Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Survey: corrected username
Line 488: Line 488:


===Survey===
===Survey===
{{archive top|result=Therapyisgood is banned from interacting with BeanieFan111 for one year. Besides the examples given in [[WP:IBAN]], they may not comment in discussions in which BeanieFan111 has already commented or nominate articles for deletion to which BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
{{archive top|result=Therapyisgood is banned from interacting with BeanieFan11 for one year. Besides the examples given in [[WP:IBAN]], they may not comment in discussions in which BeanieFan11 has already commented or nominate articles for deletion to which BeanieFan11 has contributed significantly. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
# Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11

Revision as of 17:32, 22 August 2023

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    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

    Article Rebecca Bradley (justice) edits

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

    I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd
    208.87.236.201 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just slink of – See WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (Corollary 1). EEng 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed spellcheks my post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

    User:The History Wizard of Cambridge has made about 3,000 edits over three years, during which time they have engaged in extensive WP:CPUSH behavior in favor of autocratic regimes. Their edits are almost exclusively in this area, and a large portion of these edits whitewash atrocities committed under communist states. This editor routinely finds technicalities, often quite tenuous, to remove any content that reflects poorly on China, Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Vietnam. For this discussion, I've listed some examples from the last two months, but this is behavior that persists throughout their editing history and more examples can be provided if needed.

    I'm aware of the high bar before POV pushing is sanctionable, but this is consistent and sustained, necessitating a restriction on editing subjects related to communism and communist states. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on David Ivon Jones so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
    I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being Trevor Carter and Billy Strachan. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
    Let's have a look at these cases individually.
    • Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the Việt Tân wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by Ngo Dinh Diem. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for Voice of America, since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider Russia today a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
    • Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
    • Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for The Black Book of Communism is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
    • Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
    • Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated (Donald Trump Jr. Kanye West, etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in The Washington Post (see here) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
    • Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
    • Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – I was read Ronald Grigor Suny's work Red Flag Unfurled (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide". I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and R. W. Davies, don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by Anne Applebaum at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
    • Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – A sentence in the wikipedia page for Cuba claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
    • Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
    • Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
    The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{page needed}} is for. Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.
    I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{page needed}} or {{verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. Folly Mox (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely assuming it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{page needed}} or {{verify source}} in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Books preview mode often won't display page numbers, though. Ostensibly so that you buy the book. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. Jagmanst (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt you will find that most editors agree with you; even THWoC has cited books without providing the exact location of the text in the book (back later today with sample). It's one thing to delete text that has long been tagged as needing a full citation (as in many years); quite another to simply delete untagged text because no page number was given, as many editors aren't even aware of that requirement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, the page number citation policy should arguably be relaxed in the case of eBooks that don't provide page numbers to begin with, but can easily be searched digitally. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For ebooks, as in every example I have given here, it is perfectly acceptable to give a chapter name, section heading, or some other means of verifying the text without scrolling through 300 pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does THWoC mean? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's an abbreviation for your username. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3C48:5E72:2879:2D46 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that makes more sense than the The Real Housewives of Orange County. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at WP:RSP) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather editorial independence that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks editorial independence from the Russian government and it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content. - just to be clear, the cited text refers to South Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The yeonjwaje bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding Special:Diff/1169763206, while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a WP:RS, certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people want to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion here. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on the United States talkpage back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? Jagmanst (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Their language was not conducive to collegiality. It was abrasive. There were a million better ways for them to express themselves, such as simply inquiring why the statement was there, but they chose to be aggressive instead. I'm not calling for sanctions on them. Also, they're still being aggressive below. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any aggression. Jagmanst (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't see how calling something a "laughable description" is aggressive? Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy, but it is unhelpful and not conducive to the atmosphere we're trying to foster here. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I thought this was a bit agressive/personal attack: "they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia". Jagmanst (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't deflect. Answer the question as was posed to you. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't think their comment about the article was agressive, nor do I think it is sanctionable. It was about content not a person. Jagmanst (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you... I also don't think the comment is sanctionable, but I do think it was aggressive as it was a comment on the people contributing to the article. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though, it's just something to keep in mind. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, in a vacuum, it's not at all sanction worthy. Well this is the issue, isn't it? The trademark of efficient civil POV pushing is that each edit looks innocuous in a vacuum, and it's only when you look at the contributions as a whole that the behaviors described at WP:CPUSH start to line up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not wrong; I'm just speaking in regards to my one experience with them. The only reason I'm even commenting here is because I thought I had something of note to mention about them. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You tell me to assume good faith while at the same time you vote to permanently sanction my account because I criticised a wiki page you contributed to. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Where did I !vote for sanctioning your account? I did not, I left a comment that I felt that people should be aware of when discussing your editing history. I'm not calling for sanctions on your account.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. Jagmanst (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with this assessment. I don't see any damning evidence posted above that warrants the editor in question being sanctioned.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything that is worthy of sanctions discussed here, but I do think that they should be reminded of WP:CIVIL and try to express disagreements on article content in a more polite manner, with awareness that the people who frequent the article talk page are likely the same people who wrote the content being criticized. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems more like they hold an anti-Western bias, which is just as bad as a pro-Western bias. The problem is they edit with that bias.
    For instance, they hate the U.S. because it's a "country with a torture camp" yet defend Vietnam, China, North Korea, and The USSR, who are/were all countries with "torture camps." Textbook WP:CPOV, and as User:Thebiguglyalien states, a long history of it. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is complete rubbish, I have never once defended torture on wikipedia, ever! The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet no evidence of "bias" editing was been provided. I don't think this is a forum to attack someone because they don't share one's views.Jagmanst (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they edit with the bias identified by Rockstone and IP2603; I'll be back later today, from real computer, with examples (iPad editing now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Rockstone nor IP2603 showed any evidence of bias. Rockstone showed a talk page comment which they didn't think was polite. I saw no bias.IP2603 made some quite scandalous assertions with no evidence. Not thinking the US as a bastion of human rights isn't bias.Jagmanst (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defence: When User:Thebiguglyalien accuses me of pov-pushing for 'autocratic governments', his evidence is a short select list of edits from the past few months, all of which I've provided reasonable explanations for. However, of my 3,000+ edits on wikipedia, the vast majority of them are actually made on pages I created, a list of which you can see here. Thebiguglyalien depicts me as some lunatic who is obsessed with dictatorships like North Korea and Joseph Stalin. However glancing at the pages I created, which is a far more systematic record of my behaviour then a few cherrypicked edits, reveals that none of the biographies I wrote held any great levels of political power. The most influential and powerful person I ever created a wiki page for was a woman called Jessie Eden who led a tenants union. My specialist area is Marxist and anti-colonial activists in 20th century Britain and my page creation history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien selection of edits provides anecdotes whereas my page creation history provides proof of my systematic behaviour. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've had some highly positive interactions with Thebiguglyalien over the last six months or so, the duration of the time I've known them on the project: they've impressed me with a pretty nuanced understanding of policy for someone who has been here five years. I preface my comments in this fashion to emphasize that I came into this thread primed to give their analysis some degree of benefit of the doubt. But in truth, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here--at least not yet--and I suspect that Alien may have seen more of a pattern here than holds for the larger sample size, as THWoC implies in their defense.
    To be certain, Wizard could stand to benefit from, well as the charming American idiom goes "slowing their roll". I won't reiterate the feedback they have already received regarding deleting sources because they were entered without a page number: I view that as a highly problematic habit that needs to stop immediately. If a goodfaith investigation of the source gives them cause to believe the source is invalid, that is one thing, but that level of presumptuousness that a source and any content is supports may be chucked out because of a pro forma flaw that small is incredibly flippant with regard to the contributions of other editors and (much more importantly) not in the best interests of the accuracy of most articles, if we assume most such absent parameters are the consequence technical issues or goodfaith oversights--as I believe most are entitled to be, one or the other. However, while this is an instance of a case of issues with Wizard's approach, I think it also illustrates that said issues come from personal editorial idiosyncracies and maybe a touch of overconfidence (both of which can be addressed) rather than an overarching NOTHERE motivation to massage the content to reflect personal bias.
    For the remaining diffs, I'm not going to do a play by play, but suffice it to say that I think most are similar issues of an editor coming from a specialist field and not yet hitting their stride in adapting their editorial approach to the context of encyclopedia prose and process. And others are just not particularly that problematic (or at least debatably so). It's true for example that genocide is treated under international law (and by most contemporary historical researchers) as a crime defined by the intent to wipe out or suppress a culture, while the soviet famine in question was famously the result of one of the most horrific outcomes of mismanagement, support for junk science, and cultural infighting in the Soviet bureaucracy. So it would not surprise me to hear that many contemporary historians and researchers do not label it as genocide per se. That said, THWoC, do be mindful of WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT here: no matter how rational you think your argument is for a description being dated, biased, or otherwise inaccurate, you must accord your description in a fashion that is respectful of the balance of the sources.
    Lastly, the slight hubris extends to the discussion style: that means of introducing the discussion on the talk page for our article on the United States I would describe as almost calculated to start everyone off in entrenched positions, if I didn't have the context here to believe THWoC had no such intentions. But honestly, my friend, that level of antagonism as the starting point for discussion is only a little south of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and putting aside for the moment the question of whether you might be sanctioned for it, it's just not going to serve you very well in any consensus discussions here. Nobody expects you to woo your rhetorical opponents with honeyed tones, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by blowing into a discussion with an approach that clearly marks that you think your perspective is indisputable and the standing consensus clearly the collectively reasoning of nitwits. A significant adjustment is necessary in this area too.
    But what I'm not seeing is someone looking to serve as an apologist for the great tyrannies of the last hundred years. THWoC clearly is a little out of step with consensus on some of these topics, may have a somewhat noticeable bias with regard to communist topics, and after three years still needs to adjust some to our consensus dynamics. And they could definetly stand to dial down the arrogance a little. But I don't get the sense of someone incapable of doing these things and I do believe they are here to contribute to the project's stated mission. I believe no action is needed at this time other than a firm recommendation to ease up on their drive a little. Alien's concerns are not entirely unwarranted here, but I can't endorse their interpretation of the underlying motivation. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Thebiguglyalien that these edits are difficult to defend and likely indications of POV editing:

    1. 17 June 2023, deletes text because book has no page number, when a quote is clearly given and the content is easily found on google. (See analysis below of The History Wizard similarly not citing book page numbers in their own writing.)
    2. 16 June 2023, fully cited text deleted, no good reason; hard to accept that someone familiar with socialism does not understand that it is possible for there to be more supposed "rights" for certain groups even as there is less freedom overall. This is the clearest indication in this series of edits of POV crossing over into editing.
    3. 18 June 2023, another weak reason for deleting cited text when the book is available online.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding on to my point 2 above, is The History Wizard unaware of the alleged "rights" given to minorities like the Indigenous people of Venezuela in the 1999 Chavez rewrite of the Constitution of Venezuela at the same time their overall rights were degraded? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] ... I could go on ... same applied to women and other minorities ... deleting that completely logical and well-cited text from X-Editor because you disagree with it is blind POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Trevor Carter (GA); POV, puffery, original research, and misrepresentation of sources

    After IP2603 stated that The History Wizard’s editing was "textbook WP:CPOV" and "The problem is they edit with that bias", I took a deeper dive by looking at The History Wizard's highest assessed work, to see if POV is evident in their writing. In this sample, it is.

    As of today's version, The History Wizard is responsible for 88% of the page content. WhoWroteThat identifies the only significant text not written by The History Wizard is the throwaway sentence at the bottom of the article about his family donating a park bench in his honor. Since The History Wizard wrote essentially all of the content, with minor copyedits, I'm not providing diffs. The following sources are useful for examining the article’s anti-US and pro-communism bias.

    Bias from sources not used or misrepresented:

    • Okojie: Okojie, Paul (October 1987). "Book reviews : Shattering illusions: West Indians in British politics By Trevor Carter (London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1986)". Race & Class. 29 (2): 107–108. doi:10.1177/030639688702900217. S2CID 145052302 – via Sage.
      Okojie is used, but misrepresented. If anyone wants a copy, I can forward if you email me. All Wikipedia says is that it is a "positive review", when in fact, it is neither positive nor negative—it simply states what Carter states. More problematic is that POV is created by what it (the article) does not say about Carter’s views, when combined with the two sources below that are similarly not used (Brown and Smith E) and say the same things. Significantly emotive and negative wording is used to describe racism in the US, while Carter's condemnation of British racism in general, and the role of the communist party and the left specifically with respect to continuing that racism in Britain, is omitted from the article. The History Wizard has a remarkably different way of treating the US relative to the UK on racism, and has decidedly biased Carter’s own views on racism in Britian and among communists, according to interpretations of Carter’s own writing.
    • Brown: Brown, Geoff (1 July 2019). "Tackling racism: the Communist Party's mixed record". International Socialism (163).
      This source is never used; view in conjunction with Okojie and Smith E, which make the same points.
    • Smith E: Smith, Evan (October 2008). "Class before Race": British Communism and the Place of Empire in Postwar Race Relations". Science & Society. 72 (4): 455-481. If anyone wants this article, pls email me and I can forward.
      This source is never used; it delves into Carter’s writings in ‘’Shattered Illusions’’ (describe in the Wikipedia article as Carter’s magnum opus), and supports what Okojie says. None of these views, explaining British racism or Carter’s views on communism’s role in that, are included in the article.

    Bias from choice of sources used: The huge majority of the article is cited to Meddick and something cited only as Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies. See below:

    • Meddick: Meddick, Simon; Payne, Liz; Katz, Phil, eds. (2020). Red Lives: Communists and the Struggle for Socialism. Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited / Communist Party of Britain. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-907464-45-4.
      I cannot find this on WorldCat, Amazon, Google books, archive.org, or anywhere else I’ve looked. The ISBN returns as faulty everywhere I check. Can anyone find this book or determine what is wrong with the ISBN? Regardless, we have misrepresentation of sources (see above and below), and yet we are asked to take at face value a large amount of text from a book that can’t be located.
    • Stevenson: "Carter Trevor". Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies. 25 August 2011. Archived from the original on 30 April 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2021.
      In an article with otherwise mostly complete citations, the author of this ‘’encyclopedia’’ (a personal website, eg, blog) is not listed. That author is Graham Stevenson (historian), and the page tells us it is maintained by his family. When evaluating Graham Stevenson wrt WP:EXPERTSPS, the first thing one encounters is that his article is also written by The History Wizard (so I didn’t go further—I’ve already seen enough to know there is likely bias, and don’t have time to delve in to yet another article). At least it seems more attribution to blog and personal websites is needed here, along with adding that which is missing from more neutral sources.
      Found now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies, so generally as I thought, but I remain troubled that the author was omitted, which looks deceptive (to make it appear as a real "encyclopedia" rather than a personal website) considering all other citations were mostly complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bias and puffery introduced by misrepresenting sources:

    On the matter of the diff posted by Rockstone and IP2603’s description of anti-Western bias, this is evident at Trevor Carter in the Early life section:

    • during this time he travelled to New Orleans where he witnessed the brutality of segregation. (Wroe) His experiences with "Jim Crow laws" made him vow to never live in the United States. (Stephenson, eg, the "encyclopedia")

    Wroe never mentions "brutality"; that’s editorializing (of the kind that is curiously left out per the sources discussing UK racism above). Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations. The History Wizard does not restrict their original research characterization of the US to one period in one part of the country, as Wroe does, rather goes on to use Stephenson to cite "Jim Crow laws", which Stephenson never mentions. Stephenson says: He visited many places, including New Orleans then at the height of racial segregation in the USA. That experience was so awful that Carter vowed never to go and live in America. That is, besides never using the phrase designed to draw negative emotions (Jim Crow laws), Stephenson also characterizes the period during which Carter traveled there. In contrast, nothing in the article on this level describes Carter’s own writings about racism in the UK.

    There is a clear contrast to how The History Wizard treats the US and how they treat the UK (complete omission of racism, while using language to evoke the maximum negativity relative to the US racism). In fact relative to what more neutral sources say about Carter’s own views and communism and racism, the article has only the mild, "Elaborating on his political alignment, he claimed that there was a lot of racism within local Labour Party branches", as if Carter’s criticism applied only to the Labour Party—three sources listed above say it also applied to communist orgs. We do get a brief hint of what may be missing with the (underdeveloped) text: "After the CPGB dissolved in 1991, Carter joined the Labour Party".

    While The History Wizard wholesale deletes text they disagree with when a book source doesn’t include a page number, here their own writing fails to identify either a page number or which section of the article (chapter, heading, otherwise) the text can be found:

    The History Wizard does not universally use page numbers or chapters or section headings themselves, making it additionally difficult to accept that as their only reason for deleting text they disagree with and more likely the deletions are another reflection of POV editing.

    Skipping through the middle portion of the article, which goes well off-topic into other individuals, we get to things like SYNTH from this source, which never mentions Trevor Carter, and random other puffery throughout, like:

    • "Carter became a qualified British teacher" (is there such a thing as an "unqualified" teacher in British schools, I ask—maybe there is?)
    • "In 1986 with the help of Jean Coussins, Trevor Carter wrote his magnum opus" ... from what source comes "magnum opus"?
    • "In 1998 Trevor Carter, a lifelong admirer of American political activist Paul Robeson," … where does the "lifelong admirer" come from?
    • "Jeremy Corbyn, at the time an MP for Islington, was a great admirer of Carter," ... where does the "great admirer" come from?

    These are examples of plain vanilla puffery; all of this combined with the lack of access to Meddick, and likely bias from the Stephenson blog, make me wonder if any of the article is neutral. I understand admins are loathe to involve themselves in conduct content disputes, but at what point does civil POV pushing become a behavioral issue? It looks like the whitewashing concern has validity and that The History Wizard's editing at articles related to Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea and other similar states should be subject to some restriction. We shouldn't wait 'til we have another Polish situation; communism is whitewashed at Trevor Carter, and a different standard is applied to the US and the UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @SandyGeorgia, I'm in awe. Great analysis. Re: the Meddick book, I paged through the entire set of book listings on the publisher's website, no such book listed. I found a book review on a blog; ISBN fails, and it says published by the UK Communist Party whose site can't find that book. I did find an announcement of the book on the Communist Party's website; reading the description, this would probably not be an acceptable source: it's a package of biographies written by friends, family, activists and historians (I question how many are actual "historians"). Apparently the PDF can be downloaded (I'm not going to try it). Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Meddick book is on the publisher's website, see it here. Have a second glance at the "blog", it is the website of a historical archive called the Working Class Movement Library which is supported by Salford City Council. Also in that blog post, at the very bottom it does admittedly say it was published by the communist party so I can understand the confusion but this is clearly a mistake. If you look at the book's back cover it says the communist party's heritage programme helped support the book's publication (likely through author contributions and oral interviews contained in the book) but doesn't credit it as the publisher. I recommend downloading the PDF and having a look through the contents. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Meddick book was "Published by Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party"; it is copyrighted to the Communist Party, and Manifesto Press has "proclaimed itself republican and anti-imperialist; secular and feminist; anti-fascist and anti-racist; committed to working class political power, popular sovereignty and progressive culture". Excerpts from the first two pages include:
    • "The people you read about in this book shared a desire to bring to an end a society based on exploitation and oppression, to establish socialism...This is their story, told by comrades, friends and family, in their own words."
    • "The one thing that unites each and all, is pride in and ownership of, a ‘card’, they were members of the Communist Party, a revolutionary Party, striving for peace and socialism ... These ‘Red Lives’ are a testimony to lives lived in hope and determination. We are sure that they will inspire you as much as they did the editors."
    • "In early September 2019, in anticipation of its centenary, the Communist Party wrote to its membership asking for recommendations of past members, no longer living, who might be included in a collection of life histories. Red Lives is a selection of these."
    Yeah. I'm not convinced. You can find the book at this link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's directly relevant to this analysis, I'll say that I first thought this was looking into after checking the sourcing in Talk:David Ivon Jones/GA1, and their subsequent reluctance to remove a self-published source by Graham Stevenson (historian). Stevenson's article was created by History Wizard, and Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "Stevenson has no credentials that would qualify him as a historian". However it took me a minute to look on google scholar and find at least three academic articles he wrote for an academic journal published by Liverpool University Press. If having your historical research published in a journal by a well respected university doesn't make you a historian then what does.The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth might explain what kind of credentials make one a historian, and also opine on the Meddick book published by the "Manifesto Press Cooperative Limited in cooperation with the Communist Party" (with a non-working ISBN and not found on WorldCat). I believe some sort of educational degree in history is a starting point (Stevenson's article says he left school at the age of 16), but Ealdgyth will know better. I notice that the lead of Graham Stevenson (historian) says he's a historian who specialized in x ... what independent source supports that text? It appears that Wikipedia has conferred upon him the status of historian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, a historian is someone who has some training in history in a university setting - i.e. not just taking general history classes but classes that touch on the actual process of research and how to interpret sources. So a class that requires one to do original historical research would be a minimum. Failing that, I'd expect to see publications in a number of academic journals or having books published by scholarly publishers. In this specific case, I note that the three articles found above are published in Theory & Struggle which Liverpool University Press notes is the "journal of the Marx Memorial Library", which Stevenson is specifically noted as being the treasurer of, which makes the publication of articles by him in that journal .. a bit less independent than would be desired. Two of the articles listed show the author blurb, neither of which call him a historian nor give any academic affiliations. I'm not impressed with calling this person a "historian" - he seems most notable as a labor leader.Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia Yes, there can be unqualified teachers (i.e. teachers without Qualified teacher status) in some (and only some) British schools, for a variety of reasons that are too boring to go into here. But the "qualified" seems somewhat spurious. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. In UK, private schools don't require PGCE.
    I am scratching my head on this:
    "Nor does it mention segregation. It says: His experiences in New Orleans at the height of racial segregation engendered a lifelong battle to improve race relations."
    Jagmanst (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also is it biased to say segregation was brutal? Did I miss something? Jagmanst (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, iPad typing again, had to dash out just after I hit send, and whatever I meant to say in that sentence, it is now just another of my infamous typos (maybe when I can catch up and re-read, I will remember what that sentence wanted to be ... have struck for now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Black Kite, in that case, a wikilink for the benefit of non-UKers would be good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am not persuaded by SandyGeorgia's analysis.
    1. They list sources in Trevor Carter article without page numbers. We don't know who inserted these sources since no diffs are given. Many people have edited this article, which has been reviewed and given GA status, placing it within top 1% among articles in the Wikipedia project.
    2. The content removed by TWoC due to lack of page numbers has already been shown not to reflect bias one way or the other. See comment by Aquillion.
    3. The allegation of bias seems to rest on segregation in the US being referred to as brutal, and a reference to Jim Crow laws. Describing segregation as brutal or referring to Jim Crow laws is neither original research nor biased. Nor is questioning US's leadership in human rights in a talk page (the other 'evidence' for bias cited).
    4. I didn't see the stylsitic concerns (referred to as puffery) in the article indicative of bias.

    Jagmanst (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Look again. And see WP:DCGAR for perspective (hundreds delisted at once).
    2. This section is about content written by The History Wizard at Trevor Carter, showing a double standard wrt use of page nos as a basis for deleting text.
    3. The allegation of bias rests on choice of sources, content not included at all wrt communism and race, and sources chosen. The two sentences of misrepresenting one source merely lead us to worry what else is misrepresented in sources we can't access.
    4. That's unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm growing curious as to why an editor with less than 300 mainspace edits is so invested in this discussion that they feel the need to repeatedly reply to everyone who comments here and lecture them about what proper editing looks like, even though they apparently don't know that page evaluation tools can tell you what portions of the article were written by whom, that GA status is decided by one person with little oversight, or that WP:IMPARTIAL tone without judgemental language of any kind is one of our core content policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you aren't pulling rank (WP:PULLRANK).I am sorry if anyone thinks I have lectured to them. I have given my honest assessment to this case, as I think I am allowed. I believe wikipedia does have a systematic bias but not in the direction people have alleged here. I think the editor being targeted here is doing good work, and on the basis of evidence presented should be allowed to contribute freely. Jagmanst (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I forgot to add that they should also be encouraged to stay away from articles about the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to add, I commented in response to SandyGeorgia's post, because they referenced their analysis in a reply to my prior comment. I am not "repeatedly" replying to everyone, and never replied to anything TBUA has posted here. Jagmanst (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not (yet) troubled by your responses to my responses; you were right to ask for diffs on who inserted the sources, and in adding those, I did find one error, so thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham Stevenson (historian) is a POV title;[8] the article should be moved to Graham Stevenson (trade union leader) before anyone else is misled about the nature of his "encyclopedia". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not opposed to moving the Graham Stevenson article that I wrote but I wasn't "misleading" anybody by calling Graham Stevenson a historian. I discovered Graham Stevenson through his historical research on Britain's socialist movements, including his multiple articles in an academic journal belonging to the University of Liverpool. I then later learned of his trade union activity while researching the article. I wish you had just asked me to explain my edits before going nuclear. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have work so I'll need adequate time to respond to everything but I have this to say. For whatever faults you find in my work, if I were really such a sneaky POV pusher then I wouldn't be frequently inviting both experts and experienced editors to comb through my work. This all started after I began working with Thebiguglyalien to review my article on David Ivon Jones (which I'm still grateful for despite his views on my editing), conceding to 90% of his suggested changes during his GA review. @SandyGeorgia just put a POV template on my Trevor Carter article, again one which I submitted for GA Review and invited experts to comb through. I was so proud and confident in that wiki that I even linked to it at the very beginning of this dispute. For my Billy Strachan article, the largest wiki page I have ever created, I've gone through everything from a peer review, then onto an (unsuccessful) FA review, and I'm currently on another GA Review. Inviting countless experts and experienced wiki editors to tear into my work is not the modus operandi of a POV pusher. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Where did I omit the author? Also how could I possibly omit the author of Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia when his name is literally in the website address and there's a giant banner with his name and face on it when you follow the link? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, I inserted the author yesterday which you omitted from the very first edit and up until yesterday. Since most real encyclopedias don't have individual authors for each entry, by leaving off the author, the fact that this a self-published website is obscured. (By the way, you've got many of the same issues with problematic sourcing raised here also at Billy Strachan, now under review by User:Llewee at GAN, as well as others which I can detail when I have more time, but including failed verification and too-close-paraphrasing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not thoroughly examined all the links above, probably there are a number of issues where it is acceptable to assume good faith, but the double standard regarding sources (immediate removal of sourced contents with the excuse that the page number is missing, while he himself introduced book sources with no page numbers given) is hardly defensible. --Cavarrone 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I ever challenged somebody for deleting one of my own citations that did not include page numbers? I'm within my 3,000 edits there were cases where I mistakenly missed a page number, but if somebody deleted my mistakes then I would consider that fair game and correct myself. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unlikely scenario. No one has removed your citations just because removing a citation for lack of a page number is inappropriate, and I don't recall anyone but you removing citations with such a weak justification. Cavarrone 09:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warn about sourcing and POV editing wrt autocratic governments: History Wizard, it's not a question of being intentionally deceptive or sneaky; many editors who edit with a POV are unaware that their POV affects their editing. You would be naturally inclined by your bias to label Stevenson a historian when he is not; this could cause a GA reviewer to think the source is a good one, for example. You are using a double standard on page numbers to remove text you dislike, but more importantly, using marginal and non-reliable sources to support pro-communist party content, leaving out balancing content from better sources, misrepresenting some sources to introduce an anti-US bias, all as in the Trevor Carter example, and confirming your pro-CP bias as seen in the diffs given in the discussion, where you also made unnecessarily inflammatory remarks on the US talk page, raising additional concerns about an anti-US bias.
    I think the POV at Trevor Carter can be fixed by adding in the better sources you failed to use, but I don't see how it can retain GA status with the use of two marginal sources (a self-published "encyclopedia", and a book from a communist press that no one can find). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Leaving Starheroine, all the rest blocked pending responses. Will track Starheroine's edits over the next few weeks... Lourdes 12:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I suspect there's much still on the table that is problematic, EvergreenFir, as at Christians Against Poverty, where overlinking is in play, but even more so WP:ENGVAR. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. Starheroine (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, EvergreenFir. See the most recent edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Starheroine, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been WP:OVERLINKing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [10]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [11], a few didn't allow for WP:ENGVAR [12], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [13]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [14]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much Starheroine (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location Starheroine (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. Starheroine (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:M.Bitton

    GF closure based on OP's final comment. Other experienced editors are advised to avoid aggressive positioning, even when faced with ANI reports against them (although one can see the frustrations that build up... yet...) Closing this here. Lourdes 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

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

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

    I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In the discussion that followed, first you said I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you changing your replies? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's for you to explain why you misrepresented the sources to push a political POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks this diff. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at WP:NPOV.[15] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to this document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
      So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you please view this version as @M.Bitton is still being difficult. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I restored the reference in the second edit, I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No what you did was change it to but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You can't use those sources to say also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco as that's not what they say.
      It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the Political status of Western Sahara. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The status of WS is disputed, your using your POV (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Vyvagaba (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. Example 1, Example 2 to the extent some claim that the United Nations supports the occupying Power. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why are you changing the subject? :) Vyvagaba (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, 1 2 3 4. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as WP:FALSEBALANCE. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
      P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
      United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
      ICRC "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
      BBC "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
      France 24 "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
      Childrens Rights Research "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
      Crisis Group "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
      Al Jazeera "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
      Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
      The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
      New York Times "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." Vyvagaba (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara is not occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. @Rosguill: could you please share your views on this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of scouting and creating WS and Algeria-related articles, so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
      I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.Vyvagaba (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco to two reliable sources[16][17] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: I informed @M.Bitton several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. The latest example in my dispute, and another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals with the same "misrepresentation" show. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started following me to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see WP:VEXBYSTERANG), not just the user reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill and ActivelyDisinterested: Since Vyvagaba has made it amply clear that they have no intention of addressing the raised issue, I think it's time that some action is taken as I don't see how anyone who behaves in such manner can be trusted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear, @M.Bitton is preventing and all debate diagreeing with his pov, I posted a note on the article's talk page (since this is a behaviour noticeboard and because the NPOV noticeboard said that the complaint was too early to post since we didn't debate on the talk page) to present detailed quotes from reliable soures to support the wording I proposed, and to get feedback to tweak the wording to reach consensus. I dont see why @M.Bitton would keep stone walling any discussion with their "misrepresentation" saga, I provided detailed evidence in that post to see what others would think I'm misrepresenting and to fix that. Vyvagaba (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Procedurally, if I were to have come across this thread without having participated in it, I would close in favor of the topic ban. While I am not WP:INVOLVED in the content disputes here, I don't think it would be fair for me to close here given that I initially proposed the sanction, only one other uninvolved editor has participated here at ANI, and this isn't a CTOP subject. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Rosguill, I think that Vyvagaba deserves a topic ban, yes, or perhaps a (partial) block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you could spend the time to read the post I have on the article's talk page and let me know if any of the points I raised are completly reasonabale and rational, and with evidence to support it, I'm just asking to know what I'm misrepresinting in the sources I included, since I'm starting to feel a little crazy at this point. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only started to look into this out of interest of an RS issue, what I found has left me deeply unimpressed. The fact is that even now Vyvagaba can't see past the content issue to the behaviour issue at hand, so I would support a topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I still don't undertsand what the behviour issue here is? Vyvagaba (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See your talk. Lourdes 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this dialouge, I confirm that I will be mindful and stick to what sources say and to not remove reliably sourced material from now onwards. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This much longer comment (left on your talk page just before this one) paints a different picture and suggests that you're just saying what you think the others want to read (to avoid sanctions). There is no acknowledgement of the fact that you misrepresented the sources (not once, but twice), and therefore, no reason to believe that you won't do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
    Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Looking at what the IP did to the article (they linked one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

    User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is clearly engaging in original research. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be editing disruptively User:Maphumor. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some WP:SYN going on with the sources. User:XYZ 250706, can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ramos1990 Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like 'this page is not your personal, everyone can edit' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:XYZ 250706 thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ramos1990 You can see in revision history of Next Indian general election in West Bengal, Next Indian general election in Kerala where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Punjab etc and sometimes contest in edit war. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Shaan Sengupta can give some more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ramos1990 User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for resolving disputes for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, Lourdes 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CLOSING
    Survey closed, discussion no longer needed. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    What seems to have started this
    • Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion here (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [18] and [19]).
    Worst violations since then
    More minor instances of HOUNDING since then
    • At the start of March, when the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [20].
    • A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [21].
    • Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [22].
    • April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [23].
    • May 10 - I nominated Joe Kapp to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
    • Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [24].
    • June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on Tavon Rooks - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [25] - this contributed to it being deleted.
    • June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [26]
    • July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [27]
    • July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [28]
    • July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [29]
    • The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.

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

    • Comment just wanted to note three things: (1) Therapyisgood appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by BeanieFan11 (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of only two RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been right after one of my votes/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with WP:HOUNDING. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --Jayron32 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. Kurtis (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:IBAN does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--Jayron32 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that he has been badgered, blocked and skewered, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but WP:HOUNDING is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unblocked therapyisgood per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Jayron32. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Therapyisgood: and @BeanieFan11:, can you both agree to an WP:IBAN with each other? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK WP:TBAN for Therapyisgood seems in order. Schwede66 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way WP:IBAN at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at WP:VP in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood (this edit summary, and the original hook of this DYK nomination) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.Complex/Rational 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TIG's response

    • I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused @BeanieFan11: over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding @JoelleJay: among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at WP:IBAN it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. Dronkle (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, WP:IBAN says that A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. And that doesn't matter worth a damn. I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil no matter what. If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. Ravenswing 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior and hounding which if given time I can find diffs of. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beeblebrox, 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The other 20% is insults and threats. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite. Possibly the text of WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!! should read "The invocation of this argument is prima facie ground for an indef." Ravenswing 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It feels like relevant context to point out that the other RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was theleekycauldron1, so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. DanCherek (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they weren't trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
      Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is per se an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
      In any event, the trolling comments that immediately came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. SnowRise let's rap 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When I said "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that "Are you really that thick?" comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after Gonzo fan2007 let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, fast.
      Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that she (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion?
      We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which I don't like. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of competency regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.
      Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all.
      Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. SnowRise let's rap 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • @A. B.: Not only that, but he had immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment "stay off my talk page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        So ”common courtesy” is not a good enough reason?. This is a collaborative project. Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you still refuse to accept this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
        —~~<~
        A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @A. B.: yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Therapyisgood, you ask, ”where was I wrong?”
        Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
        I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
        One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people ”piss off” the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
        —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? I'm way off in my whole framing of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is exactly how its felt to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to @BilledMammal:: [30]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [31]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here.
      And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. SnowRise let's rap 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be relatively simple and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and CLUEfulness. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to Occam's razor. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you came in, JJ. As you point out, you've had extensive interaction with BF, too many for anyone else to really be able to characterize without doing a ton of work, so I'm glad that TIG's characterization of it as hounding of you by BF isn't what you're feeling. TIG, whether or not an IBAN is made, you probably just need to disengage from BF. As you say, they annoy you, and you seem to have a very hard time staying civil when you're annoyed. So go do other things. There's a whole big project out there. Valereee (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    Therapyisgood is banned from interacting with BeanieFan11 for one year. Besides the examples given in WP:IBAN, they may not comment in discussions in which BeanieFan11 has already commented or nominate articles for deletion to which BeanieFan11 has contributed significantly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Ca talk to me! 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1 with additional conditions beyond what is at WP:IBAN, to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --Jayron32 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4, in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least 1 month, recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: "If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      TIG was given a 2-week block 3 years ago for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom indefinitely restricted him to one account over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. Kurtis (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with Jayron's addenda seems like a commonsense approach. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban. A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become harassment in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
      1. TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
      2. BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
    • Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What you're proposing would be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. Kurtis (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years.
      However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.
      So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). SnowRise let's rap 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snow Rise: thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that WP:IBAN is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ktrimi991, there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
      And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee: I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ktrimi991, no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
      1. A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
      2. That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
      Valereee (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee: a block is a punishment when:
      1. the editor has made it clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they understand their mistakes, have reflected and will not repeat them
      2. the disruption was done a considerable amount of time ago, so it can be concluded that the disruption has already ceased
      TIG made a personal attack here at ANI/I immediately after their block for personal attacks was lifted. So blocking TIG is not a punishment, it is step to stop further disruption. By not addressing the core issue, which is not merely hounding but breaching WP:CIVILITY against several editors, you might actually punish those who have to endure such personal attacks as "jobless" and "thick". If you address the hounding but not the other personal attacks and rudeness, then yes you are turning a blind eye. The message should be that all kinds of uncivility are not allowed and will be addressed; otherwise it gives the wrong idea that the community cares only about the hounding issue and does not give a f about the other cases of uncivility. To do that, an i-ban is not enough because it addresses only a part of the wider issue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll reply on your user talk. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: Block and final warning If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If someone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with Jayron's addenda anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. Kurtis (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will act in good faith and not attempt to provoke or badger TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask @Floquenbeam: how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU in their interactions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with additional conditions as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4 per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
      • severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
      • longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
      • and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
    • In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of WP:ROPE. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a one month block is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that such block should be appealable only to the community as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.
      I also support the 1-way IBAN as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.
      Lastly, I support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement" sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA proclivities. SnowRise let's rap 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very broadly intended option 1, and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block (option 3), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously. Cavarrone 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 with additional conditions as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. Schwede66 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3 based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be 7-14 days, which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of WP:BLOCK, which is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 with x=3 months and 1 (+Jayron). Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are very out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a now-blocked, content-contributing hounder in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, oppose 3 as punitive casualdejekyll 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3. I concur that a duration of 1 month would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. Complex/Rational 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month. The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.Jagmanst (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1 - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? Valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Valereee: Obviously every administrative action (including option 1) results in some sort of punishment for those who are subjected to it, but I don't see how a short block (1/2 weeks in my view) would be just a punishment and not a preventive (and instructive) act. TIG was blocked for personal attacks just 3 days ago, and once unblocked he almost immediately resorted with the same gratuitously aggressive and insulting attitide. Even ignoring his comments towards BeanieFan11, he insulted Snow Rise, and when kindly asked to strike the insult he ignored the request. In his contribution history up to his last comments in this thread, he displayed a blatant Wikipedia:IDONTHEARTHAT approach towards civility. I am the first one to hope TIG changes his attitude, as I see him as an otherwise valuable editor, but it is important he get the point about civility, be it with a block, with a strong warning or with some other means. Cavarrone 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior. Time-limited blocks can simply be waited out. And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing.
        In addiiton, a block would prevent TIG from doing things they don't need to be prevented from doing, so it's more restrictive than necessary to solve the problem, which at its heart is the hounding. If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community. A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If this discussion results in only the IBAN, it won't be the end of the world: at least something will have been done to protect the community member who is currently bearing the brunt of TIGs inappropriate and vexatious behaviour and to send a message that the community has eyes on the rest. At the same time, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in at least one respect here:
        There are really two issues that need addressing here: 1) The concerted hounding of BeanieFan across a period of months, which is clearly unacceptable and which (we hope) the IBAN resolves, and 2) Petty, continuous, and pretty much instantaneous incivility any time TIG is criticized. These personal attacks don't come after heated back-and-forth's ramping the tension up, though they would be problematic enough in that context too. Rather, these kind of "Get a job--I have no time to argue with losers on the internet all day" / "Are you thick" comments are the very first things TIG says to people they have never had an interaction with before when they feel criticized, including community members contributing to an ANI where the goal is to get TIG to see their are issues with their mode of interaction with others on this project. That's a real problem. And the IBAN does absolutely nothing to address it.
        "Time-limited blocks are less helpful for encouraging change than indefs, which require the editor to address the issue in an unblock request and convince an admin (or in this case, the community) that the editor will change their behavior."
        Hey, I could be convinced to support an indef for that purpose, but I think we're probably both of the opinion that it's more than the minimum that might get TIGs attention here. I think Walt is right: that target is a month. And even if TIG does just wait out the block, at least they are shown that there are lines that this community will not let them routinely and indefinitely cross, and they will have time to consider what needs to change in their approach. Which is, you know, the usual point of any block that is not an indef?
        "And, no, an IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing."
        Correct. And neither is a temporary block for repeated WP:CIV violations. It's not there for vindictive purposes or even to make us feel better that someone's behaviour has been "balanced" by punishment. But if it's necessary to force someone to reflect on problematic behaviour (as it very clearly is here), it's a preventative block. I'm surprised we're even having this debate: this is probably the single most common circumstance for the use of a block.
        "If someone as an individual admin action wanted to block TIG for ongoing personal attacks, fine, but that doesn't need to come from the community."
        Actually, I think it very much does. Because we've seen that TIG can make a very contrite-seeming unblock appeal to an admin, feigning a willingness to comply with community expectations and the feedback of that admin...and then instantly go back to the offending behaviour they were blocked for in the first place. The fact that this behaviour occurs blatantly in view of the entire community in an ANI discussion where that very behaviour is being discussed only underscores how much TIG either doesn't get where the line is, or is completely incapable of controlling themselves and jumping to petty ad hominems in the face of any criticism. A CBAN is necessary precisely because it must be appealed the community.
        "A community-imposed full block of a well-intentioned, competent editor should be for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience, not for making a series of similar mistakes in short order."
        Except, for the purposes of the conduct we are talking about here, calling this user a "well-intentioned, competent editor" is not appropriate. Nobody is being "well-intentioned" with regard to our community expectations when they are making the kind of personalized, spiteful comments TIG feels entitled to make when they see red (which is alarmingly fast in face of any opposition). And they are going to go on to feel entitled to that behaviour until the community draws a line in the sand. I'm sorry Val, normally I appreciate a light touch in an admin, but your description above feels more like enabling to me. And it won't do TIG any favours in the long run: it will just replace a one-month block now with an indef in the near future, I'd be willing to bet. SnowRise let's rap 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        (edit conflict) "An IBAN is not punishment. It may feel like it to the IBANned editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing", I could say the same about a block: "a block is not punishment. It may feel like it to the blocked editor, but it's purely to prevent the behavior from continuing". None of the editors who support a (more or less brief) block here wants to "punish" TIG, we want him to read WP:CIVIL and adhere to it in in his future interactions. With respect, characterizing his long-term problematic behaviour as "a series of similar mistakes in short order" by "a well-intentioned, competent editor" goes exactly in the opposite direction and IMO sends the wrong message to the user. Cavarrone 19:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll answer at your user talk. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - A one-way interaction ban. A block is not necessary at this time, but will come soon enough if TIG does not learn quickly how restrictive a one-way IBAN is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 — A one-way interaction ban. This fair to BF and gives TIG time to find a way to be civil. Either TIG takes this new path as primary in contributing to Wikipedia or loses any long term chance of collaborating. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they)` —
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here

    I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through Template:Deforestation in Nigeria, used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of a project on Meta The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)

    Nearly all of these have been tagged with multiple issues, mainly that the pages are very essay-like.

    Editors alrady active include User:Ezema James, User:Francisike, User:Tochai, User:Lilianneche, User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (university lecturer, so perhaps somehow involved?), User:Emmyglo, User:Ifyeke, User:Festgo12, User:SusuGeo, ... The project lead, identified at Meta, is User:Ngozi osadebe, but I see little evidence of the enwiki efforts being lead in any way, or the participants being instructed in how to improve and avoid the many issues. Most of these editors have recent warnings or even a block.

    Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[33], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[34], on enwiki[35]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. Fram (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A grant request[36], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled Deforestation in Nigeria... Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into Deforestation in Nigeria some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) casualdejekyll 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Olugold created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [37] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. Olugold (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.
    However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".
    I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article Deforestation in Nigeria??? Fram (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ngozi osadebe - Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria". I agree that putting the search term deforestation in Nigeria into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but a simple search for the phrase will take you to Q5251686, which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ngozi osadebe @Olugold you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the first thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates Content Gender gap which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just flagging that after reviewing the grant proposal and linked spreadsheet, it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of purchasing power in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an extremely dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! firefly ( t · c ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately. For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made. We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it. For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it. Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ngozi Stella Udechukwu I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear this is becoming a WP:CIR issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023, and see from today things like this (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic Edo traditional food which is about a region in Nigeria) or this WP:POV edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. Fram (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it me, or is an addition like this one (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. Fram (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a WP:CIR block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I share the concerns expressed by Fram and others, but a block at this stage would seem punitive, and that's not the goal of blocks. I think the focus should be on how to prevent this mess getting worse, then fix the content, and finally discuss what should be done to prevent this kind of botched outreach events that are relatively common today. MarioGom (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the added text at Child protection and after commenting here, will start the talk page section I promised in my edit summary. I pinged Ngozi Stella Udechukwu in the edit summary; doing so again here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

    Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

    I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. Olugold (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. firefly ( t · c ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such on the grant form (Q10). Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just draftify all of these articles and have them go through the normal AFC process? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding Jonesey95's suggestion of mass draftification. That's the best way to find out whether they can be improved to a standard that justifies either reinstatement as independent articles or merger. We have no control over the WMF's processes, but a responsibility to protect the encyclopedia from poorly thought out and executed content, regardless of the good intentions of the editors involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jonteemil

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

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

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

    I think you are misinterpreting FFD as files for deletion instead of files for discussion. I will reply longer later… Jonteemil (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, they have specifically said nothing about deletion in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even asking for these files to be deleted. --Jayron32 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10 as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't need to but they are allowed to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that maybe something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure enough to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD is the exact process where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--Jayron32 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, Govvy voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? TSventon (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're still not going to block Jonteemill because some admin fucked up. --Jayron32 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be kept or deleted… rather Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. Jonteemil (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. WP:FFD gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. Jonteemil, it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not c:COM:TOO US. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, {{PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO (threshold of originality) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the Non-free criteria, whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some WP:Non-copyright restrictions as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
    The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to File:Best Western logo.svg nor File:Jamba logo.svg (read more at c:COM:TOO Australia and c:COM:TOO US).
    My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above c:COM:TOO Spain), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below c:COM:TOO US). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers Keep haha.
    I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. Jonteemil (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pinging Edward-Woodrow who closed one of the FFDs as keep and Marchjuly who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. Jonteemil (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --Jayron32 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on Govvy, they have a nook around here for us ludites whenever things turn towards file hosting protocols. Well watch something with slightly more sensible and accessible language. SnowRise let's rap 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Thanks for that technically insight! And here's my reply!, Probably time for a close!? Govvy (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus on anything; and no action here (except one indef I've issued on the sidelines). The RfC (it's actually interesting) should contribute to some level of DR... and for those interested in knowing the real difference between Wicca and Witchcraft. Closing this now. Lourdes 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    user:CorbieVreccan made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft claiming that another user had attempted to WP:CANVASS[38]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[39] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page for some time.[40][41][42]

    I became involved,[43] was immediately reverted,[44] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[45] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[46][47] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[48][49][50]

    About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and established coordination with user:Asarlaí for further efforts.[51] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[52][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[53] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[54] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[55]

    I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[56], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[57] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[58][59]

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

    Darker Dreams, you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. El_C 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by Asarlaí for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of WP:BOLD changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. El_C 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet wp:onus, Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. El_C 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
    report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. El_C 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:"You just gonna watch from the sidelines?". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still deflecting, I see. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would WP:DROPTHESTICK when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a WP:SNOWed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at Talk:Witchcraft, but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on Talk:Witchcraft, and I'm not sure that Darker Dreams's approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on European witchcraft, the supposedly global article on Witchcraft focuses undue weight on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in Witchcraft in the Middle East and the witch trials summarized in European witchcraft, and the overview article get to the global coverage it professes. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying blatant battleground behavior. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Care to provide an example that's not a month old? Skyerise (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What should that matter? Blatant battleground behavior doesn't suddenly become not-objectionable because a few weeks have passed. The civility policies don't have sell-by dates. Ravenswing 09:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing: Our blocking policy has always been preventative, not punitive. This means we don't block people just because some editor might dislike previous behavior that is not currently ongoing. It is incumbent on the editor who brings up the issue to show that ongoing damage to Wikipedia is currently occurring and unlikely to stop. That's why. And if you want to establish an "ongoing pattern" of "blatant battleground behavior", you're going to need more than one diff to document it. The IP you are apparently supporting even misinterpreted the one diff it did supply, not knowing the context: I only said that to Randy because he kept thanking me for my edits even though he was not participating in the talk page discussion himself. And my intent was that he join the discussion, not join me in any imaginary "battle". Anyway, context is important and you should also document the number of articles I've written along with your attempted attack on my character. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Erm. Want to show me where in my comment I mentioned the word "block?" But allow me to amend that now. Quite aside from that no one's edit count immunizes them against the requirement to follow civility policies (unless you're comfortable with being judged on your extensive block log in the same breath as your article count, while we're talking about "context"), the reason why we discuss such incidents is to assess the likelihood that such behavior is an ongoing problem, for which of course there are sanctions other than blocking, including IBANs, TBANs, simple admonishments and trout slaps.

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

      So let me get this straight. It's okay for CV to assert that I have "been editing the Witchcraft articles at a feverish pace, splitting off many articles into new ones", but it's not okay for me to say that actually I have only split off one article and that therefore "many" is an exaggeration? Is that what you're saying? I'd just like you to be clear about that. Or that it's okay for CV to say "She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account", implying that I am socking – without backing it up? There are quite a few things that CV says about me here and elsewhere that simply aren't accurate, most of which I would characterize as "exaggeration", and they appear to me to be doing the same thing with respect to DD's behavior. Again, I expect better from an admin, and I believe Wikipedia policy does as well. But you're saying that pointing that out here in the places where it is actually occurring is uncivil? Is that what you're saying? Because they're an admin. Is that right? Skyerise (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Darker Dreams started editing the article, I immediately got the impression that they were trying to right great wrongs. I found some of their edit summaries to be jarring and some of the accusations and personal attacks on the talk page disruptive and incivil. More importantly, I found the manner in which they were making rapid changes to the article without respecting other editors through civil discussion and consensus building disturbing. To my mind their behavior went beyond bold and they were editing with a sustained editorial bias that was contrary to NPOV. It seemed like a steam-roller had hit the article.
    Their combativeness on the talk page increased as they continued to push their own personal POV, rather than accepting what reliable sources said. It crossed my mind many times that they were using Wikipedia as a soap box. This was demonstrated by edit warring and leaning towards wiki-lawyering. They accused others of malice rather than listening and trying to work with others collaboratively.
    After a requested move that did not result in their favor, they took it to DRN which was cut short by them escalating it to ArbCom who did not take the case, and now we are here at ANI. They were blocked for a week for disruptive editing/edit warring but did not seem to learn from this. They kept repeating the same arguments again and again and insisting that other editors were not acting in good faith. They did not know how to retreat, think things through and work with others.
    To my mind, this is the very definition of tendentious editing, WP:TEND. Their behavior has been a huge, time-sink. It is my opinion as an editor that Darker Dreams should be topic blocked from all articles dealing with witchcraft. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also involved in the dispute, but also not very deeply perhaps. In connection to the above, I believe that editors should also be aware that, during the dispute, Darker Dreams created three spin-off articles, two of which were deleted: I find it quite noteworthy that one of them underwent A10 deletion (AfD, log); another was AfD'd as a POV fork (AfD); the third one is Witchcraft (feminist) article, and it has problems to put it mildly. —Alalch E. 16:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question about what the OP, User:Darker Dreams, is requesting. What administrative action are you asking for the community to take either against User:CorbieVreccan or against anyone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only administrative action that I see proposed in this thread is that Netherzone has called for a topic-ban against Darker Dreams from the area of witchcraft. Is there any connection between witchcraft and boomerangs? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The decorations on boomerangs and other Indigenous Australian artifacts often carry spiritual and symbolic significance. These designs and patterns are more than just aesthetic elements; they can convey important cultural, spiritual, and ancestral meanings. The decorations on boomerangs can indeed be considered as magical or spiritual symbols in the context of Indigenous Australian cultures. Skyerise (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support boomerang topic ban. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:EC58:3376:B2D3:9579 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose while a couple of article creation attempts were misguided, DD also produced a nice {{Witchcraft sidebar}} which aids navigation between the regional daughter articles under Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? if I create an incredibly useful template on [a topic]but i act like a jerk on [topic], does that protect me from being Tbanned from [topic]? 2600:4040:475E:F600:C037:733B:64C2:2149 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also oppose boomerang as a mostly non-involved party here. While I admittedly haven't been following the whole saga super closely, I haven't really gotten a sense that DD in particular is a problem editor separate from the general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude going around here. (I do wish they'd let the DRN process work itself out before going to drama boards tho, I really do think taking this to ANI so quickly was counterproductive.) Loki (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support for topic banning DD from Witchcraft and all related articles, broadly construed. Would also like some administrative action taken against Skyerise for her WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, chronic incivility, poisoning of the well, vicious personal attacks and casting of aspersions. I offered a diff above of her calling me a "POV vandal" for normal editing, a phrase which the DD account also used in attacking me and Asarlaí, and you can see her constant jabs on this page. She has been just as WP:OWNy on these articles as DD. As shown in the diffs I offered above, she is the one who coordinated tag-team edit-warring with Randy Kryn and DD. She is very capable of playing nice for a while, but then reversing it all later and, like above, claiming things she did a month ago (or longer) don't count. She's been editing since 2004, not just with this account, and is clever at gaming the system. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must object to the aspersions cast by CV suggesting that I have abused multiple accounts. I have never edited with any other account, though before I created this, my one and only account, I edited as an IP for a few years. My original user name was "Yworo", I went through the official process to have my account renamed. That's it. If CV thinks otherwise they are welcome to open an SPI case. Skyerise (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SUPPORT a topic ban for Darker Dreams. I'd also support serious consequences for Skyerise who has been a very tendenious editor in all of this, including personal attacks, incivility, and casting aspersions about CorbieVreccan and others(e.g., "CorbieVreccan has a tendency to exaggerate."). She also has a pattern of insinuating that any admin or editor who disagrees with her is either incompetent or has ulterior motives. I don't have the time or energy tonight to provide more examples/diffs but if anyone wants to look at Talk:Witchcraft, they can probably be found. I have past experience with Skyerise's particular technique of wearing down other editors by a combination of bullying and misrepresentation. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do be sure to click through that link labelled "either incompetent or has ulterior motives" - neither accusation is supported by what I said there. Also, I invite anyone to test the ironic assertion that more (sic) examples could probably be found "if anyone wants to look at Talk:Witchcraft", I invite them to do as MI suggests: go ahead and review all my comments on that talk page. I have, and I found that they are all polite, detailed logical reasoning about content matters. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose and would ask that all editors stop this merry-go-round and concentrate on removing language at Witchcraft which sinks to the level of accusatory language brought by the anti-feminist witchhunters of the past. When Wikipedia repeats, in Wikipedia's voice, the absurd claims of those who murdered tens of thousands of women by accusing them of things those women knew nothing about, it focuses on the spin of other-hate rather than on the involved topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose sanctions on Skyerise. They have made many, really useful improvements to European witchcraft, Asian witchcraft, Witchcraft in the Middle East (which was quite sensibly split from the Asia article, as the Middle East and Asia are two very different domains), and Neopagan witchcraft. As a result of this, and her eye for fine detail as well as a good view of the broader picture, Witchcraft itself is being improved. It's not at all right to drag her through the mud here. I'm also sad to see that the dispute resolution process failed due to DD's jumping the gun and mistakenly taking the issue to ArbCom, but I'm glad to see the RfC about the lede that nevertheless came out of the DRN. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Consensus tending broadly towards:
    1. Aman reverting the sock being okay, per policy/guideline/essay
    2. AB reverting Aman being okay
    3. Aman's subsequent edit warring not being okay
    4. Cryptic's block of Aman being not okay, if done purely based on his reverting the sock; and being broadly okay, if done due to Aman's edit warring (which presumably was the case)
    5. General okay towards lifting of the indefinite block put on Aman by Cryptic
    Given the above, with due regard to all comments by editors here, I am lifting Aman's block. In case any administrator wishes to overturn this closure, you may please do so without my permission. Thank you, Lourdes 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • This sock came back to start WP:DRV at 19:53, on 17 August‎.[62]
    • The sock got blocked for evading his block at 09:42 18 August for block evasion.[63].
    • At 10:06, I closed the DRV per WP:DENY, WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:SNOW because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[64]
    • Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[65]
    • From 17:40, I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[66][67]
    • At 17:55, my close was now reverted by a different editor.[68] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[69]
    • Now 20 minutes later, at 18:16, I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK.[70]
    • Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[71]

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

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

    See:
    The AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [72][73][74] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[75], then speedy closed, then told @The ed17 he closed since there were no objections[76].
    If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
    Now he’s going after @Cryptic here at ANI.
    My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
    I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
    —~~<~ A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
    There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure per the version of the DRV which I closed. That close was perfectly valid per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW.
    You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[77] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [78]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at the version of the DRV which I closed. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, there you go again.
    You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing. diff
    Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit which you are citing appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[79] It is not same as this edit (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. Dympies (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dympies, please explain these diffs:
    Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[80]
    His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[81]
    After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[82]
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant to your false claim that "You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing." Don't shift the goalposts. Dympies (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of holes. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How? The DRV was started by a sock and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll also note that WP:DENY is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an excuse to make WP:INVOLVED closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an essay is doing no-one any good. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —Cryptic 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A sock can be reverted by anyone.
    @Cryptic: The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[83] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was nobody who opposed the closure. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. The ed17 reverted you.
    You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and Cryptic reverted you twice.
    After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told The ed17 there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[84][85] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the AfD as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[86] Ping Bishonen, RegentsPark and El C since they are familiar with the area. CharlesWain (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Illegal? In what jurisdiction? casualdejekyll 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[87] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. CharlesWain (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
      I do care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
      —20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. CharlesWain (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and really should not have gotten into an edit war over either of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Kusma. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isabelle Belato: I had already started the discussion here and also here. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy Wikipedia:Involved and the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closures are clear: "Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes." Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse Drmies' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend 1RR restriction. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [88][89] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. CharlesWain (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious DRV. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that User:Aman.kumar.goel was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that User:A. B. also is in good faith requesting deletion review, so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear WP:IDHT, and I think Cryptic got it spot on. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
    Cryptic's use of WP:ROLLBACK against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[91] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[92] These actions are not in the line with the blocking policy.
    Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
    @Orientls please explain how the following is “good faith”:
    • Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[93]
    • His next edit was to close the DRV:[94]
    • After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[95]
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Orientls your criticism of Cryptic’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. WP:DENY is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, you have to first consult the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a judicial body so your use of the term "illegal" is misleading. It is correct that WP:ROLLBACK says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[96] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "disingenuous", "disingenuousness", "duplicitous" across this thread, you have already put yourself into WP:NPA block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cryptic, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, Lourdes 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of WP:BLOCKEVADE, which is policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in opposition to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a closure myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) However, BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted once by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of WP:BLOCKEVADE. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. wanted to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's covered in the fourth bullet point. I've made such closures myself (though not recently, and I don't think it's worth going and looking for a diff). But the point is to minimize disruption and wasted editor-hours, and the closure attempts here did the precise opposite in both respects. It's not like the discussion was ever in any danger of giving the ip what they wanted. —Cryptic 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see WP:IAR) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than WP:EVADE or WP:BANREVERT or indeed, WP:DENY. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BANREVERT is a site-wide policy, and it would be improper to sanction an editor for enforcing it. DRV cannot make itself immune. There is no excuse for reverting the restoration by an editor in good standing, though. At that point, policy considers the thread to belong to whoever restored it, so unless they're violating some other policy, it's valid. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not only is WP:INVOLVED also a site-wide policy, the block was not levied because of WP:BANREVERT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wrong because the BANREVERT is among the reasons behind blocking in the words of Cryptic; "early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy".[97] Orientls (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Lucky that's among the reasons. If it was the sole reason for the block, IMO that would be a serious enough administrative error that we should be contemplating an arbcom case. User:Cryptic, WP:DENY is site-wide policy. Please learn it if you want to continue to be an admin. If you're unwilling, please hand in your tools voluntarily under a cloud and save us the hassle of a future arbcom case when you ignore WP:DENY in circumstances where a block wasn't otherwise justified. DRV regulars, we have enough problem areas as it is. Please do not allow DRV to become another one since it serves a useful purpose. If you continue to ignore site wide policy, we may have no choice but to shut down DRV and look at other ways of handling deletion reviews which doesn't allow the development of an insular WP:LOCALCONSENSUS board that has developed a culture where sitewide policy is ignored is. Such a thing is completely unacceptable so it's not something we should allow to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      P.S. Since I'm a nitpicker myself, I should clarify it is WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:SOCK which are policy which is what I should have said instead of WP:DENY. Remember that WP:3RRNO even makes it clear that reverting a sock or evader doesn't count as edit warring. For further clarity, I'm aware that Aman Kumar Goel started to edit war against non socks, that's why I said there was other reasonable justification for the block. My point is that it's well established that block and ban evaders are unwelcome here, and editors are very welcome to remove their disruption no matter whether they're technically WP:INVOLVED. It's something that all admins, and frankly all experienced editors hoping to contribution useful to DRV should be well aware of. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I should clarify I have no specific opposition A.B. restoring the discussion if they felt it had merit (as opposed to restoring it since they thought what Aman Kumar Goel did was improper). However as Aquillion's said, the sock's comments should have remained struck. And it might have been better to simply start a fresh discussion untainted by a sock if there was little useful to support the case A.B. wanted to make. It's complicated since older participants may feel they already addressed A.B. points and there was no need for them to remake them. OTOH, as we've seen at ANI and elsewhere, when we leave open threads started by known socks, there can be dissatisfaction with the result which lasts a long time and generates more AN//I threads and I see no reason to doubt the same could happen at DRV. Note that IMO if there have been good faith contributions, unless you're absolutely sure the people who made the comment doesn't mind, it's generally better to archive etc rather than to delete a pointless discussion started by the sock. While it is cleaner to simply delete all sock nonsense, we do have to consider the feelings or other editors who might be unhappy with their good faith contributions being deleted. If it's a small number of contributions you could ask for permission but if it's complicated just strike and close/archive. Anything else risks increasing disruption from the sock (which could be what they want), not reduce it which should ultimately be our goal. Perhaps my final point, I think we need to be clear why BANEVADE matters here. This case is complicated by the fact there were other comments even if they were almost universally in opposition to the sock. However, from what User:SportingFlyer has said, it seems to me they think that if a sock S opens a DRV then editor E who was involved in the deletion cannot speedy close this discussion even if there are no comments besides sock S. And this would apply even if editor E noticed this sock (before or after the report, it doesn't matter) and reported sock S to an admin or CU who agreed and blocked sock S as a sock. This is not in any way acceptable, and DRV need to get with the programme, or risk being shut down. Socks and their contributions are unwelcome, and so there is no harm in removing them, involved or not. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, this is the language at the top of the Wikipedia:Deny recognition (“WP:DENY”)
    • ” This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”
    Cryptic did not violate any policy. It is inappropriate to say he should hand in his tools. Clearly outside a small group of editors, there is wide support here for Cryptic’s actions.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: If I can squeeze a word in edgewise through the edit conflicts?
    WP:DENY is not site-wide or any other sort of policy [I see you acknowledged that afterwards]. It doesn't say anything like what you seem think it does. What actual policy has to say is that editors can reinstate the edits of blocked users if "the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which I think we can all agree A. B. has done. And a selective quote out of context - when the context is on this very page, even if it's not visible in the linked diff - doesn't make something true. You want to know what I blocked for? You could look at what I said I blocked for.
    Look. I don't usually participate in reviews of my administrative actions - if they can't stand on the reasons I stated for them, they probably weren't justified - but this I cannot allow to stand. —Cryptic 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Of course I don't think local consensus at DRV overrides WP:BLOCKEVADE. Do you really think I'm arguing socks are welcome there? The entire problem here started because an WP:INVOLVED non-administrator closed the discussion, and the prong that they closed it under even notes that generally these are "administrative closes." If they had just struck the sock's comments, we'd be fine. If they had asked an admin to close early, we'd be fine. If they hadn't reverted after it was reopened, we'd be fine. But you've completely mis-interpreted what I'm arguing, and considering you've said that I "definitely doesn't seem to understand fundamental policy" and were yet incorrect in even understanding what I was arguing, I'd like it if you offered an apology. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I see Cryptic themselves has pointed out above SportingFlyer is simply wrong as DRV speedy closure guidelines implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of closures for BANEVADE reasons "Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations" Given this, it seems Cryptic must understand that a local consensus at DRV cannot override BANEVADE or SOCK so I no longer have concerns over their understanding of this fundamental point. However I've re-read what they said above several times and stick by my original comment. It was very unclear from what Cryptic said that they said that they understood this important point namely that if the editor was a sock, removing their contributions in as reasonable a manner as possible was fully justified no matter involvement or DRV guidelines. Which given the presence of other good faith contributions was complicated so we can debate the best way to do so, but not the fundamental issue namely that socks are unwelcome so involved doesn't matter, DRV guidelines notwithstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In case there's still any doubt, even if an editor W in good standing reverted solely for an invalid reason e.g. saying editor E should not close a discussion started by and who's sole contributors were sock S (or maybe editor E too) when it was already established sock S was a sock, editor E should not get into an edit war with editor W. At most, I'd argue a single reversion by editor E of editor W's reversion combined with a polite explanation on editor W's talk page might be okay. Any further than that barring further specific consensus would almost definitely be wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. As always, if you find yourself needing to edit war against an editor in good standing unless it's WP:3RRNO (which would apply to the sock edits themselves but for good reason isn't generally taken to apply to the restoration of sock edits), then just don't. As annoying and dumb as it may seem, get the consensus first. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nil Einne writes: Maybe SportingFlyer is simply wrong and DRV regulars don't feel that way, I don't know. It would be good if someone could clarify if DRV actually understands this key point. I think that I am one of the DRV regulars, but I think that I don't know what the supposed rule at DRV is. I am not aware of a local rule at DRV about early closures. It is true that early closures at DRV are rare. I don't think that is because of a rule. I think that is just the way it is. So what, if anything, is the issue about the culture at DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A DRV was just early-closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see why there is confusion about whether there is a local consensus at DRV about early closures. User:SportingFlyer has misinterpreted a notice. SportingFlyer wrote: There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. It is true that DRV lists four DRV-specific speedy closures. It doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. Besides, the fourth speedy closure is a catch-all:

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

    I would say that an appeal by a sock has no prospect of success. Anyway, the list doesn't say that those are the only reasons for speedy closure. So SportingFlyer made an easy-to-make-mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at this from the perspective of a non-administrative closer. If I went to see if I can close a discussion early, I'd look at the four reasons why. The fourth is written: Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success...these will usually be marked as "administrative close". It can apply to a sock's nomination, but as a non-admin, even if a sock had started a discussion, there's no way I would read this and think, oh, I can close this discussion on my own. I think the "administrative close" bit is key. (Note I have closed DRV before, as someone involved, after the closer withdrew their nomination, and no one else had opposed at that point, with the express note anyone could revert the close.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably me, as I tend to do those @Robert McClenon. I firmly believe IAR applies to most situations, and when I close it's because it's a clear human error (Poast) or headed to XfD anyway (the KPop redirect) so we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy. If those are out of process, I'm absolutely willing to stop but it has never been raised. On this specific DRV, I think it can be closed but it should be by someone else besides A.B or AKG, both of whom have had their say. I'm definitely not wading into the minefield though. Star Mississippi 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never close a discussion I was involved in. I also personally think potentially contentious discussions should only be closed by admins since they are community-vetted in RfAs.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Star Mississippi - I am not entirely sure what I was pinged about. I was trying to defend DRV by saying that, in my experience, it doesn't have a local consensus that overrides policies. SportingFlyer said that there are four provisions for early closure at DRV. Yes, and two of them are straightforward (withdrawn by filer, or reversed by closer), and one is itself sort of IAR. Robert McClenon (talk) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn - It can be argued on the process, but the DRV has a snowballs chance in hell of actually convincing anyone. Started by a sock, on an article that was clearly non notable, with keep votes not based in policy - It would be impossible to convince any reasonable editor that the close was wrong. That was reflected in the votes there.
    This is an area with a lot of disruption, particularly by POV socks. The major issue here is that the block was more punitive than preventive, since no ongoing disruption was taking place. A reminder to editors in this discussion, who seem to have forgotten this - "They did something wrong, we should punish them" is not the standard at Wikipedia. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption, not to punish things that are perceived as (potentially, in this case, controversially) disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, but limit the block to 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn bad block. The entire issue emerged with uncommon understanding over closing a unanimously opposed DRV which was started by a ban evader. It is clear now that Aman.kumar.goel was correct with closing it. Had A.B. and Cryptic recognized it, then there would be no issue. Yes Aman.kumar.goel edit warred but so did A.B. and Cryptic as rightly noted above. Starting with A.B., he had unilaterally reverted a correct closure 2 times with false impression that the sock was a legitimate user given their removal of sock-strike.[98] A.B. clearly refused to stop reverting it even after being told about the right procedure.[99] Cryptic has abused rollback for making 2 reverts and he provided explanation for these reverts hours after making the block.[100] [101] I am not seeing any justification for this behavior. Capitals00 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn per above. Edit warring to revert closure of a filing (by sock) is meaningless. Socks are not allowed to evade block. We warn even vandals but there was no warning for the OP. Cryptic was himself edit warring with the OP so I don't think he was qualified to make a block in the first place. Chronology of the events tell that the block came in middle of an ongoing discussion[102] thus it was not preventative. It is safe to say that if Cryptic had reported OP on a appropriate noticeboard then the report would be unsuccessful. Azuredivay (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse but lift now - a good (partial) block; "I know it's a sock" doesn't justify involved edit-warring for a procedural discussion, and the page-ban was appropriately narrow. But now the socking is confirmed, and the DRV is approaching SNOW close support; there is no longer a need for the block. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn as a bad block per policy. As noted above, socking is expressly included in the exception to 3RR. SN54129 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block. It's a rule that requests from socks should not be entertained. The difference in opinion had to be discussed. Therefore, the use of block buttons was unwarranted. desmay (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Did I do the right thing here?

    OP's queries answered significantly; Squared.Circle.Boxing advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. Lourdes 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [103]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.
    So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    *cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise let's rap 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – 2.O.Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [104] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These comments [105] [106] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – 2.O.Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [107] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

    The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.

    The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)

    Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.

    Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.

    If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page.
    While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious.
    Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias.
    Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise let's rap 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision.
    For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas.
    Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not.
    At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria.
    Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise let's rap 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Chuachenchie

    Final warning given. Will block if they persist. Come back if I miss this and they resume editing. Thanks, Lourdes 06:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Sierra Nevada

    IPA content dispute. Directed likewise by Snow Rise to parties. For those more interested, deeper clarity below by Cullen. Lourdes 05:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Diffs: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. Sol505000 (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage with the schwa is included in the reference Sol50500 himself provided, as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references. I'm unclear as to why he is so adamant as to its removal from the article as an alternative transcription of the pronunciation.
    I reference the article's talk page, which indicates I am not alone in my concerns of which he has not made adequate attempts to address; consensus does not seem to be with him. Crescent77 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as well as discussed as an alternative in the MOS/Help he references it is not, not as a transcriptional alternative. The Help:IPA/English explicitly says that this kind of variation is covered by the symbol ⟨ɪ⟩ alone. Sol505000 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sol, I just digested the entirety of that very long and technically complex discussion (even for someone like myself with a formal, if dated and infrequently used these days, background in phonemics), and there is absolutely no firm consensus as yet that your interpretation is the more valid one. In fact, if anything, the discussion seemed to be leaning towards support for multiple IPA glosses, before it trailed off. Therefor this is very much still a content dispute and not a behavioural issue, and ANI is not the place to resolve any of this. You have five editors contributing there, with an apparent deadlock, insofar as you are very committed to your perspective, Crescent is something like 90% committed to the other option (but slightly open to having their mind changed, I think, as they recognize the technicalities are on the periphery of their wheelhouse), and three editors are in the middle ground and thus far have described only the complexities here, no firm positions on which way to go.
    Normally under these circumstances, I would suggest you RfA the issue. But the technicalities here are such that I don't see that as a particularly likely solution for ending this particular deadlock. You might consider positing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics: it's slow these days, but not as dead as some WikiProjects. It may take some time to get the numbers you need to form a firm consensus here, but there's really WP:NORUSH. And honestly, particularly not in this case. I doubt that one reader out of a thousand has enough facility with IPA to be taking their lead for pronunciations from those glosses routinely: most probably only reference the relevant articles when they really need to know how to pronounce a topic they are wholly unfamiliar with, but need to sound informed about--basically we are talking niche within niche within niche need here.
    The project (nor even the article) is about to fall over this, and honestly, one of you could probably afford to just give way. I doubt that's going to happen, given how far the discussion has already com, but you need to at least understand that you're in a touch position here (needing consensus but lacking the ability to poll the average editor to give cogent feedback to form it) and you're jsut going to have to wait it out, if neither of you can let go. Regardless, there is no behavioural violation here and ANI cannot help you at this juncture. SnowRise let's rap 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to look through this and share your views. Crescent77 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all: did take my mind back a long time ago to a phonology lab for a moment there, mind you! I wish I could help with the deadlock, but the issue is that I see both arguments as quite valid and I'll have to process the entire discussion at least once more before I feel confident lodging a firm position here. These are close issues and my reading of the technicalities is hindered by the deprivations of time on my adroitness for phonemics! SnowRise let's rap 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as the Help:IPA you reference clearly shows, and has been thoroughly discusssed yet not addressed by yourself in the article talk page, the schwa is acceptable for a weak vowel and is differentiated from the i. You protested by claiming there's a weak vowel merger, which as discussed, many American vernaculars, including some of those in the region in question, do not have. For a more thorough understanding of the ambiguity present in the "i" to speakers of American English, and our desire to include the schwa as is standard, please go to International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects.
    Once again, your Longman source explicitly includes, as you yourself indicate in the article talk page, the schwa as an IPA alternative in this specific case, yet you are adamant on its completely removal, without adequate justification and with a resistance to the compromise suggested. This makes it seem like you may be veering into WP:RightGreatWrongs territory. I understand your desire to promote a universal global standard for consistent pronunciation transcriptions, but not all vernaculars readily fit into the simplified IPA format. The issues surrounding this specific symbology are well documented, and the format is still in transition. I'm not understanding why you have such an issue with including both transcriptions, that you would engage in edit warring, and then when called out, elevate it here without any further discussion in the article talk. Crescent77 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Crescent, I think that's a reasonable perspective, but I'd save it for a forum where it will matter. There's no way even someone completely uninformed about these areas is going to to look at that discussion and say that you are acting against consensus. There is unambiguously no consensus at this moment in time: just a lot of very close (and for most editors, inaccessible) technical distinctions. Continue to butt heads if you must, but here's the long and the short of it: whichever version was there in a long term stable version of the article up until the onset of this debate should stay in the article (or if a new one was inserted between the initial start of this debate three months back and the re-flare up today, that one might be the new stable version for the time being). Either way, nobody should edit war over it. Keep discussing until someone is convinced (or just simply tires, recognizes the extremely low stakes and gives way), or you get enough input to get a firm consensus. That's just the best that can be done here at the moment. SnowRise let's rap 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for your input.
    I'd suggest the schwa was the long-term stable version, but as I've repeatedly indicated, I'm willing to accept the inclusion of both, as it now stands. Crescent77 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sierra Nevada Brewing Company India Pale Ale, I assume. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good gracious are they proud of that drink there, with a regional fervour usually reserved for a sport franchise elsewhere. Glad you got it, Jim: that close to the border, and they might have tried to spirit you across in the middle of the night otherwise. SnowRise let's rap 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Footballrelated

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

    An explicit inline citation would be preferable but the change is supported by two references in article, Worldfootball.net and Soccerway. I haven't looked into their other recent contributions, that diff alone is not a blockable offence to me though. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The items removed aren't specifically reffed, and while I'm not familiar with worldfootball.net's (the first ref on the page) reliability or practices, they seem to say he's indeed no longer playing for that team - compare their entries for three current players. If Sachpekidis did leave the team, then - obviously - it would have been better if Footballrelated said and sourced that in their edit instead of just removing the infobox items and the currently-plays-for statement from the lead, but I honestly can't see how their version of the article so much worse than yours that it merits a block. —Cryptic 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman acts a little ruthless in the pages he "owns". He blocks without hesitation EVEN if the edit is correct.
    My concern is that he can edit the changes himself, yet he doesn't do it.
    I don't think Wikipedia needs an authoritarian figure like him. Footballrelated (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't called for. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robby.is.on and Cryptic: this is about an editor with a long history of making unsourced edits to BLPs who doesn't seem to give a damn about sourcing or verifiability. GiantSnowman 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Soccerway does not say he has left - WorldFootball (a stats database) does. That is not sufficient sourcing. GiantSnowman 16:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already a source in this specific article which comfirms my edit.
    Most, if not all, of the articles related to footballers have a reference which leads to their profile from a football page, like Soccerway or WorldFootball.
    Your job is not patrolling and terrorizing editors while you could make the change in this article all by yourself before all this drama occurs. 178.59.44.56 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And neither is that. I get that you're upset, but tone it down. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point, until you read the edits from Robby and Cryptic above suggesting WF, did you suggest that you used WF to make the edit in question. GiantSnowman 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you could make the change in this article all by yourself That is not how Wikipedia works, Footballrelated. The WP:BURDEN is on you to make sure the changes you make are verifiable. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As i said already, footballers articles have almost always a reference which leads to their profile bios, also he doesn't allow transfermarkt references, which are more accurate to the already existing ones.
    None of my edits are misleading or vandalism.
    GiantSnowman owns many pages which he doesn't edit by himself at all.
    He feels the urge to block people, i cannot do anything against it.
    It's up to you Footballrelated (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Many of the changes you make are not verifiable. You have been told so many, many times in recent years, and not just by GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've looked at their prior trips to AN/I. But what we have right now is the removal - not addition - of statements to a BLP that, per the refs already in the article, appear no longer to be true. Even if they were only right by accident this time, that's not blockable. —Cryptic 16:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another unsourced edit yesterday, another the day before, another, another. This is not a standalone or one-off issue. This is somebody who has been blocked THREE times before for these same types of edits. GiantSnowman 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indefinite block Fransson's move is supported by the Soccerway reference in the article. The moves of Kokkinis, Kerthi and Ntoumanis are not supported by references in the articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, those are actionable. I'm not going to be the one to block - scroll up a bit and it should be obvious why - but, particularly given the recentness of the three-month-long block for the same behavior, I agree an indef is now warranted. —Cryptic 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, you won.
    Consider my opinion about giantsnowman, though.
    Bye Footballrelated (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support Community Ban - The combination of this editor's history of adding unreliable information to biographies of living persons and subsequent personal attacks on editors who caution them and clean up make this editor a net negative who does not appear to be willing to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN: Yeah, I'm up for this as well as a failsafe against appeal. Footballrelated's racked up years of warning and multiple blocks over sourcing issues, and no one can claim he hasn't been warned and warned and warned again. It's just that he doesn't give a damn, just refuses to do it, and seems to believe that his edit count immunizes him against bothering. (Why not, after all ... for how many years did that premise suit the likes of Lugnuts just fine?) Toss in his frequent incivilities and that's just the crust on top of the road apple. Ravenswing 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? A CBAN? I mean, Support while we're here, but that's definitely overkill. The account is indeffed. We can talk about a CBAN later if they keep causing problems, but it really seems bureaucratic to go there right now. casualdejekyll 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved for now. Lourdes 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I dont know entirely, but there is a part of me that wonders if they're a sock of User:Kung Hibbe, the infamous WP:NOTBROKEN user. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're still doing it. Not a word of communication. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we know they've found their talk page as they've previously blanked it (their one and only user talk edit.) Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail, cross reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo. This has simultaneously spread to different venues. Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for tipping this but I blocked Mage with some advise on their talk. Tamzin can upgrade this to a CU block if so is confirmed. Thank you, Lourdes 09:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TylerBurden Do you have a link to that earlier report? I honestly forgotten that I did so. Ergzay (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Stonewalling and POV pushing in the Aghlabids article

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

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

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

    This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, reliable sources and NPOV were discussed in detail on the talk page and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing consensus-building by edit-warring (see article history in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see the file page's history). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other WP:TENDENTIOUS responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. R Prazeres (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "Contrary to what L2212 implies". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. L2212 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lie and you know it all too well (the talk page is there is prove it). As for the rest: coming from a disruptive SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, it can only be taken as a compliment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Roblox888i2 talkpage abuse

    (non-admin closure) Roblox888i2 has been indefinitely blocked by Secretlondon as a vandalism-only account. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    In the vast majority of cases, if you ignore them, they simply go away. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having editing problems but I've taken their talk page and email away. Secretlondon (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:RussBot is malfunctioning

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

    I'm not inclined to block RussBot just yet, because the hatnote it's editing shouldn't exist per WP:NAMB. Pinging R'n'B to see if this is a one-off. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) nevermind, there's an exception per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Similar proper names ("For other people named ..."). Steppin back from this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged the dab page with G14 (it only had one link coming in altogether outside its mention here), which should solve the issue. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let someone else make the final call on the speedy, as I'm not familiar with G14 in practice, but bullets 1 and 2 don't seem to apply because it's a redirect and bullet 3 doesn't apply because it points to a dab page. From the rcat, it looks like a ton of similar pages exist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    G14 does not apply to that redirect, so I have removed the tag. The bot's edits were correct and should not have been reverted. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    '66 is correct. Every DAB page which does not have a (disambiguation) qualifier should be targeted by a redirect which does and which is tagged {{R to disambiguation page}}. (Other redirects to DAB pages should be tagged {{R from ambiguous term}}; links to those are also logged as errors.) Narky Blert (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot is working correctly. Links to disambiguation pages should always be routed through pages ending with (disambiguation), even if the base page does not end with that title, see WP:INTDAB. Linking directly to the page "Bob Quinn" is tagged as an error that needs fixing. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 See also WP:HOWTODAB, which is consistent with INTDAB. Narky Blert (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 The bot is not malfunctioning; this is the intended result. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tekosh

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

    In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely.". These were the two attacks they had made [115] [116]

    Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

    1. At Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [117] [118], despite it having no relevance (MOS:ETHNICITY) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
    2. Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [119]
    3. This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

    WP:NOTHERE if you ask me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to acting like an angry mastadon) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see this fruitless discussion. A classic WP:ADVOCACY issue: they wrote We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong. I wrote back Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: I have given them a ctopic notification. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tekosh, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up WP:PILLARS, WP:NOT and most importantly, WP:V and WP:RS. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at the Teahouse is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, Lourdes 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another WP:NPA towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [120]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [121]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HistoryofIran, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. Lourdes 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.
    I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.
    But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes forgot to tag you. :) Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tekosh, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under WP:Content policies. Thank you, Lourdes 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I have read the Wikipedia:CONTENTS. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. Tekosh (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tekosh, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at this link? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. Lourdes 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crumpled Fire removing my comment repeatedly alleging it's a "personal attack"

    Involved editors advised by regulars; probably better to close here. Lourdes 07:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I said nothing about using TikTok as a source, reread my comment. The comment was discussing the relevance of TikTok as a site of origin for trending topics. Obviously, the sourcing about whatever's trending at TikTok would need to come from reliable sources. My editing history would make it clear that I strive to only ever cite reliable sources. I do believe the above user's comment which constituted nothing other than my length of time on the encyclopedia in contrast with my apparent lack of knowledge and how I "should familiarize myself" with policies contravenes the WP:PERSONAL ATTACK policy, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Nothing about the comment made by the above user was about the content, it was entirely a negative comment about me. Was it particularly egregious, perhaps not. But it absolutely constitutes a personal attack, and I feel justified in removing it, as per the note in the WP:PA policy stating "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." In fact, the above user's repeated re-addition of the personal attack may violate the same policy, namely the following: "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans". I'm not asking that the above user be sanctioned, only that the personal attack remain removed.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the personal attack? That I was legitimately shocked that you were advocating the use as TikTok as reliable source for a controversy section on a person's comments, when you seem like a seasoned editor (based on how long you've been registered). We will let the admins decide if my comment should remain. Mike Allen 00:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was not so uncivil as to warrant removal, but the community is not likely to have much enthusiasm for forcing Crumpled Fire to reinstate it. I believe that the OP has successfully made his point and now both of you should return to discussing article content at the article's talk page. In short, there's nothing to be accomplished here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar to Lepricavark, my take here is that Mike's comment was 1) based on a misunderstanding of Crumpled Fire's comment, 2) more strongly worded than is ideal, but not a personal attack, 3) not worth removing, especially by the person it was directed at, and 4) not worth restoring. {{plip}}s to both; let's move on. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely does....not constitute a personal attack. Look, the tone was ill-considered to the point of making me question what Mike could have possibly thought would be gained from framing their concerns in that way. I might even call it socially obtuse and counterintuitive, but it's just a very different kind of animal from anything described in WP:WIAPA. Yes, one should typically keep discussion focused on source, policy, and editorial issues, and avoid commentary on the rhetorical opposition personally. And if there was some broad issue with Crumpled Fire's editing that Mike absolutely felt had to be addressed, a user talk page is probably a better place for it.
    But at the end of the day Mike made a comment about another editor's competency, not their character. That has to be a topic that remains fair game, even if some people (and yes Mike, in this instance, this is you) are not particularly clued in on the best way to go about that. This project relies too much on our oversighting one-another--with all the good....and the lots and lots of ugly that come with that--for us to ban commenting upon another character's understanding of a policy under most circumstances. There are some exceptions (WP:aspersions and worse), but I'm sorry CF, this just is not one of them. Furthermore, the comment was serving some small rhetorical purpose relevant to the editorial issue, by emphasizing how much Mike disagreed with you. Again, there are much more artful ways to do this, but it's still legitimate commentary, if on the edge of civil.
    Which brings us to what I actually consider the bigger issue: edit warring to remove another editor's comment from a talk page. This is a pretty massive violation of WP:TPG, and even if you were convinced this was a personal attack, you should have brought the matter here or to and admin, Crumpled Fire. You are not entitled to remove criticism from a talk page unilaterally, let alone to edit war over it. I'm actually pretty surprised to see Lep and Tamzin be so laissez-faire about it. I expect it's that they consider the conduct here to have equalized out a bit and that as a practical matter it's best to let the two fighters retire to their corners. Well, maybe there's something to that thinking, but my instincts in this instance say you both deserve boxed ears ...er, a WP:Trout on this one.
    But I'm most concerned that you believed this was content you were entitled to remove--and that this fact leaves open a lot of room for content you will feel entitled to remove in the future. This is a bad look, and not only do I think you need to stop edit warring to keep it out, but it wouldn't hurt to restore it yourself. Because honestly, I doubt very much that I am the only one who is going to want to see you acknowledge that you recognize you cannot be removing another editor's criticisms of your approach on an article talk page, going forward. SnowRise let's rap 04:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pornographic vandalism on article.

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

    Protected now, though bans/blocks, page revision strikeouts, and a review of the offending image might be needed. It's graphic. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first instance of vandalism from that IP range; see also: [122] [123] [124]. There are also several WP:REVDELed edits. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. The image is hosted at a seperate WMF project, IP: Wikimedia Commons, which is, like, 10 percent porn. Not much can be done about that. Also, their admins are generally not fond of admins from the English Wikipedia, which makes collaborating on enforcement challenging to say the least (and they especially dislike me, but I wear it as a badge of honour). El_C 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea there was a feud between Wikipedia admins and Commons admins — Czello (music) 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is un-spoken, but I slaughter sacred cows on the regular, so fuck it! El_C 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate a bit on the feud? NM 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that expanding on the attitude of some Commons admins to some of that website's more unacceptable images may end up crossing a legal boundary on libel. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of sheer curiosity, and because this vandal seems to have chosen their target for optimum traffic today, what was the image? Description or link: I'm no shrinking violet. ;) SnowRise let's rap 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A POV close-up of a man wearing a condom (suprisingly) having sexual intercourse doggy style with a woman. Pretty boring image but utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so probably some bored adolescent titillating themselves, rather than a more longterm committed troll. Still, given their targets, a range block might be appropriate? Or was that part of what El_C's {{done}} was about? SnowRise let's rap 21:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, the image description mentions how the woman photographed was making cat noises or some shit. Which is real fucking educational, minus the educational. El_C 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of what's going on is that (as someone -- Arid Desiccant, perhaps? -- once observed) Commons has long been the English Wikipedia's penal colony, to which its convicted felons, and those otherwise disgraced or disgruntled in some way, are transported. So it's a bit of a wild west. EEng 22:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll bear all of this in mind the next time I have a photo of a rare tree frog or graph of a metabolic pathway deleted off of commons because of a misplaced comma in the license description. Good to know that we can't have images useful to WM educational purposes without meeting the most stringent of licensure conditions, but we can serve as a webhost for thousands of images of fellatio, so long as the people who took them really, really wanted us to have them. ;)
    Actually, I'm exaggerating my ire and my position: I understand the reasons for our (and Commons') standards and (mostly) support them--at least as far as what is removed, and maybe a bit less so as to what is kept. But it does work some peculiar outcomes sometimes. SnowRise let's rap 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious if revisions [125] [126] could also be looked into and suppressed as mentioned above. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems Ingenuity has already revdel'ed those revisions. The /20 range responsible for those has also been temporarily block. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much. I think we're done here. 108.160.120.118 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    JohnEC Jr and Talk:Jesus

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

    Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.

    • User made additions to Jesus on June 18 [127] to add a fringe theory by Scholem Asch that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
    • User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [128] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
    • During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is WP:FRINGE, and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [129]
    • During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [130]
    • Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [131]
    • Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [132], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in Jesus per WP policy and guidelines.
    • Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [133], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [134], [135]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [136].

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

    As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BITE applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[137] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on both, especially WP:BITE. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at Talk:Jesus but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) E. C. John and the latter's father-in-law Hans Ehrenberg. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing E. C. John and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on E. C. John or Hans Ehrenberg by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. E. C. John: [138], [139]; Hans Ehrenberg: [140]
    • This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single diff. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like WP:BITE or Jesus are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. El_C 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NP Jtrevor99. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). El_C 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from Jesus and Talk: Jesus. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of his attacks on Cullen, I've blocked him outright and removed talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm saddened that that was necessary but in light of the latest edits, it is the best course of action. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP here to POV-push

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked for 48 hours by Bishonen for disruptive editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:2605:59C8:3170:A600:F89C:89D4:E197:24AF edit-wars at Precepts of the Church, where they recently stated: I don't care what the satanists, heretics, gays, and other perverts do to make the Vaticans website say ([141]). A warning at their talk page changed nothing. I think a block is needed. Veverve (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 19:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In the news discussion of Lucy Letby

    I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

    This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

    A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:

    1. "But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"
    2. "Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"
    3. "This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"
    4. "Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

    There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the whole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The really sad part is that these two discussions are barely even outliers. I've about given up. —Cryptic 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (I do want to note that - taken in context - Jayron32's comment isn't hostile to UK editors; it's hostile to editors that are hostile to UK editors.) —Cryptic 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is, by quite a long and obvious way, consistently the worst quality feature on the main page and ITN discussions are a sinkhole of appalling behaviour. It's inexplicable why it continues - but it does and it's untouchable. Just one of many Wikipedia mysteries. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a good opportunity to point out that Today's Featured List runs twice-weekly in a dusty corner of the main page, when the list of FLs-never-on-TFL is substantially longer than the list of FAs-never-on-TFA and if given a permanent big four slot would have plenty of material for years. Vaticidalprophet 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to wonder if we're at the point where arbitration is necessary. Everybody seems to be in agreement that ITN/C is uncivil and toxic, but in all the times I have seen it brought up, nothing ever gets done. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble picturing what an Arbcom decision that fixes it would look like. Honestly, just putting it out of its misery is the only answer. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur, as a longtime watcher from the sidelines there. Not sure what (if there are) any solutions are, though. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno. It would probably help to summarily ban some of the worst actors from the area or perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole, and to authorize sanctions over the page in general (instead of just part of one side, like we already have with WP:AP2 - I haven't been able to decide whether it's good or bad no admin's been willing to enforce it on ITNC). Though I'll admit I've also been mulling starting a proposal to just remove ITN from the main page. —Cryptic 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to say I support the tone, phrasing, or even the majority of the sentiment in these comments, this commentary comes on the heals of a premature posting of this story in a short period of time regarding an event of questionable sustained impact for which many of the initial support votes simply cited high coverage, which is something that is always a tenuous main reason for supporting given such a concept is debatable in it's criteria, and I think it's fair to argue that this story is more of a passing one to the non-Brit population. And this story comes on the heels of several contentions death blurb nominations, such as the Michael Parkinson one. There is a growing discontent with inconsistent blurb procedure and bias in particular at ITN (which I think is very much present and certainly not limited to UK-related stories, but Western ones broadly speaking), and more and more dubious nominations and questionable postings recently have really put people off. And I hate to say it, but Fakescientist is fairly close to the truth here, even if not right on the money. If such a murderer had been active in a non-Western country, we probably wouldn't bat an eye, mostly because Western media in general doesn't give a **** about what happens outside of the West under most circumstances. For example the Mahach Kala gas station explosion would probably have been posted had it happened in, say, the US, the UK, etc. Personally, I think Jayron not assuming good faith is the real violation here. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having long observed (and remained extremely reticent to participate in) ITN discussions, it seems there are factions of American and British users who are convinced that the other represents a critical mass of regular users who routinely shoot down nominations involving news from the other country. This in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many such editors then get extremely prickly when an item involving the other country is posted, or are more inclined to support nominations from their country in response. Add in the inherent tension of ITN discussions—major, real-world tragedies being callously reduced to their "notability"—and it's a recipe for the brutal and toxic environment that's festered on that board. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These...don't really seem particularly egregious? Is it not normal for ITN discussions to evaluate the global relevance of a topic? We get far worse characterizations of groups of editors at AfD every day. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, global relevance should not be a major feature of discussion, as WP:ITNATA says that "arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful." But it's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry into actual discussion much. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things. 1) You really ought to ping the users whose comments you quoted (I will do it for you, in a moment). 2) I really don't think my comment was hostile to the UK or its citizens, and if it is being interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rockstone35 informed me of this discussion. For context, I am one of the more conservative users on ITN. My record reflects contrarianism; going against the grain is the strongest vote a user can have. Supporting a nomination that which only falters in article quality is an unnecessary vote and detracts from work I could be doing elsewhere on this site. The sentiment here that ITN is Anglophobic and anti-U.K. is an egregious exaggeration of ITN and this particular situation. Before detailing why I wrote that comment, I should take the time to inform users on ITN's environment and why consensus opposed the Lucy Letby nomination. ITN is a partisan forum because it relies on personal points of view and biases to generate discussion. ITN reflects both its users and the news. The definitions of both have changed; the 2010 Stockholm bombings were posted but would likely not be today, as was the authenticity of Sunset at Montmajour, the posthumous royal pardon of Alan Turing, AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV, the conviction of Abu Hamza, and the encyclical Laudato si'. At one point, Pokémon Go was temporarily added to the ongoing section. In recent years, ITN has shifted to a global focus, driven by Wikipedia's global reach, and it is conversely facing pushback from younger and newer users who believe ITN needs to reflect their perspective.
    The Lucy Letby nomination was opened and attracted plenty of attention from British editors who believed that it was notable on the basis that they had heard of Letby. The discussion was closed very prematurely before being pulled because it was U.K.-internal news. The nomination wasn't pulled because of Anglophobia—I'm American, as are plenty of people here, and I have no issue with British editors—but because it was only relevant in the United Kingdom. Editors often cite the second rule of ITNCDONT but neglect to see its purpose. A train derailment in Pakistan is exceptional for what it is. A woman murdering seven infants is a horrible story but only exceptional because the United Kingdom rarely has such stories. I wrote the comment in the way that I did not because I felt that it was vengeful, but because I felt the need to state what I was observing. A focus on stories from one particular country is much to be avoided regardless of which country it is. The U.S. happens to have this issue to a much larger degree because it is a larger country, but ITN has molded to reject any mass shooting with less than a dozen deaths.
    ITN is valuable because it provides readers with an accessible ticker to which they can click on individual stories, and it provides a running obituary where editors seek to improve articles on people that would otherwise go untouched after reflecting the past tense. Dismantling the system presupposes that toxicity is rooted within ITN itself when it is the juxtaposition of ideas that is breeding conflict. The increasing use of hidden archive templates is not a promising sign for ITN's longevity, but this period of disagreement will subside. Editors need to be vigilant and respectful; fortunately, Wikipedia has systems for the former and punitive processes when the latter is not represented. In a worst case scenario, I would not be opposed to the enforcement of contentious nominations à la contentious topics. Ultimately, editors who are meek and understanding will be met with respect on ITN. Such respect wanes when editors choose to be obstinate. This is not a flaw of ITN in particular, it is a flaw in humans. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We’ve had our disagreements before, but I can’t succinctly and clearly sum up the situation any better than you have spectacularly done so. Brilliant comment.
    This arb case is a gross misrepresentation of the system, and in attempting to accuse users of supposed Anglophobia it almost seems almost to bolster the concern of pro-English bias. The Kip (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was accused of anglophobia despite being British! Just horrible environment. Secretlondon (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I’d like to second Rockstone’s comment regarding not pinging those who have been mentioned on ANI, as it’s typically normal procedure to do so. Secondly, I’d like to take the time to point out the fact that my comment (and some of the others) were meant to take aim against U.K.-based items frequently being posted, not the UK/its people/editors on Wikipedia from the U.K. Thirdly, the item in question was regarding a nurse who had killed seven babies. Horrifying? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely, and I’m not trying to downplay its affect on the families or the general UK populace - but if seven people would die in a tragic event like this in someplace like China, or India, or Australia, or Canada, or any African nation, or even the U.S., then I feel as though consensus probably would not develop to post those items to ITN, unlike how it happened here. Regardless, I can confirm that my comment had no intention of wishing harm or bringing anti-U.K. sentiment to ITN, and if it did end up being interpreted to mean that, then I apologize, as I personally have nothing against the U.K. or its people. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe there is no intended maliciousness, bigotry, or anglophobia in your comments FS. I suspect everyone here can readily take you at your word as to that. But here's the problem: ITN has become habitually (and I mean in pretty much every single one of it's day-to-day determinations) disconnected from any of the normal policies which govern how much weight to show to a given topic. Large numbers of the regulars there routinely oppose entries along "X country gets enough attention in the world already." rationales. Even though ITN's own inclusion criteria clearly advise against this kind of argument, it is absolutely omnipresent: the last four times I've been RfC'd or otherwise passed through ITN in the last few years, the majority of the proposals had comments that were constructed exclusively around this sentiment. In if it's not objection based on geography, it's some other personal, idiosyncratic objection as to why the subject isn't "really" important, when you think about it.
      Now, that's all problem enough in itself, from a content perspective, but the real issue is that because the space has become so completely unmoored from any objective, source-based test, it is an absolute hotbed of subjective sentimentality, and all the usual value-based flame wars that define so much of the open forum of the internet. You see, the precise reason we have an WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT-based test as the only kind of metric of "importance" on this project is to short-circuit those kinds of arguments based on personal perspective, by tethering our determinations of inclusion to an analysis that takes the personal perspectives of our editors out of the equation.
      ITN lacks that objectivity, and so instead there is a constant cultural tug-of-war there based on the values and biases of the individual contributors as to what is "significant" (that is to say "important" enough to mention. As a consequences, it has become without question and without even a remotely close competitor, the single most consistently toxic, disruptive, and unmanageable space on the entire project. And for the record, I am including ANI and AE for comparison. I'm sure there are many there who, like you, have no particular hate in your hearts for the residents of other countries, but many of those same editors nevertheless are clearly on a self-appointed mission to fight systemic bias, one ITN candidate !vote at a time, and that only further inflames the issues there, actually elevating the overall levels of bias, and the pitched battles that result, in the space as a whole.
      And I know for a fact that these issues have been raised there many times, and the regulars have failed to heed community concerns or make even the most marginal efforts at reforming the space. So bluntly, the cost-benefit ratio for the project has been in the red for many, many years, and I agree with others above, it's time to cut this diseased appendage of the main page off. SnowRise let's rap 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think everyone can acknowledge that many votes are nonsensical in their rationales, which harms the process, but calling it a diseased appendage is absolutely absurd. The real solution is to just empower admins to be more decisive on not counting unproductive votes, which is already policy but I'd certainly support it being followed even more strongly. And it's quite clear, I'd say, that the "significance" issue is a broader one throughout Wikipedia, where no one gives a you-know-what about WP:DELAY and posts an article on anything they THINK might be notable. WP:ITN/R attempted to codify certain events considered as automatically notable, but itself faces issues, none bigger then WP:CCC. And I absolutely understand your concerns regarding the tug of war between nations at ITN, but I would say a lot of this is derived from media bias itself, which explains why not just US or UK news, but both dominate ITN at any given time. I think it's policy that should be revisited here rather then taking a TNT approach. We can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which is what every proposal regarding changes to ITN seems to be. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone make a VPP proposal already. I'm ready to !vote to close ITN once and for all. I have held out hope for years that the space and its processes could be reformed to work consistently with this project's policies and values, but it's never happened, and the talk pages associated with it have been a chronic source of disruption and toxicity, as well as a recurrent drag on community attention and resources that far exceeds the value our readers extract from the feature. Not withstanding the "for all" above, perhaps we can relaunch it in the future with tighter constraints and a more objective basis for decisions made in the space, avoiding the kind of culture war nonsense that currently defines its daily arguments, but I don't think it's possible while it remains live and functioning as it is. Please, please someone competent construct the proposal, and notify me when it goes up. SnowRise let's rap 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep we should get rid of it, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd say keep the "recent deaths" but for the rest, if people want to edit WikiNews then they should go and do so; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WikiNews needs more contributors.
      Just to correct @Fakescientist8000's comment, the Letby saga isn't a case of a nurse killing 7 babies. She was convicted of 7 murders, with 5 more counts potentially going to retrial and might have been responsible for many other deaths that weren't part of the court case. It was Britain's longest ever murder trial and probably the UK's biggest instance of serial killing in the 21st century. But none of that takes away from the point that this story seems to be of limited interest outside the UK. WaggersTALK 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) The toxicity of those debates is in the eye of the beholder; they're not that bad.
      (2) If the real problem is that US readers don't want to read UK news stories, can't we have regional variants of ITN that display depending on your geographical locale?
      (3) Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway? Don't they belong on newspapers? Encyclopaedias are supposed to provide information on a very wide range of subjects of lasting interest, while ITN is about providing information on a very small number of things that are interesting in this precise moment. Diametrically opposite aims. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elemimele The purpose of ITN has always been to encourage the improvement or articles or the creation of new ones. Regionalizing it would be difficult and imperfect. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway: There is some background at Wikipedia:In the news. —Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If paper encyclopedias had the text information of over 100 Britannicas like Wikipedia does and also as much image information as Wikipedia and were as up-to-date as Wikipedia (they'd have to be magic like Harry Potter newspapers) then they'd definitely have an article on things by the time they reach ITN. Encyclopedias have simply moved on. Britannicas also had yearbooks for each year and every few years or so articles were rewritten before they became too out-of-date, Wikipedia is simply a more advanced version of that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have come to think ITN should be more like Recent Deaths, with much less room to object on notability or newsworthy grounds. I don't know the specifics on how that would work so I've never offered a proposal, but there is too much voting on, in essence super-notability. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And some cite "systemic bias" to discount what is actually in the news so that it is not posted on "In the news". —Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My thinking largely aligns with 331dot. Focusing our efforts almost entirely on improving articles and not worrying about some "extra notability" hurdle to clear to make ITN would improve the working environment immensely. --Jayron32 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If I recall RD was trialed before being fully implemented. We could trial whatever changes are made(like removing supernotability discussion somehow). 331dot (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's pretty much just Current Events. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and? --Jayron32 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes and what? Current events already exists, therefore there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make VPP proposal to mark ITN historical and start the discussion about what to replace it with. It cannot be saved. We recently tried banning problematic editors; they were quickly replaced. Levivich (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that saving it is impossible, but even if what you suggest is done, Recent Deaths could just be expanded to fill that space. No need to come up with something else. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem isn't with what kind of text is on the webpage. The problem is the people. Anyway, this is a discussion for the pump. Levivich (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm with Lev on this one: if salvaging anything like ITN on the main page is going to be feasible in the longterm, I think it's going to need to happen by TNTing and rebuilding from the ground up. The issues have been as apparent from inside the rotting building as from without, and yet I have observed nothing there except deeply entrenched commitment from most of the regulars to their self-presumed right to judge the abstract "importance" of events from a personal and idiosyncratic basis, with all the inevitable clashes of perspective, values, bias, and personality that entails. Not one in ten of the regulars even abides by ITN's own proscriptions on arguments, and those are the rules they ostensibly all agreed to among themselves, once upon a time! Fixing from within the space is obviously a non-starter, and I expect that even a reformatory process at VPP would become an absolute quagmire of conflicting outlooks (and probably no shortage of surly offense that we are trying to take away the right to decide for the main page's half million daily viewers what, in all the world's happenings, is important enough to know about.
      No, much more sound for the community excise the problem altogether and then have a second, even deeper conversation about whether to replace it with something similar, and make the stakeholders buy into the process of building (and thus internalizing) new, more objective, and less disruptive rules for moderating the processes. Doing this piecemeal will only lead to cloudier revised standards that many will just avoid comporting with, to the maximum extent possible, in order to try to preserve their old standards, expectations, and methodologies, with all the entitlements as arbiters of the important that they currently enjoy. SnowRise let's rap 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have said points I would make (this far from what has more uncivil behavior in the past; that the issue of these noms stems from the rapid posting based primarily on UK editors' !votes,leading to the national aspect issues). But this case epidemic of the broader issue that we broadly are violating NOTNEWS. There are a contingent of editors that create news ates on any event no matter how insignificant it is. And I think some of those also want to push ITN to be more on line with headline news, rather than the original purpose of feature high quality articles that happen to be in the news. This has created a rift of how ITN should be handled, which has been discussed at length on its talk page but without agreement on any solution because of this divisive rift. And that I don't know if we can fix without addressing the broader NOTNEWS issue, pointing editors to Wikinews if they want to focus on current events and keeping our focus on encyclopedic topics, some which will be news studies with clear enduring coverage. Masem (t) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is largely fixed by focusing on currency rather than newsiness. If we are only concerned with the recency of an event, and on the quality of the Wikipedia coverage of the event, we don't have to worry about if the event is "newsworthy", merely that it's something that's happened recently (so is broadly "in the news" in the most general sense) and that we have a really good article about. --Jayron32 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I' @PicturePerfect666:, there's literally no Anglophobic sentiments in the quoted comments, with the closest being Jayron's, which, if we're using these standards, was rather anglophilic - he was attacking the "anti-UK" side. As stated, most of them were not out of hate for the United Kingdom, but more over the perceived bias towards British stories, especially when compared to American stories. The immediate WP:ASPERSION casted upon the listed users should frankly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG on the part of PP666. By that logic, every anti-US-centrism on ITN is Ameriphobic, which, considering some of the statements that have been made in that department, would hold more weight, but still be largely generalizing. — Knightoftheswords 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Would there be some way to turn over this small section of the main page to Wikinews? (See also: Wikipedia:Wikinews, m:WikiNews, and n:Main_Page.) I mean, we have a whole project dedicated to this, with policies and guidelines and everything. And I say this noting that I kinda appreciate that I can read ITN occaisionally. But it sounds like we're attempting to re-create the wheel in this section? - jc37 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I kind of like the idea, but there's a tricky cycle involved where Wikinews is...quieter than might be viable (I recall in late January 2021 seeing that it hadn't been updated since the 4th -- "well, good thing nothing in the news has happened since January 4, then"). While big-four attention might help this, it also might result in the preservation of the "extremely slow news ticker" element. Obviously Wikinews would also have to consent. (I still think TFL is a viable big four candidate.) Vaticidalprophet 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that sounds like an opportunity than a problem. Instead of having a "big 4" in a 2x2 grid, put them in a left-side column, and put the Sister projects along the right hand side (NOT hidden), to help inspire/nudge people to go there to read and edit those prohects as well. We don't do third-party ads, to be sure, but we really seem to do a poor job of advertising our sister projects. And having them buried "below the fold" as it were, on the main page, really seems less-than-helpful. - jc37 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Respectfully, turning it over to Wikinews(which isn't terribly active anyway) misses the point of what ITN is for(please see WP:ITN. It isn't to be a newspaper, but to motivate the improvement or addition of articles and highlight them. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the goal, wouldn't a link to Category:Current events do that? Template:Current adds articles to a dated subcat. - jc37 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That only tracks relentless, but not quality. Because we are highlighting articles, those articles should represent some of WP's best work. ITN does link to Portal:Current Events for those seeking other topics in the headlines. Masem (t) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's consistently failing to do that. There was a comment on ITNC recently that stood out to me, opposing a western (I think US) news story for being an example of systemic bias. Not because we were considering posting it, but because if it had happened in Mali, then editors wouldn't have gotten it to the quality that ITNC could post it. All the other Main Page sections update at least once a day; lately ITN blurbs have been averaging closer to once a week, and not for lack of sufficiently-improved articles. Of the four bullet points at Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose, we're objectively failing at least the first, second, and fourth. —Cryptic 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't disagree with your assessment- although Wikipedia is not responsible for bias in the news media; which is why I think removing the ability to object on notability grounds might help. I think RD functions well and ITN would be helped to be more like it. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment II, on the state of ITN - I've seen the writing on the wall for months, and I knew it was going to occur; we were finna exhaust the community's patience and get dismantled. Here's my two cents. I, and many others across this mini-project and the broad project believe firmly in the purpose of ITN. If I didn't, I would have left months ago, and if the community hadn't, it would have been dissolved years ago. I personally made it my mission to attempt to reform the processes of this mini-project, and despite several times of complete and utter disillusionment and anger, I've remained and attempted to persist. I am apart of the problem; I can be crass, disruptive, rude, and intolerant on ITN/C; a contagion certainly supported by the rest of the mini-project. My spat with Jayron in the earlier of the listed noms are indicative of this.
    ITN hasn't faced any serious crisis to force reform of the system; compare it to the culture wars in the west, in which critical issues like transgenderism, the role of men and women, work-life balance, dating, etc. are currently unanswered since we're wealthy enough that we can feign outrage over them and self-flagellate over our inherent moral superiority over the opposition, while not actually solving the issues at hand. WT:ITN has always been amusing to me, since most discussions will feature massive, götterdämmerung conflicts over key issues relating to the very purpose of ITN, where dozens massive walls of text will be erected and discussions often escalate into toxicity, only for the discussion to fizzle out after a week at most when everyone gets exhausted and just unknowingly passively accept the status quo and move on to another controversy. Just like how the questions of the culture war will be answered when the coming global crisis occurs, this crisis, where ITN is at serious risk of being deleted altogether, will (hopefully) force serious answers.
    The thing is that ITN often has discussions and guidelines that should prevent the current state of ITN, but these are completely ignored. For example, last year, there was a successful push on WT:ITN to hat all disruptive comments on WP:ITN/C. Despite garnering consensus, it has rarely been seriously enforced.
    The issue, I think, is that many on ITN simply are too-conflict adverse in the stuff where conflict is actually desperately needed. I think the story of Fuzheado (talk · contribs) is a prime example of this. One of the primal examples of ITN's weak-willedness is how !votes on ITN are more or less counted as votes (this is actually a better descriptor than the reality, in which, to keep the illusion of a !vote-based system, if there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of posting a story, it often won't get posted; meaning that often times, noms have to get a 1/3 minority of opposers to get shut down). Since consensus on Wikipedia is already vague enough, on ITN, many admins when judging consensus simply just choose this system since judging in favor of the posting position will lead to accusations of WP:SUPERVOTING. Fuzheado tried to unlock this system, but people labeled him as a supervoter and eventually took it to ANI, where they threatened to desyop him, and even went as far as targeting other users in the discussion, claiming that Fuzheado had organized members of the WMF to defend him. Shit like this is why many on prefer to not deal with all the drama and be rather passive on ITN.
    What we need to do is put our foot down. We've agreed on multiple solutions to combat systemic issues, but they never get enforced because people are two timid and want to avoid drama, ironically leading to even more drama in the long-term. ITN's various guidelines are getting ignored because we let them be ignored. As a mini-project, to save ourselves from destruction, we ought to learn to say "no" and take serious action to defend the fundamental principles of Wikipedia:In the news.
    TL;DR: WP:JUSTDOIT. — Knightoftheswords 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass reverts at shopping mall articles by 174.215.219.158

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

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

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

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

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

    Hi I worked very hard on these edits and followed consensus as these are noteworthy stores you reverted. Although many of the articles have references to back up their notability, I also feel that the notoriety of those retailers isn't questionable. I explained this in each revert. You reverted so many articles, that it would take quite some time to find the sources which I'm sure are out there. Wikipedia has "good faith" for small claims such as the notoriety of stores which are supported by the mall directory on their websites already. 174.215.219.158 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content dispute. Both of you should use a talk page (either of one of the articles or of the related wiki project) to discuss this issue instead of using edit summaries. I'll say, WP:NOT applies to the kind of information the IP is trying to add, so I'd suggest they refrain from doing so again. Also, good faith is related to conduct, not content. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and agree. Thank you. 174.215.219.158 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User Fixthetyp0's sockpuppet allegations over Mrs. Globe

    Hello,

    Fixthetyp0 appears to be having issues with a blocked user named Australianblackbelt.

    The user states that the articles Mrs. Globe, Svetlana Kruk and Alisa Krylova were created by Australianblackbelt for the purposes of self-promotion. I created Svetlana Kruk, so it seems I am now involved in this.

    His first attempt at a triple AfD was done here in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(2nd_nomination)

    The user's second attempt at a triple AfD is now ongoing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination)

    Can someone take a look at this? I have no idea what's going on with those two, but it doesn't seem like it's accomplishing anything of value and I don't really want to be involved with this.

    Thanks, KatoKungLee (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Went and wrote up an oppose on the AFD and I can second that this is a situation requiring sanctions, because Fixthetyp0 for some reason has beef with the aforementioned blocked user and is letting it spill out onto uninvolved pages. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like Fixthetyp0 is a rather new account with very few edit counts. I do not quite understand why they are having a row with another editor. Is it possible that Fixthetyp0 is run by someone undisclosed? TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that Australianblackbelt was blocked back in January, before Fixthetyp0 was registered. ABB was a prolific self-promoter for themselves and their friends (and is now globally locked due to doing it on other Wikis as well) however and had many dozens of articles deleted as a result. It's not a bad idea to go back through their other creations and see what else is non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in this case it is quite evident that these articles are NOT self-promotion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gratuitous charts and other disruptions to multiple articles

    For example, charts like these: [142]; [143]; [144]; [145]; [146]; [147]. And adding cn tags, often inappropriately, while simultaneously adding unsourced content: [148]; [149]; [150]. I like the preemptive cn tags, too [151]; [152]. The IP range is WP:NOTHERE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oo, I like prescriptive {{citation needed}} tags too. You don't see them much, which is a shame.
    Like sometimes I've got a worthwhile contribution, I'm confident it's true, It's not super important, and I'm confident that there are good sources, I just don't have them at hand personally, or whatever. Or I'm copying a statement to another article that's sourced to a book I don't have. I mean {{citation needed}} isn't necessarily supposed to be a black mark indicating a shameful failure, it's often supposed to be 1) an advisement to the reader, and 2) a collegial request to get the attention of some editor who has the time, interest, experience, and/or resources to pop in a source. Or was, in the Before Times.
    Sorry for the marginal point, I just get excited to see another of my species (in this matter at least). But it is maybe a small point in favor of the defendant. The rest I'll leave to you all. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel you, Hero buddy. EEng 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my examples weren't the best, though there are enough above to make the point: user is adding cn tags to sourced content, while adding their own unsourced content. That's on top of the lengthy and unnecessary (unsourced) charts. Assuming good faith, it looks like a WP:CIR issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced content was added, unsourced content was challenged, that just seems like a normal content issue. The only odd thing here is the reported IP then spamming the tables to the article talk pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than engaging, this has been the response today: [153]; [154]; [155]; [156]; [157]; [158]; [159]; [160]; [161]; [162]; [163]; [164]; [165]; [166]; [167]; [168], etc. Reverting and restoring unsourced content and junk charts. This helps Wikipedia how? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring unsourced content that has been challenged is against WP:BURDEN. It could be that the editor can't hear us WP:TCHY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Several editors have left edit summaries, as well. If they noticed their edits had been reverted, then restored the contested content, they'd be aware of pushback. I'm betting the rinse/repeat will continue. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping they will be able to spot that they someone is trying to reach them, if not next stop should be WP:AN/3. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the most recent IP up top. Thanks for catching that. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Goblintear, BLP and Danish model Nina Agdal

    Two weeks... Lourdes 12:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



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

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

    Goblintear was reverted over and over. He was warned by me[169] and then by Daniel Quinlan[170] who also put the biography in protection for just one hour.

    Goblintear restored the material yet again.[171] I am asking that the biography be protected for a longer period, and Goblintear partially blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The content dispute is clearly an edit war at this point so I temporarily fully protected Nina Agdal (extended-confirmed users are involved). The material and sources being added by Goblintear seem inconsistent with BLP policies, but I would like another administrator to take a look. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit highlighted by Binksternet is clearly not appropriate for a BLP: both the sourcing to the Daily Mail and the scandalmongering "made headlines for their raunchy public displays of affection" are clearly unencyclopedic. Goblintear's other edits aren't as bad, but they certainly seem to be excessively focusing on Agdal's romantic links to various men based on some pretty tabloidy sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent bigoted edits by user:24.57.55.50

    (non-admin closure) User blocked three months by Black Kite. Toadette (chat)/(logs) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edits such as these:

    [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]

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

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

    AfD on List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

    Scottish/British nationality warrior

    Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    ST47ProxyBot, 10.80.1.x blocks

    Resolved via config change tracked in phabricator, not a bug in ST47's bot --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T344704

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

    I blocked the bot. Any admin, including ST47, can lift the block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've anon-blocked the /23 range. There seems to be an excessive amount of traffic going through the 10.x IP I checked. It may well be a wider bug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed a bug (phab:T344704), we're working on a fix. Also note that 10/8 addresses are already anon-blocked via MediaWiki config. Taavi (talk!) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Taavi! --Yamla (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also thanks. The anonblock was an attempt to deter the bot blocks, before I saw the bot was blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fix is live now. I was going to lift the anon-block as that would still have affected anon edits via X-Forwarded-For data, but looks like that was already done. Taavi (talk!) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1171691477"