning the redirect, but that didn't fly, with the expected and now-invalid complaint, so, having already dealt with this user's transmaxxing and height dysphoria, I gave up and at least chopped the article down to what the lone decent source actually says (i.e., that penile dysmorphic disorder isn't a thing on its own). Not to repeat what David Fuchs correctly says above, but if a user can't tell whether a source is good or not, they shouldn't be creating articles; Pek has gotten plenty of guidance on the subject, and I guess hasn't absorbed it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pek: The issue from what I can gather here is not that you're creating stubs, it's that you're choosing topics that shouldn't have articles in the first place and creating stubs around that. Look, I get it, finding the truly important topics that don't already have articles is tough, but from what I can see reviewing the long list of articles you've created, fall almost entirely into two categories:

1. Topics that are best covered by expanding existing articles on very closely related topics rather than creating a new article about them, or even are simply alternative names for topics that already exist as articles
2. Topics that, frankly, seem like bullshit you (or someone else) just made up and are not even real things.

Seriously Pek, take this as a word of advice: Looking at the sheer number of now-deleted, redirected, and should-be-deleted-or-redirected articles you have created in the past few months, stop creating articles. Instead, when you find something interesting Wikipedia is missing, try to find an existing article that could be expanded with that information. Instead of asking yourself "Should I create a 1 or 2 sentence stub about this topic?", instead say "What article could most benefit from 1 or 2 additional sentences of information?". --Jayron32 17:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Beyond Jayron32's sound advice -- and the advice you've had from a number of other editors -- if, as you say, you don't have the expertise to gauge the difference between a good source and a bad one, and you don't have the expertise to expand articles with meaningful content, then the answer appears that you are not yet ready to edit Wikipedia at all. Ravenswing 22:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pek, there are two ways this will possibly go. One, you voluntarily agree to stop creating articles for 6 months, contribute to article development, showcasing expertise in developing articles already created by others to some acceptable level of reading, or even Good Articles if you want to try your hand at it (if possible but not required, but will be a good way to prove the lot otherwise). The second way is that we initiate a community long term ban on you from any area of article creation, which will look off once it goes through (if it goes through). You seem to be a sensible editor, who is unfortunately off the track. Take the voluntary path, in my opinion, and we close this chapter here. What do you say? Lourdes 10:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I agree. --Pek (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  But what about drafted articles? Am I allowed to do those? --Pek (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Only as long as you are not the one who has created them, you are allowed to add material that is reliably sourced (you have good pieces of advise above on how to understand both non-med and medrs. Feel free to reach out to any of us if there is still confusion on that. I am archiving this section more to save your tenure here than anything else. Thanks for your voluntary acceptance. Lourdes 11:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Kshatriya Yoddha comments on talk page

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

---

Hello, I want to file a report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha, who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Kshatriya Yoddha indefinitely blocked by Abecedare for WP:BATTLEGROUND + WP:IDHT + gross incivility [w/ link to the above-reported comments]. FWIW, in the future the correct board to report stuff like this is right here at WP:ANI, duplicate reports at WP:AN are unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Luis Elizondo gross BLP violations

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

---

I began editing with this account while following various rabbit holes. I have edited on and off for years--I cannot point to an IP, my home internet is dynamic and changes constantly. I finally made an account. Most of the policies are not exactly unfamiliar after reading this site for two decades, and there's nothing quick Googling can't teach.

Luis Elizondo had a bizarre line of text up front that said he "claimed" to work for some government department. I wasn't sure how someone would be labeled as a "claim" for employment, so I clicked on the article for NBC News. It (and other sources) outright say he worked for that department, AND a Pentagon/Department of Defense statement ALSO said he worked for them. Which is... authoritative?

So I made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

I began then going out of curiosity source by source and sentence by sentence and found that almost everything was either a total fabrication or odd denigration of this person. I reread the BLP stuff (it had been years) and realized this article was out of bounds. I began methodically small edit by small edit fixing the article, referencing every single change and why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&action=history

User:Hemiauchenia then unilaterally began to "edit war" and undid ALL my edits, calling them ALL trash, and said my opinions do not matter because they have "more edits" than I do.

I did a BLP noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo

Then another user came and restored the BLP violations a fourth time.

Finally, I clicked on "what links here" and found users organizing to do things to the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo

I don't care about whatever 'woo' UFO stuff. I edited the article to reflect JUST what the sources said and removed the odd criticisms that were not criticisms and random trivia about other people who were not the subject. The entire thing read like some sly "make this person look bad and/or crazy" spin and was totally not neutral and seemed to violate BLP.

They restored all the bad BLP violations and then refused to engage, leaving the disparaging version up instead of the stripped down neutral one I had made. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@My name is not Alexander Hamilton: How many different pages are you going to drag this to? Right now I see discussions, started by you, at Talk:Luis Elizondo, WP:BLP/N, WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP/I, User talk:Yoshi24517, and User talk:Hemiauchenia. Pick a venue and stick to it; don't throw everything, everywhere, all at once and expect anyone to actually make an effort to follow the conversation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just know WP:BLP says to nuke violations from orbit and now multiple editors are fighting with me to keep BLP violations and negative tone on that article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN: where it has become apparent that the issue is more complex than My name is not Alexander Hamilton suggests, and that their mass edits may have added problematic possibly-WP:BLP-violating content as well as removing it. I suspect it would probably be in everyone's best interests to close this WP:ANI discussion, and continue on the noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I must address claims I added "BLP violations". I cited NBC News who said he was in a certain role with the Pentagon. This is by two veteran NBC News reporters, stated by them as fact in print. Some editors here seem to dispute their reporting. I cited the source correctly and saw no reason to challenge two NBC reporters or perform additional validation of their reporting.

Is it within our scope to fact check news articles and reporters for minor details like "Mr. Smith worked at XYX?"

That's literally what the conflict is.

I welcome uninvolved parties moving this to whatever venue is appropriate. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't get to cherry-pick sources like that. And this isn't even remotely a 'minor detail'. That is an utterly absurd claim to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Jadidjw

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

---

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

Jadidjw was recently blocked for edit warring at Hazaras (see the report here [158]), where they attempted to remove sourced information, and during an ongoing discussion a that ([159]). They failed to explain their actual reasons behind it, other than that they were fixing an "error", whatever that error is, they've yet to say. This attempt at justification can be seen in their unblock requests too [160] [161], where they bizarrely accused me of being the one to remove said sourced information, and not him. Though I assume that wasn't the intention (?) as they later contradicted themselves with even more confusing comments. In other words, probable WP:CIR issues at the very least.

Anyways, right after their block expired, they started removing sourced info at Hazaras right off the bat [162], even justifying their previous attempts here [163]. Note that back in 2021 they also got blocked for edit warring in yet another attempt at altering sourced information in the same article [164].

EDIT: They just attempted to remove it again, under a rather dishonest edit summary "Added information+source, fixed source errors, and modified the Gallery"

See also their ongoing SPI report that was created last month (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad.). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Any chance they're also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#HazaraHistorian 208.87.236.201 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I doubt it - particularly due to their completely different English skills. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems I need glasses, they altered a quote from a source, not sourced info. While Jadidjw certainly not has been cooperative and vague regarding his edits, this one is on me, and they may actually be on to something time. Guess I'll find out in the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Report of disruptive user MrOllie

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

---

User "MrOllie" is gatekeeping the editing process and harassing other users with excessive and unwarranted reverts, which could be seen as acts of vandalism in some cases.

See user edits and comments history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

Please help contain this. Thanks!

RRR3MU5 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet another meritless complaint. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption at List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes

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

---

It looks like one IP range was blocked in April, and another has since carried the torch. May be ripe for page protection/further user sanctions. But the current status of constant revert, rinse and repeat is kind of silly. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been constantly removing the vandalism on the page only for it to be back in 1-2 days. TheActualDamnPeterGriffin (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 1 week. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Gorrrillla5 repeatedly violating WP:SD40

Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:SD40 since mid June ([165], [166], [167], [168], [169]). I might think that they weren't seeing the multiple messages I've left for them at their Talk page, but they've blanked their Talk page since I've left notices for them without otherwise interacting with my (or any other editor's) notifications[170], and recently blanked their page after I left them a final warning.[171]

While I acknowledge that it can be argued whether violating SD40 is a "big deal", simply disregarding multiple requests to adhere to it without any engagement on the matter doesn't seem especially appropriate. As such, I'm forced to ask that this user be blocked until they exhibit awareness that their behavior of not engaging with notifications while repeatedly engaging in the behavior that prompted the notifications is disruptive. Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Doniago (talk · contribs) talk page, I have been doing these types of edits for a very long while and I've never had any complaints before and have even been thanked for a couple of the edits. So I didn't really read these recent complaints as I didn't even realise what the problem was or how it was considered disruptive as it's the same thing I had been doing since the function to edit article descriptions was introduced. I will add that I NEVER make any contribution without a reliable source and only really add minor information, fix grammatical errors and add dates, I realise that these edits have only been deemed as "disruptive" only recently and so I won't do it anymore and I apologise that it had to come to this in the first place. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Gorrrillla5, can you please explain the connection between short descriptions and things like reliable sources, grammatical errors and dates? Do you understand the function of short descriptions? Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just mentioning my general editing contributions, and I thought the changes I was making to article descriptions was not disruptive at the time. In my understanding article descriptions are meant to be a very brief summary of the article's contents, I have seen many lengthy descriptions on various articles that in comparison mine are just adding very minor information, so I didn't really see what I was doing wrong. However I reiterate that I won't do it again, and again I apologise that it has come to this situation. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 06:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Gorrrillla5, please fix the typo in your signature that means your talk page is not accessible. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gorrrillla5: Just to be clear, the content issue is not a big deal at all, we don't punish good faith mistakes. However, communication is required, and those warnings are designed to escalate to a block if they are ignored. Also in general, users who appear unable or unwilling to engage in communication are blocked indefinitely even if they have not received warnings. I see you haven't been particularly talkative during your time here, but any time there is an issue, you need to communicate to resolve it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it now. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Incivility from User:BFDI2010

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

---

Aside from edit-warring with no intention of initiating TP discussions to come up with a consensus, I'd like to report BFDI2010 for the following edit summary 1:

If you hate this map, then 🖕🏿 This map shows where Albanian is majority and minority. The other map is nonsense...

I am pretty certain such edit summaries come under some sort of violation of Wiki policy, particularly the middle finger emoji. It's uncivil and unproductive, and it indicates that the user in question has no desire to come to a consensus or compromise. Disruptive edits from such users are always an inconvenience. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While looking at the contributions for BFDI2010 (talk · contribs) I see they posted at User talk:Flyer22 Frozen in July 2023 (repeated) and just now. Regardless of how one views the target user, those comments are indistinguishable from trolling. I'm inclined to indef and have BFDI2010 explain why they should be unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, John. Bishonen | tålk 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Exceptionally creepy edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

BFDI attracts a crowd that is exceptionally... well, I'll put it in less blunt terms than someone affiliated with the show put it to me once in a private setting, and just say a bit euphemistically, a crowd that is exceptionally ill-suited to edit a wiki-based encyclopedia. I doubt this user meant harm—at a minimum, Flyer's page genuinely is the first suggestion for "User:" on Vector '22—they're just not someone cut out to edit, not now, maybe not ever. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion nomination

Hello,

I request from the administrators to block the account Queenofboston because according to my analysis and an RCU, this user violated Wikipedia policies and has been requested to delete their content by other users. However, action on this user is not done yet. Kindly check and take action on this user.

• Requested for:Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish journalist
• Reason:This user's account falls multiple times under the nomination of speedy deletion.
• Reference link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Queenofboston#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Polish_journalist

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas098 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nicolas098: That looks like a boring, procedural speedy deletion nomination, which was actioned by Liz in June. Speedy deletion nominations do not necessarily mean a user did anything wrong. I've had one or two pages speedy-deleted over the years, for similar boring and procedural reasons. What user conduct policy do you feel has been violated? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nicolas098, creating "Category: Polish journalist" does not look like any sort of major offense to me. Can you please clarify? You are obligated to notify the other editor of this discussion. Since you have not done so, I have informed them myself. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While I'm in the neighborhood, Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention) for:

• filer Nicolas098 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• vs. Shanghaisun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

See Special:PageHistory/Abu Dhabi Secrets and obvious article-type overlaps in contribs. Guessing neither is the first account, but I'm rusty on the Gulf state sockfarms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Inconclusive. There is no IP overlap, but they are bouncing around on a ton of IPs, many of which are Spur-flagged (i.e. they could be proxies). Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe my account respects all Wikipedia policies. I take time to read and implement policies, especially if flagged to me. The user who suggested a speedy deletion did not indicate which policy my account would have infringed. Proposing pages or categories for speedy deletion is not an offense. I have proposed page(s) for speedy deletion myself. I made over 800 edits and explain every edit in the comment. I take time to improve pages if they lack citations or need updates. I believe I am a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and I act in full respect of Wikipedia policies. Queenofboston (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• So, I was a bit confused by Nicolas098's motive here, until I found [172] and [173], which explained why they would target Queenofboston. There is a history of stealth paid editing by Gulf states, including Qatar, and Nicolas and Shanghaisun's behavior is consistent with that. I've blocked both for UPE. If another admin or SPI clerk recognizes the farm, feel free to tag. Something should probably also be done about Abu Dhabi Secrets and Ahmad Al-Sayed. They were essentially created in violation of a block (any of many against various Qatar state actors), but don't meet the letter of CSD G5 unless a master is identified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics

At Zionism, race and genetics, discussion seems to have bogged down to the point that administrative assistance and advice is now necessary as to how to proceed.

The article was created by Onceinawhile on 8 July. It was immediately tagged for NPOV issues by Tombah (permabanned a week later from I/P articles) and. Drsmoo added a synth, followed by another factual accuracy tag two days later, and finally as an attack article and one that claimed it was essay-like. On 11 July jps proposed the article be deleted. After a week, this was closed as ‘no consensus’. Within a day, QuickQuokka opened a second AfD, which was immediately closed by Rosguill as a ‘blatantly disruptive’ re-nomination.

To address these issues, after the 18 bulleted objections raised by Drsmoo on 11 July had been answered (drsmoo admitted it had been significantly improved on 15 July), I asked the page permission to thoroughly rewrite, and expand the(in my view) stub, in order to make it conform to the strongest criteria for a wp article. Permission was conceded. Both I and the originator, Onceinawhile, have a record of writing GA/FA articles up from articles that had a long history of edit-warring and claims of POV-pushing. The title, which appears to upset many, remained as it was. It is based on an article written by the foremost Israeli historian of genetics, a geneticist himself, the late Raphael Falk Zionism, race and eugenics 2006 137–162

All tags were removed, as the rewrite progressed, save one regarding NPOV. On 7 August, the review had been completed. Onceinawhile removed the last remaining tag, and was immediately reverted by Drsmoo for what he called a tendentious removal. Selfstudier in turn reverted Drsmoo, removing the tag on the basis there was no longer any evidence of NPOV problems. Later Bobfrombrockley restored the tag, claiming that the talk page shows that several editors dispute the neutrality of the article. To avoid further edit-warring, both Drsmoo and Bobfrom Brockley were asked to list with bulleted examples the issues regarding NPOV which they still consider outstanding, individually here and . here. Drsmoo also made a threat of AE action unless the tags remained, twice accused (see also here) Onceinawhile of a WP:COI problem, an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work, and asserted editors were engaged in bludgeoning behaviour for insisting (in the context of that thread) that remaining issues be listed so that the article might be finished. .

Though I personally consider much of this a serious case of stonewalling and much of the thread negotiations an example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, I am not interested in sanctions here. I simply ask that the two editors, Drsmoo and BobfromBrockley, who insist on the tag remaining, do editors the courtesy of providing a bulleted list of issues regarding NPOV they consider unaddressed, even after a month's intensive reworking to fix such issues. The talk page is stalled on this, no requests are answered, and administrative guidance is the only remaining option. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Is there a reason you linked to me for this discussion? I'm not sure there is much I can add. I still think that the article title and proposed scope is problematic and stand by my evaluation that AfD was an appropriate response to an article that should have been (and, in my quick glance judgement right now, still should be) workshopped in draft space. While I am a little disappointed that more hasn't been done to address that concern, this does not seem to be the focus of this complaint. jps (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No. I mentioned you en passant to help admins with an overview of how this issue came about, mentioning key points. I'm only interested in resolving the impasse as it exists now.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Right off the bat, no I did not make an “insidiously obscure allusion to private interests”. I called out Onceinawhile for removing a tag from an article he created, and cited the relevant essay that said those with conflicts of interest should not remove tags. As he created the article, I considered him to have a conflict of interest. This was clarified for Nishidani on the article’s talk page, and was also clarified to not be an issue by an admin on my talk page. That Nishidani persists in calling my edit “insidious”, imo, is highly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. Incidentally, my restoration of the tag was reverted by a different editor within seconds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169175788) Which I consider highly questionable and indicative of the pointy sticks environment in this talk page.

Another recent example where Nishidani has personally attacked editors who disagree with him on the talk page is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169058818, where Nishidani writes “It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote.”

Elsewhere Nishidani has bludgeoned the talk page with constant WP:Forum non sequiturs, (including meta comments on his own comments) which have bloated the talk page and made coalescing information and moving forward on resolving issues almost impossible. For an example from yesterday: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169352168 “ Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion. Just a banausic summary of an infra-Jewish controversy the broader public might be interested in.” Drsmoo (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think my work consistently reeks of personal attacks and other varieties of abuse, AE is the place. Here, input is required on a technical problem: the inability of constructive editors to ascertain why the article is an NPOV violation. I won't allow my desire for a solution to be distracted by bickering to personalise this problem.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not all that written there, it is the stonewalling, repeated requests by multiple editors that the supposed neutrality issues be spelled out and a failure to do so. Nor is this just a recent thing, I first raised this behavior on your talk page a month ago here.

When pressed, a couple of days ago, Here your response was You were specifically asked to show how multiple sources indicate that genetic studies on Jews inherit from race science which is just nonsense since no such assertion has been made and As was stated before, there is no subject here is a ridiculous restatement of a failed AfD argument, given the sourcing.

I get that you don't like the article but the need is to translate that dislike into something concrete, either by editing the article or else simply list out the concerns that justify maintaining a POV tag so that they can be dealt with, that's it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've been having the mostly unpleasant experience of watching what's going on at the page, and trying to help where I can. There's a lot that I could say here, but I'll focus on the issue of resolving what Nishidani expresses concern about. I think that, especially in light of how fraught the topic area is, most of the editors there are actually trying very hard to act in good faith. Most of the conflict is coming from, on the one hand, Drsmoo being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page, and not really answering questions in a way that other editors can be sure of what his concerns are, and, on the other hand, Nishidani taking everything personally and responding to any criticism of the page with personalized criticisms of the critic, and objections to any effort by other good-faith editors to brainstorm about things like renaming the page. At the same time, it's Nishidani who is doing most of the work in actually improving the page itself.

Nishidani asked recently, and quite reasonably, to have some time to work on fixing up the page, and it's been coming along nicely. I'm not sure, but it looks to me like the revisions are still ongoing. It seems to me to be reasonable to allow that editing to play out, with a healthy respect for WP:There is no deadline, before making decisions about things like a possible page rename. That being the case, I think that should be a two-way street. If it's too soon to evaluate a page move, then it's too soon to demand that the POV tag be removed from the page. (On the other hand, if it's time to remove the tag, then it's time to start a rename discussion. But I don't think that's where we are, right now.) Let the tag stay for a while longer. As a Contentious Topic where there's 1RR, take anyone who edit wars over the tag to AE. And at some point, Nishidani needs to say that the revisions are mostly done, and then allow other editors to evaluate where things are at without getting all WP:OWN about it. In the mean time, if Drsmoo or anyone else can articulate unaddressed concerns over POV, then editors should try to address them, and if no one understands what the concerns currently are, then just don't act on them now and don't argue about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't take things personally. I took a personal responsibility before all other editors to fix the page by a comprehensive rewrite. I announced my rewrite and review would end by Saturday 6th.August, four days ago. I keep tweaking, but the article is done. Save for the continuing insistence that a POV problem remains. That is why I think those who consider this is the case, should allow me and other editors to sight the putative issues, and fix them. These requests have been met with a refusal to collaborate. The tag must remain, who knows how long, regardless. Ergo this. The 'topic area is not fraught'. It hasn't been for some years, and this is not strictly I/P but an article surveying an infra-Jewish/Israeli debate, using overwhelmingly sources from that world. I don't own the article. Wikipedia does.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When you choose to open an ANI thread, you also open yourself up to editors looking at your conduct. I sincerely do appreciate the content work that you are doing on that page. I'll say to uninvolved editors reading here, that this response is very typical of the responses that I see on the article talk page: it's everyone else's fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

'It's everyone else's fault'. Diffs please.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

[174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm flummoxed. I can't see any evidence there that I think everyone else is at fault, that I have a blame mentality. Perhaps arbs can. I leave it to them. You did mention Drsmoo 'being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page'. Perhaps you could, as a reflection of neutrality, illustrate what you consider to be examples of that with an equivalent set of diffs.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless Nishidani thinks that I'm unfairly criticizing Drsmoo, which I doubt because Nishidani started this thread in part to object to Drsmoo's conduct, I'm not going to do an in-depth diff hunt, but I will show these two diffs to illustrate what I was thinking of in the specific context of heavy-handedness: [186], [187]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are not examples of heavyhandedness. They are legitimate edits by Drsmoo to the article, which others disagreed with. This is absolutely normal, and any disagreements arising from them are sorted out by discussion on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well it's an awful article. What are these Zionists that they talk of? Introductory stuff seems to start half way down. There probably is need for an article on race and genetics in Israeli identity, or something. This is a long way from anything decent though. Secretlondon (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: whilst harsh, your comment feels fresh and constructive. Is your main point that it is written in a technical way with a lot of assumed knowledge? If so, that is probably because - given the sensitivity here around such a topic - we have tried to keep very close to how the sources talk about it, and most of the sources are academics whose works are mostly read by other academics. We can start the process of making it more user-friendly, perhaps by following the style of something like Tanny, Jarrod (20 May 2013). "What 'Jews a Race' Debate Means for Israel". The Forward., an article by an academic writing for a popular audience, and in this case from a practical and pro-Israel stance. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Regular Vandalism by Marxist Economist

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

---

The user Marxist Economist is continuously vandalising pages and not paying any heed to warnings. I would request you all to kindly have a look at his contributions. Upon giving warning on his talk page he is blabbering. He says that I am senior, I joined Wikipedia before you, You are noone to serve me a warning and many things as you can see on his talk page. Despite repeated warnings the user continues to make biased edits. He continues to promote his own political stand on Wikipedia. Another fellow editors like CapnJackSp, XYZ 250706 and Dhruv edits have all served him notice before or after me. But he is not ready to act according to Wikipedia guidelines. I told him that if you don't stop I shall be forced to report your actions to admins. On this he said who are you to serve me a warning. I will warn against you. I would request the Wikipedia fraternity to kindly take due cognizance of this user. Warn him, serve him with a notice of block or whatever seems right to you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• When User:Chennai Super Kings Lover corrected a spelling in User:Marxist Economist's user page, Marxist Economist directly told the former person that who has given permission to edit his talk page. This does not maintain civility rule. Besides I saw him to say in User:Dhruv edits' talk page that he is former MLA and he has more experience. User Marxist Economist's mode of discussion and editing is combative in nature. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Our political affliction being different you must be trying to harm me. Marxist Economist (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to bring it to the notice of Wikipedia fraternity that this user @Marxist Economist just tried to vandlise my user page by writing- "This user is a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and had been convicted for Demolition of the Babri Masjid." I would request the fraternity to kindly act on him ASAP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Marxist Economist made an edit to Shaan Sengupta's user page claiming that the latter was a convicted criminal. That is unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I just blocked Marxist Economist for 24 hours because they kept removing this report. If anyone feels that this should be extended, please feel free to do so without consulting me (I'll be AFK for a few hours shortly anyway). Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• This userpage editing and these blankings feel like they won't help. CMD (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue indef given their blatant political POV pushing, something sadly not uncommon in Indian articles and talk pages. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Harry797

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

---

Somebody smoosh this. Pretty obviously only here for promotion. GMG^talk 11:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

IP vandal who brags about it

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

---

This IP has warnings on its talk page going back a month and a half for vandalism. I'm thinking maybe they have a static IP. Last warning they received, they replied "Vandalise? Its obviously a joke, I've done it with conservative pages too". They've received a 31 hour block previously, but they appear to not be moving from their current IP address so something longer might be in order. AlanS^talk 14:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS: Blocked by Courcelles. Clear-cut stuff like this can be reported at WP:AIV, where it will generally be actioned more quickly. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I blocked for a month. If similar disruption returns from that IP we can assume it is long term static and go longer. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Bluthmark

Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[188] The disruptive behavior continues.[189]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[190]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still[191] doing[192] it.[193] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

On 5 August 2023, you changed

• "vous" to "vois" in French personal pronouns[194]
• "In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in Spanish language[195]
• [[Urdu language|Urdu]] to [[Urdu language|Durdu]] in Official languages of the United Nations[196]

That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[197] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:The Rubettes

Could someone please look at the legal threat suggested in this edit. The article, on a 1970s English pop group, has for many years been the subject of conflicting edits by different factions associated with the group and its members, including many edits by Alan Williams, a group member. The latest threat by Mr Williams (self-identified) refers to a High Court order preventing the naming of several past members of the group (or another group trading under its name). Can someone experienced in such matters check it out? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be in relation to this (non-RS but covers the lawsuit). Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a year for making legal threats (it's a static IP, posting similar in January). The court case bars Richardson, Etherington and Clarke from using the Rubettes name. There is nothing whatsover to stop Wikipedia reporting that those three people previously performed under that name. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to hide the January edit summaries threatening legal action, too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:104.226.30.18#August_2023

As you can see from the Contribs page, this IP has a history of "revert and run" w/o engaging other editors or seeking consensus. Comments left in edit summaries suggest a working knowledge of policy, which leads me to believe this may be a sockpuppet. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the same person from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126#Revenge Edits by an IP, who was already blocked once for harassing/stalking you. Same topic, same articles, same behaviour. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Eryk Wdowiak at WP:BLPN

Eryk Wdowiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shellyne Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shellyne Rodriguez. User:Eryk Wdowiak has been making repeated references to "legal action against Wikipedia", "defamation" and contributors potentially being "a defendant in a court of law" in an attempt to force particular content into an article. Regardless of whether this is an explicit legal threat or not (regarding which, Eryk Wdowiak has already been notified of policy [198]) it is a clear and unambiguous attempt to intimidate contributors, in a context where careful consideration of a sensitive issue, rather than pseudo-legalistic bludgeoning is needed.

At minimum, I think Eryk Wdowiak needs an explicit warning that any further attempts to force through content in such a manner, and any further intimation that Wikipedia and/or its contributors may face legal action over this issue will result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As every mother teaches her child: "If you cannot say anything nice, then don't say anything at all."

Through his inclusion of defamatory material from the NYPost and his exclusion of beneficial material from other sources, DMacks has not said anything nice at all about Shellyne Rodriguez.

He has presented a narrative that he knows to be false. That is "defamation."

I suggest adherence to the biographies of living persons policy, which directs us to delete contentious materials. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That and your quotes are taken completely out of context. I am not threatening you. I am simply looking back to my experience in journalism and remembering the advice that my editors gave me. It's very simple: "If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the above comments, combined with article blanking, [199], I'd have to suggest that a block is now essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As every mother teaches her child: "If you cannot say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Further attempt at intimidation through legal jargon. [200]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, please quote me properly. That was journalism jargon. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Has also just broken WP:3RR. A Block appears unavoidable. MrOllie (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them from the article for disruptive editing, edit warring, and borderline legal threats. A site block may be warranted, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Stop non-admin closures at AN and ANI

This is an admin noticeboard. So, unless an OP wants to withdraw their own post, threads here should only be closed by an administrator. Administrators wanted the mop, the community should let them use it...Now, before someone chastises me for not doing it, how do I post a notice to every administrator's talk page at once to let them know there is a discussion here that involves them? 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific issue is this supposed to address? What evidence are you offering that there is any need for such a restriction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See any of the vast number of previous discussions on this page where an NAC was used. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of where a NAC proved sufficiently problematic as to justify the restriction you propose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is not necessary. Most closures are routine when a matter has been resolved. Occasional inappropriate closures are dealt with promptly. This is a solution in search of a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I probably need to notify all of the administrators first since this involves them. Do you know the shortcut I can use to post a notice on all of the administrators talk pages without having the make a separate edit for each one? 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And who are you the WP:LOUTSOCK of? RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No sock per se, but if you like, you can refer to me as the ANI Troll. I've trolled you before Rick...omm nomm nomm. Thanks for the food 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be considered canvassing, so, no. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)