:::I'm confused by diffs #6-11, as there's nothing to fix. These are undefined refnames that cause an error message, unless it's possible to find a recent reference that was removed they should be replaced with citation needed tags. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm confused by diffs #6-11, as there's nothing to fix. These are undefined refnames that cause an error message, unless it's possible to find a recent reference that was removed they should be replaced with citation needed tags. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:Now, I see that my two most recent contributions here appear to have been suppressed. I've not received any notification about or explanation for that. One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. But why the lack of transparency? (Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1248946608] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1248946528].) -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:Now, I see that my two most recent contributions here appear to have been suppressed. I've not received any notification about or explanation for that. One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. But why the lack of transparency? (Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1248946608] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1248946528].) -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::If you look at the page's history, a number of unrelated posts were caught up in a suppression of possible outing (in a different thread). [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
== Mahmud ale ==
== Mahmud ale ==
Revision as of 16:44, 2 October 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
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)
I am writing to formally report the disruptive behavior exhibited by user during the ongoing RFC process. Despite the warning, they continues to undermine the purpose of the RFC by repeatedly closing the discussion: they has repeteadly derailed the RFC and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue.
Preventing consensus. they has actively worked to prevent the community from reaching a wider consensus by monopolizing the discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints.
Gagging the procedure: their actions have effectively stifled the RFC process, preventing the community from having a fair and open discussion.
I urge you to take immediate action to address this issue and ensure that the RFC can proceed in a productive and respectful manner. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, seriously: I should've been far less impulsive, and more willing to listen to the type of editor that can pick up all this lingo and knowledge of site procedure over the course of 30 edits made in less than a day. Remsense ‥ 论08:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging your error. The Request for Comments has been reopened, and additional secondary sources have been incorporated. I invite you to participate in the renewed discussion. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I closed it again. The consensus here seems to be that it was a good close, and it certainly is not appropriate to reopen it and change the question being asked after editors have already replied to it. Meters (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters Thank you for bringing the oversight in the question to my attention. I should have included a reference to the secondary source in the discussion.
I respectfully request that you reconsider your inadvertent reversal. It appears to be hindering open discussion on the talk page. Please allow the community to thoroughly explore alternative perspectives on this matter. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're hindering the discussion by not engaging with the points of site procedure and policy communicated to you by literally everyone who has engaged with you so far. You're not entitled to discussion on your terms alone, and there's no particular reason we care about "alternative perspectives" if you can't make a case for them like everybody else.Remsense ‥ 论08:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} "Inadvertent"? There was nothing inadvertent about my revert of your edit. It's bizarre that you interpreted Remsense's comment as justification to reopen the RFC, it was inappropriate for you to reopen that RFC (let alone for the second time), and it was even more inappropriate for you to change the wording of the rfc after it was already replied to. Nemov's comment about a WP:BOOMARANG is looking better and better. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have attended to 1. modified RfC by changing the query 2. including the supplementary material and being prepared to include further supplementary materials till you cease gagging the process 3. and using every available method to allay the worries of any participating editors . DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to formally request the restoration of the Request for Comments (RFC) that I initiated regarding a content dispute and user conduct with @Remsense. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue through Talk Page discussions and the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (ANI), I have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution.
Unfortunately, due to my current travel schedule, I am unable to devote the necessary time to further escalate this matter at present. However, I intend to follow up on this issue as soon as possible upon my return.
In the meantime, I kindly request that you and the concerned editors reconsider your stance and engage in a constructive dialogue through the RFC process. I believe that open communication and a willingness to participate are essential for resolving disputes and maintaining a collaborative editing environment.
I have secondary sources to support my claim, and I would like the opportunity to properly present the RFC. I believe that the RFC process is a valuable tool for resolving disputes and ensuring that WP:NPOV are followed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request that the administrators intervene to ensure that the RFC is restored and that a fair and equitable resolution is reached.DwilfaStudwell (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant use of a Large language model shows lack of respect for the people you're addressing. You don't even seem to be giving it sensible instructions ("Thank you for your attention to this matter.") Stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | tålk12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
While it's frustrating to respond to, I am sympathetic to people who might have limited comfort writing in English and might be apprehensive about it, or think the LLM or machine translation is smarter than it is. Remsense ‥ 论12:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the RFC, it is pretty evident that even a new RFC (even with more sources) wouldn't yield any different result. Remsense isn't abusing the system, your RFC was soundly rejected and the responses on it explain pretty well why it was. R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done things like close RFCs where I was pretty sure I was right and someone else disagreed. As such, I got reverted and life goes on. That isn't happening here, because no one else agrees with your premises. Remsense ‥ 论11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a WP:BOOMARANG situation. Very strange that DwilfaStudwell's fourth edit was to template warning an experienced user. Now this user is opening up a discussion here. This doesn't seem like a editor who is here to improve the project or work well with others. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really ought to be WAY less combative if you want to collaborate with other people. If things worked like your template warnings would lead us to believe there would be very few editors left that didn't get blocked. This isn't the way to go. – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, my question to you is why did you close this RFC after one day? RFCs typically last at least one week or longer. And I don't think 3 editors' opinion merits a SNOW close after just one day. I think our understanding of SNOW has gotten way out of whack, it's used too often when there is just a small group of editors who agree when it is supposed to be used for a tidal wave of Keeps, not just 3 editors. That's a "consensus" that could easily change with a few more participants and 1 day is not long enough for editors to even discover that the RFC is going on. LizRead!Talk!08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the opinions already expressed, the RFC's question was clearly both out of scope for the article, and a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If any of the those three points were not the case, I wouldn't have closed it. Any RFC that had a chance would require rewriting—as their attempt to do so in reopening shows. I have no compunctions about it being a SNOW close if I'm to trust my own faculties, and I feel that's been vindicated by the fact that no one has challenged the close on its merits—as opposed to challenging it on procedural grounds as you're doing here (and are completely within your rights to do, of course). That it seemed appropriate to do after only a day is a function of just how weak the RFC's premise was. Remsense ‥ 论08:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was watching this as it happened, and it's my understanding the RFC was closed within two hours. In @Remsense's defense it followed closely on an earlier discussion with @Bon courage, a vigorous but fruitless attempt to impress on @DwilfaStudwell that their use of sources violated medical referencing and fringe content rules. Oblivy (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my logic is satisfactory here: if a single other editor was to indicate they would've done anything but oppose in that RfC, then I was totally in the wrong to close it, and would naturally more seriously reconsider my future calculus with this incident in mind. Remsense ‥ 论12:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started writing a discussion point asking whether the frequency with which this issue arises (and is shot down) on Turmeric suggests a need to acknowledge the health claims without suggesting they are accepted. I didn't post it because (a) things quickly turned to whether curcumin = turmeric, an argument I didn't (and don't) understand, and (b) it was hard to frame it in a way that gave due weight to medref/profringe. Then the discussion got closed, and things turned into a revert war over the close.To your point, @Remsense I doubt I'd ever have gotten to the point of agreeing with the RFC (whatever it was supposed to mean). There were good reasons to believe that conversation wouldn't go anywhere, but closing the discussion guaranteed it wouldn't. Oblivy (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can at least promise I've gotten enough constructive feedback here that I won't find it necessary to close anything this quickly in the future. Remsense ‥ 论21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the good spirit to acknowledge your shortfall. @Remsense.
Why did you not answer the questions about other accounts that admins asked you on your Talk page? I don't see any point in a RfC until and unless some prior source-based discussion has taken place to determine what issues might be discussed. But first I would like to see the WP:SOCKing suspicions cleared up. Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I would just prefer that I both do an obviously correct close and not leave anyone with anything they would think to wring their hands over, if at all possible. Remsense ‥ 论05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DwilfaStudwell: Stop reopening that RFC in Talk:Turmeric. This is at least the third time you have done so. That was a badly defective RFC. As you have already been told, you were asking to include content about health benefits of turmeric in Turmeric based on sources that discussed curcumin, not tumeric. If you want to include any of that material then it would go in curcumin, not in turmeric, and only if the sources met WP:MEDRS. Meters (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument about a "small group" of "three editors" reaching a consensus was raised in the debate above. and without granting RfC more than a day to live, the agreement might have been altered. There should be more editors involved in the conversation. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: arthritis, liver disease, major depression, and a pretty crummy memory. Plus, I'm pretty sure I've recently come down with either melanoma or colorectal cancer, if not both. Any advice? Remsense ‥ 论08:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've found helps a lot is to buy a 250g packet of powdered turmeric, use it a couple of times, then just leave it on the shelf above the sink so that you can stare at it occasionally while washing the dishes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. After all the templated warnings DilfaStudwell has posted on everybody who disagrees with them, repeated opening of an inappropriate RfC, and their general battleground approach, I find the attack on Remsense above ("Is there something wrong with you?") to be the last straw. Compare also my warning here. I have blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk09:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Focusing on my alleged ethnicity again. E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". Clearly, he means "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.
I asked you once directly and three times indirectly to end the arguments because we won't reach a conclusion, and you don't like to see 'a word', but you kept going, that I don’t know what you want. you can just remove my edits and let me know what to do in the edit summary, not come to my talk page and arbitrarily tag just because three of my edits don't 'look neutral', which is an indictment of racism and I'm against it, I didn’t even know what you meant that time. All that aside, why is "good that you understood your purpose. good look" a bad thing? btw it's my talk page, laughing or eating chips, not your problem. Zaman (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only what you said makes no sense, has zero diffs, and barely addresses my report. Now you're doubling down at Talk:Gordyene (in the very section I opened by asking you not continue your attacks [5]) regarding your attacks against me [6][7]. Would appreciate if an admin would look at this, fail to see how this user is a netpositive to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you say is nonsense, look I can tell you so. If you think everything I say now and in the future is 'nonsense' why don't you try to avoid me? why do you keep replying? you're almost bothering me. Zaman (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nt: I actually wrote that in porsian not poor-sian and it's a typo, I used it on my keyboard before so the system set that. I didn't write this on purpose, it's childish to blame me with that. Zaman (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still don’t know which personal attack you guys accusing me of. he called my edits 'non-neutral', simply because I tagged his language and not the other, and I told him in return that your comments are 'too persian' not following wiki rules. What is there to accuse me of here? Zaman (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zemen, placing notices like the ones you've received is a very normal thing that editors do here, to give some explanation for why they are reverting another user's edits. You need to be able to receive these notices without perceiving them as personal attacks. @HistoryofIran, you need to be able to assume good faith and try to work things out more thoroughly before threatening other editors with ANI. If they're a sockpuppet, they'll step on a rake soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think that Zemen is a sockpuppet? And I was not threatening them, I was warning them, which I did after they had engaged in WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling several times. As you can see, they're still doubling down, showing signs of being WP:NOTHERE. The worst of these attacks is no doubt "Poorsian", which is just xenophobic and has no place on this site, yet they clearly don't care. I have already tried to work out stuff with them, such as the afromentioned Talk:Gordyene, which resulted in a barrage of attacks. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the assumption; I misunderstood your comment, These don't look like "common mistakes made by new users" to me. I did read that talk page before making my initial comment, and I think you would have gotten much further with more patience. Please try to work things out, rather than further provoking editors who are already clearly upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Further provoking editors who are already clearly upset"? Sorry, but really? What gives them the right to be upset? Are we just going to ignore their blatantly xenophobic (borderline racist) attacks? I am the one who should be upset here. I am just following procedure, I can't have the patience of a saint when a user is persistently attacking me and just generally disregarding our policies. You gave them a chance to strike their personal attacks, they refused and doubled down. Are there not any repercussions? Or is WP:ASPERSIONS and namecalling due to ones alleged ethnicity (my ethnicity is not disclosed on my userpage, in fact Rasht is not even a Persian city..) okay now? I hope you understand my frustation. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone has the "right" to be upset. It's a normal human emotion, and it's perfectly normal to feel that way when someone has frustrated you. Reversions are frustrating; they're upset. You feel attacked and are also upset. I can certainly understand your frustration. But neither of you are going to be much good at communicating with each other while you're both upset, and as the significantly more experienced editor, I'd expect that you know when to take a step back. I haven't looked at the sources, but given your experience, I expect you're the one who has the right of the content dispute here. Once you can explain that to the other editor without feeling needled by their response (which may be confused, or ignorant, or rude), you should try again. Engaging further right now, and getting into arguments on each other's user talk pages, is just going to make both of you more upset. -- asilvering (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: So does Zemen just get away with all their attacks, including in this report, where they have called me "childish" twice? Do you think that's okay? Is it allowed to attack users and engage in namecalling due to their perceived ethnicity? Two other users have called them out for their behaviour in this report, whilst you haven't told them anything. Facing no repercussions from their actions, they will no doubt continue, especially as they clearly think their behaviour was justified. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report instead of trying to calmly resolve a content dispute that went only mildly sideways before the ANI threats started. Has Zemen behaved well? No. Have you? Also no. Please make a serious attempt to try to take the temperature down when dealing with content disputes, even if you think the other editor is stupid, wrong, rude, or all three. What you've done here instead is try to get the other editor blocked. You should both apologize to each other for the misunderstandings (yes, both of you), and try to start over. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now up above Zemen is calling me childish (yet another attack) [8] Claiming "Porsian" ("Poorsian") is a "typo", which I find it hard to believe, when O and E are not even close to each other, how could the "system" possibly change those two. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to explain how my "interpretations" are not good and what this so called "system" is, and what "Porsian" means, since it's not a synonym for Persian. I've given you more than enough WP:GF, and you have responded by attacking me. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want from me now?? I wouldn't lie to anyone to do it for you, you apparently know nothing about the ADVKu keyboard recommendation system. Plus I didn't call you childish, but your thoughts and accusations are childish. Zaman (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Im glad you wrote this comment in this way, thank you very much for letting me know that my goal was not achieved properly, thanks again! I will try to improve on this. Zaman (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for secondary admin opinion; since when is attacking others for their ethnicity okay?
This is the updated list of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA by Zemen (imagine if I included their disruptive edits too).
Focusing on my alleged ethnicity. I don't care what they claim, E and O are not even close to each other on the keyboard, it's not that hard to spell "Persian". "Porsian" is a not a word. Clearly, they meant "Poorsian" ("Poor-sian"), a common xenophobic remark against Persians.
Two other users in this thread called Zemen out for their behaviour (one even asking them to strike their attacks and cease them). Admin User:Asilvering, however, instead of warning/blocking Zemen, joins the WP:ASPERSIONS fiesta and accuses ME of bullying Zemen [9] with no diffs to back it up. And before that, they asked ME to not "further provoke" an editor who is already clearly "upset" [10]
In fact, this only encouraged Zemen to continue their attacks:
If anyone is getting "bullied" and should be "upset" that is me. I tire of constantly being attacked due to my background by new users with barely any edits and who ultimately end up getting indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE. I patrol a long list of Western, Central and Southern Asian articles, which are constantly plagued by these type of users. The majority of them would be a shitshow if I didn't almost single handedly take care of them (including making hundreds of SPIs). I don't do or say this to get thanked or some sort of badge of honor. However, I am not a fucking punching bag, and I wonder if the same carelessness was shown if I belonged to a more historically persecuted group, such as an African American or Jew. Let's be honest, it wouldn't, and that's a good thing. Such behaviour should be taken seriously - but that should equally apply to ALL backgrounds. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) While I quibble over a couple of HoI's points, I think there's enough for at least a short block on civility grounds against Zemen.
First, HoI has a history of being taken here, typically by NOTHERE editors who don't like their reliance on scholarship. While I below may assume too much good faith, I by no means fault HoI for having exhausted theirs; they edit in a topic area prone to vitriolic nationalism, and I commend their efforts. I think they've shown remarkable restraint and WP:AGF given the circumstances.
The "Porsian" comment is suggestive, but I've seen weirder typos happen. Given Zemen's imperfect grasp of English, I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest it could have been an honest mistake. Similarly, the "childish" exchange I could chalk up to translation errors.
Even discounting those, there remains a core of incivility which should be addressed. The biggest one is the focus on nationality; I'd expect anyone who said, "Of course a Mexican would think X" or "Naturally a Czech would believe Y" would get a swift block for WP:NPA. I'm willing to extend AGF to its breaking point and accept that Zemen was alluding to a common argument, but even so it needs to be made clear that they must comment on edits, not editors.
Other comments, such as the "laughing while eating chips" one, come off as dismissive, implying that reaching a compromise is not Zemen's objective. I don't think an indefinite block is needed, but something should stop the disruption now and make it clear to Zemen that it will not be tolerated in the future. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context is key when it comes to something along the lines of "Naturally a X would believe Y"... If Zemen was making a simple bias argument there is a way and a place to respectfully bring up a potential bias based on nationality or ethnicity... What Zemen absolutely can not do is use a real or perceived nationality or ethnicity as an adhominem (which is what they appear to be doing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't have time to dig too deeply into this. But I do agree that there are repeated personal attacks in there, and that the repeated claims that they're all just typos is untrue on its face, and that HoI does not need to just take them forever. I've left a warning at their talk page here: User talk:Zemen#Simplicity. That should cover the low-hanging fruit. Another admin may want to review this in more depth and see if anything else is in order. @HistoryofIran: Let me know if the attacks on your ethnicity or motivations continue, and I'll block indef. I know that WP:BITE exists, but we also need another essay (if it doesn't exist) that we can't just let new editors come in and attack long-term editors with no consequence. That's a good way to lose long-term editors, too. For old-timers, I'm thinking of Malik. HoI does not need to accept attacks on his ethnicity because the user is new. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HoI has been dealing with a constant barrage of harassment from POV-pushers in a highly contentious area of the Wiki for years. Their reports to ANI have been extremely on-point, and at this point deserve the benefit of the doubt. EducatedRedneck is correct, a lot of ethno-nationalist editors take offense to HoI keeping strictly to our requirements for sourcing and NPOV in this topic area. Zemen's personal attacks should not be taken lightly, and their claims of "typos" around ethnic insults are not believable. Seeing admins dismiss them out of hand & accuse HoI of "bullying" is appalling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I have dismissed anything out of hand here. I have said (quite clearly, I think) that Zemen has behaved poorly, and that it's entirely understandable that both editors here are upset. I have not said that there should be no actions taken. I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content dispute with, even if they're dicks. (For one thing, if you remain calm and they nevertheless double down on being a dick, it's very easy to tell that the issue is, indeed, that they're not the slightest bit interested in building an encyclopedia.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was I think caused by your comment here: what I see here is an experienced user deciding to bully a less-experienced user with an ANI report. I agree with The Hand That Feeds You, that was an appalling comment to make in response to an editor rightly reporting being repeatedly attacked, especially as some of the attacks were clearly on ethnic grounds.
You then said to Historyof Iran Has [your attacker] behaved well? No. Have you? Also no. That sort of false equivalence is, I'd suggest, really quite offensive. Anybody being racially abused, in any walk of life, clearly has an absolute right to file a report and for that report to be taken seriously. To imply that raising such a report is itself an abuse is grotesque.
You've made a serious error of judgement and it would be better if you were to acknowledge that fact and apologise, rather than seeking to reframe your involvement in a positive light, as above.
HistoryofIran is a very hard working editor operating in an unbelievably difficult topic area. While doing that work they are consistently beset by uncivil ethno-nationalist POV pushers. HistoryofIran is fully deserving of the community's support and thanks. They shouldn't have to put up with being treated in such a shoddy way at ANI. Axad12 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remain convinced that it's always best to be collegial to editors you're in a content dispute with, even if they're dicks.
While WP:CIVIL is a cornerstone of the wiki, demanding editors remain perfectly calm and professional while being subjected to ethnic insults is just tone-deaf. Accusing said editor of bullying by bringing those attacks to ANI is what I found to be dismissive of their concerns.
We are all volunteers here, not professionals or robots. The insistence on politeness over everything else just encourages sealioning and punishes good editors who are understandably upset at being targeted repeatedly by ethno-nationalist POV-pushers. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds, what I was talking about was the behaviour on the talk pages, not the act of bringing the question to ANI. I see that's not fully clear from my original post, and I'm happy to apologize for that, and for describing the behaviour as "bullying". -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A new editor (Edit the error(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)) uses the iOS mobile app to edit. Although they've only been editing since 6 September, their talk page is full of messages and warnings. They found their user page (and are using it to draft an article) but there's no sign that they've seen their talk page. Some of the messages are about copyright.
There was recently another editor also using the iOS app who didn't discover their talk page until they were blocked,[13] so I'm just guessing it's the same issue. Schazjmd(talk)16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish they were responsive; I assumed WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU but I'd like to ask them if they used an LLM to create e.g. this or this. I left them a message about copying another bit from within Wikipedia but those two had some other origin. NebY (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was after I blocked them, and if they haven't gotten any of their talk page messages, they won't have much reason to understand why their user page spontaneously evaporated in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either they've created that very quickly - at LLM speed - or they'd already spent time off-wiki creating a new article on a subject on which we already have one. NebY (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it may, theoretically, be misuse of their user page why not put a message there, referring to the discussions and user:talk warnings - at least we know (assume?) they read their user-page. Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've continued working on their user page, adding an image File:Mala_Beads.jpg that they've just uploaded claiming they're the copyright holder, that it's their own work and that it was created today. It's also at unsplash.com[14] as published in 2020. NebY (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file's been tagged for copyvio speedy on Commons, so we might as well wait for that to happen since they keep restoring it. Obviously they saw the message about their talk page and decided to ignore it. I guess as long as they can't be disruptive in mainspace or add copyrighted content to articles, it's not an urgent problem anymore. Schazjmd(talk)20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following U5 deletion of their user page and deletion of the copyright-breaching image from Commons, they've recreated the page with a different copyright-breaching image. They still haven't responded on their talk page or here. Their creation still seems to be low-quality LLM copypasta to which they're adding citations of unacceptable sources, and we already have a better article. It seems as if they're just using the user page to play at making an article. NebY (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose site blockEdit the error (talk·contribs) has been made aware of their talk page but does not respond there or here. Since the mainspace-block, they have repeatedly recreated an article on their user page and repeatedly uploaded a copyright-violating image to Commons to use on their user page ( that's being dealt with on Commons). The article on their user page was deleted yesterday by Justlettersandnumbers under U5, and Edit the error has just restored it. With their problematic edits, refusal to communicate, and misuse of userspace, I think it's time to stop the disruption. Schazjmd(talk)17:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support site block which would of course constitute a community ban. Not building the encyclopedia, not collaborating, not communicating, not respecting copyright in images, previously inserted errors and copyright-violating text into articles, repeatedly made nonsense AfC submissions, all despite many messages and warnings. Enough. NebY (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Site Block: [18] How many times have they remade this page, with Copyvios, now? Aren’t we supposed to come down hard on folks who don’t take the hint on copyvios?
For that matter, what’s to say this isn’t someone planning to make that draft up, then have a sock replace the existing article with the junk they’ve ripped? Maybe let’s not take that risk? This is, of course, in addition to the Copyvio notices they’ve removed, and AFC declines, that I pointed out, above.
Gingeksace has created over 60 articles on the Italian poet, Menotti Lerro and his so-called “cultural movement”, Empathism, Lerro’s poetry prize Cilento International Poetry Prize, 55 articles on members and “adherents” to Lerro’s "Empathic Movement" Empathism, 4 articles on Lerro’s works and at least one article on a family member. Articles created by Gingeksace:
Empathism – a so-called “cultural movement” founded by Lerro who also wrote its “manifesto” New Manifesto of Arts (which was redirected to Menotto Lerro’s article) (Note: this has now been blank-and-redirected to Empathy)
Forgive me for the length of this report. I am bringing it here rather than to COIN because it’s an ongoing problem, and there have been efforts to resolve these issues, but the problems have recently escalated, and it seems that a type of "walled garden" has been created. These two editors are involved in what appears to be an orchestrated effort to promote Menotti Lerro & Empathism and their associates. Efforts were made to resolve the issues, see Gingeksace’s talk page [20] an Nihaon’s talk[21].
Regarding User:Gingeksace - of the 68 articles they created, all except 5 are about the Italian poet/entrepreneur Menotti Lerro, his “movement” Empathism and its adherants/members of Lerro’s Empathism manifesto, his Cultural Pyramid of Cilento, Lerro’s “international poetry prize” Cilento International Poetry Prize, his plays and books and associates.[22]
Interestingly, Lerro’s article on Italian Wikipedia was deleted for lack of encyclopedic value/notability[23] and there were a few sockpuppet investigations on it-wp. Gingeksace has removed COI templates in the past.
Regarding User:Nihaon created 7 articles on Lerro’s Empathic Movement members/adherents during the same time as Gingeksace creating dozens. Nihaon also removed COI templates from several articles involving Lerro & Empathism. Of their 900-some edits most have been to add content or name-drop Lerro and or Empathism or Empathic Movement members.
This seems to be a coordinated PR/PROMO effort by two SPAs to promote Menotti Lerro, and his “Empathic Movement” Empathism, and it’s various projects and members. It’s obviously a COI project, and I feel confident in saying it is likely UPE – perhaps the work of a PR firm to promote Lerro and his associates and projects. Both editors have denied having a COI, claiming to be fans, however Gingeksace admitted asking Lerro for photos to publish, however for an “unconnected” editor they sure know a lot about Lerro’s life.
Since this campaign began, Lerro is now mentioned hundreds of times on en-wp [24]. While I am not claiming Menotti Lerro is not notable, his article is supported with a lot of local sourcing, and sources by his professor, Andrew Mangham and Francesco D'Episcopo, who is a member of Lerro’s Empathism, other members/adherents of Empathism or other affiliated sources.
The promo has been occurring at a highly accelerated rate this past month. Administrator attention to this situation is requested. Netherzone (talk)
Just a brief note to say that I entirely agree with Netherzone's analysis above.
I only have one further point to add…
Looking at the Menotti Lerro article I noticed that although both of the users spend a lot of time there editing over extended periods they never seem to be there at the same time.
I then looked at the two users’ overall editing histories and noticed that they never seem to be online at the same time, often having clear days when only one is online, or otherwise apparently tagging each other in and out through the course of a day (as for example on Sept 1, 15, 17, 19, 20 & 22).
It looks to me as though one end user has been editing the various articles as essentially a full time (and thus paid?) endeavour over the last 4 weeks, alternating between 2 different accounts. Either that or the activity is closely co-ordinated, which would strongly support the idea of COI/UPE. Axad12 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, I note that when directly questioned on COI the user Gingeksace has responded along the lines of (and I paraphrase) “never mind about the COI, just concentrate on whether Lerro is notable or not”, for example here [26] where the user also states their opinion that We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, which the user goes on to state is (in their opinion) not a big problem if the author is indeed Enciclopedic. They then state the desirability, in their eyes, of a bit more of flexibility and asks Netherzone do not be so focused on the "COI problem" and help the page to be developed if [the subject] earned a place on this FREE Encyclopedia. Life is too short to be so strict.
As far as I can see that post is an obvious tacit confession of what is going on here. Otherwise why would a non-COI editor suggest that COI concerns are irrelevant if the subject is notable and that in their opinion there should be far more latitude on COI issues?
Over the last 3 years the user has made 761 edits to the article for Menotti Lerro and 392 edits to the article for Empathism, as well as making a further c.2,000 edits to other Lerro-related articles (most of which they created themselves).
The exact degree of association between the editor and Lerro seems unclear, but that they are someone close to the author seems obvious. There is clearly something wrong when the connection has gone undeclared in over 3 years (and 3,000+ edits) despite various attempts to ask them to declare COI.
(I paste here the answer I gave to Netherzone). Ok thanks for letting me know. Frankly, I am a bit surprised about your vision (even after I tried to explain a bit myself...). However, I will try to explain it better than I did in the past. I start from the Cilento International Poetry Prize: I read that many times you wrote that it is a Prize that Lerro gives to people to make them to adher to the Movement. As I have already told you, the Prize was born 2017 while the Movement was born 2020, therefore it means two things: first, that important authors accepted the prize before of the movement existence, and second that they have chose to adher to the Movement in a next moment (did you consider for a moment that maybe great authors, included a Nobel Prize for literature, are trusting this movement and wanted to be part of it? I do not think Menotti Lerro was so able to corrupt even all of them to promote himself and his movement...). Still, the Prize has been financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.000 Euro (it happened in the last two years because they liked and trusted this Prize and the same Movement, which is part of the artistical project). Moreover, I wish to tell you I was creating these profiles starting from the list included in the ACCADEMIC VOLUME "The Empathic Movement, Cambridge Scholars 2023 and paperback 2024" published in UK of adherents to the Movement: I DID NOT do it to promote people and the movement in a malicious way, but I was thinking, in good faith, they were encyclopedic profiles, therefore I thought it would have been nice to create the lovely ferment which is involving so many important people both in Italy and abroud... (please look things from another point of view: a beautiful, new Movement is born and 200 and more good artist and scholars and people of culture wanted to be part of it... and now, after all this is already "living" in volumes and articals, I thought It was nice to put it also on Wikipedia! The thing that you say that "someone adhering a Movement cannot talk of the same Movement or of his founder", is a bit unconfortable to answer for me: high literary cultured world is connected (thanks to God) therefore it is normal in this field they talk to each other and adher to a Movement of one of them if they respect him. But it is not a limit, or a cheating thing, it is just genuine relations and collaborations among artists, critics, poets, scholars, academics, ecc... they like the work of someone else in the same field or related field and want to talk, write criticism and sometimes adhere to a new movement... Critics such Alessandro Serpieri (writer), Francesco D'Episcopo, Roberto Carifi, Maurizio Cucchi, Giorgio Barberi Squarotti and many others have not been teachers of Menotti Lerro but just in the years they appreciated him, wrote of him and finally wanted to be in his Movement (what is wrong with this?) (and what is wrong if also his own old academic professors trust him so much to adher to his movement?) all this is just a merit, I think, not a bad thing. IN ADDITION: Please, do not quote only local articals: Lerro has been mentioned on many national and international articles such as Corriere della Sera, Il Mattino, Il Sole 24 Ore, The New Arab, "Gradiva" Magazine, "Poesia" Magazine, Nuovi Argomenti Magazine. I understand that something as this movement does not happen often... But can you just for a moment consider that a pretty interesting new Movement arose in 2020, from Italy, going on in a more or less fast way towards the World (it happened after so many decades that something like this did not happen... and never in the past something similar happened starting from the South of Italy...). Lerro is not a powerful, rich person who could be so able to influence so many important authors just to "cheat" academic publishers and now Wikipedia... It seems just a relevant, new, beautiful situation spreading good feelings and literature and art in the World... (therefore i thought that also, and in particular, it should have be on Wikipedia as the amazing expression of "free encyclopedia" to welcome new pretty important, and maybe very relevant things.) In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia the beauty that all of them, starting from the founder - which has 4 academic titles (included MA in Uk and Phd) and studied and taught or was visiting around ten different universities, and wrote 40 creative fiction and no fiction volumes - are creating! You, maybe, should help all of it and be pleased to help to put it on Wikipedia... Do you think that good authors could exist just in the past? Maybe Lerro is one that is working pretty well nowadays... cannot be? (would you so surprised for instance if a Nobel Prize was creating this Movement?). Well, Lerro is not a Nobel Prize but it does not mean he cannot create a notable movement or being a good author the same... I think. In conclusion, dear Netherzone, I ask you to not go too far with your thoughts and ideas about what is going on. All of this is extremely clean, and fruit of deep work and passion. Please look things from another point of view and, if you can, I ask you even to help to improve some of the profiles have been created. Maybe not all of them are encyclopedic (sorry if I thought so) but many are at 100%, starting with the Nobel adhered to the movement who DID NOT receive the "Cilento Prize", while the Nobel Prize for literature 2023 got this year the "Cilento Prize" and I see he did not adhere to the Movement... (so as you can see, maybe things are not really as you are thinking. I hope you can change your mind and, as I said, even help a bit if you like...). Thank you a lot to give me the opportunity to explain a bit better everything. With very best wishes. Gingeksace (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how Gingeksace and Nihaon have the same editing style and agenda, but are never editing on Wikipedia at the same time, and can frequently be seen to tag one another in and out through the course of a single day. You operate both accounts, don't you? Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the sake of transparency, this would be a good opportunity for you to clarify what your connection is to Lerro. Let's be honest, you aren't just someone who once asked him for some photos, are you? Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know... but: in case, (it is ipothetical) I would have another house and I go there to eat and pass my other kind of time and maybe I created a second profile because I did not remind the password of the first account, would it be such a bad thing? It seems to me you are so curious to know this thing (arriving to mock me... "indomito teatrante" and such) which, sorry, doesn't seem so relevant to me... (but maybe I was and I am wrong. I don't reeally know so well all these rules... Sorry!) My connection is that of someone, with a bit of knowledge of literature and art, passionate of all this new work has been done and the nice ferment is going on. If I can I will keep writing happily of it, if I cannot anymore, because I did something wrong, I will stop. Thank you a lot. All the best. Gingeksace (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ask would it be such a bad thing?. Yes, it would be an obvious breach of WP:SOCK. Also, why would you need to use a different account when in a different house anyway? And how could you consistently alternate between forgetting the passwords for two different accounts?
Presenting your abuses as hypotheticals, such as your sockpuppetry and the comment earlier about We all know that behind almost every page of living authors there is often someone close to the same author, is fooling nobody.
NO. I tried to give an hipotethical answers at the question you did. Another hipothethical answer is someone else has what (you) see as "similiar style". In additiopn: PC keep (remind) the passwords, so maybe I could just use two different accounts because one password is reminded by one PC and one by the other. I repeat, they are only hipotethical cases, just to tell you, that there are possibilities... (but I see you just want to find a good reason to offend myself...). Maybe another thing is that in the second house in the same little village lives there with old parents in a secon house he goes to visit sistematically.... (you should not be so strict to imagine the reasons of others, in case it would be really the same person). Anyway, all of these are only suppositions to let you consider reasons at your focused question. All the best Gingeksace (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS about my words "we all know that about many authors there are people close to that authors" I just wanted to say that usually it is clear that very often behinde contemporary authors there are people close to them... It is at the least my impression. But I did not mean myself in that close way... Thanks so much! Gingeksace (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what the reason is, it is still sockpuppetry. However, the real reason for the multiple accounts is presumably to allow you to make statements like this one, above, In the Movement there are also young artists and cultured, passionate people and maybe ONE, TWO or THREE OF THEM WANTED TO MAKE THIS EFFORT to tell to the world also through Wikipedia, i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user.
Hopefully someone will open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI and the question can be resolved one way or the other. I'd do it myself if I knew how.
Further WP:SPA accounts operating in the same topic area over the last 18 month can be seen by looking for the redlink users in the contribution history for Cilento International Poetry Prize, here [27]. They all have the same editing pattern of making large numbers of small edits minutes apart over periods of perhaps an hour or two. It's obviously not credible that these are all separate end users. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say even for a bank robbery there are not so many ivestigations and strong wish to prove something pretty seconday in all this. But I understood it is your main interest in all this. It is fine than. Cheers! :-) Gingeksace (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"One, Two, Three" is just to say I DO NOT KNOW if there are more people involed in creating the articles... It could be one, or two or three or ten as for all Wikipedia articles i guess, (I was not really thinking at all of this). I really let me know I do not understand your aim starting from personal little mocking you did on me since the beginnig. Maybe someone should look at yo too... Kind regards Gingeksace (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mock you, the post you are referring to was by another user.
Sadly your approach over the years has always been that your abuses are unimportant and that other users should overlook them. If only you had just read the relevant policies and abided by them we wouldn't be here now. But here we are looking at a sockmaster operating multiple accounts in one narrow subject area and who refuses to declare his transparent conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not you "mocking" indeed. But anyway that was very bad behaviour... About myself, I did not do any abuse, what would be the reason for me to do that when I could with a single account? Anyway... All the best Gingeksace (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it would be the usual reason for sockpuppetry. i.e. passing yourself off as more than one end user. The deception in that regard between Gingeksace and Nihaon was actually quite subtle, including using two entirely different styles of language for the edit summaries for the two different accounts. E.g. when adding wikilinks one account consistently used the summary "underlined name" while the other consistently used the summary "highlighted name". However, you were given away by the fact that the two accounts were never online together and tagged each other in and out. Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, please, try to consider that in that case I even did not could imagine these things... (people I guess does not even know about all these a bit inedd strict rules...). And honestly I think that I have explained very deeply my reasons and goood faith even if I did some whatever eventual thing without knowing it was not permitted... Thanks. Gingeksace (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the attempt to make the two accounts look different by using different forms of edit summaries gave you away. How could that possibly have happened other than intentionally, and what possible intent could there have been except to deceive?
It did occur to me at one point earlier today that I must be looking at two different people taking turns using the same computer - but obviously if it had been something as innocent as that you would have said it a long time ago. Axad12 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I see and now I understand a bit. Yes if I would have used two accounts on a same PC changing like that sistematically it would be very intentionally. I can confirm I did not do it. Have a nice day. Gingeksace (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be entirely fair here, so I'll give you another chance. Can you explain why the two accounts were never online at the same time and used different edit summaries to make them look like different end users?
Denying it is no good, because it can be demonstrated that that was indeed happening. In the absence of a plausible explanation the only possibility is that you created the two accounts with intent to deceive. Axad12 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be patient, I think I have already answerd at all possibilities and more...
If you read again all you will find the answer... I talked about the possibilities at your question... But if to tell you one reason will mean to have attacks on me I prefer you immagine by yourself which of that possibilities ragards myself.
@Axad12 I think you'll have better results from filing an SPI (it's very straightforward, I've found) than trying to badger Gingeksace into an admission. A good faith explanation does exist: two editors with similar interests and different schedules. I'm dubious, hence why I think the SPI is a good idea. I've gone ahead and created one; please add any other evidence you think is relevant. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This walled garden is full of some of the wordiest least penetrable articles ever put on Wikipedia. It seems the only reason these articles haven't been instantly deleted is because of a Gish GallopWP:REFBOM of sources. Even if the users in question aren't WP:COI, or socks, they definitely fail WP:CIR with flying colors. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone wishing to avoid reading through the 2015 SPI linked to the 2015 AfD which Allan pointed out above, the brief version is as follows:
Lots of articles all about Menotti Lerro etc., lots of socks all with indistinguishable interests and editing patterns. Ringleader seemed to be an account called Rainermaria27 who used poor English to express sentiments very similar to those expressed by Gingeksace above (e.g. rules breaches are trivial, what is the problem, why are you concentrating on this irrelevant stuff. Also, notably, I created different accounts [...] because [I] edited the page from different places so I did not have with me the password of previous accounts). Basically, it was transparently the same user operating the same racket. Axad12 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI report from 2015 that Axad12 found: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leicesterdedlock/Archive is quite revealing; I agree that the excuses by Rainermaria27 sound a lot like Gingeksace. The Lerro AfD on en-WP from 2015 is also very interesting: [29]. Lerro's AfD on Italian-WP occurred in 2018: [30]. Then the PR campaign moved back to en-WP in 2021. It has been quite a persistent effort, more than just a random "fan" or two of the poet. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Anyone have thoughts on whether this "garden of delights" is undisclosed paid editing, or just the garden-variety COI? The reason I ask is I've been tagging some of the articles as COI, but am wondering if PAID would be a better clean up tag to use. Many thanks to those who are already starting to help clean up. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times that the same ambitious plan has been put into action, affecting more than one version of Wikipedia, suggests it was paid, as does the sheer amount of time that was being spent in creating and developing so many articles.
But then the fact that the ringleader was apparently the same in both 2015 and 2024, despite the fact the the 2015 campaign failed, makes me question that idea. Similarly the rather amateur nature of the activity, using someone with poor English skills and no understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
So on balance I would conclude it was someone close to Lerro, or otherwise involved in his movement, but perhaps not paid specifically for this work (for which they were evidently unsuited). Maybe it was an agent who was doing this as well as other non-wiki related duties. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at some of these articles and I think the claim that all of these scholars are part of this intellectual movement is tenuous and probably added to their articles and infoboxes by these socks. The primary source I've found to ascertain their "membership" is a publication of the the Empathetic Movement that lists all of their names or the claim is based on the fact that they won this literary award. I think this is a weak attribution and the statement that an academic belongs to a literary movement should be based on statements by that author themselves, we should take the claims of the movement on who its members are. And I think if the article subjects have a demonstratable notability based on their academic or literary work, we shouldn't hold it against them that an editor with a different COI created or contributed to these articles. LizRead!Talk!01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I agree that many of these claims were added by the socks promoting Empathism rather than a neutral source or the person themself. I too found that the list of "members" or "adherents" were coming from Lerro/Empathism or from the socks. Many of these people are indeed notable, some are not. To my way of thinking we should keep the notables but remove the promo/spam, and either AfD or redirect the non-notables that were simply added because they signed the Empathism manifesto or were designated a "member". Netherzone (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the BLP articles listed at the top of this thread contain a sentence in the lede along the lines of "is an adherent of the Empathic movement". The relevant sentence always(?) seems to be cited to a webpage for the book mentioned by Liz, which includes a list of adherents.
I agree with Liz that whether an individual belongs to a movement should be based on their own comments, rather than claims made by others. However, given the significant practical problems of sourcing such comments in Italian, and the very large number of articles involved, can I suggest that it would be best for the claims to just be removed from each of the articles? At the end of the day the relevant sentences in the ledes are perhaps best viewed as spam.
Any comments on Empathism further down in the articles would obviously need to be treated on their merits, which in some cases may influence retaining the sentences in the lede. Axad12 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all empathist content/claims from Andrew Mangham, as one example. I don't think the listing of his name among many others on an empathist web page is adequate sourcing for this. He did edit a volume of poetry by Lerro but it doesn't seem very central to his publications. I agree with Liz above that if any of the rest of this pile of articles avoids deletion, we should look carefully at whether any empathist claims are warranted.
I think they need to be nominated one-by-one, because there is the potential (and in at least one case actuality) of claims of notability unrelated to the promotionalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, there are a few AfD's for some with questionable notability, and I noticed this morning that another editor had PRODDED 4 or 5 articles. Mostly what needs to be removed from the notables is the spam/promo about Menotti Lerro and his "cultural movement", the Empathic Movement (Empathism). Most of this material is sourced to Lerro himself or to his "members/adherents" - to it's all COI sourcing: "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". So if you see any sources written by any of the names listed at the bottom of this page:[31] they are COI. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody knows Italian, it might be a good idea to hop over there and let them know about this operation, I've seen a few sock articles that may have made there way onto their Wiki. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the recent thread about Graham87 (talk·contribs) overzealously blocking a user based on "vibes", I saw a thread on his talkpage where Liz had questioned an indef of MarcArchives00 (talk·contribs) he had made back in February 2024. I checked and it seemed to be a completely unfounded block based on "padding his edit count" by doing the tutorial that we show to new users plus a deleted stub Draft:Nur (influencer) that looked promotion-ish but hardly worth a block without discussion. I lifted the block and left a message on Graham's talkpage, then went back and checked all his blocks from September 2024.
There ended up being a total of 4 user blocks that I ended up lifting. Two were probably okay but not needed anymore; the block of Flight709 (talk·contribs) looked especially unwarranted, as well as 8 IP blocks that were anywhere from 1-10 years that I shortened because I felt them excessive. There were several more that I thought were questionable but within reasonable admin discretion, so I left those alone. Graham87's response[32] acknowledges some of them were excessive, but comes across as deeply suspicious of new/anonymous editors with an immediate WP:BITE reflex, so I think it needs to be brought to the community for review. The WordsmithTalk to me22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a prelude to an ARBR request (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Wordsmith). After reading through Graham87's talk page, the previous ANI thread, and the WPO thread, I would support such. Sincerely, Dilettante22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that there would be some introspection so it wouldn't be necessary to go to WP:RFAR; part of me still hopes for it. Given the response, either Graham's sense of when to block is far outside community norms or mine is so I'm not sure it can be avoided one way or another. The WordsmithTalk to me00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they’re being less BITEy per User talk:12.25.163.113. I hope it continues and, on second thought, was hasty with my earlier comment. I don’t want to see him deysysopped, but the community doesn’t have the power to decide whether or not someone has used the tools fairly. When there’s reasonable arguments to be made for either side, I do support escalation. Sincerely, Dilettante01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale provided here for some of the blocks is remarkably childish. "I raised it to five years because they complained that three years was too long". I hate spammy editors as much as anyone but the block of MarcArchives00 was an utter abuse of power. It also appears Graham87 blindly reverted every single contribution by Flight709. This included restoring an unreliable, deprecated source. They blocked Flight709 for editing "far too quickly, recklessly, and suspiciously" and then abused Flight709 as "completely untrustworthy and are not welcome here". How is this not plain and simple abuse of admin power? The block of StattoSteven was beyond completely unreasonable - look at their contributions before being indefinitely blocked (per WP:INDEF, intended for "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and disappointingly the unblock request was twice declined (first by 331dot on the basis they had engaged in overlinking in their first edits and hadn't been on here in a while and didn't immediately request an unblock). What's the point of the unblock process if such an obviously inappropriate block is allowed to stand? AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will endeavour to use more warnings than blocks from now on where feasible (it can be harder for IP and especially IPV6 users ... and in my experience many warnings are ignored, but that could be confirmation bias) ... and I'd forgotten there was a separate section of the blocking policy about indefinite blocks. Also, I'll copy something I wrote at Wikipediocracy re IP school blocks: I check the last school year's contributions of an IP range before I block them and if a significant portion of their edits are tagged as reverted (a relatively new feature), I block them ... and sometimes find unreverted vandalism that way. Usually for the ones I've blocked like 90% of their edits are vandalism to either articles or talk pages and the other 10% are either silly but harmless replies to their user talk page or updates to their school's article (which are sometimes good, sometimes not). A lot of pages are on my watchlist because of vandalism, often from school IP's, that has gone unreverted for a while. Graham87 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to weigh in here in either direction as I closed the prior thread but I'm not sure what another ANI achieves when these are about blocks that happened before the prior thread. Were you hoping Graham would go through their past blocks and reassess? If you think it merits tool removal, it needs ArbComm anyway so this step appears unnecessary. StarMississippi00:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous thread (which I didn't participate in) was about a single bad block. Every admin makes an occasional mistake, I've made plenty. My digging showed that it looks to be a much larger issue, but realistically Arbcom is not going to accept a case, admonish, or yank the bit unless the community has agreed there's a problem it can't solve through normal means. The WordsmithTalk to me01:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for lifting that block, The Wordsmith. I came across them when I deleted that draft and they had such a brief contribution history, I didn't see anything blockable. As for sanctions, in my limited experiences, cases like this are posted on WP:AN, not WP:ANI. You might consider moving this case to that noticeboard. LizRead!Talk!01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed through all of the accounts blocked by Graham87 over the last six months. I only took a brief look, and many of them are routine, but a few stood out. I ask that an uninvolved admin review the blocks of Lisabofita, Imtisig, and Ainguyen9 to determine whether they were appropriate. I also ask that the appeal by Sigmaxalpha be evaluated on a procedural basis, as Graham87 reviewed himself and revoked talk page access. One other general note, I noticed that Graham87 has used the phrases "your editing pattern is highly suspicious" and "you are not welcome here" toward multiple editors whom he blocked for relatively mild infractions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've deemed an editing pattern highly suspicious when it seemed like an editor was trying to get to autoconfirmed/extended-confirmed (perhaps for nefarious purposes) using minor edits to pad their edit count. My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that phrase in the future. Graham87 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The @Sigmaxalpha: block + unblock request denial + TP revocation looks absolutely horrendous on the surface. We have yet another case of blocking someone off of "a ... really weird feeling" and "because [their] attitude is incompatible with writing an encyclopedia" when the user was apparently being receptive of advice and I don't see anything in their recent contributions to warrant such a quick block, especially since they ceased editing mainspace after the "really weird feeling" comment.
I'd also say that, with this being a new editor, that Graham87 really ought to have known better than to interpret them tagging him in their unblock request as "specifically ask[ing] that *I* review my own block and that you don't want a review from other administrators (contrary to the purpose of the unblock template)" (bolding mine). Honestly, that is mind-boggling how someone would come to that conclusion. Support another admin unblocking and restoring TPA post-haste though it's likely too late with that editor. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and done the unblock and we'll see what happens. The Indian entrepreneur bit of their user page (the combination of the two, because it seems to be a hotspot of paid editing) plus their tendency to make very minor edits like this one (which is how I found them ... and isn't in any sort of tutorial) set off alarm bells. I knew that asking for me to review their unblock request probably wasn't what they meant but by then their general evasiveness was getting to me. And they did promise a paid editing disclosure in the end. Graham87 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a further look, I pulled up recent ANI posts involving Graham87's admin actions. There have been several of varying merit, but the most relevant one was in May 2022, which was closed as There is a general agreement that, for some time now, there have been intermittent issues with Graham87's use of the block tool, and of issues with WP:INVOLVED. Graham87 has been admonished for doing so, and has agreed to work harder in the future to abide by the restrictions on admins using their tools in disputes where they could be considered substantially involved. At this point, no formal sanctions are enacted, without prejudice to opening a new case some time in the future should problems of this nature persist. This has only further convinced me that every time an ANI discussion is closed without action, it's tacit permission to continue whatever behavior was being scrutinized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have confidence in this admin at all, unfortunately. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but this is way, way beyond that. It is active, repeated and ongoing abuse of admin tools. I think an apology by Graham87 to some of the inappropriately blocked editors such as StattoSteven would have been an start of acknowledging that was has happened is unacceptable. At the absolute bare minimum, Graham87 should no longer be blocking editors or reviewing unblock requests. AusLondonder (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on whether anything ought to be done about Graham87, but I do want to suggest that the current state of the unblock request list perhaps aggravates this type of thing. You have a relatively small number of admins taking on an extremely large workload that -- let's be honest -- consists of a large proportion of bad faith editors who are freuently abusive and/or lie. It's much easier for someone to WP:AGF when they just come in to review a single editor's appeal on a request than it is for an admin who has just spent hours dealing with UPEs, angry failed autobiographers, and vandals. If there are admins who have the ability and time to provide assistance here, I'd urge them to consider reviewing more unblock requests. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs: Having attempted to deal with the oldest of the appeals a few weeks ago, which was extremely time consuming and led to a quick burnout, I want to say that I saw many of your comments at the appeals and found them thoughtful and helpful. So thank you.-- Ponyobons mots16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to be at least mildly helpful when I can be. I figure any question that I or another editor can field is one less thing to deal with for you or Yamla or 331dot or any of the others. I know what a workload it is for you and the others. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of SPI work, so I completely understand how difficult it can be to maintain a good attitude when dealing with the worst of the worst. Still doesn't excuse this. I often close SPI cases without action even when my instincts tell me they're a sock, because I can't prove it. Even for UPE, it often can be hard to distinguish a paid editor from somebody who just wants to write an article on a musician or influencer they like. That's why the SPI backlog is so long. Still, it's better to let a sockpuppet or COI go than it is to block legitimate editors who are trying to learn. We do need a lot more admins to handle various backlogs, but driving out newbies before they can gain experience is only going to make the problem worse in the long run. The WordsmithTalk to me18:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here from the Wikipediocracy thread, where I've weighed in a few times and so for transparency's sake, I should join the conversation here, too. Speaking as a former admin and also just as a long-time editor ... I appreciate Graham87's working to protect the encyclopaedia. As it used to say somewhere and may still do, Wikipedia is not a utopian social experiment. Vandals exist. Point-of-view pushers and promotional editors exist. Well-meaning doofuses can do a lot of damage, and that includes newbies and people lacking the competence to edit for whatever reason, and also people fixated on "correcting" the English of articles. Admins are made admins in large part for their cluefulness in identifying all of those problems and figuring out how to deal with them. What's largely happened in this case, I think (I disagree with Graham87 about school IPs) is that his use of the blocking tool has indeed diverged from community expectations, as The Wordsmith suggests. It's become abusive at times. With an added problem that he isn't good at explaining to the user in plain English what they've been doing wrong (far from the only admin with that issue, but our PAGS can be counter-intuitive and our jargon can be hard to understand, and admins should be explicators first, and it's always best to avoid the block. And I see both in the discussion above and in the user talk examples cited here and at Wikipediocracy, Graham87 getting frustrated. And trying again and again in the same vein of comment.
I think we can avoid bothering ArbCom. My recommendations:
Graham87, stop blocking people (except for the most obvious and nasty vandals) and recalibrate your sense of blocking policy and its implementation. Maybe choose 2 or 3 admins active in blocking (and not checkusers or other special cases) and analyse their blocks in recent months: what do they do in different kinds of cases, how rapidly do they block, when do they use indef, how long are their blocks on IPs. Some of your comments, here and elsewhere, indicate you study editors who you think might be promotional, and schools that produce problematic edits. Step back from blocking and instead turn that analytical focus on current blocking practice for a while. You've drifted from best practice.
When you resume blocking, always watchlist the blockee's user page (or maintain a separate list of user pages to check every day). It's courteous, I think most admins do it, and for whatever reasons, a large percentage of people don't follow the instructions for filing an unblock request using the template that puts their page in the category. And anyone can make a mistake; with the best will in the world, an admin will sometimes make a block that, after reading what the blockee has to say, they decide to reverse.
You've been promising to be nicer, but also try to be clearer. In particular, explain more from the start, and change tacks if the person isn't getting it. That could include linking to simpler explanations like WP:42 about new articles, suggesting they ask at the Teahouse, using short-term protection rather than repeatedly reverting, or asking at a noticeboard or on another admin's user talk (or, dare I suggest it, on Discord/IRC/e-mail) if you are at wit's end over something that seems, for example, like promotionalism. (And personally I think you're overly suspicious of new editors who show clue or even familiarity with the rules or the mark-up. Sometimes they're long-term IP editors, people using some WMF gizmo, retired professors, computer professionals, or simply geniuses ... but I'm known for my naïveté.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll watchlist talk pages of people I do block (not always possible for IP ranges though, obviously). Sometimes I do find their requests when checking contributions.
OK, all good alternatives to blocking. Short-term semi-protection has seemed to work so far at a recent edit-warring case I filed (my first one ever) so I'll keep in mind options like that in the future.
A short aside re school blocks: I started blocking schools more aggressively after noticing that some IP's would have gaps of years in ther contributions, and figuring out that was due to long-term range blocks by other admins ... so I emulated and perhaps overextended those. Graham87 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yngvadottir's analysis is (as usual) pretty spot-on and gives a useful framework for how to move forward. The third bullet point is especially critical; the biting, suspicion of anyone making mistakes or anyone editing without mistakes, and blocking as a first resort are the core of the issue. If the problem stops with a commitment to assuming good faith and trying alternatives before blocking, that's the most important thing. The WordsmithTalk to me18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Graham87, you didn't step back from blocking sufficiently, or do a thorough enough evaluation of current practice. You blocked Robbandstra earlier today as a DUCK sock of Skatevortex, who you had previously blocked for disruptive editing. (Actually you'd failed to block them until today although you'd put the block notice on their user talk; judging by that page, the main concerns with their editing were misreferencing and ENGVAR violations.) You filed the SPI only after blocking Robbanstra, and although a checkuser judges the match "likely" on both technical and behavioural grounds, Izno has pointed out that neither account edited after August 12. Both are dubious blocks, especially the sock block on a hunch of a no longer active account that you believe to be the same person as another account you blocked. I said "except for the most obvious and nasty vandals"; these aren't that. Both accounts are relatively new - started in April, 95 and 93 edits - and I see the "newcomer task" tag on at least one edit. Not enough effort to explain things on their talk pages, IMO. At the very least, there was no urgency to block Robbandstra; you should have filed the SPI first and waited for its result. Stop blocking; instead, file at noticeboards and consult with other admins. Are any of you admins up for forming a small pool of consultants that Graham87 can ask about cases where he would like to block? There's been a little conversation on his user talk; maybe for the privacy of the suspects, an off-wiki private chatroom would be better going forward? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, you talk a great talk about change but I find your promises to be vague and impossible to track to see if there is any improvement. Sure, you can "consult more" but if you are doing no consulting now, that means that hesitating to enforce one questionable block on a new editor could be considered "more" at least compared to zero times. I think you just need to holster your blocking gun and not do any blocking unless it is active vandalism. Don't block, in advance of a Checkuser, based on suspicions of sockpuppetry because, if you are wrong, and you have been wrong, the consequences are terrible. A bad block prevents an editor from participating on this project and blocking should only be done in serious cases, not trivial ones. You are depriving them of the ability to participate here, that is a severe consequence when you are blocking based on "vibes". The editor should be actively disrupting the project RIGHT NOW to warrant a block, not based on behavior from months ago that you think is suspicions or because you don't like the way they phrased their unblock request. Seriously, if these "quick draw" blocks continue, I can see this case being taken to ARBCOM so right now, I think you are being extended some ROPE. I hope this is all sinking in as serious concerns and you are not just saying things that you think people want to hear. LizRead!Talk!07:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: OK, from now on any block I make will be based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate (excluding the couple of long-term IP vandal editing patterns where I intimately know their modus operandi and am often the first admin on the scene , such as the boy band vandal and JohnLickor372), and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist). If I come across a situation I've never encountered before, I won't use blocking as a first resort and will try to think about other solutions or explanations before resorting to blocking. I've started this sort of thread before, but a while back. Graham87 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wrong before but I've also been right -- I think the point that people are trying to make is that this is really the wrong question to be asking. The consequences of being wrong and biting a new user are much worse than the consequences of being right and having to clean up a bit of extra vandalism. CapitalSasha ~ talk12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a really crazy thing to think ... vandalism degrades the experience of readers, so we should minimise it whenever possible? But it also attracts editors, who *try* to remove it, with varying levels of success ...
Anyway, on tonight's watchlist check (which was my craziest since this particular iteration of the ANI opened), I did consciously try to change my approach.
I encountered Special:Contributions/2804:248:F6C7:4300::/64, an IPV6 /64 ranange (so probably used by just one person) that has made six problematic edits in the last two days. I for one find this one particularly bizarre and may well have blocked on the strength of that edit previously, despite that range not receiving a single warning. But I didn't ... I gave them one, and we'll see what happens (though honestly I'm kinda cynical that it'll make much difference, partly because it's an IPV6).
FacrFinderW has had a litany of issues in their short editing career, including copyright violations, adding unsourced/unreliably sourced text, and English variety issues (perhaps from using an American English spell-checker, even though they may well be in India per some of their edits). I would have been tempted to indefinitely block them before as, frankly, not being suitable for editing here, but they seem to be editing in good faith so I sent them messages letting them know what they've done wrong and the fact that they're doing more harm than good here.
ThumannInsurance: I probably would have blocked a username like this no questions asked, but this time I gave them a warning.
Graham87, I note that you haven't imposed any further blocks since Robbandstra. I think that's wise, whether or not it was attributable to my suggestion. I also see you trying templating and explanation. But you're still jumping to an assumption of bad faith too readily for my taste. One instance is above, where you defend your actions with respect to Skatevortex and Robbanstra by calling them "obvious" DUCKs. To you, maybe. But I'm still not sure Skatevortex's edits were bad enough to justify a block, and without that certainty, the DUCK test loses its force. It can be hard to balance protecting the encyclopaedia with being welcoming, but I repeat: you've got far out of line with community expectations. Specifically, I think you are overly ready to suspect sockpuppetry. (Granted, as you say, there are specific sockmasters where you have expertise.) Stay out of the blocking and remind yourself to consider alternative explanations to socking.
I've shadowed your recent edits and here are some case study examples from me to go along with those above.
User talk:Victoria Twat#Your username. Don't block that user for the user name. Report her to WP:UAA if you didn't come to her edits from there. Template and/or report her if you think the edits to Vehicle registration plates of Victoria are bad (I can't judge them). But as the off-wiki peanut gallery are screaming (well, saying), it could well be her last name. And she's using the mobile app and may not be aware of your messages.
VivekLife made a single edit back in August 2023 (unless of course there's something I can't see), expanding an article with undue emphasis and rather empty prose. It turns out it was copied from the cited source. You reverted, and I'm glad you did: the text turns out to have all the e's replaced with the corresponding Cyrillic letter, which you noticed because you use a screenreader. But your edit summary refers to it as "refspam". A single edit with a single reference to the site hardly qualifies as spamming. And you started the editor's talk page by templating them for spamming external links. You're jumping to a hasty conclusion about their motives. The Cyrillic letters constituted a better reason to revert; another valid reason would be that the expansion is poor; a third would be if you'd detected the copyvio. You led with a less good reason, because it may not be true, and a more impolite one. Your action was good, but your messaging was sub-par.
@Yngvadottir: OK, pretty much all makes sense. I haven't been tempted to block anyone so far today (my time). Will reply to your three case studies:
Victoria Twat: There could well be a twist to the tale with that one. I found them (Victoria is an Australian state, so we can't assume their gender) because I was going to mention that I found this user due to having Vehicle registration plates of Western Australia on my watchlist and I was going to link to the reason it's there ... and then found this revert of mine on an editor called Victoria 2AT (which I'd completely forgotten about). See their block log; I'd blocked them as a sock because their edit reverted to a version by a previous account (which often but does not always indicate sockpuppetry and I think I would've gone through SPI now), then it was confirmed by a checkuser. So my next logical step is opening a SPI, which I've done.
Fair enough, having read the refspam section of the guideline. But the spam guideline overall doesn't say that spam has to be repeated (but it notes that spam is worse when it is). If I were the lucky recipient of an individualised advance-fee scam email, I'd consider it spam as much as I would if I knew it was a bulk email to many people. The chance that particular edit was made in good faith is almost zero, given everything.
Makes sense; thanks for the deep evaluation. I consider Skatevortex, Robbandstra, and TechScribeNY as basically the same person (or entity) in my head and I shouldn't have let that bleed through into my edit summary.I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't make head or tails of what that edit was supposed to accomplish though! I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest. Graham87 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these RFCs ended with the status quo except for Woodrow Wilson. The editor has been approached about creating too many RFCs on this topic[33] and about pinging multiple projects. [34] Every time there’s push back, Emiya1980 goes into defense mode and lobs accusations at others of stonewalling[35][36][37] or harassment[38]. They have even gone further and made personal attacks[39].
The 8th RFC was started today on Edward Heath, and it’s another completely pointless RFC that wasn’t necessary after the original discussion.
Outside of this focus on infobox image RFCs, Emiya1980 seems like a good editor, but they’re taxing the RFC process with needless RFCs. I could understand if they were improving the project, but most of the RFCs are ending in status quo. Maybe it’s time to focus on something else? The RFC process is a valuable part of the project and this doesn't appear to be a productive use of it. Perhaps I’m overreacting, so I’m presenting this here for comment. If the community believes this is a productive use of resources, I’ll drop it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, I have a question for you and would appreciate a direct and concise answer: Do you understand that writing shut up for the rest of the discussion is an utterly inappropriate thing to say to a fellow editor? If so, will you commit to never saying anything like that ever again? Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that was a good answer, Emiya1980. Now, please respond in detail to other editor's concerns about your use of the RFC process. Do you have a good understanding of the circumstances when an RFC is the best solution, as opposed to situations when less dramatic forms of dispute resolution are more appropriate? Do you understand the concerns that other editors have raised? Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I answer that question, please tell me how you (not Nemov) feel I have been abusing the Rfc process and when you believe it is (or is not) appropriate to open one in the first place. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Emiya1980, I have no obligation to give you my assessment at this point. As an administrator, I am still investigating and I expect you to answer my questions frankly and honestly as you did my initial question. Please do so. Stonewalling is not a good strategy for you. Be fully responsive to the concerns about your RFC conduct that have been raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confess to pushing the envelope with regards to publishing notices about Rfcs which I have opened or am otherwise involved. I also admit fault with regards to opening more than one or two Rfcs at a time. However, if more than a few editors are involved in a discussion and a decisive consensus has not been reached in favor of either position, I do not see the problem in opening an Rfc as I did on Edward Heath. To restrict myself otherwise feels like censorship designed to discourage changes to the status quo which I feel certain users like Nemov are trying to impose on me. That is my opinion on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the assessment at the beginning of this case is true, all of these RFCs have not resulted in any changes. So, I guess I would try to appeal to the fact that we all have limited amount of time we can work on this project and ask whether starting another RFC is a good use of your time and that of other editors if they so rarely change the status quo. I'm not against change but it looks like this hasn't been an effective way to change articles. It could be low participation (an issue all over the project) or the wording of the RFC or just your timing. But if you keep trying a method with little success, I'd probaly move on and try something else. LizRead!Talk!07:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, consider yourself formally warned for your suboptimal conduct regarding RFCs and I urge you to behave appropriately regarding RFCs in the future. You have used up your assumption of good faith in this area, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 If I do what, exactly? You have yet to provide me with specific criteria on when it is or is not appropriate to open an Rfc in the future. Unless you say otherwise, this seems less like a constructive warning and more like an indefinite ban on my ability to open Rfcs even if I have a valid reason for doing so. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, I am under no obligation to instruct you on the precise circumstances when you can or cannot open an RFC. It is incumbent on you to be fully conversant with dispute resolution procedures more broadly, and RFC procedures more specifically. It is also your obligation to fully take on board the legitimate concerns that other editors have raised about your RFC conduct. My warning is by no means an indefinite ban on my ability to open Rfcs. I will not hold your hand. You are on your own and you are completely responsible for your own edits. So, conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 No, that is not good enough. When I have a biased editor like Nemov ready to throw anything he can at me to stop me from bucking his preferred version of the status quo, I need clarifications on what is acceptable and what is not (especially when dealing with guidelines as contradictory and open to interpretation as these). If you are not willing to provide me the answers I want, you can at least point me in the direction of a page or forum where I can find others who are. If you are sincere in wanting me to be a more constructive part of Wikipedia, you should have no problem doing this much for me. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, I have already directed you to the appropriate pages and asked you to take on board the feedback you have received from other editors. If you choose to reject that advice, then please be prepared for some negative consequences if you ignore the warning that I gave to you. The choice is entirely yours. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response reads like you still intend to push RfCs as a way to force your changes into articles when other editors disagree with you. Also, be careful of WP:NPA, accusing Nemov of being a biased editor with no evidence is going to get you in hot water. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:RFCBEFORE says "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". RfCs are a heavyweight process which should only really be used when other, less time-intensive, methods have failed. Unfortunately there seems (e.g. [40][41])to be an increasing trend of users jumping straight to RfC immediately on getting any pushback, or as a kind of last roll of the dice when they are in a WP:1AM situation. This maybe goes hand-in-hand with an increasingly "legalistic" approach to Wikipedia, especially among newer editors: they want a case and they want a ruling and they want precedent. I really wish there was something the community could do to tamp down on this. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very peculiar that no one, neither the OP nor the reported party, thought to point out that all of these RfC's have a common purpose--specifically, that they are all for the purpose of deciding on a lead image. So here's the thing--this is just one of those areas where the policy language is so loose and the precedents so indeterminate that subjectivity creeps in and you just have to bring in extra voices and have a straight forward consensus. RfC is one of my main modes of talk space contribution; I think I've contributed to somewhere between 1,000-1,200 over the last 15 years. And what I've noticed over the last few years is an absolutely startling uptick in efforts to shoot down most RfCs before they have even started on either procedural grounds or a general implication that the RfC is unnecessary. Honestly, it's the vast majority today: it is much more the norm than the exception, now. We actually just had what might be reasonably described as our most important important RfC to take place on an article talk page in years, and the very first comment in that discussion? A suggested procedural close because WP:BEFORE hadn't been satisfied. Nevermind that the most cursory search of the archives and the circumstances would have immediately revealed that it was a highly contentious issue going back to the article's inception, that there had been numerous previous discussions, or that the Supreme Court of the world's second most populous nation had just ordered the project to remove certain content which was the subject of the dispute. Pretty much the best case for the necessity of the process, and someone questioned it, reflexively. Now, I'm not stating that editor's name here because their approach isn't the issue. My point is that if you open an RfC at present, it gets challenged; that's almost always a given reality. So from the start I'm not considering pushback an automatic indicator that there is a problem with an given proponent's approach to RfC. Now, are the number or the hit rate more concerning to me? Not really on the number: one or two a month on average is well within what I consider acceptable rates. The fact that the status quo was retained roughly 84% of the time does suggest that at least some of these could have been avoided. But as I mentioned at the outset here, opinions on the best lead images tend to be quite varied and loosely bounded by the policy language on point. It is just one of those things which often best solved by bringing in a cluster of un-involved editors to break the deadlock. And they are often the quickest, most painless and straight forward discussions you will have, with a clear consensus usually formed quickly. Yes, when I get to one, I do often honestly do a little eyeroll that this discussion couldn't have been resolved short of RfC. But then commenting is quick and these RfCs more often than not end up being a little amuse-bouche of a dispute. And for me, the aggregate community time spent only has to be lesser than any disruption that might have been caused by leaving the issue unresolved between two small, entrenched camps unable to reach a consensus by itself. Long and the short of it: I'm not seeing the issue with the existence of these discussions, so far as has been presented here so far.SnowRise let's rap13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not, however, to say that I see nothing wrong with Emiya's conduct inside the discussions after they have started. Emiya, let me be blunter than my diplomatic colleagues have been above: your conduct on the Mussolini article was so over the line that had there been even a single extra example of you speaking to a second community member like you spoke to Nemov there, we'd probably be talking about a serious sanction right now. I know I would be amenable to a topic ban at the minimum. The fact that, even in the heat of the moment, you thought that was an acceptable way to interact in a collaborative workspace raises serious questions about your competency for this project. I would strongly urge you to not get within a kilometer of the kind of "Ok, time for you to shut up." style of statement to a fellow community member going forward. It was very hard for me to separate my thoughts about your decision to open the RfCs, as discussed above, from how you engaged once they started, and admins and the community won't care to make that effort in general if you give them low-hanging fruit to block or CBAN you on. SnowRise let's rap13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnowRise while they could have been clearer, in fact Nemov/the OP did say in their first post "Outside of this focus on infobox image RFCs" so did sort of tell us what these RfCs were about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complete misrepresentation of my conduct on the page. I did not go over the three-revert minimum so this feels a draconian application of the edit-war ban; especially considering I consented to the reverting editor's recommendation for a discussion after being reverted only twice. Most significantly, Nick-D's complaint is completely unrelated to Rfcs which is the primary focus of this thread. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly the same conduct. I note that you have never edited the World War II article before starting this edit war, and your only previous edits to the talk page were to advertise some of the RfCs noted at the start of this thread. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I also did two reverts. I revert twice and thrice much more than I'd like, I will admit. I think I'm at my worst when I revert twice and thrice without being particularly communicative or helpful, and I could've been better here I guess.) Remsense ‥ 论08:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review of the edit history for World War II, I actually reverted Remsense only once during the incident in question. The original change I made to the infobox should not be counted as a reversion for purposes of edit-warring. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, in the same way that even an entirely different editor's conduct can become the focus of an ANI discussion, so too can other behaviour by the reported editor--even be it very distantly related to the original matter raised. And I'm not so entirely convinced that the intersection here is as small as you frame it. Now obviously, I just very vociferously defended your opening of those RfCs as presumptively valid actions, absent more particular evidence on disruption on your part. That is because, for better or for worse, wars of subjectivity over lead images are just a phenomena on this project that aren't going anywhere, and RfCs are probably the quickest way of resolving them. As such, even given that you are opening more of them than is typical for a given editor, I didn't see that it was reasonable to penalize you for what I assume are good faith (if arguably mostly pointless) efforts to make your case for a change on each article. That said, this additional infobox issue highlights just how pedantic you are willing to be about the smallest and most inconsequential of changes, how divorced your arguments can be from a policy predicate, and how many characters-worth of time (your own, and finite community time) you are willing to spill to pursue your preferred vision of these tiny details. The order of those names in that infobox is not something even your typical devoted WWII history editor would think was worth invoking an edit. Among those few who would, almost all of them would recognize it was certainly not worth edit warring over, and among those who did edit war (however briefly), fewer still would have thought the matter worth a talk page dispute. Now, I discount the lack of perspective there somewhat, because the discussion clearly illuminates the fact that you are not the first to dispute the ordering of those names--which just goes to show that, much as with some of the persons they cover, for some of our military history editors, there really is no hill too small to die on. But what really pulls this behaviour into potentially disruptive territory is that once you created the discussion, the arguments you proceeded upon were constructed of nothing but idiosyncratic views and WP:Original research. If you were going to open a discussion on the matter, that's an engagement that requires a certain type of munition: arguments predicated in WP:reliable sources. But you brought absolutely no such to bear, and the main thing that seems to have animated you was the perspective that Stalin, "a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler [should not be listed] at the top of the Allied Powers" above FDR. Now, is all of this worth a sanction? No, not really. But taken with the rest above, it does highlight some very salient points you clearly need to take on board. You are chewing through too much community time for too little gain (both because your positions in these cases are generally non-winners and even if they were, the benefit of the changes is too minuscule compared to the effort needed to effect them). In short, you need to do a better job of picking your battles, because sooner or later it will not just be community time that these issues will be sapping, but also community patience. Even good faith activities by well-intentioned volunteers can be judged net-negatives to the project, given certain particulars. SnowRise let's rap20:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise Characterize me as "pedantic" if you want, but listing Joseph Stalin in the infobox in a way that suggests he was the leader of the Big Three is an issue I consider worthy of continued debate. If the sticking point to my continued involvement in said discussion is that I presented no reliable sources in support of my argument, then I am more than willing to provide some.
However, the fact remains that Nick-D's claim that I started an edit war over at World War II is based on fairly flimsy evidence and does not involve any abuse of the Rfc process which is the primary focus of this thread. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some definitional issues here. From the top of the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, see the main definition: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions."
The word repeatedly means "more than once"; it does not mean "more than three times within 24 hours". Also, the definition of an edit war doesn't technically have to involve reverts. It is possible to fully comply with WP:3RR while still edit warring. @Nick-D says Emiya "started an edit war"; Emiya's response is basically to claim that there was no violation of 3RR. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Not if I reverted another editor only once on said page regarding the infobox issue which (as I've already indicated) is what happened here. Assuming you are characterizing my original change to the infobox as an "override [of another editor's] contributions" and therefore edit-warring, then what is the point of Wikipedia's "Be bold" policy? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EW and WP:BB are in tension. What looks like "bold editing" to one person can look like "edit warring" to another.
You have made three edits to WWII: [43][44][45] The first makes your bold change; the second reverts to your bold change. (The third is unrelated.) Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring. It might not be a problem worth enforcing – you know that if the speed limit is 40, but you drive 41, you are both breaking the law and also very unlikely to get stopped by the police for it? This is similar, in some respects – but there is no "right to re-revert". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Ok, what I am about to say may seem far-fetched but is genuinely the truth. I have no recollection of consciously editing the size of the Soviet flag in the World War II infobox as set forth in your link. One of the reasons I want to point this out is something strange happened like this before around a week ago. Over at Hindenburg's talk page, another editor confronted me over my reversion to his edits in the "Locarno Treaties" section of Paul von Hindenburg. Similarly, while I recall making changes to the lede, I have no recollection of undoing said edits. Either I have an undiagnosed case of DID or somebody is piggy-backing on my account to make additional edits without my knowledge.
The first two edits don't show a change in the flag size. They only show you copying the whole line (carefully preserved in their original form, with no changes at all) to a new location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I misread the link. That being said, the problem over at Hindenburg did happen so that might be something for the admins to look into because I don't know how that happened. Back to the matter at hand, one of the edits which you are referring is a notice I posted at the top of the page indicating the lede for World War II was too long. For the record, I do in fact think the lede is unnecessarily detailed and contains two bloated paragraphs which could use some trimming. Again, however, I am only seeing one reversion here by myself; classifying this as edit-warring is frankly overkill. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see one reversion (though edit warring isn't limited strictly to reversions) by you and three by another editor. That's one bold edit plus four reversions within 72 minutes, which is easily into the edit warring territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hold you responsible only for your part of the edit war. You did not believe that you were involved in an edit war. I have explained that there really was an edit war underway. Your part in the edit war might be smaller, but that doesn't mean that there was no edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems I'm the only one who is being slammed for an edit war on World War II; which you yourself admit I bore a smaller part of the blame for. From what I can tell, Remsense has received no reprimand whatsoever for his conduct on the page while I have a big, ugly edit-war tag on my talk page posted by Nick-D. Call it a coincidence if you want, but Remsense's opinion on how the page should look just so happens to coincide with the views strongly articulated on the talk page by Nick-D. So you can excuse me if I feel at least one of the editors calling me out in this situation is somewhat biased in their application of Wikipedia's rules. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be totally honest: firstly, if anything I did on World War II deserves any particular sanction or redress, that's news to me. Secondly, could you please relax? Casting aspersions against me or others seems like another unneeded ratcheting up of what is already a fairly manic dialogue on your part. As someone who is also capable of mania, it is not fun to reply to. I really don't feel like taking the aspersions seriously, but it's fairly clear that our positions expressed were not the same: I thought the ordering was arbitrary and likely shouldn't be changed because it could cause further disruption, while Nick-D did not think it was arbitrary, and claimed the ordering was based in what RS say. Remsense ‥ 论00:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hashing out my position on drive-by templating: at this moment, this is a case where putting a big maintenance banner atop a highly developed, highly visible article for what is a potential but not universally perceived problem—is more disruptive and unhelpful than you starting a discussion on talk first, and then only placing a banner if no consensus or improvements result from that. Remsense ‥ 论00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what I said above: if you feel people need to "take the fall" or write a page's worth of dialogue over a tiny incident, that's a you problem, and others really aren't required to follow your logic to its conclusion. What matters is that editors are able to work with each other, which I feel I'm perfectly capable of on that article going forward if you are: if there's anything here others need to worry about, it would be the longer-term patterns of behavior that said tiny incidents constitute. Remsense ‥ 论00:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but the tone is hardly what I would characterize as friendly. The overall aim by some of the editors here seems to be to significantly limit if not outright stifle any further contributions of mine to this project. If I sound "manic", that is the reason.
If I just received an edit-war tag on my talk page, I would not feel the need to complain. What I take issue with is Nick-D not only (1) characterizing me as a "problem editor" in the discussion which I started at your recommendation but (2) encouraging other editors to pile on me in this thread in what seems as a barely disguised attempt to muzzle any further participation on my part. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your editing to be seen as problematic, I'd strongly suggest taking the feedback various editors have provided in this thread on board as this type of editing and the way in which you participate in related discussions (including this discussion) is not constructive or helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being singled out for an incident where blame is clearly shared by another editor, there is nothing wrong with me pointing out. Your willingness to turn a blind eye to Remsense's part in said edit war clearly shows your bias in this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emiya1980: you seem to be making way too big a deal over the templated warning you received about edit warring. First a template warning isn't really a "reprimand", it's a warning that your behaviour, in the opinion of the person leaving the warning is violating our policies and guidelines and so if you continue down that path you may be blocked. Notably, although Nick-D may be an admin, since they were WP:involved their warning was just a typical editor to editor warning, it wasn't an admin saying they'd block you if you continued down that path. So if it came to it, any blocking would have considered the behaviour of all involved as relevant.
Anyway I have no idea why Nick-D chose to give you one but not one to Remsense but I can good reasons why it made sense and you've IMO proven the point on this thread. While you've been here for a while, it's apparent from what you've said and done in various places that you're still fairly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Even after receiving the warning, you apparently continued to believe you weren't edit warring when you were. Your understanding of what is edit warring was fairly flawed. While apparently the edit warring didn't resolve your confusion and there is always debate over templated warnings vs a personalised message, it seems fair for Nick-D to have tried.
By comparison Remsense is experienced enough that they really should know what edit warning is, and their responses seem to have been much more accepting of their mistakes than you further re-enforcing this PoV. While there's also debate about templating the regulars, this does seem a definite case where a simple "cut out the edit warring" message was sufficient for Remsense if need be but an attempt to explain the problem even if via a template to you made sense.
Also, while warnings should primarily be intended to inform an edit so they change their behaviour and no further action is needed, because we don't generally block editors when they were genuine unaware they were violating our policies and guidelines the possibility a warning may be needed for a block is something many editors will also have at the back of their mind. I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW and am also not an admin so I'm not familiar with what standards are nowadays, but I can reasonably see without the warning admins would have been reluctant to block you since you were genuinely confused what edit warning was and there had been no recent attempt to inform you.
By comparison Remsense is active on warning editors for edit-warring, and reporting them to WP:AN/EW and has been blocked in the past for edit-warring, so I cannot see any way an admin would have let them be because they didn't know. I wasn't aware of all these details when I wrote my earlier comment but this very strongly re-enforces my point that if Remsense didn't know, a template was fairly pointless.
BTW about your two reverts point, note that some editors chose to follow WP:1RR or even WP:0RR even when they are not required to. While doing so will not completely protect you from edit warring issues; and outside of areas where it's required, making 2 or 3 reverts doesn't mean you will definitely be blocked for edit warring; IMO it's a bad idea for any editor to think two reverts is okay because a lot of editors do it.
As a final comment, you might want to read WP:NOTBURO and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Do understand that while it's important editors follow our policies and guidelines and we have some that are fairly strict (like more than three reverts), we don't generally follow an overly legalistic system where there are firm objective rules which you must follow and anything not in violation of these firm rules is fine. While I understand this can be difficult for some editors, unfortunately if you want to edit here you're going to have to learn to work within a system where we don't have such strict rulemaking. If multiple experienced editors are telling you what you're doing is not conducive to building and encyclopaedia, you generally should take their advice onboard rather than demanding they point to some specific rule you're violating.
Emiya1980, I don't think that anyone is expecting to issue sanctions specifically for the WWII edits.
Of course, any and all edits provide information about the editor's abilities, interests, and behavioral patterns. For example, the WWII edits indicate that Emiya1980 is willing to carefully follow clearly stated, objective rules to the letter. Remsense's comments here and elsewhere indicate that they are already aware that their contribution there was, even though in alignment with the ultimate disposition of the infobox, less than ideal behaviorally. My comments here and elsewhere (forever) indicate that I am sometimes pedantic and am usually willing to continue arguments when others would think it a waste of time and effort. If those other edits can illuminate a behavioral pattern, that can give us an idea of what to expect in the future, and therefore what changes to recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emiya1980, at this point, I think that this discussion would end if you simply stopped replying to everyone and stopped trying to defend yourself. No one has proposed sanctions, they raised concerns and I hope what they said had an impact on your future conduct around RFCs and a reconsideration if all of the ones you started were really necessary. But I think this whole discussion would end if you ceased replying to every comment and returned to regular editing. But if the problems perceived by other editors persist, there might be a return visit to ANI. As for now, I recommend disengaging from this discussion. LizRead!Talk!06:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that the community is willing to tolerate Emiya1980's commitment to wasting more valuable resource time on infobox image RFCs and is it pretty clear that the Emiya1980 sees no wrongdoing. So I guess this pointless crusade will continue. If that's the community's opinion so be it. Nemov (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox images and details such as the precise order in which WWII world leaders are listed are attractive to new editors, and we tolerate a degree of futile editing and discussion while hoping that they'll soon move on to greater improvements. I'm baffled that a long-standing editor would spend so much of their own time and other editors' time launching discussions on them, with or without RfC tags, and without even checking whether the matter has been discussed already, all for the most diminished of diminishing returns. Still, before this thread was sidetracked onto counting reverts, Emiya1980 has been formally warned by one administrator and strongly advised to move on by another. Maybe it's not unreasonable for the community to hope that's sufficient without formal sanctions at this time. NebY (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor had already been approached and cautioned over the course of several weeks. I really wanted to avoid bringing this here. History suggests the editor does not get it and will not get it. It seems wasting community time with RFCs is more acceptable than I expected. Anyway, thanks for everyone's feedback. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov:, I sort of get your frustration, but a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion. A final warning as an outcome is definitely not 'tolerating' the behaviour (quite the opposite), and achieving this outcome makes this ANI report absolutely worth the time you put into it. Hope this helps. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure what some here were expecting, but with specific regard to over-use of RfC, we're talking about a sub-optimal approach to a policy grey area at most, not a brightline violation of policy--and certainly no indication of intentional bad faith. While I think it is very fair to say that Emiya's significantly IDHT-heavy responses to concerns in this area have exacerbated rather than alleviated concerns about that behaviour, there's still not enough here to justify a community sanction at this time--not even a TBAN, imo. Some of the peripheral commentary in at least one of those discussions was way past the line in WP:CIV terms, but that has received a pretty substantial warning. I do consider it the clearest policy violation reported in this discussion, and the issue most worthy of a quick block if if it ever resumes in a similar manner again, but it's a somewhat separate issue from that of whether the RfCs were so out of order with regard to typical process that a sanction is due specifically to address that issue. I don't think that they were, but I also feel that Emiya would do well to see the writing on the wall from what others have said here about the cost-benefit value of precipitating major discussions over small issues, particularly where they have already been robustly discussed. If they have not, I will offer them this insight: I think a lot of the veteran community members are increasingly cognizant of the gap left between our work loads in article maitenance, and trends in recruitment and retention of longterm volunteers, and those editors are increasingly coming to the conclusion that we cannot endlessly indulge the recruitment of two dozen editors, even FRS volunteers, for a debate over every line and feature of an infobox. I have opposed and will continue to oppose any attitudes that substantially attempt to increase the minimum standards for RfCs in general, because I believe their basic function must be maintained as is, insofar as that function typically saves much larger amounts of time for the community overall (as compared to the kind of dysfunction and disruption that can fester on talk pages when small camps continue to try to hammer against one-another without easy access to outside perspectives to break minor and even petty deadlocks).But the flipside of that is that leaning into those processes willy-nilly is going to be more and more likely to get your habits flagged in a negative light, and probably a faster route towards a finding of de facto disruption, even if individual RfCs are mostly procedurally above-board. SnowRise let's rap23:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Lechitic" editor
There is probably one and the same person who under various IP accounts pushing various subcategories of the category:Lechites into articles that have no corresponding references. I was patiently leaving warning messages at all these IP pages, but apparently they either don't see them or ignore them. I guess it is time to start issuing blocks.
Altenmann, if you supplied a few diffs (I'd say between 3 and 8) of edits you were concerned about, rather than just listing accounts, you might get more of a response here. You need to point out the obvious rather than expecting editors to go looking for what the problems are. That's just my suggestion. LizRead!Talk!05:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
65.102.188.122(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - I and others have warned this IP numerous times. They vandalised past my 4th warning so I reported them at AIV but was directed to take the issue here. Their edits are varied but focus on horror film-related articles. They include incorrectly altering sortkeys, refactoring book ISBNs without hyphens (against WP:ISBNs), disrupting existing reference/footnotes, widespread superfluous and disruptive cosmetic edits which, among others, include removing spaces, proper punctuation (violations of WP:LQ), removing Wikiquote templates, Rotten Tomatoes templates, as well as TCMDb, AFI, stub sorting templates et al. Supported with no edit summaries. They are now edit warring to restore their desired versions. Given their far-reaching dedication I would not be surprised if this is an IP sock of a past persistent vandal. Οἶδα (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's edits are not vandalism. Please do not call them that, see WP:VAND. In brief, "poop" is vandalism but changing a default category sort may be an incorrect good-faith edit. Also, Commons links are sometimes unhelpful and their presence needs at least a nod of discussion. However, the IP is making about a hundred edits a day but has never commented. Many of their edits have been reverted so I issued a partial block for three days to encourage them to start discussing their proposed changes. Let me know if it continues without consensus but please try to engage them in a discussion without templated warnings. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnuniq. Sorry for any imprecise language. I was going to start a non-templated discussion on their talk but noticed you have already done so. I already (as required) notified them of this ANI discussion. So I won't repeat all of my grievances listed here. But I will make mention of the specific issues with their most recent edits. Οἶδα (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have posted a lot of templated warnings on their talk page, they really do not need you repeating it all again. Post a regular talk page message, trying to connect with the editor rather than posting any more notices. The goal is to get this editor to communicate, not to scold them. But this can be challenging with IP editors due to few of them participating on talk pages. LizRead!Talk!05:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the guidance Liz. But to be fair, this IP has never once posted an edit summary in their extensive nearly 1000 edit history nor did they respond to the first templated warning from Peaceray and if you noticed on their talk page Wafflewombat had already appealed to them to explain their edits. Not a peep since their block either. I understand reaching out (non-templated) and I often do, especially on conflict-specific article talk pages with pings. But I was not expecting much from this IP, and I'm still not going forward. Communication of their reasoning is clearly not of interest to them. I however completely expect them to resume their disruptive edits and edit warring upon the removal of their block. Οἶδα (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, One of them just requested that an ArbCom case be opened against me. This is more than WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, from what I am seeing. They're just harrasing people now. SirMemeGod01:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they are the same person, creating an illusion of a group, since they coincidentally want to improve the same articles about FIFA and football. We'll see if any socks appear. LizRead!Talk!04:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was predictable. New editors wanting to "revolutionize" Wikipedia do not have the patience to wait out a week or month-long block. LizRead!Talk!05:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got called "crazy" by an editor whose sidekick is CrazyLoverFutbolLoko. I got called a "dictator" even though 316 Wikipedia editors supported me becoming an administrator and I do my best every single day to justify that support. Most amusingly, I got called "little". There are quite a few active editors who have met me face to face over the years, and they can all attest that I am 6'-3" and about 240 pounds. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was "forgiven" for posting a warning notice to their User talk page earlier this month. Looking into this point of disagreement, I'm wondering if there is any connection between SinisterUnion and User:Fa30sp who had a very different writing style but was making a similar argument about a FIFA World Cup and was blocked in July. LizRead!Talk!06:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am here after every alternative means of intervention has been exhausted and with extreme disappointment that it has come to this. TheNuggeteer is a newer editor who has been getting involved in several content processes and some administrative tasks. While without a doubt approaching their work in good faith, they have consistently displayed a lack of competence in meeting community standards. They have received numerous warnings from numerous editors, most of which received no response, acknowledgment of error, or commitment to improvement. Below are the most recent of them.
Freedom4U: "I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on [the GARC coordinator role]".
Drmies: "I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs" (message).
Rollinginhisgrave: "Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN" (message).
Thebiguglyalien: "I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet" (message).
Wizardman: "you seem to be taking on more than you can chew", "not wanting to listen to the constructive criticism you are getting".
Asilvering: "I think you should step away from Good Articles entirely for now", "avoid all content review, contests, and editathons for a while" (message).
September 21 discussion opened by Mike Christie, asking "You've had some experienced editors telling you you need to slow down, but you seem to be ignoring them. Can you tell me why?"
September 22 discussion opened by myself, advising "that you immediately disengage from content quality–related processes on Wikipedia and focus your efforts elsewhere for some time", which I meant as a final warning.
September 27 Talk:A Boy Is a Gun/GA1 quick-failed by PSA, stating "You should hopefully know this by now, but you have to slow down".
TheNuggeteer has been given every opportunity to receive guidance from more experienced editors, but shows no signs that they understand they are being disruptive, nor that they are taking steps to prevent it. I cannot in good conscience recommend an indefinite block against a good-faith editor, so I propose an indefinite topic ban from good article nominations and reviews, and possibly other content venues as well. (please mention me if you need my attention) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I'd say you "deserved it", but you did have a lot of opportunities to get off this path, and you didn't take them. But it's going to be okay. Mostly what you've done is driven a bunch of people crazy, and we'll get over it. Let's find you something else to do. @Matticusmadness suggested copyediting, or maybe you could "adopt" some other backlog. How about de-stubbing? I see you're in WP:PHILIPPINES, and they have a whopping 10779 stubs that need expanding. You won't run out of those any time soon, and it will be good practice. -- asilvering (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good plan, I think. The open-ended nature of an indefinite ban would be extra stress for this particular editor, and would probably lead to unban requests that made everyone unhappy. I would broaden the topic ban to include contests as well, since I think they share the same perverse-incentives problem. -- asilvering (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii, I agree with you that it would help with familiarizing one with GA, FA, or FL criteria, but at the moment I don't feel comfortable letting them proceed without the guidance of mentors, which to me is a less destructive alternative than independent reviewing. Also @Cullen328, you used "template" and your ping did not work.Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise]01:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support For me, I suggest two months or three. I definitely don't want it to be indefinite.
A thought occurs. If you like doing GA Reviews, what else would be up your street, on-wiki? Let’s find Nugget something else to do, that they’ll like. Preferably something that is easier to pick up, and less damaging if it goes wrong. If it’s the “reading long things” aspect, the COPYEDIT drive Category:All articles needing copy edit still has a few days left. MM(Give me info.)(Victories)08:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that most people are in agreement about a topic ban but I would also like to suggest that upon returning @TheNuggeteer does a review with a more experienced reviewer. I know co-reviews aren’t common with GA but I think this could be really helpful in the learning process. I did try to reach out with this idea but didn’t get much of a response. Either this or if they choose to do reviews after their ban someone checks over their first review back before final decisions are made. I know this creates extra work for others but personally I’m more than happy to take on this extra responsibility and I think it would be beneficial for everyone in involved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to comment that TheNuggeteer has chosen to take a wikibreak. In view of this, I will outline some of their pending nominations or reviews at GAN, DYK, and FLC. Anybody is welcome to volunteer to take over them.
Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 (review, with assistance from IntentionallyDense, although he has said onwiki and offwiki he would appreciate another pair of eyes due to the subject's medical nature)
of course i am not happy to see it come to this board, but i have to corroborate the issues raised here. i'd support a 6-month restriction from content assessment (GAN, FAC, PR, etc). i want to emphasize to TheNuggeteer that everyone here wants the best for both you and the encyclopedia. de-stubbing sounds like a great way to continue contributing :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk12:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as an aside, i don't feel comfortable weighing in on a restriction on contest participation as a current coordinator of one (WP:DCWC). i mostly just want to encourage them to slow down and focus less on points or green circles and more on substantively improving articles without incentive. i also completely understand how nerve-wracking it can be to be taken to this board, and i appreciate the kindness shown here by everyone. ... sawyer * he/they * talk16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently seen some TheNuggeteer's contributions and warnings they received. I personally wanted to weigh in and recommend them to step away from what they've been doing at GAN, though I ultimately didn't because of the lack of responses at previous warnings. Despite everything they've done, I don't think that this user deserves an indefinite ban from GAN/FAC/FLC/PR/DYK. I'd support a 6 month restriction that sawyer proposed instead. TheNuggeteer should in the future address concerns and constructive criticism from other more experienced contributors instead of ignoring them. During this 6 month period (if approved), they could work on improving other parts of Wikipedia such as those that asilvering proposed. I feel like you've also received enough information on what things you should improve on from your GANs. The main concern seems to be the prose and the use of non-encyclopedic tone. As a side activity, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at our other (recently promoted) GAs and FAs, read the criteria more thoroughly, and learn how those articles were constructed. The restriction could possibly become indefinite if others conclude that you did not improve after your first temporary restriction. Vacant0(talk • contribs)15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A six-month restriction from content assessment processes, broadly construed seems appropriate; they're clearly well-intentioned and willing to work on improvement and I think will become a valuable contributor to the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mind is sufficiently convinced: I support a six-month topic ban from article quality assessment as well as related contests. A focus on other endeavors, like expanding stubs, is highly recommended. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise]16:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a six-month ban too. I just don't understand why these things that were referenced above had to be said so often, why it had to come to this. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been involved in this often the person in question wouldn’t be very communicative and often didn’t respond to talk page messages or would just not seem to take other advice on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching this situation from a distance over the last week. At this time, I support a 6 month topic ban from participation in featured content assessment processes (e.g., DYK, GAN, FA, FL), broadly construed, at a minimum, based on the totality of what I have seen. Regardless of where TheNuggeteer chooses to work on Wikipedia moving forward, it is clear that they need to improve their communication with and ability to accept feedback from other editors when valid concerns are being raised. They seemingly ignored or did not pay serious attention to the issues that were raised on their talk page several times and the GAN talk page, and did not appear to take the feedback they were receiving on board. That is why this ultimately ended up at ANI. If this persists, I'm afraid we might end up back here again at some point in the future. In addition to temporarily stepping away from featured content processes, it is my hope that TheNuggeteer also uses this opportunity to make constructive changes in their approach to communicating with other editors and responding to their concerns. MaterialsPsych (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 6 month topic ban from content assessment. I also think that TheNuggeteer needs to address their lack of communication with others as well as how they have seemingly ignored feedback from others. Their lack of communication is ultimately what led us here and I don’t feel that a topic ban will be sufficient without them improving this pattern of behaviour. Additionally I think they should do a co-review or at least have someone checking over their reviews if/when they return to the GA process. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second @IntentionallyDense's point here. While I generally take care to avoid discussions regarding other editors' actions I felt compelled to speak here. The Nuggeteer was very poor about communicating with me and fellow WPTC editor IrishSurfer21 during a long GA review for the fairly short Tropical Storm Harold article and ignored discussion about their actions (as well as frequent pings by me) on both their own talk page and the aforementioned article's talk page. I believe something needs to be done to address their lack of communication with others and the issues it's causing. Finding out that I'm not the first editor who's had problems with their reviews and purposeful ignoring of others was disheartening. JayTee⛈️ 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit topic bans
Okay, it looks from the above that we have a general consensus that a six-month topic ban is in order. I do not think that a "broadly construed" topic ban is going to be helpful for this particular editor, so I think we ought to be very specific about which processes that TheNuggeteer should avoid for the next six months. Here is a list of everything that has been mentioned:
GA nominations and reviews
FA nominations and reviews
FL nominations and reviews
DYK nominations, reviews, and other participation
Peer review
AfC/NPP
Contests of any kind
We have clear consensus for the first item. What about the others? I add AfC/NPP work here as I believe these are plausibly "article quality assessment, broadly construed", though they haven't been specifically mentioned here yet in the context of a topic ban. If I missed anything else, please let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Treating all the quality processes together is sensible. It would be good (regarding ultimate broadness) if the contest ban is noted as not including cooperative drives for content development (eg. destubbification) on Wikiprojects etc., where the Nuggeteer seems to have been an enthusiastic participant without causing the issues raised for quality reviews. CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in effect what this would mean is striking "contests of any kind" from the list above, since I can't think of any contests that aren't content development or any of the otherwise-listed review processes. Am I missing any? -- asilvering (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would a de-stubbing drive not count? or those unsourced article drives? i feel like those are perfectly fine. ... sawyer * he/they * talk12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would be okay leaving out the contests part wince they wouldn't be allowed to participate in any contests involving good articles, where this editor has had issues with. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they are, since I think they can encourage speed and sloppiness over attention to quality, which seems to me to be the underlying issue here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat ambivalent about lumping AfC/NPP into this topic ban, given that no really substantive issues were brought up with TheNuggeteer's participation in either of these areas on here, although there is at least one thread on their talk page that brings up an issue relating to NPP that appears to have been ignored/not addressed by TheNuggeteer. If we think that there are serious issues with their activity at AfC or NPP, I think it would be better to have a discussion about removing their NPP rights and/or AfC access, and that is something I would not be comfortable with supporting without more evidence. I'm also ambivalent about a topic ban from Contests of any kind, as that seems excessively broad, although I would be in favor of a topic ban from contests that involve participating in any of the other named areas (which should naturally follow from a topic ban in any of the other named areas anyways). So besides the last two items on the list (AfC/NPP and Contests of any kind), I'm in favor of the topic ban covering other named areas. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with the contests restriction above, and I understand the concern about contests -- there's always a risk that editors motivated by contests might fail to do as thorough a job as needed. However, on reflection I think we don't have enough evidence to justify such a ban, even for a few months. I am also now wondering if it would it be a good idea to leave GA nominating out of the ban? Getting one's own articles reviewed is a good way to learn content quality norms, and nobody is obliged to do any reviewing of their articles, so maybe they would be picked up by those with an interest in mentoring. Perhaps with a limit of a small number of simultaneous nominations -- five? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, that sounds good to me on principle, but it's my understanding that they were also nominating a number of very unready articles, which does start to get somewhat vexatious. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed every single comment, but the main threads seem to be about reviewing. I think a cap on nominations would address the issue of unready articles. Perhaps a cap of just one or two then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFC and NPP seem the most critical of the content processes mentioned, if an editor is unfamiliar with en.wiki content standards to the point of disruption, they are unlikely to be very familiar with AfC/NPP considerations. CMD (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pretty much what the title says. Hexerade's user page proudly states their status as "Wikipedia Evader" and also calls for people to use their talk page to chat with. I wasn't very sure whether ANI was the right place to put this since it's labeled as "for urgent incidents", but AN says that narrow issues, like user related ones, should be put in ANI. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Northern Moonlight linked the version of their userpage above in their reply. You can see Hexerade makes that bold claim about ban evasion themselves. As for their edit to that page, it's a pretty simple and honestly trivial addition to the lead of a list article. I am assuming good faith for now but will continue to observe their account's contributions. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also keep a lookout for concerning contributions from Hexerade. I have just looked at the revision from Northern Moonlight. Have an amazing day! Wikishmodias (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for being a solely self-promotional account. For the record, one should note that the shoehorn is in fact a very comfortable and easy item to use -- it is unfairly besmirched by the comparison to this editor's behavior. jp×g🗯️20:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Ritesh8040 had an article about himself ("Ritesh Sahu") speedily deleted three times in one week in 2011. [53] That should be water under the bridge now, but the user's editing is still about self-promotion.
I found Ritesh8040 on the page Maggie Smith when I reverted his edit because it introduced redundant information and his source said it was "powered by AI". [54] Upon closer inspection, his source was authored by "Ritesh Sahu" and had been shoehorned onto the page three other times. [55][56][57]. I warned the user about using sources he wrote himself, late on 27 September. [58]
On 28 September, Ritesh8040 returns not just to citing his website, but citing his exact same article for Maggie Smith [59] and two other pages [60][61] I give a second warning later on 28 September, and Ritesh8040 cites himself again on 29 September. [62]
Since returning to Wikipedia in February 2024, Ritesh8040's only actions have been to cite his own website [63] which he has also made a speedily deleted article for [64]. There is no doubt that User:Ritesh8040 who created four articles for "Ritesh Sahu" is his favourite author Ritesh Sahu from the website Live8040.
58.235.154.8 (talk) has repeatedly made minor edits (Changing a month to the following month, for future planned events) without reference. He has been told not to on his talk page. This behavior is essentially the entirety of the user's contributions. Narnianknight (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With just over 200 edits, this user seems to be using English Wikipedia as a battleground to promote a narrow ethnic POV, specifically centered around Berbers and Berber languages. Every one of their edits (just take a look at their contributions) is controversial or contentious and raises questions as to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or to push some sort of ethnic agenda as an WP:SPA. This pattern of contentious disruptive editing of theirs goes all the way back to 2017 and 2020.[67][68] They have repeatedly engaged in edit wars and constantly WP:BLUDGEONED discussions[69] against established consensuses.[70][71] @Nourerrahmane made a similar point,[72] but as expected, Monsieur Patillo made yet another off-topic personal attack against them.[73] The user frequently employs personal attacks and casts aspersions against other editors whenever their edits are reverted or their arguments are challenged. They have been engaged in slow edit warring on Algeria for months, and the continuous cycle of unconstructive edits made without consensus and personal attacks all the time is becoming exhausting for editors.
[74]"You have no concern for the Tamazight language, your convolutions just serve to hide it from the article and the infobox."
[75]"However, it was formulated on an erroneous basis that the name in Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie given the existence in the APS and in certain ministries."
[76]"You want to use a closed chat that only validates your pov-pushing. We always bring you more sources which prove that your presuppositions are erroneous but you fall back on them with the principle of not changing anything.
[77]"Besides the last time I saw your name is when you were blocked indefinitely on the French Wikipedia for "Disruptive Contributions"..."
[78]"correction of a source diversion for an ethnic pov"
[79]"diversion and suppression of sources to support a pov pushing of Arabization"
[80]"Please do not delete the name in one of the official languages of the country (reiteration of pan-Arabist pov). This mention is present on the pages in French, Spanish, etc"
[81]"As long as you cherry-pick and divert sources, you won't find solutions."
[82]"Indeed, Skitash account opposes the introduction of Tamazight for the official name of the country. even the official language is not spared from pov-pushing. (In addition to the manipulation of sources which aim to make people believe that 85% of the population of Algeria originates from the Arabian Peninsula)."
[83]"I also suggest not getting lost in the delaying method on the part of the pov-pushers who oppose this writing."
[84]"Once again you select the information from the articles that suit you without explaining the concepts which is a misappropriation of sources.... These diversions of sources and these tinkerings are not encouraging"
[85]"You are appropriating the Wikipedia article and preventing any improvement of the article... you are not reasonable in your way of interacting with other contributors and preventing them from contributing"
I am quite surprised by this presentation. Indeed Skitash accuses me from the outset of "Every one of their edits (just take a look at their contributions) is controversial or contentious and raises questions as to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or to push some sort of ethnic agenda as an WP:SPA. " The accusations he makes by linking me to a group that contributes in 2017/2020 on ethnic subjects are precisely from WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS I contribute to the French Wikipedia and am quite bad at English (which explains my haphazard or abrupt turns of phrase).
I am absolutely not an "ethnic troll" as Skitach describes it. I participated in labeling articles on the French Wikipedia such as Casbah d'Alger, or that of Béjaia. My contributions to Wikipedia are old.
To make a long story short, I would like to remind you that Skitash is not lacking in personal attacks and hostilities on the
- If you have nothing of value to add to this conversation besides unfounded aspersions, perhaps it's time to stop wasting everyone's time. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated for you to be able to understand
- You knowingly cited a different source (from 2013) which does not include such information.
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 248: During the DRN Skitash, in addition to being aggressive towards me, allowed himself to modify the article (it is not a modification to return to the status quo but rather a new version that he improvised). ([86])
- Since you're not open to reaching an agreement or accepting a compromise, it appears that we'll have to retain the version of the article as it was prior to this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS
- It's funny how you're still going on about this when Kovcszaln6 said this is beyond the scope of this discussion, but here are several sources which disprove your claim anyways
- What part of "Please do not continue arguing about this" do you not understand? Genetics has no place in Algeria#Ethnic groups or the infobox.
He even accused me of false intentions when I had just answered the opposite:
- The only issue here is Monsieur Patillo's insistence to impose genetic data in the infobox, which is not the standard practice in any country-related Wikipedia article. Skitash (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
All this aggressiveness deployed by Skitash was useless because the arguments were denied: Quality articles like Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan contain this kind of genetic data. A consensus by RFC was found and Wikipedia users did not accept Skitash's arguments : statu quo were rejected. I think that is the reason why he wants to criticize me to « eliminate » an opponent on the editorial line. The heart is an editorial problem: Skitash wants to impose as the only motion that Arabs represent as an ethnic group 85% of the Algerian population. He systematically opposes any nuance in the article: we cannot say that they are Arabized Berbers, nuance ethnic divisions (e.g. Arab-Berbers), or support with arguments nevertheless used in the featured articles (like genetics etc.). He opposes with a ready-made block of arguments each time (selective definition of ethnicity etc...), cherry picking, abusive interpretation of sources (CIA word factbook). He also adds mentions that the medieval migrations of Arabs to the Maghreb modified the demography. From then on the reader is misled because it is explained by the fact that the Arabs have an origin of Arabization of the first populations but it is suggested that they are originally from the Arabian peninsula. This point is specifically refuted by all historians and ethnologists (Chaker, Ageron, Hsain Ilahiane,...). But Skitash opposes any introduction of diverse data (contrary to the WP:NPOV). In the article Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics we understand that migrations lead to the demographic majority while no academic specialist supports this theory. Since we cannot delve into the concepts (what is an Arab? or a Berber in Algeria? speaker? origin? ancestry?) the reader is taken hostage to read that there are 85% Arabs with the quote of Arab migrations which thus misleads the reader.
And when we cite sources which demonstrate the opposite (existence of the concept of Arabized Berber: "Arabization", Berber Encyclopedia, URL: [87]), or Matthias Brenzinger, or Oxford Buisness Group...) it's called UNDUE by Skitash ...
During the DRN the following was decided:
Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources, and the only issue remaining is what should be included in the infobox. There are three options: 1. The current state: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others 2. 99% Amazigh-Berber, 1% other 3. Nothing. (Kovcszaln6 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC))
So why is Skitach going back on what was agreed in mediation? Why prevent any change? I started the discussion on the Algeria talk page Talk:Algeria#Blocking_the_article_(infobox_and_ethnic_group_section) and I asked Skitach for an alternative version. And this, in order to include a plurality of sources as Skitash accepted in DRN. Result: Skitash is sticking to the status quo and is therefore contravening the commitment to include the diversity of sources mentioned (and therefore WP NPOV). His request to block me now is therefore a delaying tactic, I am willing to make all possible diplomatic efforts but it must be reciprocal (when Skitash and Nourreahmane make accusations and attacks on me, it must stop). Finally, I am asking for the application of the editorial provisions taken in mediation, even with the help of a third opinion. Thanks for reading, sorry for being long and for my broken English too, I'm doing my best. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterization that Quality articles contain this kind of genetic data is acutely misleading: neither Canada, Bulgaria, Australia, nor Japan cite any genetic study directly. Madagascar does so exclusively to describe variance within or regardless of ethnic group, not to instantiate distinctions between ethnic groups. Remsense ‥ 论23:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, my message was too long and I got confused in my notes. I had noted the list of countries since two messages from Kovcszaln6 of August 22, 2024 in the DRN page and it is indeed the one below where he only cites Madagascar which is the article which contains genetic data.
I have not argued that this induces a distinction between ethnic groups. You should not attribute this intention to me. it is enough to report what the sources told about this data and to restore the information, nothing more and nothing less.
In the case of Algeria/Maghreb it is even the opposite logic of a division on a genetic basis (many of the Arabs are of indigenous origin and have no ancestry difference with the Berbers because they have undergone linguistic Arabization) . Genetics is thus a data invalidating the hypothesis of a massive neo-population from the Arab peninsula in the Middle Ages which allows us to take a step back from politically proclaimed identities (with pan-Arabism in particular). This is the point raised by Dmoh Bacha p.191-192. In the DRN, as I cited above, we noted that this data did not have to go into the infobox, but that the section could be enriched. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur Patillo, you mention "mediation" in your comments. What attempts at dispute resolution have been tried? Because this looks like another heated content dispute, not problems with editor behavior that is out of the ordinary in these situations. LizRead!Talk!05:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DRN was carried out Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_248, which resulted in 2 points: include the various elements in the section, and decide by RfC which option to put in the infobox (see Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) especilly what moderator said : If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both source). The Skitash option in infobox which imposed the status quo was not retained by the community.
Skitash cannot ignore the first point of enriching the section with both sources because he then approved it... It prevents any modification of the article and does not give a proposal for an alternative version when we initiate the discussion on the talk page. And this, despite the presence of quality sources and a nuance on the concepts clearly present in the secondary sources. I simply ask that the first point of the DRN on the possibility of completing the section be respected (and related to WP: NPOV). Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be attempting to shift this into a content debate, when the real issue here is your behavior as an editor, which is what ANI is about. Instead of addressing your repeated history of contentious editing, edit warring and personal attacks against multiple editors, you've responded with a wall of text filled with accusations and mischaracterizations serving to deflect from your disruptive behavior. It's clear that the sole purpose of your account is to promote a specific narrative on Algeria-related articles through bludgeoning, edit warring and personal attacks, which you've been doing since 2017, resulting in a block of your account. You've made just over 200 edits, and not a single one falls outside of the context of edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
All of these false claims you continue to make, such as accusing me of "aggressiveness", engaging in "cherry picking" and "abusive interpretation of sources" (when I've provided a myriad of RS supporting mainstream views, in contrast to the handful undue sources you found via Google Search) are continued aspersions from you. This only further proves my point that you habitually resort to such tactics in an attempt to get your point of view across.
The RfC you're referring to dealt exclusively with the inclusion of ethnic groups in the infobox. While some voted to keep it and others voted to remove it, it had no bearing on the genetic data you've persistently tried to insert from the start, which has never been part of any consensus. Judging by the article's edit history and the most recent talk page discussion, it is evident that at least three people disagree with the changes you’re pushing. This shows that you're clearly bludgeoning and attempting to push a POV.
In your most recent addition to Algeria, which you labeled an "improvement", you ignored the myriad of sources backing the already established ethnic breakdowns, and you resorted to edit warring when your edit was challenged. You prioritized random sources that you found which specifically align with your POV. For instance, you cited a source which does not in any way support your claim that Arab-Berber "means that almost all the inhabitants are descended from Berber populations". You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR. You’ve also included genetic data (which has nothing to do with ethnic identity) pertaining to Morocco, Libya, and Tunisia (which do not belong in an article about Algeria), and you’ve included an undue passing mention that Arabs "consist of mainly Arabized Berbers", which is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is not an improvement, but rather a POV-driven edit, executed without consensus and through edit warring.
Going back to behavior (the point of ANI), it is evident that your continued aspersions, unwillingness to respect consensus, and persistent edit warring indicate that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, it appears you are intent on promoting a specific ethnic POV in Algeria-related articles. Again, none of 200 your edits have been contributed constructively to articles. All of them revolve around edit warring and controversy. Therefore, I must conclude that you are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as a single-purpose account rather than collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Skitash (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have yet another demonstration of aggressive and inaccurate remarks from Skitash.
It's clear that the sole purpose of your account is to promote a specific narrative on Algeria-related articles through bludgeoning.
I have been contributing mainly to the French-speaking part for over 10 years with featured articles, on the English-speaking part I have been contributing since 2014: with contributions on Historical subjects: Zirids [88], Regency of Algiers, creation of articles such as Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco. Some of your more regular contributors on Wp:en even use some of my maps [89]. The 2017 block is a short block to respond to a simple R3R on a map of the regency of Algiers. I have been trying to scrupulously respect this rule since then. So Skitash's narrative is completely wrong and aims to mislead administrators. In reality, I only addressed ethnicity in the Algeria article ... in August 2024, 15 years after my registration on Wikipedia and 10 years after my first contribution on the English-speaking part ...
The RfC you're referring to dealt exclusively with the inclusion of ethnic groups in the infobox.
Yes, but before the RfC there was a DRN whose object was the two types of sources: postulated ethnicities (including cherry-picking and source diversion that you practiced) and genetic/ancestral data. The moderation (and your acceptance) that both types of sources can be included in the section but not in the infobox (for genetics). For my part, I respected my commitment and the mediation and I no longer asked to include this data in the infobox. But you are apparently going back on your commitments.
you've persistently tried to insert from the start,
This [90] link points to a modification before the consensus (DRN+RfC), I did not insist after the consensus to insert it, the motion without data suits me very well (it is the one I chose for the RfC). On the other hand, you have exceeded your rights as patrollers, because you have introduced in the middle of mediation a new version which contrary to what the diff comment indicates has no consensus at that time. This indicates a certain disregard for the ongoing debates and a breach of the principle that administrative rights do not constitute an editorial privilege.
For instance, you cited a source which does not in any way support your claim that Arab-Berber "means that almost all the inhabitants are descended from Berber populations".
Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa..
I was just wrong about the date of the book, and therefore the link, but the Oxford Business Group book, The Report, p.10, Around 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa. When I pointed out the error under discussion (which is part of normal exchanges between two people on Wikipedia) you launched a trial of intent and a personal attack on me: You knowingly cited a different source (from 2013) which does not include such information ... Why am I deliberately going to give the wrong link to weaken what I can easily prove? It doesn't make sense...
You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR
WP:OR = for which no reliable, published source exists. The information that the Arabs in Algeria are largely Arabized Berbers and not arrivals from the Arabian peninsula is not an unpublished synthesis. I cited Oxford, I can only re-invite the administrators to consult the sources that I cited in DRN (so as not to weigh down the page here) to see that the source is not unpublished. The real unpublished work is the undue synthesis of Skitash which maintains the ambiguity by the writing in the article Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics and Algeria#Ethnic_groups. The idea is to make the reader believe that the majority of the Arabs of Algeria arrived by migration while preventing the academic opinion (that they are local Arabized Berbers) from being written in black and white in the article. Here is the wording currently defended (de facto) by Skitash: Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources. The majority of the population of Algeria is ethnically Arab, constituting between 75%and 80% to 85%of the population. For this Skitash resorts to all the means of contortion of the sources. For example, when CIA Factbook says that there are 99% Arab-Berbers, it decrees that this does not exist and substitutes a real WP:OR by deducing that the 15% who do not feel Berber are necessarily 85% Arabs ... It was Skitash who modified the article to remove the mentions stable at the end of 2022: [91], and to introduce the contentious misappropriation of the CIA source in the infobox [92]. This last diff shows that Skitash deleted the information actually provided by the source (99% Arab-Berber) to replace it with his personal deduction (WP:OR) of 85% Arabs. Since then, any attempt to come back on this misappropriation of source ends in an edit war by revert on the part of Skitash who exceeded his rights as revocator to protect a version that he himself introduced. I only arrived 1 year and a half later (September 2024), so everything that happened in the meantime is not my fault. Obviously when we raise these issues (absence of information from Arab-Berbere, or Arabized Berbers...) we come up against Skitash who practices WP:OWN on the article, and by a learned mastery of the rules, which we must recognize, manages to hide his pov-pushing. Another example is the misuse of sources on Arab migration to the Maghreb that I explained in this section (Talk:Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Remarks). So obviously a contributor who brings an editorial contradiction is a bad thing in the eyes of Skitash, so he tried to paint a bad picture of me and my contributions. The goal of this request is therefore to eliminate an editorial contradictor, it is not at all a question of behavior.
I will not answer everything because it is very long but I remain available to provide explanations on a case-by-case basis. The challenge is to ensure that the mediation (DRN) is respected by Skitash, who does not have to oppose contributions to the article and what has been mutually agreed. Using a third person or mediator is possible or desirable. It would also be beneficial to warn Skitash that its extended (administrative) rights do not give it more editorial rights. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample on the linguistic, ethnic or cultural question which proves that WP:BATTLEGROUND is Skitash's method and not mine because it started well before I arrived on this article. You will notice that there is a common thread to all these interventions: to increase the Arab element of identity, and to repress the Berber/Amazigh element or foreign influences (French, English etc...). Skitash's methods and lack of neutrality must be discussed. He does not defend the status quo because in the long term the article has been modified in a significant proportion by himself on different points. [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is ANI, where the focus is on behavior, not content. By repeatedly bringing up previous content disputes, you are deflecting from the central issue of your editing conduct. The main concern here is your WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SPA behavior, as well as your repeated history of edit warring, personal attacks, aspersions and failing to respect consensus, not the specifics of article content, which we've already discussed extensively and ad nauseam. This is English Wikipedia, so anything you've done on French Wikipedia does not matter here. This also does not refute the fact that you've been specifically using English Wikipedia to promote an ethnic POV on Algeria-related articles. Your record on French Wikipedia isn't looking great either, where you've been blocked 11 times for edit warring. This only nullifies your claim that you've been trying to respect 3RR ever since. I will not respond to the content disputes and the continued aspersions of yours as this is ANI (which is about behavior and not content), but what I will say is that your most recent addition to the article was opposed by three editors and was not backed by any consensus or RfC (since you keep bringing up an unrelated RfC concerning the infobox). When you accuse me of WP:OWN and WP:OR, you are misrepresenting the situation to support your changes without proper consensus, aimed at deflecting from the central issue, which is your repeated attempts to push through these edits despite opposition from multiple editors. All of those links you've inserted documenting my edits to the article were actions taken to revert disruptive editors (mostly block-evading sockpuppets) who inserted unsourced WP:OR or attempted to impose changes against the established consensuses on the talk page (reading my edit summaries will help a lot), much like what you're attempting to do now. Your contributions and block logs (not only on English Wikipedia) speak for themselves. Skitash (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a more problematic attitude than yours and your aggressiveness towards me and that you do not seem to want to collaborate with me. Concerning the R3R I am talking about the English-speaking part, where I only had one small blockage. Concerning the French-speaking part, you should have found out about the context. For 2 years and the arbitration which made it possible to eliminate the problematic elements of the French-speaking encyclopedia and the return to calm on the historical articles: I do not have a problem with blocking. So I think that the ratio between my positive and negative contributions does not make me a user who is there "to promote a narrow ethnic POV" as you said and I try to question myself and to dialogue. This accusation is purely gratuitous and my old contributions on Wp:en (Zirid map, articles created on the Algerian-Cherifian conflicts ...) do not concern ethnicity or specifically the Berbers. I repeat, my first intervention on this ethnic subject is September 2024, i.e. 7 to 8 contributions out of 200 and 10 years after my first intervention on WP:en. Maintaining this accusation discredits your procedure. Afterwards, I am passionate about the history of the Maghreb, so I am not going to write you an article on horses ...
The content is an integral part of the problem. It is your attitude of hindering any neutral writing and of complying with the commitment made in DRN that is at the heart of the problem. Pointing out a behavioral problem is a delaying tactic to eliminate any contradiction. The only thing that changes in the article is not more editing wars (I never insist more than once and I engage in discussion on the talk page). The diffs that I have made demonstrate that you are still in an editing conflict on this same page. When you state to revert disruptive editors (mostly block-evading sockpuppets) who inserted unsourced WP:OR or attempted to impose changes against the established consensuses it is false because you have introduced an editorial modification which is a diversion of the source of the CIA Factbook (which indicates 99% Arab-Berber), the previous version was correct word for word with the source and you have modified the infobox by diverting the source while keeping its referencing [101]. Of course this was done without prior discussion and without consensus, and when those who have read the source want to correct this diversion you use your role of revert to preserve this editorial "advance" [102]. So there is a confusion between an administrative role of patrol against single object and IP accounts, and your editorial role. This is one example among others that can be developed, I will not be too long. Basically, you are blaming me for having made barely 7 contributions in 1 month and 15 days on the Algeria article after 10 years of presence on the encyclopedia, we have seen better as an ethnic POV-pusher... The reason why this ANI request is filed is not my behavior at all but on the contrary the fact that a DRN and an RfC were filed and that the WP:OR mention that you had introduced in 2022 did not retain the consensus of the community. When I started the discussion in Pdd, I proposed in my point 4 that you make a counter-proposal. You stuck to your position with a ready-made sentence: I propose that we stick to what the vast majority of reliable sources say and that you to stop edit warring and POV-pushing.. So I ask you, do the majority of reliable sources on the subject say what the article states in its current version (which you co-wrote), namely Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources. The majority of the population of Algeria is ethnically Arab, constituting between 75% and 80% to 85% of the population. Berbers who make up between 15% and 20% to 24% of the population are divided into many groups with varying languages, thus suggesting that 85% of the so-called Arab population would come from this migration movement? Why refuse a clearer formulation? More WP:NPOV? And above all, escape the commitment made in DRN? Filing an ANI against me allows you not to answer these questions, escape the terms of mediation and eliminate an editorial opponent...
So my proposal is that we resort to mediation for this body of text concerning this ethnicity section, like that we can arrive at a neutral and consensual wording. But leaving the article in a state where we mislead the reader by making them think that 85% of the population of Algeria owes its ethnicity to medieval Arab migrations is a WP:OR. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has become a two person discussion which generally on ANI means that it has devolved to bickering. You have both made your cases, please refrain from posting any longer so that other editors can try to make sense of this dispute. Right now, to me, it looks like this should go back to DRN. But this continued back and forth will just serve to drive away any uninvolved editors who might be able to offer you their opinion. The longer this complaint gets without additional participation, the more likely that no action will be taken here. LizRead!Talk!23:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steven1991's continuing misleading edit summaries
Steven:1991 continues to use misleading edit summaries, referencing substantive edits as "fixed grammar," as seen here. The User has been warned that this is misleading before. When I tried to inform them that this was not an acceptable edit summary, I was told that I was not assuming good faith and further accused of wiki lawyering, even after presenting evidence in the form of a diff.Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized for the inaccuracies in the editing summaries. I promise that I would be more specific in future editing summaries to avoid misperceptions of them being "misleading", but I do hope that the phrasing of any reminders on my Talk page can be improved. Steven1991 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw this, but misleading edit summaries are disruptive by nature, and when someone warns you, its best not to accuse them of "wikilawyering" when they bring evidence to support a claim. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to clean up the article, keeping relevant content as precise as possible, i.e. reducing redundancy, while adding content that can provide more information related to subsections with which it is associated. Steven1991 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The atrticle is a highly controversial subject and massibe deletion is a cleaar red flag. You have to be careful with edits. Ideally you have to split your edits in two: (A) remove redundancy (B) do additions and fixes. It is insanelyt difficult to track and verify in the article diffs what exactly was done. --Altenmann>talk21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here for ease of reference that CU did not find convincing evidence of socking, and the old 72-hour block has been restored. The warning to avoid deceptive edit summaries stands. As a side note, Steven, this is an example of why misleading edit summaries are a bad idea; it erodes the community's faith in you, and makes it easy to believe the worst. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cognitivism(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - This user has created approximately 160 articles in just the last 15 days. All of them are 'translations' from French Wikipedia, and all of them substandard and problematic. They duplicate frwiki articles then immediately move onto the next translation, doing none of the research required to create articles on Wikipedia. Translation or not. My immediate concern was the blatant WP:BLP violations, most immediate of which were unsourced DOBs (WP:DOB) and birthplaces, among many many other unsourced material. The user has communicated that they will supposedly correct this behavior, but it appears to still be a problem[103][104]. These articles are being created in a manner and pace which precludes them from being ready for the mainspace. However, this discussion ought not overshadow the fact that this user is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation (with a frankly exhaustive and maddening SPI archive which resulted in a total ban from frwiki). As indicated on the user's talk page, where all of these concerns have been discussed, the backlog at SPI is part of the reason that this user's frenzied spree has been allowed to continue. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User is now indeffed as a sockpuppet and globally locked, and all of their creations seem to have been deleted; checking their contribs I found only two remaining page creations, both redirects to now-deleted pages, which I have tagged for speedy deletion as G8Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am deciding to officially issue this thread as I have investigated through Wikipedia and determined that there is a grammar issue for machinery in preservation. Most people are using the grammar "surviving" for machines instead of "preserved". I have moved some of them due to the following grammar issue (which I will highlight in bold to convince you guys in order to fix this issue), but for one example, it has been reverted many times.
The word "surviving" is only used for a term to describe organic beings (e.g: Pets, humans).
The word "surviving" (although could be used for machinery) sounds more like the Wikipedia article was titled from a fan's point of view instead of a neutral point of view as per this thread and per WP:POV.
Hi, this is not really the best place to file this thread, as this is a forum about user behavior issues. Something like Wikipedia:Village pump would be a better place to discuss this issue and gain consensus before implementing these changes. Also, please do not repeatedly make the same change after being reverted, that is called edit warring and is frowned upon. Instead, if reverted, you should discuss it (at the talk page, or in a more central place like the village pump for wide-ranging changes) to gain consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crashed greek told another editor that "You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased in favor of Abdali of Afghanistan over Marathas of India."[105] I told him to retract this statement because it violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Instead of complying with the request, he went to engage in wikilawyering.[106]Ratnahastin(talk)08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After gaining the consensus, some criticism was added to the article [107], and reviewed by an experienced user [108]. Sure, there were reliable sources.
Then a Ukrainian Wikipedian came and removed it, saying that "your criticism is not criticism" [109].
Obviously, he has a strong conflict of interests, like a person who edits an article about himself.
If the criticism was added after several-day discussion, a Ukrainian Wikipedian removed it as if it was his own page.
I think a Ukrainian Wikipedian has strong disrespect for the core principles of Wikipedia, which proves the criticism, by the way.
Ukrainian Wikipedian said that critics were just insulted by Ukrainian Wikipedians. But we are not psychologists. If there is a reliable source, it is enough for Wikipedia.
Ukrainian Wikipedian said that "such criticism in the article is nothing but WP:POV". Each criticism is somebody's point of view. Such deletion of criticism is obvious violation of neutrality, and a Ukrainian Wikipedian cannot be neutral in this case by definition.
Also, a Ukrainian Wikipedian said that "there are so many such discussions in the Ukrainian Wikipedia that the article will become one of the largest". It just means that he has to find reliable sources and improve the article, but not vandalize it!
I am unsure what you hope to achieve with your post here, but your contribution to Ukrainian Wikipedia seems to have been reverted for a good reason. Criticism based on an interview with a Wikipedian of uncertain notability and a claim sourced via Facebook seems problematic wrt eg WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is normal from the point of view of such personal attacks? And I am say 'is not criticism', dont say 'your criticism'. Statements of some people were added, and some from a negative position, as if this is a special campaign to smear Wikipedia. I think this WP:POV. I used it too essay WP:CRIT & rule WP:BALASPS. I also see personal attacks on me in the post above. 『Shiro Neko』Обг.11:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a Ukrainian Wikipedian. So if a Ukrainian Wikipedian edits the Ukrainian Wikipedia it is like a person edits an article about himself. It's the obvious fact. But what you are saying is personal attack and another "psychological" speculation. Criticalthinkerua (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the right to defend Wikipedia's rules? Surely everyone knows who I am, but I don't know who you are, and it doesn't matter when standing up for the rules. 『Shiro Neko』Обг.11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a content issue than anything else.
you need to have a third-party reliable source that describes WMUK post and the reactions to it. Do not synthesize your own observations or offer primary sources for this. This is regardless of what you think of how reliable social media is.
the apostrophe piece is an interview without further inputs or analysis from the reporter, and is this considered a primary source. And since it is under contention, regardless of who is the interviewee, find another third party source to back the assertion up.
I see that the OP's sole activity on en.wiki, after their first edit (reverted), has been to insert a "Criticism" section into our Ukrainian Wikipedia article and argue about it. The first part of that section concerns the system used to transliterate Japanese into Cyrillic. The other part concerns one editor's claims to have been blocked for patriotism, which OP has described in our article as "some Putinists are present among the administrators". This complaint looks uncomfortably like using ANI to force poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE content into the article. NebY (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This topic starter is a globally blocked LTA, known as Marat Gubaev. See also Пинча (talk·contribs). I have locked this, yet another, of his accounts. I suggest simply deleting this thread to avoid legitimizing his "contribution". --Mykola12:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Schools/rapper
Posting here as vandalfighters as well as admins will most likely see it.
Our articles about high schools in the United States (mainly, some Canada and some UK included) are currently getting a pounding [112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129] from IPs and new editors adding Sean "Diddy" Combs as a faculty member or headteacher. It appears to be some sort of social media 'viral' challenge. They're mostly not getting seen and reverted, so the edits are remaining visible for days.
I've been reverting, although that has also caused someone to pop up on my talk page and say that my edits look like vandalism. Some help would therefore be useful: why not watchlist your nearest local schools for a bit?
81.2.123.64, please don't be disheartened by a registered editor who seems to have an irrational prejudice against unregistered editors. As far as I can tell you are doing everything right. I won't say what I have watchlisted, because that would probably help the vandals more than good-faith editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, this may be a legitimate user conduct issue. Looking at 2000editor's talk page, they've been recreating this article over and over again, apparently because it's about to air. As far as I'm aware of, a show being about to air doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:V, a problem which has caused 2000editor's drafts to declined. This is looking like WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. @Ravensfire (pinging as involved) had already warned 2000editor that if 2000e didn't stop making low quality drafts on this topic, ANI was the next stop. I think 2000e misunderstood that as an instruction for them to go to ANI as a way to get the draft published.
I'm not sure a formal warning against recreating the drafts would solve all the problems, but it'd certainly be a start. Another possible remedy is a topic ban from the show Bigg Boss, or a restriction on creating new pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've got a WP:IAR option for dealing with this. Between the current article and the draft, it's probably pretty close to meeting WP:GNG and with the show being broadcast in a week, will definitely be notable by then. My proposal would be to warn 2000editor that this is not acceptable and in the future they should work with others on improving the draft so it will be accepted. The contents of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 would be merged into the draft article (I'll probably do that after this anyway, with some attribution) and a histmerge performed so the work for all will be recognized. The draft article would then be accepted, the AFD closed as moot with the draft accepted. I think this meets the overall aims of the encyclopedia, recognizes the work that has been done before on this article and lets 2000editor know that this is not something they should do again and they will face a block if this happens again. With nearly a thousand edits over 6+ months, they aren't new, but clearly don't really understand that they can't just do whatever they want. Not a perfect solution and probably nobody walks away happy, but the encyclopedia benefits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the solution above. As far as editor conduct, having a look at the talk page for 2000editor, some type of formal warning is in order. There are numerous warnings for editor behavior that they still do not seem to want to hear. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPA Themiromusic (talk·contribs) has been virtually the only editor of Fernando Garibay. Currently edit warring with Bourne Ballin (talk·contribs), who has been fruitlessly trying to remove some of the peacock-ery. I just removed some myself. But the SPA is persistent, even removing a peacock tag somebody added ten days ago. I think this article and the SPA could benefit from some administrator attention. -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mikeblas replacing incomplete citations with citation needed tags
Mikeblas(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to routinely remove incomplete citations and replace them with {{cn}} tags. For example, in this Sep 28 edit, Mikeblas replaced {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} with {{cn}}. In this case, the "Penslar 2017" incomplete citation was a simple error: it's Penslar 2023, not Penslar 2017. Penslar 2023 was already listed in the references section of the article at the time Mikeblas removed the citation. But instead of fixing the mistake, or tagging it with {{full citation needed}}, or pointing it out on the article's talk page, Mikeblas deleted the incomplete citation and replaced it with {{cn}}.
Mikeblas made similar edits at the same article: 2, 3, 4, 5, and recently at other articles: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
This is a problem because (1) the statement was not unsourced, it's simply that the {{sfn}} had the wrong year and thus didn't correctly link to the reference in the references section, (2) for any other editor seeking to fix the broken {{sfn}}, including bots that "rescue" these incomplete citations or orphaned ref names, it becomes much harder to find the correct citation and repair it if we remove the incomplete citation altogether, and (3) an incomplete citation is still of more value to a reader than no citation at all. Mikeblas knows that orphaned refs can be fixed by going into the article history, as evidenced by this comment and this edit summary (and apparently many others like it; Mikeblas sometimes rescues the citations rather than removing them).
Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit), two (edit), three (edit), four (edit) times in 2024 (I didn't look further back than 2024). I posted a fifth complaint on Mikeblas's talk page a couple of days ago at User talk:Mikeblas#September 2024. I suggested if he didn't want to fix the broken citations, he tag them with {{full citation needed}} instead. He did not agree.
I checked his contribs today and saw that he did this again here and here. Without doubt, Mikeblas has done more good volunteer work on Wikipedia than I will ever do. But I think he's damaging articles by removing incomplete references and replacing them with {{cn}}. He clearly thinks what he's doing is right. What say the community: cool or not cool? Levivich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the talk page here and some of the related links, it's not clear: how am I meant to respond to this? Maybe not at all? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I didn't have a problem with Mikeblas' action. The responsibility of editors adding citations is to make sure they work properly. It's easy enough to add a cn tag and easily enough removed or reverted with a proper cite. Andre🚐22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I'd strongly disagree. How are editors supposed to know that cn means there was a citation which might be easily fixable but it was removed? Simple answer is they won't. So they're not going to look through the history to find this possibly easily fixable citation. They're going to have to find it again, or another citation instead of just fixing this potentially easily fixable citation. Even if they did know there was a potentially easily fixable citation, looking through the history to find this is far more difficult than just fixing the citation in situ. Your comment might make sense if mikeblas was adding the cn tag while leaving the flawed citation although some other tag might be better than cn. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To put it a different way, what's the advantage of removing the potentially fixable citation and replace it with a tag? Readers looking at the article should be able to recognise there's a problem when it's tagged as suggested by Folly Mox below, or frankly even with the cn tag. I don't know if you can even say it's "clearer" with the cn tag without the flawed citation. Yes it might be less confusing why there's a cn tag but seems to be a citation. OTOH, readers might believe there never was a citation and this is more likely to be just nonsense rather than there was but it was broken so perhaps this is more likely to be true. And if the flawed citation remains and they are confused so want to check, when they try to access the citation, they'll encounter the problem and so better understand what the problem is. (Which could be reduced by using a better tag like those suggested by Folly Mox.) If an editor wants to fix the citation, if it's tagged better as suggested by Folly Mox, it's easier for them to find such problems although again even with the cn tag it's still marked as something they need to look into the same way when the citation was removed. But now with the flawed citation remaining, they can then decide whether it's worth fixing the citation or just finding a replacement. If they find a replacement and chose to remove the flawed citation that's fine then but they at least had the choice. If they fix it, their work was presumably made easier by the citation remaining. If the citation is just removed, as I mentioned above they don't really have a choice. I mean they could look through the history perhaps because they're wondering who added that detail so they can ask them, but more likely they just won't bother, as I think most don't. So instead only thing they can do is find a citation anew. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only advantage I can think of is that it's a quick way to clear a citation-error maintenance category. Actually repairing the citation would take significantly longer, and tagging it with {{fcn}} would not clear the error. Personally, I don't think the benefit of clearing the maintenance category outweighs the harm of removing the incomplete citation.
On a related note, it's a truism on Wikipedia that most article content that doesn't have a citation or is tagged {{cn}} is actually correct. I wonder if that's because the content used to have citations but the citations were removed. I worry about how many citations we've lost this way. Levivich (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason is because if an editor sees something uncited that they feel is clearly wrong or which no citation could possibly exist for, they're more likely to just remove it. When I tag something with {{cn}} it's usually because I believe a citation might exist; if I'm reasonably sure none exists then I'll just delete the uncited text instead. This dynamic would tend to bias CN-tagged stuff towards things that are citeable. To your first point, I wonder if there is a technical solution to this. Could {{full citation needed}} be given an argument that could allow it to wrap a partial citation so it no longer shows up as an error? (And would that even be desirable?) --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas: Best way to respond would be to recognise you should have responded to the concerns earlier, but made a mistake and did not, but you're going to now and change what you're doing going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to Levivich several times on my talk page. I was reading up on how to take the matter to WP:THIRD when they said they were not really interested in an extended debate about this, so I thought they were no longer going to pursue the matter. Instead, they escalated it here. It sounds like you're saying there's no room for my side of the story, and no way for me to clarify some of the substantive misrepresentations, misconceptions, and assumptions being made here and on my talk page, including repeated accusations of vandalism, disruption, and dishonesty. Is that the right takeaway? What about clarifying questions about what to specifically do going forward? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mikeblas is right about this part. The other day, when I saw the edits on my watchlist, I thought WTF? and assumed it was some new editor making a newbie mistake. When I looked at Mikeblas's userpage and read "admin, 19 years 2 months old, with 78,854 edits", I thought WTF?!, and looked at his recent contribs to see if this was a one-off or a regular thing. When I found six more examples at six different articles just in the past week, I thought WTF?!?. Then I looked at his user talk page archives to see if anyone had raised this issue with him before and found multiple examples in the past year including a template from another admin, so by the time I started writing my message to him, I was at "WTF?!?!", and that's not a good place to start a conversation. Starting at "WTF?!?!" was not going to be effective. Looking back, I realize I should have taken a minute in between reading and writing, and I apologize to Mikeblas for coming in so hot, that wasn't cool of me. Sorry. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate your apology if it weren't for its condescending and self-aggrandizing tone. No editor should ever be subject to the kind of treatment you have shown me in this process. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mikeblas, there's space for your side of the story. I doubt people will change their minds about this sort of activity, but I recognise everyone in this thread so far as being a respectful adult, and I'm interested in hearing your clarifications. Folly Mox (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas: Sorry I assumed someone had already told you when they approached you. You need to stop doing what you are doing right away. If possible you should try and revert any cases where you've done this. Going forward, instead of removing a broken citation, please tag it with some appropriate tag, probably {{incomplete citation}} or {{full citation needed}} so someone else can fix it in the future. Alternatively you can try and fix it yourself. If you're unsure what tag to use, feel free to seek help at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. However using the wrong tag isn't such a big deal, provided you do not remove the broken citation. Although if someone approaches you and says "you used this tag {{abc}}, you really should use {{xyz}} instead", do take their advice on board. If you feel their suggestion on which tag to use is incorrect feel free to discuss it with them and if you're still unsure, feel free to use WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk for further clarification. Generally speaking is a bad idea to ignore advice unless you're sure it's wrong according to our norms, and going by your confusion here, I do think your understanding of our norms is limited so I'd strongly suggest you never ignore advice until you've come to better understand our norms; hence why I'd suggest you seek further advice from others if you think you've been given bad advice rather than just ignore it. Although just to repeat, I wouldn't be so worried if the issue was you were using a less suitable template even after someone had suggested an alternative. The main concern is you removing broken citations, potentially making cleanup of these problems far more difficult. If for some reason you're unwilling to keep such broken citations when doing such work, then your only option is to cease doing such cleanup work point blank instead of removing the citations. If even that isn't something you can do, then the only real option I can see is for you to cease editing all together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further explain, it's not such a big deal if an inexperienced editor ignores advice or concerns raised about their editing because they wrongly think it's incorrect or they don't understand it, and so continue to make mistakes. But as editors gain experience, we expect them to start to learn for themselves when something they've been told is incorrect or unhelpful and so they can ignore the advice given; and when it's not. Likewise if an editor doesn't understand something it starts to become incumbent on them to recognise this. This doesn't mean they automatically know what to do. They may need to read the relevant policies and guidelines or seek further feedback such as in the manners I suggested. In your case, since multiple people have approached you on this, if you were an experienced editor it would be very concerning that you just ignored those concerns and advice since it was correct. But if you're not experienced, then just take this as part of learning to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, I'd only count the User:Joseph2302 (two (edit) example as the same thing (replacing a potentially fixable ref with a cn) so it's more accurate to say "two people" than multiple. However Levivich's approach in particular, was IMO clear enough on the specific issue of replacing broken citations with cn, even if they were more aggressive than needed be, so it was really time to either change or at least seek further feedback if you felt Levivich was wrong (which they weren't).
I don't think it'd necessarily count the User:Elinruby example (one (relevant edit)) as even wrong since deciding to accept Elinruby's judgment that the source was unreliable and so remove anything referenced to it seems acceptable.
The User:GiantSnowman example (four (edit)), well I don't think that should have been removed however removing the entire thing is a little different from replacing a potentially fixable reference with a cn tag since if you have strong doubts it's correct, it's might be okay to remove it even if it's possible there is a reference when you can't even be sure the reference is reliable.
The User:Kimen8 (three (edit)) is a little different but also potentially the most concerning. @Mikeblas:, I can see there were other references for every sentence hence I guess why you didn't add a cn tag [135]. But did you verify every single detail given there was supported by at least one other reference that you didn't remove?
Because it's very common someone might write "Nil Einne is widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and has been banned multiple times from the English Wikipedia. ref A, ref B". But ref A might only support Nil Einne being widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and ref B might only support Nil Einne being banned multiple times. So if an editor removes ref A but leaves ref B, suddenly we end up with a situation where only part of the sentence is support by a reference when the whole sentence was sourced before.
So unless you verified every detail was in another reference already cited, just removing the pmid19584973 was even more problematic. Potentially you changed an article from one where every single detail in that those sentences were supported by a reference to one where they weren't. Further since there are references there, people are going to assume that every single detail is referenced when perhaps some aren't. No editor is likely ever know this even needs to be fixed until someone tries to verify the detail in the future. At the very least you should have added the {{verificationneeded}} tag so editors know there is a possible problem although as per the cn example, that still isn't the correct course.
Instead just tag the broken reference and leave it be. You cannot assume pinging whoever added it is sufficient. They might miss the ping, ignore it, (suddenly?) become inactive, forget about it, not understand it, not care, or whatever. As you've said every editor is responsible for their edits and so this means if you're removing a citation no matter if it was broken because another editor made a mistake, it's you're responsibility to ensure you aren't make the article far, far worse by doing do.
Note that pmid19584973 was surely trivially fixable. Logically this must mean the article with the PMID (PubMed ID) which is [136] which unsurprisingly has a title strongly suggesting it was the intended reference. So personally, even if every detail was in some other ref, I would not have removed it. However if you verified every single detail was supported by another ref, then it's a fair enough judgment call to condense refs so we can leave that example aside. Although you really should have said you did so in the edit summary to prevent another editor checking out the history seeing it, getting concerned and spending their time redoing your effort of verifying every detail.
Hi. Have not been following this but in the example above where I am mentioned, I removed Jewish Virtual Library because it was (and still is) my understanding that this source was deprecated in an RfC because it cites Wikipedia. I have only quickly looked at the mention, but I would have left the claim and added a cn tag if I was fairly certain the claim was accurate, but being left uncited because I removed Jewish Virtual Library, and could not for reasons of time or whatever immediately find another source.
It looks like the issue here is replacing incomplete but valid citations with cn tags. I personally think that this should be avoided in most cases, and that the citation should be fixed if possible. If this is not possible for reasons of bandwidth or time or whatever, I think it would be better to leave an incomplete but valid citation alone than to remove it. I hope this comment is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on looking further, I do not think that the example where i am mentioned is an instance of what the OP seems to think it is.
The reference should *not* have been rescued, assuming I was correct to remove it in the first place, which I think I was. The only device I have access to right now is mobile, and my complaint on his talk page says that the table will not display on my phone, so I cannot double-check, but it sounds like a bot restored a reference that should not have been restored and mikeblas removed it again. According to me, that was the right thing to do. Finding another reference might have been better, but I had noticed the reference problem as an incidental finding while doing something else, and the same may have been true for him. My complaint on his talk page was not that he removed the reference. I simply had an issue with the tone of his notification, but patroller notifications do tend to come across as patronizing, and I would not say that his was unusually so.
Bottom line, I would like to disassociate myself from this complaint and do not think my issue is a good example of what is being alleged here Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in, Elinruby. Indeed, at least a few of the examples given were not accurately described by the OP and this is one of them. I am sorry that you were caught up in this mess and completely understand your desire to distance yourself from it. I do very much appreciate you having the courage to point out that the reports made here aren't completely trustworthy. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That question is replied to in full just above in this thread you are replying to. The diff in Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit) is not a complaint about "this". It was indeed a complaint, but not about what you say, and I would have told you so had you asked me about it Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And answered even more broadly by Nil Einne's analysis of Levivich's examples, also above. I'll be WP:BOLD and post my own analysis of their claims:
two: This user did say that they wished I fixed the reference instead of just adding a template, but didn't say it was wrong not to do so. In my response to them, I explained that I couldn't fix their reference name and what I had done to try. Sure: I just missed it. But since I pinged them about the error, they were able to immediately make a fix. Point is, tho, this writer indicated they were upset about being pinged and didn't offer specific and prescriptive advice of not replacing broken footnotes or using some specific tag instead of {{cn}}.
three: This user simply asks how they can spot their own errors -- Is there a way to tell that it was never defined ...?. Super constructive and very positive: they turned down the free fish and now have a new lure for their tackle box. They do not ask me to change anything about my editing style.
four: This user posted {{uw-vandalism2}} but didn't explain why when I responded to them. With no explanation, I figured they were just upset that I reverted their unreferenced edit and lashed out.
Thus, none of these users prescriptively indicated that I should be doing something else, and didn't direct me to any Wikipedia policy or essay or even template documentation about handling broken footnotes in some different way. Because of Levivich's representation of these posts and my edits here, other participants are working under their false implication that I don't try to find a fix before doing so. And have started telling me that I have competency issues and doubting my responsiveness to feedback.
For sure, I can use {{fcn}} to mark broken footnotes going forward, and will work to clarify the documentation so that others know that template is appropriate for that usage. And a majority of the changes I made are already "fixed" by the editors I pinged to notify them of the problem at hand. But I'm still wondering how to address the misinformation and uncivil accusations posted here and on my talk page. Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time telling who you were replying to, but is Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? a general question, or specifically to one person?
If it's a general question, and you believe someone has intentionally posted misinformation and made unsupported accusations on your talk, you can bring that to AN or ANI. I'd recommend starting a new section so that this one can be archived promptly. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to Nil Einne. Sorry -- I thought that would be made clear by using the "Reply" link under one of their comments. Is that not the way replies are meant to work? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the way it works! The problem is the indent that I had to try to follow up thread to see which post you were replying to, and when it's that many intervening posts it can be hard to figure out. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, got it. Indeed, my vision is quite poor and using this interface is very difficult -- particularly when the discussions become incredibly giant. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mikeblas, I don't want to pile on here, but in addition to rescuing or tagging instead of removing, it would be helpful if you'd be aware of where you're working. The edits that ended up with you here -- which is a good thing, it's good you're getting this advice here -- were at an article that is the locus of ongoing intense drama over...wait for it...sourcing. :D If you land on a page that is within a CTOP while in the course of doing what you believe is routine maintenance, it's never a bad idea to take at least a quick look at the talk. The drama there doesn't need anything to fan the flames, and it's likely made the drama here more than you were expecting, too. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in terms of that article... those errors were caused by someone recently rewriting or adding new additions to large portions of the article. That user should not have put so many broken sfns because it is making it hard to follow along, check their work, check the quotes and the page numbers, and generally have the page still be working and not throwing a bunch of harv errors. They are a pretty new user so maybe that's why. However, it shows that maybe they were being a bit hasty. Could Mikeblas have instead, looked at the bibliography and fixed the cites himself? That would be better, but I think the original user causing the broken cites had a responsibility to know that. Even now there are at least 4 broken citations that still haven't been cleaned up. Andre🚐10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Around ⅓ of no-target errors are trivially fixed using a source already cited in the article: usually the problem is a typo in the year, forgetting to use a custom |ref= parameter, or one pipe too few in the template call. A further ⅓ are easily fixed by looking at related articles linked in the same section as the broken footnote (often in a hatnore) whence text has been copypasted. The remainder are usually cited fully somewhere unexpected, but findable using Special:Search, but some require checking offsite. Folly Mox (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly analogous to removing uncited but clearly citable material per WP:BURDEN—if it is clear an edit (1) makes the article worse for readers and (2) makes the article harder for other editors to improve in the future, then it is an indefensibly bad edit, regardless of what policies an editor thinks they can point to. Remsense ‥ 论05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that seems entirely contrary to WP:BURDEN. How would you clarify the wording at that policy in order to make your interpretation clearer? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broken citations to legitimate sources should be fixed, not removed. Removing them just makes it harder for other editors to fix the problem. It's much easier to correct a typo or other minor problem than it is to dig through the page history or try and find a source from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed thousands of no target errors, and would be happy for editors to take them more seriously. A short form reference without anything defining what it means is worse than no reference, as it fools readers into believing it is a valid reference. Saying that, removing the reference should be a last resort after all other avenues of correction have been tried (of which there are many), including trying to find a different source to replace it entirely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everyone above that Mikeblas' behavior is a net negative compared to the status quo before he touches these articles. Mike, if you're not going to understand the issue when multiple editors are repeatedly telling you something over the course of years, that's a competence issue on your part. If you can't practice better discretion, then stop doing those edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote on your talk page before raising this at ANI:
What I'm looking for here is for you to commit to not doing this again in the future, and to fix the ones you already did (including diffs # 6-11 and any others you can fix).
Did you miss this comment? Or are you subtly saying you deserve more than that? By my inspection, the problems you've reported have already been fixed, and mostly by the editors who created the referencing errors in the first place. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by diffs #6-11, as there's nothing to fix. These are undefined refnames that cause an error message, unless it's possible to find a recent reference that was removed they should be replaced with citation needed tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I see that my two most recent contributions here appear to have been suppressed. I've not received any notification about or explanation for that. One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. But why the lack of transparency? (Please see [137] and [138].) -- mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the page's history, a number of unrelated posts were caught up in a suppression of possible outing (in a different thread). Schazjmd(talk)16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the age of the account, Mahmud ale has been unwaveringly adding unsourced/poorly-sourced maps and other images to various articles. They have not indicated any wish to discuss the issues with their edits for years. Although they are often inactive for months, their sole purpose up to this point was to restore their problematic additions despite opposition. As a sign of their cross-project indifference, they were blocked on Commons as they have been constantly uploading unfree files, which caused 251 of their 255 edits there to be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aintabli, you would probably get a better response if you provided some "diffs", that is, examples of edits that you find problematic. You have named the problem and now you have to provide evidence that other, uninvolved editors, can assess. Look at other complaints on this page and which ones are addressed quickly to see how you might proceed next. LizRead!Talk!01:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notice. I thought a glimpse of their edit history would be telling enough and forgot about adding diffs, which are plenty. As pointed out above, they have been trying to add the same maps and other images most of which have been deleted and only one that I've encountered cites a source on Commons, which is unreliable according to RSN. This is a very limited list of the typical edits they make: ...27 Dec 2021, 26 May 2022, 5 Aug 2023, 6 Aug, 13 Dec, 10 May 2024, 24 Sept, 30 Sept... I've been trying to explain the issue to them since December 2023 to no avail as they do not respond to warnings and continue their problematic edits most of which are fairly careless and break the source code, which is surprising for an almost 4-year-old account. The reason that there haven't been any tension build-up despite this is that they become active once or twice in several months. But given years of demonstrated indifference towards the warnings on their talkpage and elsewhere, there is no way to communicate, regardless of their opinion on the matter. Aintabli (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editor
I am having an issue with an editor. The editor in question, Clawpelt, was making disruptive edits to Springville-Griffith Institute. After reverting the disruptive edits for the third time, I left a polite message on their talk page. They then left a reply on my talk page, which I deleted (I shouldn't have), and shortly after that they were given a warning on their talk page from a more experienced editor. They have subsequently created their User page and edited to include the "other name" of 'gabe1972 hater'. This isn't exactly disruptive, but it's a personal attack. I hope I've done this properly and in the right place, as I'm not at all versed in anything other than editing pages for grammar and punctuation, and I've never been a target of someone on Wikipedia before. I'm going to add the ANI-notice to Clawpelt's talk page, as I believe I'm supposed to. Thank you. Gabe1972 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe1972, just to be clear about your comment about your own user talkpage (They then left a reply on my talk page, which I deleted (I shouldn't have)), you are perfectly entitled to remove anything anyone posts to it. You didn't do anything improper by deleting it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know. I just meant in relation to the issue, as I know it's a good idea to have all of the evidence to show when something like this happens. The funny thing is, after all was said and done, I realized that I could have just performed an 'undo' on the revision and it would have shown again. It wasn't particularly nasty or anything, just a message asking me to stop undoing his edits, though in context, still uncalled for. Gabe1972 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe, as long as you’ve tried everything else reasonable, to get a problem sorted (which I think you did, here), it’s reasonable to swing it by ANI. My old mentor, Yunshui, once told me (Oh and, for anyone getting déjà Vu with this, yes, i’ve told this one at ANI before), ANI is your big, shiny red button. MM(Give me info.)(Victories)17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create a template - inability to use edit summaries
Editor user:Create a template has a very low percentage of using edit summaries when editing pages. Per WP:FIES, "According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page." User Create a template does neither.
Examples of particularly large edits which lack a summary are [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. At the time of this notice, zero of their most recent 100 edit contributions have had edit summaries.
User Create a template has been contacted by three different users on their talk page to politely ask them to use edit summaries. Instead of making any behavioral changes or replying to these attempts to educate, User Create a template deleted all these comments in the following three locations: [145], [146], [147]. They proceeded to immediately make more edits without an edit summary, including [148], [149], [150], [151]. At this point we are running into a WP:CIR issue. I would like an admin to ask Create a template to increase their usage of edit summaries from about 10% to an acceptable number, perhaps 80%, over an appropriate time period. This will dramatically help other users who are interested in editing the same topics, which generally include speculative fiction literature. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, and it's not because I've done anything disruptive to pages. They arrogantly demand to be heard, believe that their way is always best, and edit war if we deviate in preferences of what should be said. I give summaries when my edits are getting reverted or when there's a good-faith confusion about something. Other than that, I don't bother with explaining because the edits are all pretty self-evident. This is especially when the edits are smaller. My history speaks for itself that every edit I make is good-faith and constructive, even the longer ones, so if people are seeing me over and over and noticing that I haven't done anything very wrong with the content, then I don't see why I need to . And the more I get bombarded with demands, the less I want to hear them out anyway, since I've never made a bad-faith edit or an edit that's completely unsupporrted by refs or at least a basic google search. also i make complex edits in which many different improvement are made; writing a summary of those is annoying, taxing, time-consuming, and could be inaccurate or not complete. What am I supposed to do in those situations, just talk bout the most major thing?
I also view the report as an aggrievance of not being listened to, rather than anything practical. Shouldn't those boards be for people who are causing chaos on the website? which I clearly am not.
If I need to give supplementary rationale for every or almost all edit going forward, and banned if i don't comply, then that annoys though doesn't surprised me, and I may be amenable. This talk of sanctions and official notice over such a low-priority complaint is ridiculous and from my standpoint unwarranted, though given all of wikipedia's user rules I expected something dumb like this to happen every few weeks.
Create a template, I resemble that remark! Seriously though, this is a massive collaborative enterprise, a little tolerance of your fellow editors, please. And while I also tend to make big sweeping holistic edits and therefore sympathise with the challenge of summing up everything I did, it's basic politeness as well as self-protection to explain a bit of what you did and why. Your edit summary usage is 11.6%, 9.3% for major edits. That's awfully low. On the other hand ... not long ago I was involved in a section on this noticeboard concerning an editor who also rarely uses edit summaries (as well as misusing the minor flag), and there was disagreement about the need for edit summaries. The closing statement includes the sentence: All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. That may partly have been because that editor took on board the advice to start using edit summaries and to turn on a reminder widget. Create a template, will you undertake to try to craft an edit summary, maybe with a lot of abbrevs about ce, refs, rem'd and + like some of mine, especially for your big edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should not shall, so I won't do it most times, though if you all want me to, if it's one of these I'll do it, large edits of 800+ bytes, major reorganziation of the page, potentially cont ones, reversions, special cases. is that reasonable?
I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine. But it is concerning that Create a template did not respond in any form to recurring notices about their behavior. I believe they should assume more good faith in other editors and at least give very brief responses to address others' concerns. Aintabli (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli, re: I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine., it depends. If you'd like to leave a link on my talk, I'll take a look. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to be left alone. most of the time I can do my edits without people getting in the way or complaining about anything. I ref well most of the time and know how to organize and opt the pages I work on.
it was not worthy of this, you are right. the reporter is angry that I didn't pay attention to what he had to say, it was partly motivated by ego.
While I understand the desire, ultimately Wikipedia is not yours. It is sometimes required that editors communicate with one another, because we are accountable to the community for our actions. You are not entitled to total quietude because you trust your own judgment. Remsense ‥ 论09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was about edit summaries, though. it had nothing to do with content. what I was saying is that I make it so that most of the time people don't have to complain about anything that I've done in terms of content. so when someone does finally complain and it has nothing to do with content, I'm like "I'm going to ignore this". I'll avoid saying it's "justified" or whatever.
I understand, I just hope you understand that as others aren't living in your head with you, they would often like to share your level of confidence in the changes you're making. Edit summaries are often very effective in transplanting understanding from one user's head to another's. Remsense ‥ 论09:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Create a template, maybe it would help you to understand that when you don't include an edit summary, you may be wasting other editors' time. That's because editors see an edit on their watch list with no edit summary and feel like they need to go check it. Sometimes multiple editors will go check it. If you'd included an edit summary, they might instead look at the diff and think "Sounds about right."
As a general concept, edit summaries are just as important as edits. And, yes, complex edits need them, too. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. When I make a complex edit, I might use the edit summary "reorg sections, rem trivia, exp + ref". But even for tiny little edits, leaving an edit summary will help prevent other editors from wasting their time checking your edits.
An example that I saw recently play out on my watchlist was when an editor removed a sentence without an edit summary. Another editor reverted the unexplained blanking. The first editor removed the sentence again, but this time used an edit summary explaining that it was a duplicate sentence. Time would have been saved if they'd done that initially. Schazjmd(talk)16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For both editors, too. Cat, think about the amount of time you feel like you're wasting here in this discussion. Edit summaries can prevent a repeat. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. this was definitely a waste of time having to def and worry about potential conseq. though I'm not going to do it most times. I'm thinking of other solutions, like using my page and article pages to organize and communicate my updates instead. the edits that I do are uniform across hundreds of articles. the goal is to standardize every relevant page, explaining the same edits 1000x is not happening. Create a template (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, though I completely disagree with "edit summaries are just as important as edits". there's no way that can be true. sure, it can save others time, so I'll acknowledge that, though the crucial thing is editing accurately
In my mind, the crucial thing is consensus, through which editors can collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Accuracy as such can be collectively assured if we communicate enough to explain to one another what we're doing and why. Remsense ‥ 论09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, respectfully, there's a common denominator here ... sawyer * he/they * talk11:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that edit summaries aren't explicitly required, WP:UNRESPONSIVE DOES require you to explain your edits. Be helpful: explain your changes. (Emphasis original.) If you leave a talk page post, that works as well, even if edit summaries are preferred. Per Valereee above, the edit summaries (or other means of explaining your edits) are part of using all volunteer time effectively. I understand this is not what you want, Create a template, but this is a collaborative project. WP:NOTHERE point number six, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, is grounds for a block. I can't stand crowds, so I don't go to music concerts. If you won't or can't stomach working with other editors, this is not the project for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:PajaritodeSoto and cut-and-paste copyvios past third warning
I noticed that the edits made by IP 62.4.32.90 on various chemical compounds such as Dichlorine monoxide have a pattern of being unhelpful and disruptive. Their actions consist of adding unnecessary hazard symbols to the chemboxes of these compounds and changing the flammability of these compounds (found in source code as "NFPA-F =") to 0. Not only have they been warned about this before on their talk page by @Graeme Bartlett[155], but they got blocked a day later by @DMacks[156] for that same reason. Once that block expired, they literally went back to doing what they were doing before. This IP has a history of disruptive edits dating back to March 2021.
While most of their edits have been reverted, a few remain current. Diffs for the edits of note are as follows:
[157] (the first of these I noticed and reverted) [158] (current) [159] (current) [160] (current)
My recommendation would be an indefinite block and reverting all edits made by this IP. They have been notified on their talk page. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked at WP:AIV or on DMacks' or my talk page. I will check what needs to be reverted. I think a longer block is warranted. If disruption has been going for 6 months, I think a 6-month block is appropriate, rather than indefinite, as someone else may appear on that IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and apologies, I hadn't thought to use your talk page or DMacks'. I'm still getting used to the written procedure of Wikipedia and the common practices of its users, and to be perfectly honest, my one interaction with an admin on my own talk page wasn't the most cordial or helpful, so I was reluctant to reach out via talk page. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it got sorted. No harm in asking here, especially if you don't know who to ask or don't feel comfortable asking someone directly, it's just not always as efficient depending on the situation. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"which?" [161] and "pictograms are just some properties and they don't necessarily belong to a high hazard class" [162].
I'm pretty sure the flammability ratings they edited aren't "just some properties" that should be taken lightly either, IP that changed quite a few of those to 0 despite some being rated at 3 or 4 prior to their now reverted edits to chemical compound articles :P
The user GregoryWAndrews (talk·contribs) has repeatedly edited the article about themselves to remove content they don’t like despite WP:COI, even possibly using using another account and IPs to do so when advised to use the talk page due to the COI.
This user also removes sections with cited WP:RS and replaces them with sources which either do not actually state what he claims they do in his edits, or links to his own company website.
The user has also now threatened WP:LEGAL action on my talk page here.
Thanks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't cease and desist I will pursue this through legal channels is a clear legal threat. WP:DOLT may also apply.
Our article says he claimed that paedophile rings were operating within Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. He objects on your talk page that he did not say "paedophile rings" and so far as I can tell, our sources don't say he did either.
Our article says Andrews gave the same evidence to the NT coroner in 2005 ("the same" being that paedophile rings were operating...). This only cites a WP:PRIMARY source, the coroner's report, and I've been unable to find any mention it that Andrews told the coroner that paedophile rings were operating.
Our article says His allegations, later found to be false and unsupported by evidence. This is a strong statement that really should be supported by more than a single source which says "His comments were later found to be false, but the damage had already been done" without saying who found the allegations to be false.[163]
I corrected the "paedophile rings" allegation to what he was actually sourced as saying.
I also removed the mention of "same evidence" to the NT coroner.
I added who found his allegations to be false, provided additional sources, added more detailed findings from the Little Children Are Sacred Report, and updated existing sources with quotes or page numbers.
Repeated addition of Jawi scripts by User:Guotaian in multiple Penang-related articles
Calling for urgent intervention to User:Guotaian's edit behaviour, especially the persistent addition without WP:CONS of Jawi scripts, and removal of Hokkien and Thai scripts in Penang-related articles.
Firstly, the aim of my editing is to standardise articles. Most malaysian articles have Jawi in them as a transcription due to "the position of Jawi is protected under Section 9 of the National Language Act 1963/67". As Jawi is used in most articles, I don't see a reason not to include it.
It is also important to only use recognised languages such as Standard Chinese and Tamil, both which are taught in vernacular schools. Chinese dialects do play an important historic role but they have no recognition whatsoever. Thai is also not recognised in malaysia. Guotaian (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't have any intentions to downplay the significance of minority languages as I myself is malaysian-chinese, but I only want clarity and accuracy for readers when looking at articles. Guotaian (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So? Where was WP:CONS? Just because you said "it is right to remove them", does that mean you don't need consensus? Why is it that not all states are officially adopting Jawi, and your removal of other scripts with historic or linguistic significance?
Consensus should be obtained before mass additions of Jawi to articles, or any other mass language changes. The current spree of additions and removals, especially given they are being done completely unexplained without any edit summaries, is disruptive. CMD (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked them for a month for disruptive editing as looks like a large number of articles affected. May be need to go for full block if no consensus can be found on these editing changes. Keith D (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threat
This ("if you threaten me again, expect a visit from my legal council") is a pretty clear legal threat, particularly combined with the aspersions of threat making (where none occurred, as far as I can see). In any case, they seem to be reigniting an issue they had with the user from December last year which itself involved personal attacks such as "You have an attitude problem". All pretty unsavory stuff. SerialNumber5412914:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Voyagerstype - repeated copyright violations, low quality contributions, and refusal to communicate
User:Voyagerstype has accumulated a remarkable number of deletion and draftification notices, copyvio warnings, and pleas for them to answer other editors. All have fallen on deaf ears. A quick perusal of their talk page shows copyvio warnings from July, August, and most recently on September 19th, the latter of which was an article so blatantly plagiarized it was G12'd. As User:JarrahTree observed a month ago:
It has now got to the point where editors are seeing you as a point of contact for draftifying new articles - which questions the notability or verifiability of a particular railway station - it appears that no one has offered you links to the state of the policies and practices in wikipedia in relation to railway stations and notability. You are now at a point where talk page silence, and lack of effort in clarifying railway stations as notable may well be at your disadvantage.
I'm at a loss as to why they continue creating articles such as Rabila railway station. I'm not joking when I say the article verbatim reads "Very little is known of this station". But above all, they simply ignore any efforts to engage them on their talk page. Since they are either unable or unwilling to communicate, an indefinite block should be applied until such time that they change their mind. They seem to mean well, but we can't let someone go around adding copyvio. Best case scenario, they don't know what a talk page is (or they're on mobile and can't see it) and a block will allow them to learn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only edits they've made to talk pages the entire time they've been here are to add wikiprojects and to contest a G12 (deleted edit: [168]). Accordingly, I've p-blocked them from mainspace and draftspace so we don't get any more copyvio while this is being sorted out. Other admins, feel free to reverse/update as needed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a good block. Lets them answer here, but keeps them from disrupting while they're trying to figure out why they're blocked. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No gambling here. :) I just wanted to stop this before it got any worse, but I'll let someone who isn't the second-rookiest admin handle the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've subscribed to the last few sections on their user, but this is pretty much the same action I would have taken for someone who doesn't look ill-intentioned but isn't responding to concerns. You didn't overcorrect, you used the minimum restriction necessary to try to solve the problem. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action. I've gone through some of this user's edits and found an alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources. Not sure if it's at the level of needing a CCI, but it's quite bad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources" sure sounds cci-worthy to me - unless it's so blatant that you can G12 everything, in which case, you can just do this yourself and save the CP clerks the time. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more along the lines of using many sources and copying a sentence or two from each one. Much more time consuming to verify. And not everything appears to have been copied, but enough that I'd have serious reservations about an unblock without a clear assurance this user understands copyright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing by IPs
The number of teams in the 2025 IPL has been confirmed to be 74 matches as per this source. But a set of IPs keep changing the number to 84, I even added a citation right next to it in the infobox. But, the IPs keep changing it irregardless of the citation. I also sent them talkpage warnings, but no use.
Note: All these diffs are from the last few hours. I also posted at RPPI like 23 hours ago... but, no response thus far. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Qalandar303 was indefinitely banned here January 2023. Some IP addresses made the same edits a few weeks ago and a range was blocked for 3 months here. As soon as the range was blocked, User:CarnelianSun108 came back from a 7 year hibernation and made the exact same edits. I requested a sock investigation here. The checkuser has been pending for two weeks and looks like it will take a few more weeks based on backlog. The user has continued making the same disruptive reverts and comments, including accusing me of working for the "Baha'i Internet Agency" and collaborating with the Israeli military:
It is also interesting to note that you literally waited to revert once Israel attacked Lebanon. This needs to be noted far and wide in that the Bahai Internet Agency appears to be taking cues on how it vandalizes entries on Wikipedia from Israeli military strategies.[176]
Cuñado is lobbying and bullying because he cannot establish a sourced counter-narrative to the Subh-i-Azal entry. He is talking out of his backside. This person is literally vandalizing the entry and then comes complaining wanting to ban users once called on their vandalism CarnelianSun108 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP 49.255.248.147 has a long and almost exclusive history of making unsourced POV changes to articles about films, typically changing the adjectives around reviews to make them seem more positive or negative. In edit summaries, the IP has previously indicated the changes are based on personal experience of the films reviews. The IP has been repeatedly warned and blocked for this behavior, as recently as August. It appears that the temp ban did not work though, as the IP is back at it today. I believe this is at best disruptive editing and potentially subtle vandalism. The ban should be reinstated. --Lenny Marks (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sinclairian
Pasting from attempt at Helpdesk. I've warned Sinclairian about the biased, inaccurate, and harmful edits they've been doing. These are on very niche topics that nobody's ever, ever going to notice. Like who's gonna actually check the source translation on the Arslan Tash amulets? Well, I did because the translation is so scrabblingly amateurish, (Also because I always look lately when I see that username on one of my watched articles) and the user's rendering of it actually had some "improvements" that might make the scholar look better or worse. The reader would think the translation has been accurately copied and pasted when that's not the case. The other translation's even worse by some scholar I don't know. Someone legitimate, I'm sure, but not good. I think questionable artifacts should be categorized as such and noted in the first paragraph, and translastions of questioned items and forgeries shouldn't be included for obvious reasons. Anyway, I think the user should be banned. Inaccurcies on minor Semitic languages that a dozen people know will stick around forever; the quietness of it means the ripples on public knowledge will spread with no end. Very subtly destructive stuff. Temerarius (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, the user's poor conveyance of an S David Sperling 1982? It was what might have appeared to them as cleanup and clarifying what's on what line, but it's harmful, was changed without note that or why, and I get the impression the user knows a modern Semitic language and inappropriately extrapolates, with a heavy dose of "should". Or something, you can't know what's in someone's head. It's the pattern and the fact they weren't careful enough to back off right after I yelled at them about it, clearly not gonna change, I said this has to go to administration now.
I really don't want to spend all night getting a headache looking at the posting history, but this is characteristic: user removed the famous Yehud coin with the "wheelchair" and the Soleb inscription from Yahweh. Some of the most universally agreed upon for earliest and most meaningful pieces of evidence of Yahweh. I mean, the coin's not that early. The Soleb inscription is still missing from that page. And, somebody apparently made a page for the coin and called it God on the Winged Wheel coin, and somebody called "Fraud monsoon" added this AI garbage as a supposed reconstruction. Ugh. Anyway, Sinclairian doesn't want to believe those are attestations of Yahweh for personal reasons, and is hurting Wikipedia for that bias.
Do you have any evidence demonstrating that their reasons are personal and not rooted in site policy and reliable sources? Remsense ‥ 论02:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beg your pardon? Are they making arguments rooted in site policy, or are they dismissing site policy in their arguments, and instead arguing based in "personal reasons"? There should be examples demonstrating your point that you can show here. Otherwise, you're casting baseless aspersions. To be clear, if they're providing shoddy translations that is an issue, but if you're insinuating the reasons you need to justify that. Remsense ‥ 论02:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, am I ever sorry I used the phrase "personal reasons." Pretend I didn't. Pretend I said "NPOV problems."
There's nothing to do here if you can't point to specific evidence that demonstrates the issues you're talking about. Remsense ‥ 论02:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go crazy quick if that's how you do things around here. Get me some serious admins. This is the first time I've reported anybody; I'm not a dossier maker. My first complaint above is passing one's own translation off as a scholar's work. That's not against policy?
Every single solitary edit you have ever made to this site has been a dumbfounding tapestry of OR, SYNTH, broken English, and profanity-laden rage at the slightest challenge or questioning. I have and will continue to ignore your rationale until you present a calm, legitimately grounded basis for a single supposed "improvement" you seek to make to any article on the site. I do not need to have "are you a fucking idiot" plastered on my talk whenever someone calls you out on your mistakes. Sinclairian (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a callout for potential sockpuppeting on user's talk page from earlier this year. I agree that new people don't typically make 365 edits in their first 19 days. I know socks are frowned upon, it'd be worth looking into other username from same IP--or however you investigate them.
You'll need evidence and a specific user that is sockpuppeting, but vague ideas that they might be socking aren't evidence. WP:SPI is thataway. You can't handle that here. Andre🚐03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet investigation starts with magically knowing who a user was before? I'm learning a lot today.
Yeah, SPI is not for fishing. You'd need to use a tool like the editor interaction analyzer and show they are a WP:DUCK ie a close match to another blocked or banned user. Andre🚐03:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why fish when we can ask? We're all adults. User, is @Sinclairian your first account?
I don't want to distract attention from a separate issue, providing translations for dodgy artifacts and likely fakes. I think we should develop a policy discouraging it. We should categorize and mark prominently disputed items. Going back and forth on inevitable "issues" or "difficulties" in their inscriptions is big waste of good brain power. The Arslan Tash article is small potatoes, but it reflects a problem that'll come up again.
So that is really a content issue. The issue you want to focus on here is the behaviorial stuff. WP:CIVILITY, for one. Or if they are misrepresenting the sources, that is a problem. I think they should explain or rebut that point. No admins have commented on the thread yet, by the way. Andre🚐03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on civility, user is freely calling people dolts, idiots, and trash. The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated.
A couple people have told you this already, so I don't know how to convey to you that this is a serious demand and not simply a vague suggestion: stop saying stuff like this. At the talk page you opened a section called "ReConSTruCTioN" with the text What the fuck is this garbage?. Here you say "The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated". You are beseeching people to volunteer to help you settle a dispute with another user. This does not help them do that. This actively prevents them from doing that, by creating other problems that they must deal with. For all of the complaining you're doing about people not being "serious" enough, you seem to be remarkably comfortable wasting their time by making silly hostile comments consisting solely of insults to other editors.
We have enough of a policy against it, in that faithful translation is specifically excepted from being considered original research. I don't really feel we need a separate guideline saying "don't translate material from a language you don't speak". Remsense ‥ 论04:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Temerarius, I'm an admin and you should listen to the advice you have been given. Here's how noticeboards like ANI work. You are concerned about an editor's behavior, you post a complaint giving specific examples (what we call "diffs" or edits) that illustrate the problems you are describing. An editor bringing a complaint always has to provide evidence so that interested editors can investigate and see if a problem genuinely exists. Complaints that are just narrative statments typically do not get much feedback or action taken on them often because it become one editor's word against another's. Also the editor bringing the complaint always has to inform the other editor that they have filed a case to give them the opportunity to respond. We see a lot of complaints brought to ANI that just go to the archives because necessary information is missing that would allow editors to evaluate the problem you believe exists. LizRead!Talk!06:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing to a specific claim I'm seeing here is ... something about the translations on Arslan Tash amulets? I'm not entirely sure what. However, it was easy enough to find the diff in question and Temerarius is correct that the translations given in the cited sources aren't exactly the same as those in Sinclairian's edit. For instance, line 9 of AT1 in Sperling's translation reads "Eternal covenants were made for us." but in Sinclairian's edit the equivalent text spans lines 8-10 and reads "A cov- / -enant to u(s) was made, / eternal". It looks to me that Sinclairian has taken the Phoenecian text from those sources and provided their own translations? Which, unless there is any reason to believe that Sinclairian is deliberately mistranslating, is a content issue (should Wikipedia include translations of these texts and if so which ones) and not a conduct issue. That should be discussed on Talk:Arslan Tash amulets, which nobody is doing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sinclairian did attribute the text to the referenced author even though it is Sinclairian’s translation, so that’s at best sloppy editing. — rsjaffe🗣️16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's possible to connect a Wikipedia editor with an account on Reddit. I see evidence of canvassing but I don't see strong enough evidence of who is responsible for it or who (Redacted) is or if they edit on Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this advice given by User:GorillaWarfare last time this came up still applies [177]. Editors should not be publicly linking Mellis with any off-wiki accounts unless they have done so themselves per WP:Outing. Such things will need to be handled privately either via arbcom or by emailing some admin. However it's fine to link to and discuss that off-wiki canvassing has occurred and what to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was your most recent AfD and at the time appeared in your most recent 20 or so edits on your contribution page as you did not edit much between 2018 and today. I did not go "digging" through your edit history, I was checking your contribution page to see who you notified of the AfD and happened to spot the edit summary. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not openly attack you on a talk page. I went directly to ANI for administrator involvement to keep it discreet, and they have made a determination. There's a vanished user and oversighted edits involved, so it is the purview of admins and I won't push it any further. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the AfD has been closed as Speedy Keep due to lacking a suitable deletion rationale, which is always likely to happen when you write your rationales using AI. Black Kite (talk)14:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting for buiness
I had a DM on LinkedIn from someone offering to write wikipedia content for me. Statments incluide:
I have more than 600 accounts with more than 4000 articles
I am a wikipedia moderator
Nope, I'm not an admin But close to
(on being challenged). :You should be available to know auto patrol, Roll backer, new page reviewer position on Wikipedia
I have been organizing seminar for Wikipedia because I'm also Wikipedia coordinator
Refused to give any ID but claimed he had declared them all.
Not sure if it worth a notice here so feel free to ignore. But if some wants to I have the LinkedIn ID captured. -----SnowdedTALK08:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe I should expand my statement a bit. Wikipedia has a moderation function, but anyone can volunteer to take part in it. There is no well-defined class of editors known as "moderators". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidWood11. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
mention me if you need my attention) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
![[89]](/wiki/File:Zirid_control_circa_980_(version_2).png){kind=link}
Done I'll see if anything needs revision deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
