| Revision as of 05:42, 5 November 2021 view sourceBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →Continued discussion about GSoW: familiar← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:18, 23 January 2025 view source Ponyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,984 edits →User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, maybe more): quick note to avoid confusion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description| |
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | ||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1177 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |headerlevel=2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | ||
| == HK unregistered ip cult again == | |||
| Please read ] first. | |||
| == ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles == | |||
| * I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in ] as well as ] (the rfc) | |||
| {{atop|This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at ] if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against ]. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at ]. ] <sup>]]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058 | |||
| ] has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of ] and ] seems to be lacking substantially. | |||
| ** ({{ipuser|210.6.10.148}} ]) | |||
| ** ({{ipuser|210.6.10.130}} ], ]) | |||
| *despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me | |||
| *:{{ipuser|210.6.10.118}} ] ] | |||
| *:{{ipuser|210.6.10.66}} ] ] | |||
| *And then this guy, {{user5|Dgtdddsx123}}, which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or ] to try to enforce the controversy. ] | |||
| *A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for ] existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this ]. | |||
| *Just like {{ping|Ymblanter}} said in ANI " do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by {{ping| Atsme}} in the last ANI, just readily observable in ] that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what[REDACTED] should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? ] (]) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that {{ping|Tamzin}} should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. ] (]) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. ] ] ] 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. ] (]) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - ? Would you please clarify? ] (]) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * was deleted for ] | |||
| :*The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at ] and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. ] (]) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**{{reply|Valereee}} Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all ] i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me ]; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article ] was keep on ] by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. ] (]) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:@], I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. ] (]) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:: Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. ] (]) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**: I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. ] (]) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:* And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. ] (]) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:*: With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. {{re|Valereee}} Thoughts? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:::* Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. ] (]) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**::::@], quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. ] (]) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:::::{{re|Valereee}} Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an ] thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious. | |||
| :**:::::* {{rangevandal|210.6.0.0/18}}: The main one in Matthew's complaint, and in my opinion outright trolling, including in this thread. Could be given a few weeks off with limited (maybe no) collateral. | |||
| :**:::::* {{rangevandal|219.76.0.0/19}}: Appears to be involved in this based on , but (assuming that it's not the same person as 210.6) I don't think has done anything blockable (but maybe worth warning). | |||
| :**:::::* {{rangevandal|124.217.189.0/24}}: , and the overlap with 219.76 at {{la|Enping}} makes me think still at least partly operated by the same person, while suggest that the football edits on the same range may be coming from that person as well... But maybe better to wait and see. | |||
| :**:::::I see you've already protected ]. I could also see a case for semi'ing | |||
| :**:::::*{{ltt|China–Hong Kong border crossings}} | |||
| :**:::::*{{lat|2019–2020 Hong Kong protests}} | |||
| :**::::: Anyways, hope this is helpful. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**::::::N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from {{rangevandal|210.6.10.0/24}}, so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:::::* Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. ] (]) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:::::: My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). ] (]) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**::::::: Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? ] (]) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**::::::: Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at {{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Edit|1052339439#Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_Macau|this edit request}}? ] (]) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**:::::: Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). ] (]) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * on ] and ] grounds | |||
| *Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{tl|moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; ].) <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. ] (]) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's too bad. ] (]) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * on ] and ] | |||
| * Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . ] (]) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** What are you doing? You requested for our help , but as soon as ] , you want to get me banned? It was not just me who came to your assistance on your request. One other forum friend has done so too. Are you just trying to get us all blocked? Are you actually siding with the LIHKG and TeleGram people? ] (]) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **: 210.6.10.90 before you go can you please tell us more about what had happened between Matthew hk and you? ] (]) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *They've been warned about ] and . | |||
| * An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. ] (]) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Misplaced Pages, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Misplaced Pages. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Misplaced Pages project, in comparison, had been something investigated and ] and reported in the press. In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020. ] (]) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> | |||
| :::{{reply|HandThatFeeds}} The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. ] (]) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Misplaced Pages Foundation a year ago. ] (]) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in ) | |||
| ::: Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. ] (]) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| * Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. ] (]) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Most recently there's ], which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted. | |||
| :: The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. ] (]) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. ] but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to ] someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a ] article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. ] 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the ] in the past), beware of a harder block. ] (]) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Misplaced Pages articles in question on this version of Misplaced Pages. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. ] (]) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. ] ] 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. ] (]) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I checked this ] which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story. (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.) ] (]) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. ] 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. ] (]) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. ] 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised: | |||
| :*1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "]," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated. | |||
| :*2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources. | |||
| :*3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory. | |||
| :*4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :*5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information. | |||
| :*6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality. | |||
| :*7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them. | |||
| :Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "]". ] (]) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.}} | |||
| ::I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between ] and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself. | |||
| ::{{tq|I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.}} | |||
| ::Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails ] doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass ] and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example | |||
| ::{{tq|A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".}} | |||
| ::I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have ] issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass ] before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. ] 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that ''is'' in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. ] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? ] (]) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the ] policy. I propose and '''support''' a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating ], they gain that necessary understanding/competence. ] (]) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SUPPORT''' ban from article creation. ] ] 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' article creation ban. ] (]) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Comment:''' While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. ]. ] 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). ] (]) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") ] (]) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :*'''Support''' Ban. | |||
| :] (]) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think he also knows these are just theories. He is doing this for being extented confirmed user with ]. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is only one article I created that is based on theories, and I made it clear that fringe theories are acceptable on Misplaced Pages as long as they adhere to the guidelines. I also asked for specific changes to improve the article, but my requests were ignored. | |||
| ::I don't understand the sudden accusation of “gaming the system". Could you please specify which of my edits were allegedly made with the intent of gaining a higher user status? What personal theories have I supposedly pushed, or what specific actions have I taken to exploit the system for recognition? I would appreciate clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would they ignore your request? That's would be ridicilous?! ] (]) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's not quite fair to say they were ignored, more there was a discussion that the fringe article was never going to be acceptable, as opposed to having specific issues that could be addressed. ] 16:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I dunno. ] (]) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please refrain from commenting on discussions you haven't read. Additionally, this user is a known sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: ]. There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) ] (]) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This is editor is still creating dog poor articles ]. This is the second in days thats been speedied. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I didn't create the article you've referenced? ] (]) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. ] ] 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Me (DragonofBatley) == | |||
| ::::::Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as ] is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or ) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. ] (]) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save {{Ping|KJP1}} the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. ] (]) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|Tamzin}} Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) ]. ] (]) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Notifying other editors from the wider discussions {{Ping|PamD}}, {{Ping|Noswall59}}, {{Ping|Rupples}}, {{Ping|Crouch, Swale}}, {{Ping|KeithD}}, {{Ping|SchroCat}}, {{Ping|Tryptofish}}, {{Ping|Cremastra}} and {{Ping|Voice of Clam}}. If I missed anyone else sorry ] (]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: ]. ] ] 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of ], ], ] and now redirected ] and ]. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. ] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. ] (]) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also this discussion: ]. ] (]/]) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on. | |||
| :I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. ] is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, ''then'' we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions. | |||
| :I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to ] and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends. | |||
| :Happy editing, <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --] (]) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing ] (]) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? ] (]/]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? ] (]) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as ]. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. ] (]/]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? ] (]/]) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. ] (]) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. ] (]) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. ''']''' (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::These are good points. | |||
| :::However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI''-like'' thing may be in order. ], anyone? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course ] is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? ] (]) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]/]) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break ] and ]. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add ] (]) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}} The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's the latter. @]: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. ] (]/]) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. ] (]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. ''']''' (]) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to that. @] if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to ] but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? ] (]) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in ]. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely ]. ''']''' (]) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC ] (]) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. ] (]) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? ] ] 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? ] (]/]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]: while you're taking a breather as @] suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? ] (]/]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], ], ] (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example ] and ]. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for ] and the ]. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. ] (]) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? ] (]/]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near ]. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the ] commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- ] (]) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *DragonofBatley has agreed to a ] to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? ] (]/]) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --] (]) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? ] (]) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. ] (]/]) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. ] (]/]) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --] (]) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- ] (]) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{outdent|0}} Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. ] (]/]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? ] (]/]) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *@]: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? ] (]/]) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for ]. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. ] (]) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see '''any''' new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - ] (]) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. ] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{ec}} {{u|KJP1}} has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you ]. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. ] (]) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the ]erifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? ] (]/]) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ec}} Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - ] (]) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. ] (]) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). {{u|KJP1}} provided a for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they ''understand'' source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. ] ] 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements ''and'' that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::That's a great point, you're right, @]. ] ] 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I responded to @] earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with ] ] and ]. Also conflict edit was not directed at @], there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. ] (]) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's ] was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from ] and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing. | |||
| *:::And also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. ]] 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| The issues are ] and source integrity; ]; and the suggestion of ] while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability. | |||
| Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, ], which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises ] issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC. | |||
| == ] is getting problematic == | |||
| {{Atopy|result=As many have noted, this discussion is sprawling so I will not try to summarize everything that was discussed. The top-line: two editors are banned from deletion-related activity. An observation as closer: it is remarkable how unkind many comments were. Whether these topic bans will improve the situation is yet to be seen, but clearly there are wider dynamics at play with more players than those named here. Editors should consider a discussion on the Article Rescue Squadron and whether it should be deprecated similar to ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 01:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| This project has largely just become a canvassing platform for a small group of hard-inclusionist regulars (namely Andrew, Dream Focus, 7&6=thirteen, and lightburst— just look at some of their dubious nomination summaries like “really?” “An effort is underway to delete the airmen” and all Andrew’s random pop culture inside jokes). This project also gives users inexperienced in AfD the wrong idea about what AfD is— namely that it’s almost inherently bad, that articles must be “saved” from its all-consuming maw, and that most nominations and delete voters are wildly indiscriminate and disruptive. I understand that it explicitly states it’s not a canvassing operation, but that isn’t an excuse when that’s how it both superficially appears and is treated by its main participants. | |||
| That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. ] (]) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This isn’t meant to be a Wiki-political attack or just a case of ]— I’ve voted “keep” on some of their highlights and “delete” on others — but when a project is violating behavioral guidelines I can’t just let it sit there. ] (]) 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *This same conversation just happened on the ARS page in the shadow of a giant skeleton of an extinct dinosaur. . If you accuse anyone of something, link to specific examples of it, instead of this vague wave nonsense. ] 10:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I had a look at some of these AfDs, including ], ], ] and ] and ]. All I see are wildly different opinions on whether or not we should have those articles; there doesn't seem to be any direct disruption or incivility other than basic disagreement. As for the Article Rescue Squadron, I agree that it doesn't really suit the purpose it was designed for; after all, if you want to rescue articles by improving them, simply go to ] and see what's there. ] ] ] 10:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:They haven't got more problematic though. They are just as bad as they ever were, and I'll be very surprised if this enquiry results in anything to rein them in. -] ] 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Note that the articles for Misplaced Pages lists mentioned were not listed on the Article Rescue Squadron request for help page. Just a lot of us for years have looked at the List Wikiproject's list of list articles nominated for deletion. And we can't visit all articles, just too many up for deletion each day to properly sort through. If someone wants to request help in improving an article or finding reliable sources o prove its notable, they can make a request. You can look at the current list of things and see where someone asked for help, but no one could figure out how to help them, and no one went to the AFD and posted anything at all. So it is not a canvassing platform. Just a request for help. ] 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with Ritchie333 that the best way to improve articles nominated for deletion is to just go to AfD, and would add that the best way to avoid slogging through dozens of AfDs you have no interest in is to go to deletion sorting and put your preferred topics on your watchlist. The fact that anyone listing pages on ARS is doing so to oppose the deletion ''and no other reason'' means the ARS is cherry-picking for the purpose of aiding a particular wiki-faction rather than a particular nonpartisan interest group. I also think it’s problematic since on top of obviously encouraging canvassing it also encourages attacks on “the other side” due to its blatant pro-inclusionist bias. ] (]) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * We're near the end of October and so far this month, just two articles have been listed at ]: ] and ]. I have attended neither of these matters and so have obviously not been canvassed in the way that the OP suggests. See ]. | |||
| * As for the humour, the OP styles himself a ] on his user page: "''... a Wikipedian who devotes his/her time to tracking, hunting and killing articles.''" See ]. | |||
| * ]🐉(]) 11:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| “… that no longer contribute to the herd” i.e. are bad. And I don’t help maintain a canvassing platform, which is what I’m accusing you of doing. Write whatever you want on your page within reason, label yourself whatever you like, just don’t contribute to whole projects dedicated towards pushing your agenda. ] (]) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * In any case this is just an ad hominem diverting from my main point: it doesn’t matter if poor behavior is inconsistent or ineffectual, it’s still not good, and the ARS is a essentially a canvassing platform due to canvassing being the cherry-picking of editors for their opinions even if it isn’t in the form of an organized conspiracy. ] (]) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also, that’s an interesting summary you left when you reverted my routine noticeboard alert on your talk page. Always nice when someone’s idea of wit is making fun of my username. ] (]) 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The ARS isn't the disruption it was in its heyday, when one member would slap their ] on a bunch of articles and the other members would dutifully go through the list to go "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable." on everything. It's been defanged and is now mostly moribund. But it is and always has been a canvassing club and, although the community generally recognizes this, there's general apathy and indifference about actually doing something about it. ] <sub>]</sub> 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I note that most of my AFD's seem to make it onto ARS (lucky me!) and then the pile-on of Keep !votes follow at the AFD. Whether that's because certain Users have me on their watchlists or just follow ARS I can't say. The Keep !voters seldom make any contribution to the page that they are so keen to keep. ARS is a thinly-disguised canvassing site. ] (]) 12:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Agreed. The modern ARS is no ] but it’s certainly a clique for inclusionist hardliners to target and complain about arbitrary AfDs they disapprove of and provide resources to promote their wiki-ideology (look at the top of Dream Focus’s talk page for crying out loud). ] (]) 12:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Pile-on keep or deletes ''should not'' be an issue, because AfDs should be decided by strength of arguments and if a bunch of people show up and say "it's obviously notable! keep! It's obviously trash! delete!" with no useful content other than that, they should be treated as the low-effort arguments they are. If admins aren't closing AfDs because they're afraid of getting dragged to DRV all the time, that might be the bigger indication of an issue. There's effectively no way of stopping this kind of canvassing given the central notice approach of it, short of banning individual contributors or the notices themselves.<br />(As an aside, the ] essay is ''absolutely'' out of touch with reality, because the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better ''is through the AfD process''. People acting like nominating something for deletion is some sort of personal attack need to readjust their expectations, the same way no one should treat the existence of ] as an attack on Misplaced Pages's article quality.) ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Why not just nuke the whole project and deny them a canvassing platform? Even Ritchie333, who was largely neutral, admitted the project is pretty unhelpful and pointless. ] (]) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{tq|the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better ''is through the AfD process''}}. Indeed. Some have cottoned on to this and are removing banner tags for having been on there for a long time. The point is to impede the identification of bad articles. ] <sub>]</sub> 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Nobody ''else'' has made any personal attack, or complained about either ] or ].<br /> | |||
| As to the article that is the new source of complaint, not the article it was . So the article and sourcing was vastly improved. What's your point? <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Nobody’s talking about whatever you think it is, this about the ARS in general. ] (]) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist (which I think my record reflects), but I've experienced nothing but woe from ARS folks whenever their practices have come into question. So have avoided for years ever since. ] 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I battled Template:Rescue for several years. I was blessedly without a computer during the time ARS was defenestrated. ARS is a great idea and has some really dedicated very smart users, but as a platform, it has a continuing reputation for canvassing and vote stacking. If all ARS did was source pages at AFD I would be a supporter as I once was. A WikiProject dedicated to a specific outcome in a formal process has tended to prop up pages that aren't ready for mainspace. ] (]) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::We've been over this repeatedly, if not constantly, again and again at ]. Carping isn't helping. But knock yourself out. | |||
| ::I wish you all well, and suggest that we build better encyclopedia together. We have more in common than you think. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::While obviously, I can't speak for ] (nor have knowledge of their experience with ARS), I do think that after a few years, I'm entitled to revisit and reflect on my view that ARS is problematic, when it is brought up for review. And I'd hope to be able to voice that absent a dismissive {{tq|carping}} or {{tq|knock yourself out}} exclamations. While I appreciate the well wishing and so on, I feel like unfortunately there's a (familiar ←indeed) dissonance with how the two sentiments contrast. ] 16:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I appreciate the sincere well-wishes from ]. They are quite correct; we do share much in common. I don't want to see worthy pages deleted either. When I see such I endeavor to source the page, then make argument on AFD processes. I'd like to go on the record to say my experience with individual ARS members is almost entirely positive. I've grown to regard ], whom I've long opposed in this particular case, as a wikifriend whom I trust and rely on. When that user asserts "Keep" I find that I almost always agree with them. Because of this I have learned not to doubt motives. But for the record, the many times I tried to raise issues with the squadron on project talk or template talk, the response was invariably like the one 7&6=thirteen provided above (repeatedly, constantly, again and again, carping, knock yourself out). We clearly have NOT discussed this issue to death. That we are discussing this issue yet again demonstrates that we may still have a problem all these years later (almost ten years after the deletion of Template:Rescue). A WikiProject as dedicated to deletion as ARS is to keeping would not be allowed to continue. ] (]) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From the my perspective, this has been discussed to death. Your viewpoint might change if you were on the wrong end of the gun barrel. ]. In any event, discuss it as much as you like; I was not attempting to stifle your discourse. I wish you all well in this exercise, and hope for the right outcome. I would only note that I am in the great majority of the AFD discussions in which I participate, and I try to be a positive in building the encyclopedia. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 22:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Are these your AfD stats? ] (]) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As that only lists 2 AFDs, and none since 2013, then it's safe to say, ], that are not his stats, given it's easy to see many more AFDs in his edit history. I'm not sure where you are going here. ] (]) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If someone makes a claim about their AfD stats, it's not surprising that someone else might want to look at them to see if the claim holds up. It's the first time i have seen afdstats return only partial results. ] (]) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My guess is that this may be processing incorrectly because their name has an ] and an ] in it: both characters that are notorious for messing up URL query strings. ''']'''×''']''' 03:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm another one who has fought this fight and given up. In 2019 at ], I opposed shutting down ARS, but if that RfC were run today, I'd support it. ] 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Compared to the inclusionist/deletionist "wars" from around 2010, this is really nothing, but I think cautions that ARS should not be canvassing is merited. When ARS works - that is, they see an article at AFD and they actually find sources (whether at the AFD or included at the article) to demonstrate why the article should be kept - that's generally a good thing, though I think the members need to keep in both ] and ] factors (mere mention is not sufficient) for sourcing purposes. But that's at least a far better effort than when ARS was just doing mostly vote stacking way back. I generally think the better solution is Delsorting to draw proper interest, but ARS I think works on those that fall through the cracks in that process. --] (]) 17:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not at all surprised that Project Arsehole has garnered these responses from people who I respect. What I want to know is is there sufficient feeling and motivation to somehow deal with their unpleasant general behaviour. I once decided to attend a wikimeet in London in order to confront Andrew, who was recruiting at the time. Looking at comments here, is there sufficient motivation to send the complete Arse project to the Admins workshop at Guantanamo Bay? -] ] 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I wouldn’t use such rough language, but yeah, the ARS’s “gang of four” has had an attitude that’s decidedly smug and superior and does them no favors in the likability department. They clearly seem to think they’re invincible, which obviously isn’t true since I don’t believe any of them hold any real power outside of their little domain. ] (]) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***At least one of them was here about their aggressive behavior. Not sure if there was any follow-up. That's a side-issue to canvassing allegations, but it's not unrelated. ] (]) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * thirteen also left this delightful message on their talk page: “I find my involvement in this continuing brouhaha to be offensive. These folks are just doing an end around do-over because they don't like some outcomes at AFD. Indeed, you can look at their editing history to get an education about their motives. They want to kill the article improvers and kill the messengers. I won't do that.“ ] (]) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm another who has had very dismaying interactions with ARS at AfD bringing in blogs, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention sources and arguing they prove notability, then backing one another up on those arguments. Everything that article rescue ''shouldn't'' be. It left me with a strong impression ARS is about winning rather than about finding quality sources and using them to improve articles. ] (]) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Correct. Apart from a minority of ARS editors, that's exactly what it has always been. ] 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I want to second (or third) this last assertion from ]. This issue here isn't with the context of the work ARS does, it's the approach. ARS is a unique WikiProject in that its apparent core underlying assumption is: "keeping" pages=good; "deleting" pages=bad. That is, the premise of the squadron is interest in achieving a specific outcome in a formal process. Unlike any other project. All WikiProjects share the desire that pagespace be improved, with disinterest (not a lack of interest) in the final outcome. Because of the failure of the project's contributors to live up to their own project standards over the long haul, as expressed on their own project pages, the appearance is that of votestacking and canvassing. This is the point I made the very first time I objected to the usage of Template:Rescue a dozen or more years ago. ] (]) 18:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{emoji|2B06}}'''That'''{{emoji|2B06}} ] 18:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Nobody wants to see worthy pages deleted. That should be obvious to anyone. However, what certain editors in the ARS are - and have aways been - unable to comprehend is that it is equally problematic for an online encyclopedia to keep articles that are unencyclopedic and/or do not advance the sum of human knowledge. Where those certain members have misunderstood the concept of Misplaced Pages is that they believe that pretty much anything, regardless of whether it advances Misplaced Pages's mission, should be kept. Which, of course, is wrong. However, what are you going to do? If you deprecate ], that isn't going to solve the problem of the actual attitude of those editors, is it? Whist I appreciate that ''sometimes'', I have seen ''some'' of those editors actually improve articles (6&7 especially), most of the time it appears to be an ideological crusade against deletion. We don't need that. ] 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Maybe we prohibit people bringing in BS sources to AfD? If you bring a blog, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention source ''at AfD'', it's grounds for a user talk warning, warnings to escalate? ] (]) 18:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sounds good, if you could apply it consistently and objectively. People differ on whether a sentence or two is significant enough. But I agree the blogs, advertisements, links to google hits for partial text matches, and title pages of books that don't contain the claimed material- that all needs to stop. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Templating people based on bad AfD arguments is not a good idea. It will devolve into punishing people for "losing" at AfD, since what the AfD process does is evaluate people's arguments to see if they're good and evaluate sources to see if they're reliable/significant. If an AfD closes with "sources were not acceptable" you'll have people who make it their job to give everyone who !voted "keep" based on the sources a userwarning-shitsource template. We already have enough of a problem with groupthink at AfD as it is. It's important that we don't also punish people for expressing a dissenting opinion. | |||
| *::We're also the number 1 source of knowledge in the English-speaking world and it's important that the processes we have for removing information are perceived as fair. | |||
| *:: AfD io one of our most well known "internal" processes; many people's first encounters with our governance structures comes through seeing an AfD tag on a page they likeThe deletion of ] got a lot of flak after she won a Nobel prize and there wasn't an article on here for her. Right now the CBC can blame that on murky systemic issues with the AfD process. But if we start punishing people for dissent, the AfD process looks a lot harsher to outside viewers and that negatively affects our credibility, regardless of whether or not be were actually justified in punishing people. Donna Strickland is such a good example of this because she didn't even go through AfD but yet the perceived credibility of our AfD process was still the subject of that CBC article & influenced the public's perceptions of whether or not we handled the Strickland situation well.. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::: I’d say a clique of four editors maintaining a whole project where they work to demonize the very notion of deletion is more problematic than “murky systemic issues” and letting those disruptive editors get to be devil’s advocate to try and appease people who don’t remotely understand AfD. ] (]) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There are middle grounds such as nuking ARS that aren't ] ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** That’s lovely, but I still think ARS needs to get nuked or at the very least deprecated and locked to emphasize we will no longer be tolerating ideologically motivated wikiprojects. Thirteen and Andrew (and possibly others) should also receive some kind of warning or sanctioning for their general incivility. ] (]) 19:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], if you take a look at the sources 7&6 added to ] during that AfD, you might be surprised. At one point ]. The AfD eventually was resolved as keep after someone with access to Dutch sources came in and found some actual coverage, but up until then ARS, including 7&6, were arguing that appearing on fashion magazine covers and being listed in crowdsourced directories and affiliated websites (such as her bio on her agency's website) were proof of notability. After the AfD I and others had to go back through the bio and remove all the dreck that had been added by members of ARS. It was shocking. ] (]) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * (edit conflict) I have already opined to excess here but now want to cut across the grain. I just made a joke on an AfD and pinged ], throwing down a gauntlet. And they responded with pretty good sources as I anticipated they would. There is a baby/bathwater situation here. The editors who have been supporting ARS a long time (like DF and ]) are pretty skilled at finding sourcing. ] (]) 19:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I rarely participate in anything major, I am mostly a gnome who curates a handful of pages. But even I have noticed how this group acts at AfD, with such problematic behaviors as pile-on voting and dumping a bunch of (bad) "references" with the declaration of "this ''proves'' notability!", when no, they do not at all. As well as writing walls of text in support of their hard-line inclusionist stance. I say nuke them and possibly restrict the four most active from !voting at AfD ''unless they also work to significantly improve the article'' as well. --] (]) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I find it interesting that ARS often vanishes as soon as an article is kept. I've spent a fair amount of time sweeping up after their efforts, and find it annoying. They also don't seem interested in actually trying to save articles before they make it to the theatre in the round that is AfD. The most recent CCI involving Tuskegee Airmen is a great example of this. I have posted links to said CCI a number of times in discussions, and even on the ARS talk page. Yet they still don't seem interested until the spotlight's on an article at AfD. To me it feels like CCI would be a great point to get involved if you want to save articles. ]] 19:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --] (]) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Can those claiming a problem kindly link to any AFD in recent years where this has happened, and specifically which editors you believe are responsible for doing this. I believe all of us participate in more AFD that aren't on the Rescue list, then the few things that are listed there, so please make certain it was also listed there if your argument is against the ARS. ] 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], ]. It eventually ended as keep (which I think was correct) once someone with access to Dutch sources came in, but I spent quite a bit of time after the AfD closed cleaning up after what ARS members had done. ] (]) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::A lot of people edited that article after it was nominated for deletion so I'm not reading through each edit to try to figure out what you are talking about. That was back in 2019 so I don't remember. I only made one edit to add in what commercials she had done and linked to where it list this information at a site that seems creditable. They have someone go and confirm information and put "confirmed" there. They also have pictures of the covers of magazines she's been on, so no reason to doubt this information. Anyway, its good a lot of people participated in the AFD and one found something that convinced you to change your mind about the article's notability. If no one had noticed and gone there and worked on the article or searched for sources, then it would be gone now.] 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] and the fact I had to go back and clean up the mess ARS had made adding absolute dreck as sourcing? You asked for an example of bad behavior. I gave it. If you want to see all the work we had to do and how long it took us, ]. ] (]) 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll break my self-imposed moratorium from posting at ] to comment here. | |||
| *1) The idea that any editor who believes in good faith that an article in notable but needs help finding sources to ] can ask for help is a good thing. Now, the utility of such has decreased with all the wonderful templates in AfDs which have consistently gotten better over the years, but yes, there is still a thought that someone might need help. | |||
| *2) I find it hard to imagine a world in which people can ask for help as in 1), without it also being a ''de facto'' invite for rabid inclusionists to jump in and pile on. | |||
| *3) The existence of an ARS-like signal does not guarantee inclusionists glomming on to AfDs, but nor would the lack of existence of such a signal render AfDs immune from such influence. | |||
| *4) Masem's observation, that things aren't as bad as they used to be, is spot on. I attribute this in part to a general realization that ], reasonably executed and described, makes a nomination stronger. | |||
| *5) As I've understood and practiced article rescue as a self-proclaimed curationist, I've never counted an AfD keep as a 'win'. I've always believed that improving the article was the way the encyclopedia won, and ] was an idea whose time was long overdue and should be better recognized. ] (]) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on ] quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on ]. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ] feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| These threads are pretty common. Here's a generalized synopsis: there's a good idea in there, surfacing some articles from the big AfD logs that are worth extra attention, and sometimes they do good work improving articles; other times it's a superficial keep club that spends more time attacking nominators and stoking drama than improving anything; there's never been a consensus to shut down the project, and if there wasn't in years past there's not going to be now; if there are problems with specific members, come to ANI with a pile of diffs. There are probably a couple sanctions that are long overdue, but not at the project-level. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in ], ] and ]. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. ] (]) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': These last are pretty wise and learned responses. At the risk of sounding audacious, I would be impressed by a breakaway pirate/rescue group of editors who improved pages at AFD but pledged '''not''' to !vote on those improved page processes. Heck I would join and fully proclaim that group of disinterested at AFD but fully interested page buccaneers/volunteers as the real SRS (Subject Rescue Squadron)! There would STILL be claims of meatpuppetry. I really admire the work of these current rescue artists. No BS. It is certainly easier to come after a group in a generic way than to produce actual diffs, but that doesn't mean diffs couldn't be produced at some point. I fully diffed my protest about Template:Rescue way back in the long-ago. ] (]) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I would support any action killing off ARS. I think it can only serve as a canvassing platform. Some thoughts: | |||
| ::::::@], the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. ] (]/]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#Unlike project pages, where editors with an interest or knowledge of a topic can be informed of an AfD to provide informed insight, ARS only serves to inform editors who are interested in voting keep in discussions. The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs. Can you imagine an ''Article Demolition Squadron''? | |||
| :::::::Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. ] (]) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS. Apart from being really bad practice, I think it demonstrates that editors know exactly what they are doing when they list articles there (as much as I try to assume good faith). This also allows a parallel conversation (and 'keep' strategizing) about the topic to go on without the input of all AfD participants. | |||
| :::::::::I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @] or @]. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @] and @]'s earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. ] (]) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#The comments against listing are often quite blatant in their canvassing see: {{tq|could use some reinforcement and support}} and {{tq|Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated!}}. One particular frequent editor (who often speaks like a cryptic crossword clue) just gives ], ] or puns vaguely related to the article because an explanation of why something is listed here is not needed - after all it is just a canvassing platform. Give your keep vote and move along. | |||
| I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the ] and ] concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —] (]) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| :#There is even ] on this page. Even the most generous view of ARS surely cannot see this as anything but inappropriate canvassing. ] (]) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*"The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs" - that's easy to check by looking to see if the article was improved by any of the members who were in the AfD. The data is open and available. Check systematically ie. most recent 50 cases. | |||
| :::*"I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS" - again that's easy to prove by looking at old AfD pages, divide by how many lack a notice and see what the percentage. 50 most recent cases. | |||
| :::*There are so many things wrong with that "canvassing for DRVs" discussion don't know where to start. There's a sub-text to the discussion involving bad faith, name calling and disruptive behavior. And you can find similar sorts of notifications in other mission-oriented boards. -- ]] 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - not sure the big deal here. I see some good work by editors listed there improving articles. Which is more than I can say for many of those that participate in AFD - and is far less of a problem than those who manage to do 30 delete "votes", in 25 minutes - which is no where near enough time to do any research ] commenting. ] (]) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Systematic deletion by editors not engaging in reasonable BEFORE is one reason ARS came into existence. Vladimir joked about a Article Deletion Squadron but you don't need a squadron because one person can create unlimited numbers of AfDs fairly quickly with little oversight as noted by Nfitz. -- ]] 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::What are you talking about? Articles do not get deleted just because editors put them up for AfD. AfD is a huge process to ''ensure'' oversight from the wider editorship. Routinely AfDs are dispatched with a speedy keep in a matter of hours. On the other hand there is far less systematic oversight on the creation of articles by confirmed users ().the ] (]) 06:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Huh''' There's an ] that admonishes {{tq|you should use ] on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here}}. But that rarely seems to happen. Just sayin'. ]] 04:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::BTW it's 50% tagged in the last 10 AfDs. I might run more to get a better picture but we're closer to the truth then to say it's 'rare', repeated by multiple users here based on conjecture ("seems to") or copycat. I have no comment if 50% is ____ (value judgement), but heads or tails is not rare by definition. -- ]] 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet when I did a spot check of the last 20 AfDs at ] it was 100%. I wonder what could account for such a vast disparity in an almost identical process. ] (]) 06:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' It seems that there is a clear consensus here that ARS should be killed off, despite the objections of its 3 or 4 most vocal members. ] (]) 04:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: I'm not sure I see such consensus here. Given the previous 4 AFDs on the subject, it isn't something that should be taken lightly. Also, I don't think this is the forum for such changes. If there's a desire to have that discussion, I'd think the place is ] (and then perhaps a RFC?) I'm not really sure why we are having this discussion here. If there's an issue, it's long-standing. ] (]) 05:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::As much as I think that's the right outcome, and the very likely one regardless, an RfC would certainly be needed, though I'm not sure where. But not here. An established Wikiproject can't be killed off in 3 hours at ANI. {{U|Iridescent}} is wise in these matters -- what's the right forum? ]] 05:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is really the most logical space for such a discussion: this is definitely something that should be weighed by the community at large, and hosting on the project talk page is less likely to accomplish broad involvement and obviously would influence the balance of perspectives, insofar as the question presented is the net value/appropriateness of the project itself. Obviously the project should be notified (and notification of particular users with an ongoing interest in the project should not be regarded as canvassing, imo) and there's no harm in adding a ] listing even if it goes somewhere highly visible, but this is more or less exactly the type of issue that ] is meant to be a forum for. '']]'' 05:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Or maybe ]?. ]] 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Given this growing consensus (see SNOWBALL) can we wrap up this ANI quicker and move it to an RfC or noticeboard where a proper discussion and vote on deletion can be done. Or do we need to wait for this to close? Seems a bit of a waste for everyone to blow off steam here and then have to rehash the discussion in a week’s time? ] (]) 12:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *While I tend to be a deletionist these days, ARS' mission is a noble one and I would oppose shutting down that forum. However, the conduct of some of their members should be scrutinized by the community, perhaps ArbCom, as it violates AGF and other policies, creating useless noise (for example, with votes that routinely cite sources based on Google hits, ignoring ] and so on). Resucing articles is great, but trying to torpedo AFDs through a thinly veiled violation of ] is much less so (again, to be clear, I don't think most of the members of this project are guilty of such an attitude, but there are some vocal bad apples that need reining in). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Doesn’t matter when the the project is dominated by four very vocal bad apples. ] (]) 11:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Hmmm, I can only think of one editor there who displays bad jugdgement and battleground behavior again and again. But I think this is a matter for ArbCom, not ANI. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 12:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Although I agree that the problem has become too intractable for the community to deal with, or want to deal with, I worry that enough sitting arbs have had tangles with the ARS members in the past and will need to recuse themselves, leaving only ARS-sympathetic arbs left to vote. ] <sub>]</sub> 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Isn’t that just MORE of a reason to torch ARS? And Piotrus, would you mind “naming names” about who you are referring to? ] (]) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::@] I dislike naming names per ], but I would be willing to provide exhaustive evidence regarding the editor I am concerned with if an ArbCom regarding practices of RS members is accepted. I will also add that the behavior of this editor has been subject to several prior discussions at AN and ANI, all of which led to more or less 'no consensus' as to what can be done; hence I believe ArbCom is the only way forward. I further predict that this discussion here will be closed as 'no consensus' either. If anyone wants to see something done rather than pointless talk, please file a motion at ArbCom. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 10:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That's a bridge to cross when we case is proposed. I don't think that a bit of 'tangling' should bias ArbCom, but we will see. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 10:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Compilation of problems with ARS members judgement''' - The following is largely based off comments I just made on the ARS rescue list (didn't realize this discussion was open): I repeatedly find myself questioning the use of the Article Keep Squadron. Some of the articles listed here are indeed worth being kept, but I get the feeling sometimes that this project tries its best to challenge the notion at ] that "{{xt|no amount of improvements to the Misplaced Pages content will suddenly make the subject notable}}". ] is probably one of the worst examples. Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD, see ]. It also stings when one does more research into the sources than the ARS regulars and comes to a very different conclusion, such as at ], where two ARS members asserted without evidence the subject played a commanding role in a historic battle (still no evidence of that) and a third advocated outright ignoring the notability policy. See ] for questionable research practices of an ARS member trying to acquire confidential birth records over the phone from a county registrar. Here we have an ARS member withdrawing their keep vote in favor of paid promo article (alongside many a sock) ] only because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing consensus, not because they could admit they were wrong. Here we have an ARS member suggesting we use blogs as sources: ]. Here we have an ARS member suggesting sources which do not discuss the topic at hand: ]. Here we have an ARS member show a complete lack of understanding of the purpose and importance of ]: ]. Even if these are all good faith mistakes (some I have a hard time believing are), I seriously question the judgment of ARS more than I think I should for a project ostensibly dedicated to improving articles, not just retaining them. -] (]) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Iman Farzin, William Mahlon Davis, and Attack on HMS Invincible had 7&6=thirteen show up and no one else. Piedmont bioregion had Andrew as the only one to show up and vote keep. The ARS was not even notified about File:Lena_Horne_with_Tuskegee_airmen.png. Working on a different article, Lightburst argued about its removal, I noticed this, went there, and commented. Turns out an old photograph from World War 2 was in fact not a copyright violation. Someone referenced it to a book, but obviously the person used a historical photograph. On 21:18, 5 October 2021 you nominated it for deletion and at 06:37, 6 October 2021 you agreed it was fine. Then you state above that "Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD". Ridiculous misrepresentation of what happened. ] 09:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Couple of things here, DreamFocus. Perhaps its subjective, but I do consider the multiple ARS members acting poorly across different pages connected by the single thread of ARS listing to be an ARS problem. Also, I entirely reject the notion that I misrepresented the Horne photo situation. Lightburst uploaded the photo as a way to shore up the ] article, which was ] at the time. Thus this is an ARS related matter. '''Lightburst repeatedly lied to assert it was a US Gov photo''' and wrote in the description "Military promotional photo" (I'm bolding to show I stand by it) despite no sources indicating that. After repeatedly re-adding this licensing template but meeting opposition from myself and Mztourist they changed to a different rationale (see ) saying it was PD-US-no notice. They repeated in the file discussion I opened that it was "clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely" (again without evidence) and that it was "published in the United States between 1926 and 1977" despite the only sources they provided showing it being published in the 2010s. It was only after a lot of back and forth that Lighburst found a source which showed it was published in 1945 (and in a newspaper at that, no evidence it was as US Gov photo). The only plausible reason for them not providing it earlier is that ''they were making assertions about the rights status of the photo without actually knowing what the status of the photo was beforehand''. This seems to be a part of ARS' MO of throwing enough shit at the wall in the desperate hope some of it will stick, which is a terrible way to write articles. It's why an ARS-involved deletion discussion like the ones for Attack on the HMS Invincible, William Mahlon Davis, and Willie H. Fuller involves other editors reminding ARS members that blogs and self-published sources (Find-a-Grave) are not reliable sources. ARS seems to only encourage this behavior. I will say for your part, I have found you to be the most responsible of the ARS regulars. -] (]) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I have only had two meaningful interactions with the ARS, ] and ] (which continued ]). | |||
| # ], 7&6=thirteen posted an emotive notice on the ARS rescue list and ... Lightburst and Dream Focus arrived to oppose, neither offered any reliable sources or policy based rationale, just opposes. was the article at the time, aside from the clear unreliability of many of the sources NONE of them even mention the article’s subject, not even in passing. What resulted was hours of wasted editing hours over months (including having to run an absolutely ridiculous ]). | |||
| # ], again 7&6=thirteen posted a notice on the ARS rescue list . Dutifully Lightburst arrived to oppose and what followed was the pair tag teaming to cram as many UGC and SPS as Google would spew forth as well as clear equivocation and non sequitur claims. Finally a non-ARS member presented two RS to the discussion and it was withdrawn. But ... then 7&6 posted again rescue list about attempts to remove the utter garbage from the kept page and within three hours Lightburst reappears and more drama ensues. Again, hours of wasted effort over a month. | |||
| :Was the ARS founded with noble aims? Yes. Has it been hijacked by a core group who use it to subvert Misplaced Pages’s processes and etiquette? Absolutely. Should it be disbanded? Yes. ] (]) 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| :* I did not attend the ] so no canvassing there again. But just look at the outcome – the nominator withdrew after conceding that the topic was notable. So, the ARS rescue of that topic was correct and was vindicated. The fault there was bringing it to AfD in the first place. See ] again. ]🐉(]) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:So you tried to delete a perfect valid article, others showed up to argue with you, and you then withdrew your nomination. Elsewhere you insisted without evidence that "mountain dog" only referred to ], and that any species with "mountain dog" in its name must be a livestock guardian dog. I'm still uncertain if this is accurate or not, and would like someone with a college textbook or link to a website of a recognized authority on this subject to state. What you link to only shows part of the discussion, most of it was below the section linked to. ] 11:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this discussion should include Arse's dePRODding behaviour. They routinely and unapolagetically remove PRODs without discussion or explanation because ARSe. This has meant that it is more and more difficult to remove the dross that sometimes appears as an article. I have been obliged to apologise to Good Faith participants at AfD for even bringing some crappy article that needs to vanish from the face of the project. The arrogance of the Gang of Four is exlemplified in this , from this very discussion. They're correct of course, I've seen this discussion here quite a few times over the years, and seen the results. Perhaps this'll end with another "+ Sound of Crickets +" close, it wouldn't surprise me. | |||
| :::On the whole, from what I've seen, the Gang of Four seem to edit acceptably in their respective areas, and the ideals of the Project are attractive. When acting on project matters they have corrupted the ideals. I'm not certain that just killing off the project is the answer. A more acceptable answer to this may well be a community imposed ''lifetime'' Topic Ban for the Gang of Four from deletion discussion, construed like something incredibly broad, thus removing the opportunity for them to continue this disruptive behaviour, and continue contributing positively. Just a (real) suggestion that I want to run up the flagpole and see how it flies. -] ] 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have also noticed their dePROD'ing behavior. Mutliple times I have PRODed pages that were clearly non-notable, only for someone (normally Andrew) to dePROD with no good rationale. Generally I abandon my attempt after this because I have neither the time nor experience to bring articles to AfD. --] (]) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You are referring to one guy who people argue about deproding things regularly. I can't recall having deprodded anything except recently an article for the co-creator of a game that sold 30 million copies and had done other notable work in the game industry, and I deprodded an article I created which is now at AFD but others said it should be kept, only the nominator saying to delete it. I did not post to ask for help at the ARS either time, nor did anyone else from there show up to participate. This whole gang of four nonsense needs to stop. The overwhelming majority of edits we do are separate entirely. ] 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} '''Ahem.''' ] (]) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban. | |||
| *'''Comment''' I agree ARS is a form of canvassing. Listing an article there draws the attention of editors for "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Agree with what was said above by valereee and others - they collaborate to "win" by any means and then disappear without actually improving the article. ] 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done. | |||
| *'''Comment''': In ANI, Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. I am loathe to come into this forum. Regarding the "<u>four very vocal bad apples</u>" that the OP has mentioned... 7&6 is one of the best editors I know, just ask him how many DYKs he has had. Recently I collaborated with him on several articles. El C thinks he is snarly? If being snarly was a disqualifying factor on the project many of you would be out based on this thread alone. And AndrewD keeps the PROD process honest, and pardon me... if I read it right in the OP's opening statement - AD jokey? Really? I am not sure there is anyone who knows more about the history of this project. Dream Focus - to my knowledge has never showed up to an AfD to blindly ivote. DF follows the "Lists" AfDs - and so do I. I like navigation tools. I often collegially ] editors I admire - many more than just these three "bad apples". | |||
| :Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above. | |||
| :I come across many articles that I do not think deserve deletion while deletion sorting - and some with zero ] work like ]. I am not sure why some editors marry themselves to the first notion they have. In other words, I have been a part of AfDs where a good editor will withdraw their nomination after we improve the article. Sadly, some noms like MZTourist treat it like a win or lose batter. Cavalryman has done this as well - in one of his own examples above, he eviscerated an article that survived his own AfD nomination - I moved on and it remains a stub because that is what Cavalryman preferred. | |||
| :For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, <b>this needs to be a final warning</b> in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -] (]) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I read above where Buster thinks we should have a "Deletion squad"? where in ] is that idea represented? And Indy Beetle...tsk tsk. I once heard a lawyer say someone was a liar, and he was much more diplomatic than you...he said they were "less than truthful". Sadly- the only reason you wanted the photo deleted was because it added notability to ] - you remain married to the idea that Fuller should be deleted. The photo was a military promotional photo depicting Fuller with a famous singer on her ]. Calling me a liar in bold is probably a PA. But no worries, if the PA is about an ARS member there is no such civility expectation. It is however in ] for all of the other non-ars editors. | |||
| ::Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? ] (]/]) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —] (]) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| (I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at ].) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, ]. {{U|PamD}} stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular {{U|Crouch, Swale}}. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point ] has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.) | |||
| :I just returned from a one year absence and found several Tuskegee Airmen nominated for deletion. So maybe my post on ARS was a bit testy. Also...Thanks Piotrus! I know I have been on the other side of a few AfDs with you, so it is big of you to say what you did. In conclusion, four editors cannot make something notable and many of you in this thread are not AGF. FYI: 91 articles were AfDd Saturday, 72 articles Sunday, and 59 already today. Not even including files, templates, prods, modules, and portals. My AfD ivotes may be an inconvenient truth for some of you so I post it . I am not married to a "keep" ivote as some of you have said. | |||
| * Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: '] is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with : he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here. | |||
| * Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content calling it "irrelevant". At ], PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article ], , cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, ], the entire Architecture section was . However, their church articles always contain something like {{tq|The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.}} sourced to ''achurchnearyou.com'', often as a separate "Present day" section. of ] (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose: {{tq|All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.}} (And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing ] and ], both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.) | |||
| * Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as , was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.) | |||
| * Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles. | |||
| There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note {{U|Liz}} has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that ] instance (at the end of , which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. ] (]) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<u>Spoiler</u>: the two wolves will vote to eat the sheep for dinner - every time. ] (]) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. ] (]/]) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to point to ]: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. ] (]) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly). | |||
| ::I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at ] and ], and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: ]. | |||
| ::I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing. | |||
| ::Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for ], which is also the example of a lead in ], starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{tl|cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice. | |||
| ::Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor. | |||
| ::The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, ] (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material). | |||
| ::It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations. | |||
| ::Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. ]] 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work === | |||
| *{{ping|Lightburst}} Can you please provide a source that it was a "military" photo? We're still waiting. The only thing we uncovered is that it was published in newspapers and syndicated by the ]. If you feel I've lodged a personal attack, please open an ANI about my behavior. I'm confident in my actions, and I don't think they need a revolving set of explanations until we find one that coincidentally suits my purposes. -] (]) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. ] (]/]) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is a moot point. Dead horse material now. Anyway your PA is not ANI worthy. I enjoyed collaborating with you on another Tuskegee Airman - I thought we collaberated anyway. You never responded to my ]. ] (]) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I think we worked together smoothly on that one. Sorry about the lack of response, I think something came up in RL when I read it and it shortly thereafter slipped my mind. -] (]) 00:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I've got some experience of ] investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. ] (]) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It is clear that many people are concerned. Is the concern about canvassing, or is the concern about a Gang of Four editors who are each disliked individually? ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Those are the only two choices? ] 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: <small>Remember your conjugation. One editor you don't like is "ignoring consensus", a few editors you don't like is "canvassing". ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Another Example''' I stumbled on at ARS last year. ] was put up for AfD. I think the title tells you all you need to know about the article. Of course dreamfocus swoops in with a KEEP using arguments you are told to avoid. ''Two days later'' they ] asking if anyone has any sources for this topic. From this sequence, it is hard to believe any ] was done before the initial vote on the AfD and if it was done it didn't yield any results. This really tests the limits of assuming good faith. In my opinion this is an issue both with individual editors and with the ARS platform which encourages and supports this kind of behaviour. ] (]) 23:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/] in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --] (]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:So I posted on the ARS ''Anyone know of any government reports or other sources giving significant coverage of this problem?'' for this as well as the same time another request for ] saying the exact same thing. We have a lot of articles like this at ]. One article was deleted, the other was not. Different editors then showed up to these two AFD afterwards. This should prove there is no canvassing since you don't see us all "swoop in with a KEEP argument". If they saw one request then they saw the one under it made at the same time, but they didn't show up at both to participate, they looked over the situation and decided for themselves. ] 00:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —] (]) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| *:::The point is that I can only deduce from this sequence of edits that you either voted keep before you had done a WP:BEFORE or voted keep after you had done a WP:BEFORE that had not turned up any sources. Both are as bad as each other. This isn't about canvassing but about the way the squadron participate in AfDs. The determination to argue for keep is made before any research into the topic is done. ] (]) 00:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @] has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. ] (]) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|This should prove there is no canvassing since you don't see us all "swoop in with a KEEP argument".}}{{snd}}Even the Article Rescue Squadron knows a lost cause when they see one. ]] 01:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the ]. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. ] (]) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::And yet all of us go alone into AFDs at times where everyone else has posted Delete, and we post Keep if we believe it should be kept, lost cause or not. A regular member post a request, and no one else shows up to participate, that happening quite often. Everyone thinks on their own, don't always agree on things, and never just show up to vote because someone else did. ] 01:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You still haven't addressed my concern. Oh well. ] (]) 02:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The last time I think I ever got involved in or looked at an AFD in depth and felt the decision was wrong, really goes in line with what the user who brought this problem about AFD up. The article was just saved because of so called reliable sources, when those sources they called reliable were really YouTube videos from the subject of the article itself, news site where users registered users have the ability to upload their own article, and a video game blog. Somehow, it seems another AfD only turned the page into a redirect, and the content of the article with its unreliable sourced content has been copied to the redirect page target. I think there should be some form of balance of power added, where a <s>SysOp</s> ArbConm has the final word on the outcome. I never heard of a <s>SysOp</s> ArbCom going against rules. ] (]) 01:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? ]] 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Truth in Labeling==== | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is labeled "] is getting problematic". I think that implies that something is new, or that something was different in the past. The Article Rescue Squadron was controversial between 2007 and 2009, as is evidenced by the record of previous attempts to delete it. Has there been a golden age in between when it wasn't problematic? I don't think so. Maybe "] is still problematic" is more accurate. ] (]) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| :This. ] (]) 21:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{U|voorts}} - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. ] (]) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. ''Sound of evil laughter.'') --] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How's this draft proposal: {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace<ins>, converting redirects to articles,</ins> or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects. | |||
| ::Having seen on ] yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing. | |||
| ::And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. ]] 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. ] (]/]) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. ] (]) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - ] (]) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: an infobox? a few words about local authority area? a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. ]] 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to ], never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. ]] 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for the question ]. To clarify, I meant '''any''' expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing ''anywhere'' on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - ] (]) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " ]] 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --] (]) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Okay, looks good. @] what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{U|Cremastra}} - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. ] (]) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Hold on. This goes much further than @] wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? ] (]) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at ]. I've lost patience. ]] 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested: | |||
| :::::::::::::# No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects | |||
| :::::::::::::# No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?) | |||
| :::::::::::::# No editing in mainspace. | |||
| :::::::::::::]] 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.{{pb}}{{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):{{pb}} | |||
| ::'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC. | |||
| ::'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded. | |||
| ::'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles. | |||
| :{{pb}}The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but '''would personally favour Option B'''. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into ], a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. ] (]) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I made some changes. ] (]/]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. ] (]) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::p.s. ] this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. ] (]) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? ] (]) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. ] (]) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree. ] (]) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] and @]: option C amended below. ] (]/]) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? ]] 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. ] (]/]) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s) === | |||
| ===Possible Actions=== | |||
| {{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus.}} | |||
| I see three-and-one-half possible actions at this point. First, there has been discussion, that has made it clear that the ARS has been controversial for at least fourteen years and will continue to be controversial. We can close this thread with no conclusion. Disposition one-and-one-half is that we can continue this discussion for another week or two weeks, and restate what has already been stated, and annoy a few more editors, and then close this thread. Second, a sixth ] nomination can be made. My own guess is that it will result in '''No Consensus''', but that is only my guess. Third, this is a dispute that divides the community, and that the community has not resolved in fourteen years. We can ask the ArbCom to open a full case concerning the Article Rescue Squadron, and concerning its proponents and its opponents. My own guess is that such a case will result in a few editors on both "sides" being either warned or sanctioned, and that it will leave the community divided, because the community consists of many different editors with various different philosophies. That might just be another way of closing this dispute with no consensus. | |||
| {{noping2|DragonofBatley}} is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s): | |||
| :'''Option A''': DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC. | |||
| So my recommendation is to close this thread with no conclusion, but other opinions may vary (as they also do in deletion discussions). ] (]) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option B''': DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to oppose a PROD. | |||
| :'''Option C''': DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except: (1) to make corrections and improvements to articles he has previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded; (2) to comment in AfD discussions or to oppose PRODs or CSDs regarding those articles; or (3) to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles. | |||
| The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}. ] (]/]) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I say close this thread, take it to deletion again (the 5th time was me jumping the gun so you should probably ignore it) and if that results in no consensus then take it to ArbCom. We need to stop sweeping this under the rug and shrugging, that’s what’s helped foster the toxic, holier-than-thou attitude the main participants have towards delete voters and deletion in general. ] (]) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree close the thread, with no opinion about outcome per sensible ]. If ] wants to be the latest to hunt white whales, more power to them. ] (]) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''] is definitely the wrong venue''', as it is for ''deleting'' pages and when we shut projects down, we don't delete the pages, we mark them historical. Arbcom isn't going to decide whether or not ARS should continue to exist. They can investigate the conduct of specific users, but they can't decide whether or not we have a specific WikiProject. And even still, I think they'd decline because we have yet to have a "gang of four" ANI (individuals have been brought to ANI, but never the group, AFAIK), so this doesn't clear the "community can't handle it" hurdle yet, until there's at least one community thread about it. The options, in my view, are (1) focus on specific editors with an ANI report seeking TBANs of some sort, or (2) focus on ARS as a whole with an RFC to mark it historical. (I'm not sure which one is better.) Personally I see no reason to rush to close this; let editors discuss so long as they want to discuss. We are still getting new comments from new editors at this time. ] 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd have thought the best action is to sanction individual editors if they are violating guidelines. Looking at the project itself, there's enough non-controversial articles there leading to article improvements. Even if an article is deleted, I don't see trying to improve it first is a terrible thing. Personally I've improved articles during, and then failed to "vote" Keep because it's not there. ] (]) 00:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I wasn't going to comment in this thread at all, but I have to note the futility of supposing that anything is going to be done here. I've certainly had my run-ins with members of the ARS (several of them, as I expected beforehand that they would, turned out to oppose in ], with DF saying that "I don't really think this person is a good editor"), and I remember well the bad old days of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/A Nobody and Ikip/Okip and Benjiboi. My impression is that now there are only a few ARS hangers-on who behave problematically at AfDs and that their membership in ARS isn't the real problem. Anyone who repeatedly advances in AfDs "sources" that reflect unexamined, irrelevant Google hits or are otherwise inappropriate for use in the articles themselves, or who repeatedly !vote in AfDs without a justification in policy, should be brought up for sanctions here or in some suitable venue. If we can weed out the bad apples, there's no need to jettison the barrel. ] (]) 21:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see I was not on the project much when your RFA came up. But I always look at article creation and AfD stats. I state my criteria as: Admins exist to protect content and content creators. If you demonstred that with your edits, I would have been a yes. There is one at DRV now where several admins say they do not care who argues a rationale - they will apply their own interpretation. The thread may be as long as this one, and going nowhere. But the thread exists to refute what you said above. I am more concerned with delete ivoters who say "I am not going to look at the article". Bring me the sources and list them here. And The RFA is another perceived slight from 7 years ago. ] (]) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It escapes me how some DRV "exists to refute" what I said, but I don't expect uniform coherence around these AN venues, as a rule. ] (]) 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Deor}} {{ping|Deor}} (sorry that was not a good link) Forewarn - mind numbing read. Read the XfD and the review to get a a lesson in "doesn't matter what is said by anyone in AfD." Or at least that is my take. ] ] (]) 22:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === |
==== Uninvolved editors ==== | ||
| * '''Oppose all'''. I would have voted '''Option B''', but the user demonstated enough maturity and self-criticism, meaning he's willing to improve his long-term contribution. Moreover, even if it could have been embarrassing to admit, he also cared enough to inform us he's on the ], and as a ] myself, I know that's hard. My two cents go to {{u|DragonofBatley}}. You're welcome! ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've undone a decidedly precipitate close of this thread. While it's clear that resolution of this problem will have to take place elsewhere, right now people are contributing their ideas and opinions here, and there's no reason it shouldn't continue, at least for a while. ]] 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{u|EEng}}, I disagree with the revert. When it's clear that resolution will have to take place elsewhere, discussion should be pushed there as soon as possible. Given that several editors here were calling for a close, I do not think you should have acted unilaterally in reverting it (the most extreme form of challenging a close, compared to commenting beneath it or at my talk). I won't reinstate it myself right now, but if other editors feel that the close is warranted, I think they would be justified to put it back. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::*{{tq|When it's clear that resolution will have to take place elsewhere, discussion should be pushed there as soon as possible}}{{cn}} | |||
| *:::*{{tq|several editors here were calling for a close}}{{snd}}"Several editors" don't constitute a steering committee. | |||
| *:::*{{tq|I do not think you should have acted unilaterally}}{{snd}}It was you who acted unilaterally. People were still actively commenting, including some calling for action ''here at ANI'' against individual editors, and other discussing what the right venue would be. | |||
| *:::*{{tq|challenging a close}}{{snd}}A close is a reasoned evaluation of a discussion that has run its course, not someone deciding for the rest of us that we've discussed enough. | |||
| *:::*{{tq|commenting beneath it or at my talk}}{{snd}}No need to waste time discussing whether others are allowed to discuss. But I've commented at your talk page now, as requested: . | |||
| *:::*{{tq|I won't reinstate it myself right now}}{{snd}}Saved me the trouble of reverting again. | |||
| *:::*{{tq|if other editors feel that the close is warranted, I think they would be justified to put it back}}{{snd}}The bias in a collaborative project is ''decidedly'' in favor of continued discussion over squelching. | |||
| *:::]] 01:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Closing a discussion is not necessary {{tq|squelching}} it; in this case, my aim was precisely the opposite—to, as I said in it, {{tq|help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts}}. I'd point you to an essay I wrote a while ago, ]. In this case, keeping the discussion would be an invitation to argue about process and venues rather than the underlying issue. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::It's incredible you're still trying to debate this. Your intentions were good but you shouldn't have done it. To be honest you're getting to be a bit more worried about process and rules than maybe is helpful; see ]. ]] 05:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Oh, my dear Lord! ]] 18:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Some of this might spin down to actions taken against individuals. -] (]) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I am copying the contents of Sdkb's attempt at a close here. Even as this discussion continues, I feel it will be helpful for participants or uninvolved readers to see an assessment of the conversation so far: | |||
| :{{tqb|1=Despite being open for only a day or so, this discussion has already drawn substantial input and taken a clear direction, so I am closing it to help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts.{{parabr}}Participants here have found '''consensus that the current operation of ] violates the ], and that the behavior of many of its main participants has been detrimental to the encyclopedia'''. However, there is '''no consensus on a particular remedy''', with many participants expressing the view that ANI is not a venue in which a decision to deprecate or restructure a WikiProject should be made.{{parabr}}Given this, the next step should be to begin a discussion at a different venue. There was agreement that ] would ''not'' be the appropriate venue but limited discussion about what ''would'' be appropriate; as a ], I would suggest a ]-listed discussion at ] as a reasonable neutral venue. Ideas for reform raised here that could be considered, among others, include deprecating the project, enforcing a requirement that editors who bring an ]/] discussion to ARS notify the source discussion of that action, prohibiting ARS members from !voting in AfDs brought to the project (limiting its focus to improving articles), etc.{{parabr}}Some editors here argued that the problems derive more from the current members than intrinsically from the project. ANI ''is'' the appropriate venue for discussing behavioral issues about individual editors, and those may be brought up in future individual-focused threads if they continue. <small>(])</small> <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)}}{{pb}}Text above pasted here by ] (]) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great summary as a help to further discussion. Not a good justification for cutting off discussion. ]] 01:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' suggestion that editors coming in from ARS can only improve articles, not vote. That would be huge. Like literally I'd join ARS if that were the rule. ] (]) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Proposal''': Could we maybe allow DoB to continue editing mainspace if, and only if, any additions/edits they make are supported by a reference, to which the quote that supports the edit must be added. That will make it easier for us to double check their work and allow DoB to refine their skills in supporting their edits.] (]) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Good close attempt, shame it wasn't allowed to stick. As more opinion is apparently wanted, the Robert McClenon analyses looks mostly spot on, though it may be more accurate to say the rescue squad has always been controversial, rather than problematic. For me its the deletion process that is inherently conflict prone. Theres always going to be folk objecting to the destruction of other peoples hard work, dissolving the ARS would not change this. for how deletionists have been viewed by journalists ''New York Times'', ''the Guardian'' and various other reliable sources. Reyk's correct the ARS is now mostly moribund. Despite retaining several extremely impressive active members, the projects is a pale shadow of the mighty force it was back in the naughties. I see no need for action. But if there is to be an RfC, I'd suggest it should be neutrally framed. I.e a simple "What do about the ARS?" Option B could be to dissolve the project, while option A should be to commend it, or at least the most active members, such as the Colonel (Andrew D), Dream, Lightburst and 7&6=thirteen . Their scholarship, helpfulness, and coolness is most impressive, even in the face of mockery and talk of confronting them at London wikimeets , etc etc. (Yes I did read that 7&6=thirteen added some low quality sources to the Daniella van Graas page back in 2019. So the thing is 7&6 had less than 1,000 edits back then. They've since much improved and fully merit being mentioned alongside editors like Dream & the Colonel.) ] (]) 20:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **The fact that you, a member of the Squad, are bringing up articles from over a decade ago to justify your project’s now-increasingly-undeniable purpose as a partisan interest group dedicated to waging war on “deletionists” is a stronger argument for dismantling the ARS than I could ever come up with. Singling out and demonizing an entire group of editors, and maintaining an organization (no matter how moribund) dedicated to ] them for their perceived “attacks” on the encyclopedia, is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the entire Wikimedia Project. Shameful. ] (]) 21:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have probably added enough hyperbole to the thread. i would ask you to do actual research instead of assuming facts not in evidence. ] (]) 21:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Interesting coming from someone who never refuted the accusation that they lied about an image source to strengthen their position. ] (]) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You do know what ] is? Put ] in uniform, take photos. Bring big star (])to the military base, take photos. Rise repeat. Putting the wrong FUR on a photo is not catastrophic anyway, I had no intent to mislead anyone. We regularly change the ]. The point is it is a public domain photo and those who favored deletion wanted it deleted so it could not portray Willie Fuller in the article. I know that is an inconvenient truth, but that is the timeline. The photo was removed from the Fuller article, but not from the Horne. That should tell you all you need to know. Inconvenient truth. - Not the ] stuff. ] (]) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Show us the evidence instead of acting like we’re so stupid as to not know what propaganda is. ] (]) 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] 7&6's coolness was totally on display here: . ] (]) | |||
| :::::No, I wanted it deleted because you had failed to demonstrate WP:BURDEN in your upload to prove it was PD. I care about article quality and the integrity of Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I doubt many long term editors see it in terms of waging war on deletionists, and sorry if it seemed I was demonising them. Even as an editor with quite hard core inclusionist views, I see quality control and even some content deletion as essential functions. There's always going to be some friction between those performing said functions and those more focused on content retention. I dont see how dissolving the squad will substantially change that, though it would end a long established vehicle for article improvement. ] (]) 21:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I wish all members of ARS had your humility and clearheadedness. Sorry if I overreacted a little myself. If more squad members behaved like you, perhaps it could be reformed. But right now it just seems like a canvassing club for a small band of smug, superior inclusionists. ] (]) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought the close was fine and think this discussion should be moved to where actions can be taken if consensus allows. Can’t see the point in keeping open a discussion where people can air their gripes without action being taken. ] (]) 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I propose to close this thread and open a new ANI against the four most active members of ARS (Andrew, Thirteen, DF, and Lightburst). The project (and its associated problems) is currently centered on them, and if you remove them from the equation it wouldn’t be hard to unceremoniously shut it down and file it as “historical”. ] (]) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Perhaps list the past 100 things on the Rescue list, and a chart showing how many of us participated in each one, and the results of the AFD. Or getting stats showing the last AFDs each of us participated in, and what percentage of them were on the Rescue list. Most of the ones I find myself in aren't. If you want to make a case you need evidence. But the evidence will clearly show we do not all regularly show up at the AFDs on the rescue list. You can find random examples here and there from years apart to try to mislead people of course. ] 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::'''right'''? I do not think Dronebogus has done his research. Seems to be interested in demonizing and frantically lobbying. from what I have read above, after you started the fire Dronebogus, you can just sit back and watch your work. A good pyro always watches their work. No more accelerant needed. ] (]) 21:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Is that all you are capable of? petty insults, agreeing with your ARS buddies, and the ]? ] (]) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Wake me up when you are done attacking and disparaging. I am building the encyclopedia.? Do some research - everything is available, every edit, every interaction. ] (]) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Not every editor feels their worth is determined by making as many pages as humanly possible. I’m sorry if adding links, PRODing articles about strip malls and organizing anime and manga related files on commons isn’t glamorous enough for you. In any case your insufferably dismissive, passive-aggressive behavior during this discussion is arguably bad enough for a ANI of its own. ] (]) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you two cut it out? ''']'''×''']''' 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: My apologies. ] (]) 08:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved editors ==== | |||
| LB did not edit Nov 2020-Aug 2021, but here are some AFDs from the past year in which AD, DF, and 7&6 !voted. I invite editors to pick some at random and see (1) whether they all voted the same way, (2) whether they all voted keep, and (3) whether these were all tagged with the ARS template. {{clist|hlist=true|title=List of AFDs w/3|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]}} ] 00:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The first one listed https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adelita_(turtle) shows Andrew voted Keep, the next day I said Merge, then after others found reliable sources giving it significant coverage I changed my vote to keep. We don't just show up and yell Keep for no reason or always agree with one another. What about the ones from that time period where it was just two of us or only one of us? Seems like a sampling that would project a misleading conclusion. ] 00:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' option A as proposed for 6 months. I think its quite clear that that is needed given as noted the burden this might have on AFC but I'm willing to consider allowing some AFC say 1 article a week but I think it might be better to wait until the cleanup has been done the they have demonstrated the ability to create suitable articles. I would say it would be fine for DragonofBatley to ask KJP1 or Cremastra or another experienced user (if they explain their restrictions) to move drafts they have created to mainspace but I would not suggest they do that until the cleanup has been completed. I would also '''support''' option B I would consider allowing an appeal of only 2 or 3 months as this restriction is much more restrictive but I think given as noted by PamD their problems with editing existing articles this might well be helpful especially since if they can't create new articles I'd expect a shift towards the problems with existing articles. '''Oppose''' option C as (1) I'm not aware of problems outside mainspace and (2) I think in any case this would be too restrictive at least for 6 months, if C is done I'd at least support allowing appeal after 2 or 3 months. So in summary I think option B plus 1 article through AFC every week or every other week would be the best option but I don't have a strong opinion. ''']''' (]) 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose all''', as written. Sorry, this has changed from what I could support. First, in the draft version that I suggested, I had the word "successfully" in the sentence that mentions KJP1 and Cremastra: "only if DragonofBatley successfully participates...". That's important. The coordinators will need to evaluate whether or not he "got the message", not just whether he made some token effort, and their evaluation needs to have a meaningful role in the consideration of an appeal. I definitely cannot support A, because I think his mainspace editing needs to be restricted to fixing his mistakes. Anything less does not comport with the facts as we have them. As for B and C, I agree with participation in AfD, but that's in project space, not mainspace. I think objecting to PRODs or CSDs is not worth allowing. C comes closest to how I feel, but I don't feel that we need to make formal restrictions of his editing outside of mainspace. He should be able to communicate on his talk page and user page, without being restricted, and he should probably be able to comment on talk pages of articles. --] (]) 23:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''C''' if anything. (Again, wasn't pinged, but I have been a bit involved.) DragonofBatley keeps demonstrating borderline lack of competence. Most recently inserting one of his collages into an FA (I'd forgotten he also added collages) and getting the captions wrong. The clarity and correctness of the posting here is also at or below the standard we should expect for a participant in a writing project: {{tq| If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree.}} I don't trust their judgement on what is an improvement to an article; and how far should we stretch to try to accommodate someone who needs so many curbs and guiderails? I deeply appreciate the willingness of other editors to help them with the task of cleaning up their articles (as well as all the time and effort some editors have already expended trying to advise and help them); I recognise that there are legitimately differing views on some of what they like to do, such as the collages; but I'd rather see them restricted to their user talk and user space, workshopping the article fixes there. (Note: Several of the 400 or so articles have already been fixed, like the churches I worked on. The task is less massive than it may seem.) ] (]) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Prefer''' the less stringent '''option A''' because I’d like to see self-motivation from DragonofBatley to assist with the clean-up. OK with adding "successfully" to the option. It is disappointing that Dragon has recently made errors on ], all the more so it being a featured article, and it did lead me to consider supporting a ‘tougher’ restriction. Whatever is decided, it would be unreasonable for Dragon to be bombarded with too many queries over a short space of time; in particular, AfD nominations should be staggered. Dragon’s articles are on encyclopedic topics; though it looks a fair few will be merged or redirected because of marginal notability. After a very brief review, it seems the use of erroneous citations is mostly a recent phenomenon (last three months or so). Note the increased pace of Dragon’s article creation from September 2024. ] (]) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's interesting, even though they have been using this account since March 2020 over half of their articles are less than 6 months old, I'd consider only reviewing those less than 6 months old (at least for now) as those older have likely been improved but I guess there's no harm and might well be best. ''']''' (]) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Oppose further restrictions such as editing articles, workspace and general edits". I have no issues with proposals but I would oppose being restricted from making general edits such as updating infoboxs like I did with ] and ]. I updated them with photos and infoboxs. Yeah I made a couple of questionable edits on Holme Lacy but that article needed some updating since it was slightly written with some questionable wording like it calling Holme Lacy a town which it never has been but flew under editors radars for decades. I also added new collages to spruce up the infoboxs a bit. Especially with some of tw towns in Telford and boroughs of Greater Manchester. Also just because an article in 2008 got FA status doesn't make it protected from edits. I added a collage, hardly a throw away from my edits back on Skegness. Where I challenged old information from an old census database. I have agreed already about the articles and to look at my created ones. I even added a couple of sources to Hollyhurst, Telford and participated in its nomation. So i am taking note but I also have other things going on. So my edits or acknowledging of them maybe a bit later than others. ] (]) 03:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It concerns me greatly that while there is a discussion about your future at ANI you are still making a large number of very questionable edits. I still have half a mind to say this is too much trouble and go for a block, but as you’re ignoring ], I’m not sure that point won’t be too far off. - ] (]) 03:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] at this point. I can see you do not like me. I can see this from both your wording of "sub-standard crap" and "go for a ban". Some choice wording and actions. I've already answered enough but your clearly made up your mind. Nothing else will convince you. Perhaps you should not engage further with me at this point. Cause nothing I say or do seems to provide enough evidence to quell your subtle dislike of me. Prehaps you should just let the other editors handle it. Im not gonna apologise further and try to change your opinion of me. I wont reply further to you at this point. Your wording is coming across as aggressive and threating to me. ] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Absolute nonsense. I neither like nor dislike you. I have major concerns over your ability to edit and I stand by my judgement of your output. I have further concerns over your decision to create category pages and work on categories while the thread was going on rather than start clearing up the mess you’ve made. All you’ve done is provide more evidence that you lack the ability to edit within the guidelines. Again, this is nothing to do with liking or not liking you as an individual (I’m entirely ambivalent about you) but it is about your output and the additional time and effort you are making others go through to tidy up the mess you’ve made. ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Okay thanks for clarification. I understand your position better now. ] (]) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ==== Discussion ==== | |||
| * I think I would be happier if: | |||
| # there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400). | |||
| # I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "{{tq|This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by {{noping2|KJP1}} and {{noping2|Cremastra}}.}}" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB '''prove''' to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - ] (]) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? ''']''' (]) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See ]. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). ]] 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|KJP1|Cremastra}} Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">{{snd}}Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, '''before''' posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be. | |||
| :Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view. | |||
| :I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community ''consensus'' to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus. | |||
| :I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --] (]) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – ] and ] also apply here. --] (]) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Tryptofish}} I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the ]. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance).{{snd}}] (] <b>·</b> ]) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --] (]) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. ]] 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. ] (]) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. ] (]) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@], I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. ] (]) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too ] for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. ] (]) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. ] (]) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but ]. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case. | |||
| :::::The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with ''structure'' while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe ''structure'' to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --] (]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I ] KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. ] (]/]) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in. | |||
| :::::::I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time? | |||
| :::::::They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them. | |||
| :::::::Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors. | |||
| :::::::TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. ] (]) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] {{tqq| list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed}} there's ]. ] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @] - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! ] (]) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. ] (]) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles == | |||
| :It seems to me like it'd be easier to look at their AfD statistics (where this information is all aggregated automatically). Here, for for example, we can see that in their last 167 !votes (of 2547 AfD edits in total), they made 118 keeps/speedy keeps, and 49 deletes/speedy deletes/merges/userfies/redirects, which is about a 70% to 30% ratio. Per my ], the historical average is that around 16% of AfDs are kept. If you voted 70/30 completely at random on every AfD, you'd expect to have 11.2% of your keep !votes close keep, 4.8% of your delete !votes close keep, 58.1% of your keep !votes close delete, and 24.9% of your delete !votes close delete: ergo 36.1% of your !votes would align with the final decision. However, Lightburst's match rate is 65%, which is twice that. This implies, at the very least, that they are not just spamming "keep" on everything. Whether or not all of these people form a complete voting bloc is, well... people tend to do that. ''']'''×''']''' 03:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on ], however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them. | |||
| Here's a list from the same time period of some AFDs in which only 2 out of 3 participated. Again, see if you kind find any where the two votes are different. {{clist|hlist=true|title=List of AFDs w/2|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]}} There are some that are not "keep" !votes (like ] and ]), but I think they're the minority, and I've yet to find one where one person says "keep" and the other says "delete", although there are probably one or two out there like that. Still, I think the overall pattern of block-voting is undeniable. And that's just the past 12 months. If I were to show you 2019 and 2020, it would be much worse (I've looked already). ] 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The first one I clicked on is ] and you will notice Andrew said to keep the article, I did not, but instead posted a link to a New York Times article and asked a question about the topic. At ] Andrew said Delete, and I said to Draftify. ] Andrew said to Redirect it, I just asked a question and didn't vote. ] 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey Levivich. Glad we haven't had any negative encounters recently. Question: Doesn't is stand to reason, when an article is selected for rescue, it is because someone thought it was rescuable. Just as when someone chooses to AfD it is because they thought it was hopeless. So I will challenge anyone to renominate any that we saved. I think they are bulletproof - but maybe I am wrong. If any should not be in main space delete them. ] (]) 01:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I literally only found out about this WikiProject yesterday over at the dinosaur skeleton deletion attempt, and now I found this discussion where deletionists are trying to delete the project? Surreal inside-baseball Misplaced Pages style. The editors who are active on the project seem to have provided a good venue for editors concerned about the assembly line of articles being put up for deletion daily (myself, I try to not venture into AfD more than a couple times a week if that, a depressing place, and taken this odd attempt to silence fellow Wikipedians probably should look at it more often), kind of but not quite like how the fringe-theory people have fashioned themselves a place to serve as a free-speech Misplaced Pages information forum. Only good faith solution is to just edit and let edit, leave the thing standing with no further attempt to cancel culture it, and if there isn't a similar hangout for the deletionists then there certainly should be. The two can hold a summer softball game and picnic, and get along just fine. ] (]) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{tqq|I literally only found out about this WikiProject yesterday}} and you already know what the {{tqq|Only good faith solution}} is. I've been at this for three years and I don't know what the solution is. What's your secret? ] 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***Maybe new eyes on the topic, which see nothing wrong in a group of editors who recognize that way too many interesting, popular, and well sourced pages are put up on AfD. Take the dinosaur skeleton page for example (my Halloween costume problem solved), the topic and article have been expanded and clearly saved, but nope, editors still want it gone, as if it's competing for the last bit of storage space on the server. Often a group of articles from topic trees are under the ax (wanting to cancel many of the Tuskegee airman, for example, falls under the category of WP:"are you kidding me?"). So finding out that a group is around which tries to rescue pages which, even when seemingly rescued, are stilled deemed unworthy, and then the next day finding this discussion which wants to cancel that group? Like I said, new eyes. Letting long-term WikiProjects do what they set out to do is the essence of assuming good faith in fellow editors. Pointing to some potentially savable AfD pages not only doesn't seem like a bad thing, but arguably is an essential part of the greatest existing all-volunteer collaborative check-and-balance system (except for ants, who run a pretty tight ship). ] (]) 03:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****Calling Article Rescue Squad a Wikiproject is an extreme stretch. Literally the only thing it does is serve as a central notification system for articles that it's members want people to vote keep on. It does absolutely nothing other Wikproject do though. --] (]) 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****No, it's quite similar to other projects which focus on articles with a particular status. ] looks at articles which are drafts; ] looks at articles which are new; ] looks at articles which are in the news and so on. ]🐉(]) 13:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *With regards to the recent stream of tuskegee airmen nominations, the 4 discussions with substantial ARS participation were all closed as keep or no consensus. A ] which the participant Lightburst forgot to post on the ARS noticeboard was summarily deleted. The rest were deleted. The 'improvements' by the ARS lot in those 4 were underwhelming in the best of cases, if not an outright farce. would only go through the trouble of driving by each discussion and dropping the first low-effort web source (be it primary or secondary) that appeared on the search screen. Lightburst would promise SIGCOV and instead bring to the table ]. There was ] to claim that the subject had significant coverage.<p>Anecdotes aside, the most common features here were (1) Lightburst's mountains of routine coverage, passing mentions, ]; (2) the ubiquitous "Keep per ATD and PRESERVE", without any regard for what is actually being preserved; and (3) single-line vote-stacking, such as that of FeydHuxtable ]--"Keep, unconvinced by the delete analyses" (not that you'd ever be convinced otherwise, of course). No method, nothing useful, a waste everyone's time. ] (]) 02:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)</p> | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| ::It's crazy that inventing pages of a reference out of whole cloth is just being treated as another wacky antic of ARS and not a serious problem in its own right. ] (]) 05:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288 | |||
| *'''Suggestion''' while the idea "that editors coming in from ARS can only improve articles, not vote" sounds appealing I don't see how it would work in practice. How could you tell if someone other than the poster at ARS is coming in from ARS? That won't solve the canvassing concern as an inclusionist will post a page at ARS and then the rest of the gang will vote in the AFD. Better to just shut down ARS, which is described as "moribund" anyway and watch what happens at AFDs. If there are concerns about the behavior of people at AFDs then those can be addressed by individual ANI cases. As can be seen above already, the Gang of Four/Five/Six are throwing out various examples of how they don't all !vote the same. Let's remove the canvassing forum of ARS and take a clean slate view of AFD participation. ] (]) 03:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot) | |||
| :'''Fully Support''' Let's move this discussion to the appropriate place with some teeth. We don't need this discussion to continue ad nauseam. There seems to be pretty strong consensus that this should be put to bed one way or the other. ] (]) 04:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609 | |||
| *'''Support''' It's clear there is a consensus that action needs to be taken, but also that this isn't the right place to do it. So the discussion should be moved to where it can be resolved instead of continuing here endlessly. --] (]) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383 | |||
| *'''Support''' closing the thread without consensus; this seems increasingly less like an opportunity to reach a conclusion about a difficult issue and more like a trainwreck. BusterD, El_C, valereee, Black Kite, and Levivich seem to be of the opinion that ARS has some serious issues. Dronebogus and Vladimir.copic aggressively posit that ARS should be destroyed; Roxy the dog doesn't seem to have expressed any specific opinion about policy, but has called people "arseholes". Mztourist and Indy beetle, who also support the shutdown of the ARS, both !voted "delete" in several recent high-profile AfDs around which this dispute seems to be vaguely centered. Other participants, on the anti-"shut down ARS" side, include Andrew , 7&6 and Lightburst, who (if I recall correctly) !voted "keep" in those same AfDs. However, Dream Focus, Ritchie333, David Fuchs, Rhododendrites, Masem, Nfitz, GreenC, Piotrus and FeydHuxtable seem to feel that there is not a major issue with the ARS that justifies shutting it down... I have trouble looking at this mess of a thread and seeing consensus on any point other than "it's not going anywhere productive". ''']'''×''']''' 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559 | |||
| *:Definitely add me to the "shut it down" faction. The unquestioning, uncompromising belief that every grain of sand on the beach deserves its own Misplaced Pages article is an embarrassment to the project and a drain on its resources. '']'' -- you must be joking. ]] 06:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036 | |||
| *::Awwww, I wanted to join this project as a Editor. Then that would make me an ARSE. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot) | |||
| *:I'm not sure if I'm qualified to comment here -- we might need some sort of an expert on jokes that weren't funny. But I guess it's hard to connect this with what's going on here -- sure, it might be dumb for people to think we need an article about every grain of sand on the beach, but are there currently people refusing to compromise on it? ''']'''×''']''' 07:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172 | |||
| *::I'd say advocacy for keeping ''List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania'' is a pretty clear signal that reasonable compromise isn't possible. ]] 02:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *My perception of this whole thing is somewhat informed by a 4-year wiki-break I took while real-world stuff left me with little free time. I have never been in either the inclusionist or deletionist camp, in fact my AFD record is pretty much 50:50 with about 84% accuracy. Those who know me know I rarely tack ] or '''KEEP per''' !votes onto the end of discussions that are foregone conclusions. Before my wiki-break I constantly butted heads with ARS members, especially over their appetite for what I called "diplomati-spam" (pure ] articles about bilateral relations between countries with nothing more than incidental interactions like having leaders attend the same dinner one time). One of the creators took refuge under the wing of the ARS and ''absolutely'' used it as a mechanism for protecting the articles he "owned". Having the ARS arrive at an AFD discussion had an immediately chilling effect; nominations had an almost ''zero'' chance of succeeding once the ARS template had been added to a discussion. Editors need only mention the ARS and then sit back and watch as a flurry of !keep !votes miraculously appeared; testament (of course!) to the critical nature of the article in question. Fast-forward 4 years, and the tables have absolutely turned. Now we have admins protecting deletionists who spam AFD logs with nominations with no hint of ]. We have deletion nominators complaining about !keep !voters who "don't do enough to improve articles", despite that being <u>their</u> job, again per ]. We have admins closing AFDs with statements that would clearly have been better as contributions, but apparently super-voting is now tolerated. And we have admittedly deletion-driven ("spam fighting") guidelines stretched to the point of Dalí-like surrealism so that they can be applied as broadly as possible in a thinly-veiled effort to delete anything that certain cliques don't like. And in other cases guidelines are applied so narrowly as to not allow inclusion of anything (with novel interpretations that include assertions not even mentioned in said guidelines). The more things change, the more they stay the same. Four years ago I probably would have encouraged the neutering of the ARS, but the pendulum has already swung way the other way and I see no value in doing so now. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 08:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not the job of the nominators to improve articles. Nor is it the job of the keep voters to either. AfD isn't cleanup or whatever. The only reason improving articles has came up in this discussion is because ARS members have repeatedly said that it's what the forum exists for. Despite the overwhelming evidence that it isn't improving anything. Otherwise, I doubt most people would care. Let alone use it as a talking point. I know I wouldn't. --] (]) 09:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. ] (]) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AFD is not cleanup because ] presumes that any possible clean-up has happened by the time someone arrives at AFD. AFD is also not clean-up because it shouldn't be used to delete articles about notable things that ]. Again, because ] encourages people to do that work... you know... ''before''. Its absolutely the nominator's job; we couldn't be more clear about that. | |||
| :You can add this to the page in question – <nowiki>{{bots|deny=Citation bot}}</nowiki> – or you can add this to a specific citation – <nowiki>{{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}}</nowiki> – to keep the bot away. See -- ].]] 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And okay, then I don't believe that in the current context of AFD they are disruptive. Certainly not to the extent they were in the ''"bad old days"''. And whether or not they are unhelpful is irrelevant. We don't take action against those who are unhelpful, otherwise we'd lose half the admin corps (hell, we don't even take action against those admins that are ''disruptive''). | |||
| ::I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that ] did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on ], see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. ] (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ironically, your best chance of having the ARS deleted is to declare them an organisation, claim they fail ], and be done with it. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What you said is an oxymoron. If a "nominator" could do the work to get a clearly notable article up to the notability standards before nominating it, then there wouldn't be reason to bring it to AfD in first place and we wouldn't even know about it. --] (]) 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Citation bot is not a ], but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed: | |||
| ::::::Indeed, there would be no reason to bring it to AFD. That's the point of ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 10:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348 | |||
| :::::::Doing a ] isn't a magic wand that makes quality sources miraculously materialize. Sometimes (really most of the time) they just don't exist. Which is why people who brow beat nominators about it tend to subsequently provide garbage references as evidence that a ] wasn't done. --] (]) 11:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078 | |||
| ::::::::Not a magic wand, no, but it is a requirement. A significant portion of the time, nominations are based on a lack of in-article sources, decade-old tags, or a misunderstanding of a particular SRD. In a small number of cases (very small) its actually a question of sources or source quality and ] isn't an issue. In my experience, ] is most often cited when <u>none</u> has been done and a discussion is on its way to a ] close. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 11:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account." | |||
| :::::::::So your saying ARS members are acting dishonest and repeatedly providing inadequate sources when they could just find quality ones instead? Weird position since I thought you were defending them, but OK. --] (]) 11:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::-] ] (]) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Let me just correct a misconception here: we've actually had discussions about whether BEFORE is strictly mandatory. Consensus was that, although it's considered good practice, it's not strictly obligatory. The reasons have generally boiled down to BEFORE being too often used to attack nominators, and the impossibility of telling just how thorough a search has been. The AFD I linked above? The crappy sources dumped into that discussion and presented as evidence the nom didn't do their due diligence are the sort of red herrings a conscientious nominator would have found and dismissed as obviously irrelevant. This sort of thing happens ''all the time'' and it's why nobody really flogs BEFORE anymore unless the nominator has been genuinely negligent or you want a reason to kick him in the teeth for nominating garbage you want kept but can't otherwise defend. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the ''person'' who is ''using'' the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Okay, as an example: we recently had a slew of seemingly rapid-fire nominations. So rapid-fire, in fact, that mere minutes (literally, 1-2 minutes) had passed between one nomination and the next. It turns out the nominator (a well-known deletionist) was running through a category of articles historically tagged as being of questionable notability. All of them were tagged 10+ years ago. They said so. Most of them were about notable things. Most were ] kept. But that editor's idea of category clean-up was to just rapid-fire nominate them for deletion. There wasn't enough time to open Google, let alone do a search; they clearly hadn't done a ] search. In fact, they openly admitted as much. And yet in those discussions we still had the same bloc of deletionists show up and drop off a drive-by ] !votes. And those who pointed out that ] clearly hadn't been done were attacked and ironically told to stop making personal attacks (because apparently pointing out disingenuous and disruptive behaviour is a personal attack if the person doing those things is a popular deletionist). One of those people was blocked by an admin who found the most tenuous of reasons to tie it to something else. Another desperately tried to relist nominations by the same person (despite consensus being clear, and a lack of ] also being clear), presumably in the hope enough drive-by per-noms would provide justification for deletion. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these seem to have been invoked by {{u|Abductive}}, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? ] (]) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Sounds like the process worked fine and as intended if the articles were speedy kept. Articles that shouldn't be deleted weren't deleted. So what? I don't really see what the issue there is. Also, a drive-by PERNOM vote that will be ignored by the closer has way less of a negative impact on the project then someone verbally harassing a nominator based on a hunch and then being dishonest about references. They aren't even comparable. --] (]) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on ]. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee {{rpa}}. Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The point is that without groups like the ARS, there is a much higher liklihood that disruptive nominations like those will stand, there will be nobody to do the nominator's job for them, the nomination will be supported by a flock of PERNOM deletionists, and the article will be deleted. That nominator has been active for years; if that nominator's recent track-record is anything to go by, plenty of articles that shouldn't have been deleted, have been deleted. Nominating something for deletion, and thereby claiming to have completed ] checks, is also being dishonest about references. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 12:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I's seriously bizarre how the pro ARS people act like it's existence is the only thing keeping the AfD process from spiraling into deletionist chaos or similar doomsday nonsense. There's plenty of other keep voters out there besides the four ARS members that are currently active and it's not like they can't still participate in AfDs if its depreciated. None of your problems hinge on there being a central forum to canvass people from. --] (]) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles: | |||
| :::::::::::::::I think we agree there. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 13:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875 | |||
| :*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493 | |||
| :Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates. | |||
| :These edits were suggested by the following user: | |||
| :*] | |||
| :] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Found another bad date in another article: | |||
| ::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec&diff=prev&oldid=1269643198 suggested by ] | |||
| ::Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. ] (]) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Found another bad date in another article: | |||
| :::*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference) | |||
| :::Suggested by user: | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates ] (]) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". ] (]) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Because it is not necessarily an error. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is still about Citation bot. ] (]) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by ]. ] (]) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You have given the operators ] to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org).  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits.]] 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the ]. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —] (]) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that.]] 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus." | |||
| :::::-] | |||
| :::::] is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It would be best if the bad source was removed, per ] and ]. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes.]] 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Can you quote the part of ] which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. ? ] (]) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about ], not ]. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about ''your'' use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. ] (]) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] specifically says {{tq|The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. '''In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account.''' Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot}}. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —] (]) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{tqq|I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.}} I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to ] to me... - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them. | |||
| ::::::::::::As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —] (]) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>moved down from the middle of the above comment (]). – ] (]) (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::::::So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right??]] 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. ] (]) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Unsupervised bot and script use has ]. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix ].... ] (]) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We're into ]. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. ] (]) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{pb}}I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to {{u|Whoop whoop pull up}} two weeks ago () about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed ''me'' to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have ''continued'' to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at {{Section link|User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|Checking IABot runs}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. ''Both'' should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here ''neither''. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it. | |||
| :* Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support: | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, '''whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page'''" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot). | |||
| :** BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of ]. Now, ROLE ''does'' have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple '''managers'''", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're ''developed and maintained'' by a team of people (rather than ones that can be ''used'' by multiple people). | |||
| :** Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to ''50,000'' pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the ''only'' people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved ''despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible''; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they ''were, in fact, approved'' implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface. | |||
| :** ] seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page. | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ''''", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user. | |||
| :** ] provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to. | |||
| :* Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support: | |||
| :** ] says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved ''despite'' the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance). | |||
| :] <sup>] 🏳️⚧️ ]</sup> 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy. | |||
| ::"Both should take reponsibility" | |||
| ::-] at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 ] (]) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? ] <sup>] 🏳️⚧️ ]</sup> 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere. | |||
| ::::Policy is very clear, '''don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus.''' ] (]) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. {{pb}}These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. ] (]) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Or, as ] puts it: {{tq|Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.}} ] (]) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Citation bot has not been {{tqq|approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking}}. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at {{slink|User:Citation bot|Bot approval}}. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.{{pb}}But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.{{pb}}If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. ] (]) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot.]] 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::☝🏽{{Pb}}It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.{{pb}}I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.{{pb}}Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.{{pb}}Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.{{pb}}I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against {{u|Abductive}} or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion ''somewhere'' specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping {{u|AManWithNoPlan}}, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots ''and'' checking the results.<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).{{pb}}However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.{{pb}}Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.{{pb}}Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, ] (]) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"}} Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. ] (]) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. ] (]) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: If this is about Boleyn's rash of ill-advised nominations and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's block for calling her a misogynist, I'd argue said block isn't tangential or a stretch at all. Someone making even the most silly and wrongheaded nomination isn't a licence to call them any name you like. And no, I don't believe previous blocks for screaming abuse at people is a tenuous connection. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Then you know it was a three year campaign, not a "rash". And you know he referred to "systematic misogyny", because a female-led band was nominated for deletion simply because it hadn't been worked on. And you know it changed the make-up of that discussion, to justify relisting rather than closing as SNOW and tacking another onto an already woeful record. Its the same from both "sides", and has been for years. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 14:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Is there anything left here to discuss? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::* ] clearly has a point. As a fresh example of out-of-control deletionism, here's ]. I attended another AfD for an FA the other day and so nominating FAs for deletion is now the new normal. ]🐉(]) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::*: If all ARS members were blocked or banned, the result would be 0 AfDs of featured articles turning out differently. --] (]) 22:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says {{code|"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",}}. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::True. --] (]) 23:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. ] (]) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Many articles are improved. Sometimes stubs have been turned into much larger articles. ] for example went from this at 4 thousand bytes when nominated for deletoin to 78 thousand bytes now. It then got put on the main page of Misplaced Pages. ]. The edit history shows 7&6=thirteen did a lot of work on it, as did others. There are many examples of that. Probably need to collect them and post them somewhere. If someone had a bot to check file size of an article when it was nominated and when the AFD ended, that'd be useful. I don't remember how many articles worked on by any of us ended up on the front page of Misplaced Pages. Be good to compile a list of that as well. ] 09:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sometimes articles are improved by ARS. But a higher percentage of the time that's not the case and the whole thing always comes with a ton of unnecessary drama. That said, I do think the project would have value if it didn't focus on AfDs and put it's time purely into "article improvement" instead, but at this point it seems like the main contributors to ARS are just in it to right great wrongs or whatever though. Which doesn't serve anyone. Even if articles are occasionally made better by way of the nonsense. --] (]) 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::1. Not a news article. | |||
| * I’ve noticed a lot of the complaints seem to be focused around Lightburst and Thirteen’s recent behavior. DF and Andrew can be obnoxious sometimes but generally they’re a bit better behaved in my experience. Perhaps we should just open an ANI about them and divert this away from a wiki-political brawl about who’s more “evil” this week. ] (]) 09:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless. | |||
| *: I think that it would be a good idea to focus on the one or two most problematic members. --] (]) 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As an additional data point, I looked to see what was listed on ] and came across ] and my immediate thought was "what makes soccerway.com and worldfootball.net reliable sources?" and "why do we need three citations to cite {{xt|Laura Hoffmann (born 12 August 1991) is a German footballer who plays as a defender for SpVg Berghoven}}" and "why shouldn't we create an article on the team first?" The ], but not a single editor who advocated keeping did any work on the article, so people like me coming to the article fresh get no benefit whatsoever. If this is the best the ARS can manage, I think serious consideration should be given to marking it historical, given its reputation seems to cancel out any theoretical benefit. ] ] ] 09:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:That wasn't put on the rescue list, nor do I see anyone from the article rescue squadron there. With such a large number of articles sent to AFD each day, a lot will be kept for various reasons, you can't just blame every article you don't like on us. ] 09:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools == | |||
| *I partly agree with Stalwart's analysis but, like other participants, I question its relevance. AfD culture ''has'' changed slightly, and for the better. But what he interprets as favoritism towards deletionism I see as just a just a bit more balance. Not like the bad old days when you'd make a detailed, well thought out argument for deletion and closing admins would flick you aside contemptuously in favour of throwing themselves worshipfully at the feet of any keep voter who wandered by to assert they ] and that the nominator is an asshat. The personal attacks have been a constant feature of ARS methodology from the beginning. In this discussion for instance we have the ARS calling Dronebogus an arsonist, which sounds uncomfortably like the "nazi book-burning" rhetoric of a decade ago. Elsewhere I have drawn attention to the ARS calling people ] and been dismayed at the effort and persistence it took to get the admin corps to even acknowledge the problem, much less act on it. I don't know if this reticence was the result of favouritism, or just an understandable reluctance to become the targets of a vengeful ARS screech campaign themselves. | |||
| *{{userlinks|PEPSI697}} | |||
| I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights. | |||
| :Now, regarding the abuse of ] as a cudgel to beat nominators with, we have ] an example of an ARS editor dumping a load of bogus sources into the discussion. Inspection showed them to be a lot of bilge- some of them little more than partial text matches to the title. He then goes on to claim you're not allowed to question this dreck unless you've already done ] to his satisfaction (and he'll ''always'' decide you haven't). Note the strategy here: dumping garbage non-sources into a discussion is "proof" that the nominator didn't ], and not having sufficiently grovelled at the holy altar of BEFORE means you're not allowed to scrutinise the garbage non-sources. ] <sub>]</sub> 09:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, it may be entirely irrelevant. But that's kinda the point. This discussion would have been useful 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. But the deletionists now have as much to be sorry for as the comparatively powerless inclusionists. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 10:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Pardon? If you're claiming delete !voters are guilty of misconduct on par with organising voting blocks, falsifying sources, and calling people racists or nazis, I'd like to see some evidence of that. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I absolutely am. Spend 20 mins at AFD. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I spend plenty of time at AfD and I haven't seen the behaviour you describe. I think you are talking out of your ass. Again, if you're going to make allegations like this, show evidence. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I genuinely believe you haven't seen it. I can't see a single AFD that you have contributed to which was started by the editor in my example above, since early 2020. If that causes you to believe I'm talking out of my ass, so be it. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 12:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] Provide diffs to show us what you're referring to. ] (]) 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I provided a detailed account of that editor's 3-year campaign above. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If I may jump in, as an irregular AfD contributor and having no particular affiliation to either camp, here are few samples of "rabid deletionist" modus operandi: ] (2020), ] (2020), ] (2017). Granted, neither is particularly new, but from my limited experience the phenomenon is real. I'm not accusing anyone of colusion, but the "deletionist camp" seems to consist of people rather actively monitoring AfDs and ]ing without investing a single bit of energy into research. ] (]) 13:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Just to provide a bit of background here, that last one was the result of a user creating thousands and thousands and thousands of badly sourced and often inaccurate articles about mostly ] and then, when the scale of the problem was identified, he used a sock account to give these very crappy articles a seal of approval. All this had to be checked and it was a huge amount of work. A surprisingly small number of those articles ended up, on inspection, being suitable for the Encyclopedia and that seems to have been one of them. This is not a good example of "deletionists" being careless; quite the opposite in fact. I don't think this has much to do with the topic, which was derailed by silly and unconvincing "]"-- as though occasionally sloppy nominations or a few perfunctory "delete per nom" votes are as disruptive as screaming "NAZI" at people, or presenting sources at AfD while lying about what's in them. ] <sub>]</sub> 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Wow it's almost as if {{tq|limited experience}} is not enough experience to draw any conclusions about a "deletionist camp"... ] 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Who called Dronebogus an "arsonist"? The ARS isn't a living entity. Mention the specific editor you have a problem with. If most of their AFD work is done elsewhere besides what few articles are on the ARS list, then getting rid of the ARS wouldn't change that at all. I see where Dronebogus called me "obnoxious" above, and he has made additional insults for days now. ] 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Lightburst called me an arsonist. ] (]) 10:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) {{Diff2|1264943166|a message}} for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person {{Diff2|1264946563|made a discussion on the talk page}} about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me {{Diff2|1264940021|this}} message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I {{Diff2|1264940623|didn't understand what exactly was the issue}}, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I {{Diff2|1265117356|wish him merry Christmas}}, he wishes me, everything is fine. | |||
| * The example of ] is grotesque as that has just about nothing to do with the ARS. To see people arguing and canvassing about women footballers, the projects to visit are ] (]) and ] (]). Are you going to close down those projects too? The page that actually needs shutting down is ANI – this discussion is a sprawling, ] mess and the quality of such evidence is appalling. ]🐉(]) 10:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::With ] the comment was "If anyone can find Dutch language sources the articles can saved from deletion." Whereas, in ARS you asked for "reinforcement and support." Are you seriously going to act like those are the same thing? --] (]) 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like thematic comments and so, in that cherry-picked case, chose military words to fit the military theme. But my comments vary considerably as I don't like monotony. Looking back at the first of Levivich's examples above, ], my ] was "''This was a US project in the 1990s but my access to US press coverage from that era is not so good. Perhaps a US-based editor could help.''" So, sometimes I try a thematic hook, sometimes I make a specific suggestion. YMMV. ]🐉(]) 10:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, it was a just a harmless thematic comment to fit military theme...Right...Kind of like "If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team." I guess your a crypto-canvasser. "No, no...I wasn't trying to enlist people to vote in the AfD or saying ARS can save the article. I was just citing a quote from the A-Team song." --] (]) 11:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<small>"In 2007, a crackpot Misplaced Pages editor unit was sent to ANI by an administrator court for an AfD they didn't start. These men promptly appealed from a maximum indefinite block to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by Arbcom, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the Article Rescue Squadron." ] ] ] 11:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) </small> | |||
| ::::: We should explain that the topic in question was ]. The puzzling thing in that case was that just about nobody turned up to the discussion – yet again the canvassing claim is refuted. And there was some weirdness about the nominator that {{noping|Jclemens}} handled. "''I aint got time for your jibba jabba!''" ]🐉(]) 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I pity the fool who sent that to AfD. ] ] ] 11:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I went there but didn't comment in the AFD. I did add a reference to the article itself that I found after looking around for sources. So no canvassing or vote stacking. Sometimes I improve the article, this time only slightly, without participating in the AFD. ] 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Andrew Davidson}}, Here is a of the article being mentioned on the project page. ] ] ] 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: That was a request on the talk page, asking for access to a particular German language source. What's the problem? ]🐉(]) 10:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking as someone who is often on the "opposite" side of the ARS "voting block", I am not particularly concerned about it (or canvassing). As long a the closing editors remember that ], vote stacking one way or another is a minor problem. What matters is the quality of arguments, and their tone. My only recommendation regarding ARS is that it should be obligatory for ARS members to add a delsort notification to the discussion they are participating (saying that 'this discussion has been listed in the ARS deletion list' or such). I am not concerned about 'many votes'. If they are good quality arguments, that's great. If they are low quality, they should be discarded. What I am however concerned is about behavior of individual editors, as I believe at least one prominent ARS member has long ago given up on AGF, and is de facto spamming numerous AFDs with ]-based keeps, and doing so in a ]-manner, attacking nominators and so on. But as AN(I) in the past has failed to sanction that editor (who has been reported here several times, with a rough 'no consensus' ending each time), I believe nothing short of an ArbCom will have any chance of ameliorating the problem. Again, I repeat: the problem is not ARS, which is a noble initiative providing a useful level of scrutiny, the problem is the radicalization of its members, or perhaps just one vocal individual, who believe(s) that time-wasting google hit laundry lists, mixed with bad faith commentary about evil deletionists, is the way to 'save' articles. I will also add that this type of problematic behavior is often displayed on articles which are not listed at ARS, nor do they attract the attention of more than a single ARS member, but on the off chance I am wrong I believe ArbCom which would analyze the behavior of most active ARS members would be in order - but that ArbCom should not focus on CANVASS concerns, but on AGF/BATTLEGROUND/POINTless voting with GOOGLEHIT-like results, and judge whether some ARS members should not be topic banned from commenting in AfDs/PRODs/etc. If ARS would go, it would be simply unfair, as I think 'deletionists' can still monitor various DELSORT lists - but we would be taking away the main DELSORT list that 'inclusionists' have. Let them organize, just enforce that they behave like responsible members of the projects, not warriors for the holy cause. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 10:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Complaining about Google is utterly absurd because every AfD contains search links to Google and the participants are expected to use them; especially the nominator. Per ], "''The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.''" The problem is that, in many cases, it appears that such a thorough search is not done but nominators are rarely sanctioned for this. ]🐉(]) 11:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:The converse is also true though. e.g. at ] you pasted the titles of 12 sources. After putting in the effort to get access to the first 6 (some were rather obscure to access so I'm not sure even you had accessed them) it turned out 4 didn't even contain the phrase, and some didn't even contain 'movement'. The other two were written by WMF staffers. The next 6 seemed equally dubious, but I didn't spend time going through those. You didn't respond to defend your listing of any of these sources. ] (]) 12:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* When searching, it's best not to require exact hits on precise phrases because a concept may often be described in different ways using different words. That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary, as explained by ]: "''In Misplaced Pages, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.''" The ] is a rather fuzzy cloud of projects and people using many languages and those sources seemed relevant to this concept. And this issue is not what's meant by ], which is the use of search <u>counts</u> rather than specific sources. ]🐉(]) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*:So are you saying that you've checked that in each of those 12 titles you listed, the concept of a Wikimedia movement is defined such that the source is relevant to the AfD, but in different words (not using 'movement')? Such that if I asked you to list out the pages of each source where that's done, at the time, you would've been able to do so? ] (]) 18:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*::At ] Andrew built his argument on a source he called "detailed", that after closer examination proved to be a) in Chinese and b) off topic. That's not "googlehits" - it was a single "hit" one of the lowest possible denominator. What excuse for this "argument" can be found here? I'd love to hear it. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*:::Wow. Just had a read through that AfD. Seeing things like that really test the limits of asssuming good faith and unfortunately lead me to suspect ]. ] (]) 22:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::* As explained by Conrad and , "''It’s only those who do nothing that make no mistakes''". Busy editors cannot therefore be expected to have a 100% record. Piotrus nominates numerous articles for deletion, claiming that they are not notable. Naturally, they are occasionally mistaken – see ] for an egregious example. If editors are not able to challenge and contest such assertions, then these errors will slip through. The process requires both sides of the argument to be presented and thrashed out. ]🐉(]) 08:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*:Let's avoid ]s. Nobody is saying deletion nominations cannot be challenged. But challenges - just like nominations themselves - should follow a bare minimum standard. That includes a BEFORE that should go beyond google hits. If you list a source, you should verify yourself it contains a relevant discussion that passes SIGCOV and such, or otherwise preface such a comment with a disclaimer (i.e. saying that you were not able to or had no time to access the full text or such). Please do tell us what led you call an off-topic, Chinese paper a "detailed source" in the Fomalhaut discussion? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::::::::* Here's a nice picture of ] with a ] ''(right)''. Naturally, editors prefer to cherry-pick examples which make them look good but so it goes. See ]. ]🐉(]) 10:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *This looks like every other ARS-related thread that makes it to a noticeboard: a mishmash of problems with ARS, problems framed as being about ARS that are actually about individuals, debates over canvassing, examples of lousy !votes, examples of lousy nominations, examples of terrible articles, examples of good articles... it doesn't go anywhere. You might say "ArbCom is the next step for a long-term intractable problem" but here's the thing: there isn't evidence it's intractable. These threads so often close with "propose sanctions about individuals" but where have those threads been tried? I vaguely remember some threads about individual members, but focused on e.g. personal attacks, hounding, etc. which isn't always a good fit. Where are the "X is a net negative in deletion discussions. here are a bunch of diffs. I propose a topic ban on pages related to deletion, which includes ARS" threads? If successful, we can see what ARS can do without that person. If it fails, then at least we can say it's been tried (and been tried recently -- I'm sure there are a couple of those deep in the archives). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some of the examples here of 'over-canvassing' are exaggerated. It does happen, but simply asking for help finding a foreign language source isn't canvassing. Yes, there's issues with ARS. But there's also some value. ] (]) 19:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::IMO The canvassing could largely be dealt with if there was a requirement that Template:Rescue list be posted at the AfDs that they are involved in. Changing the wording in their guide to "improving" things instead of "saving" them would probably help. In the meantime it's pretty clear that particular members should be dealt with at ArbCom or something. Outside of that I don't think a few bad apples should lead to getting rid of the project unless they aren't dealt with, but I assume ARS and AfDs would be fine without their participation if ArbCom sanctions them. I'd probably join ARS myself if there wasn't the seedier influences. I bet a lot of other people would. --] (]) 23:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seedier!? As it happens, that takes us to the latest entry at ]: ]. ]🐉(]) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: I guess it's a bit of a jumble because the canvassing issues really do have their locus at ARS but the other problems-- the decade-long history of falsifying sources and trolling deletion nominators-- are probably concerns with individuals. I'd hope the Arbitration Committee would be able to look past this obfuscation though. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: {{Diff2|1269540618|1}}, {{diff2|1268720318|2}}, {{diff2|1268521356|3}}, {{Diff2|1268313652|4}}, {{Diff2|1268308516|5}}, {{Diff2|1268121077|6}}, {{Diff2|1268119998|7}}, {{Diff2|1268118180|8}}, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is ]. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor ({{u|Augmented Seventh}}): {{diff2|1269323555|1}}, {{diff2|1269333853|2}}, {{diff2|1269126403|3}}. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15. | |||
| *The length of this thread is a little mind-boggling in a tl;dr sorta way, but based on my experiences as an NPP/AfC reviewer, I tend to support saving articles (unless they're purely promotional or paid editing/blatant business promotion). WP cannot be the sum of all knowledge if we're deleting articles that actually are notable, even though they may not be extensively covered in mainstream media. I invite the confused to take an ]. We need help with the backlog! Oh, and of special note, WP is supposed to be the sum of '''all knowledge''', so I'll leave ] and run for cover. ]. Happy editing! ] ] ] 04:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi {{Diff2|1269543780|replaced}} my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential ] violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to {{Diff2|1269546279|seek clarification}} as to why they did this on their talk page. In {{Diff2|1269548452|their response to me}}, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me {{Diff2|1269576325|this}} message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see {{Diff2|1269577089|this}} edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me {{Diff2|1269580448|this}} message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. {{Diff2|1269580707|This}} edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me. | |||
| I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - {{diff2|1269549064|here}} they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when ] ] for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of ] without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. ]] 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''COMMENT:''' "Information is not knowledge" - ]. | |||
| :I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. ] (]) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on the above discussion, it appears to me that a structural problem exists on the English Misplaced Pages, and that this is a serious matter which the community is unable to resolve. The matter therefore needs to be escalated to ] for adjudication. ]] 07:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and ], you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. ]] 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. , for example, they say: {{tpq|Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. }}. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. ] (]) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. ({{Diff2|1269544073|1}}, {{Diff2|1269540089|2}}, {{Diff2|1269335610|3}}, {{Diff2|1269126904|4}} {{Diff2|1269098577|5}}, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). ]] 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seeing {{tq|no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism}} is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ ] (]) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. ] (]) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the ] (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." ] (]) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments {{Diff2|1269580448|demanding}} that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. ]] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it. | |||
| ::::: | |||
| ::::@]: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are ''obvious'' vandalism. | |||
| ::::: | |||
| ::::Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway, {{tqq|You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents}} - right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you ''will'' stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you ''might'' stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. ]] 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{nacc}} {{ping|PEPSI697}} A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page ], ] and ]. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at ] and ] because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.{{pb}}FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on ] that you get {{tq|stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it}} when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been ]. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if you {{tq|sometimes don't understand what some words mean}}, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.{{pb}}Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- ] (]) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to ]. ]] 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. ] (]) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future === | |||
| ** No, I think it’s largely just a poorly conceived and semi-disruptive but mostly just annoying project, two disruptive/uncivil users, and a couple of others who need to be slapped with a trout for being smug and/or writing moderately dumb and confusing A-Team references. ] (]) 14:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day. | |||
| :::That is your perception, and you are very entitled to bear it. That is not what would be presented to ARBCOM for resolution. ]] 07:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| :1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content. | |||
| :: | |||
| :2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one. | |||
| :: | |||
| :3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly? | |||
| :: | |||
| :Thanks. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool. | |||
| ::2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection. | |||
| ::3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. ]] 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I accept your apology. ]] 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Response and apology from PEPSI697 === | |||
| ===Break=== | |||
| * I’d also like to state that my view of ARS has softened ''slightly'' upon seeing recent nominations focus on more reasonable topics like “seed counting machine” and the featured “armament of Iowa-class battleships”, instead of just “here’s a ] soldier, here’s a pointless trivia list, here’s fancruft, TO ARMS AND MOLON LABE” ] (]) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** That's only because they're under the microscope. Once the heat's off it'll be about a week and a half before it's back to asserting nominators are morons and/or bigots and dropping in google hits to books where two out of three words in the article title can be found somewhere in the text. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***Just look through all past activity in the past year or so. I haven't changed how I do things at all. If you have a problem with specific editors, then list them and stop grouping everyone together. As I said, most of the AFDs each of us participate in, are not part of the Rescue squardon. Do they behave differently in the ARS then they do elsewhere? ] 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{tqq|most of the AFDs each of us participate in, are not part of the Rescue squardon}} I don't think thats true. At least since September when LB came back, most of the AfDs you participate in are also participated in by at least one other ARS regular. If I'm wrong, let's see the list of AFDs you've participated in since Sep in which no other ARS member participated in. (I think this is true before Sep, too, but there are so many AFDs that I don't have time to run it down.) ] 16:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****A quick look through my contributions and searching for the word deletion shows things. ] I voted delete in. ], an article I created was nominated for deletion at ], ], ] I cast no vote in since I wasn't certain of this sort of thing just made a comment, ], and many others. That's just a quick glance. You could probably count how many AFDs I've been in, and its far higher than how many articles were tagged for help at the Rescue list. ] 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******I didn't say {{tqq|tagged for help at the Rescue list}}. I said {{tqq|in which no other ARS member participated in }}. No moving goalposts please. You participate in the same AFDs even when they're not tagged. In fact I think it was shown above that only half are tagged. I've posted lists above where two or three of you have participated. Let's see a list where ''only you'' participated without the others. Just over the last 60 days, there aren't that many. But the ones in which you are alone are a distinct minority compared with the ones where at least one other member of the canvassing club is there. "Tagged" is a red herring because ARS doesn't always tag them. (Also, I still am waiting for even one example of an AfD where one of you voted keep and another delete. Not redirect or draftify or merge, just straight keep/delete disagreement. I believe this has never happened with the Gang of Four in the last three years, since I've been here. If it has, maybe only once or twice out of hundreds of block-voted AFDs. Prove me wrong.) Also make your examples from ''before'' this thread was opened. Showing me examples from while this thread has been running is a joke (as your links were above), and not the funny kind. ] 16:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *******I checked before posting those, the others not in them, just me. ] 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Come on DF. Here's what you posted just now: | |||
| #] - this AfD was launched today. After this ANI thread. When you're all on your best behavior of course. | |||
| #] - started after this thread | |||
| #] - two ARS regulars (DF and GreenC) both voting keep | |||
| #] - ok that's one | |||
| #] - no ARS members voted on this one, though you commented (not sure what that proves since there are no votes from ARS) | |||
| #] - two ARS regulars (DF and LB) both voted keep | |||
| So yeah that's one in which you voted that no other ARS members voted. ''One''. ] 17:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well whatever. I didn't look closely enough. Don't really care. You got bots apparently already to search for names. Just search for one name, then count that compared to the ones you found with more than one name. ] 17:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That... that's what I did. I'm not saying you're intentionally lying, but when you say that you vote on AFDs alone, that just isn't true. If that's your perception of things, it's a misperception. Go ahead and look through your own AfD votes just since Sep 2021 when LB returned and you'll see that in almost all of them there are at least two of you. That's why everyone says you block vote. Don't deny it, because the records are easy to check. Just stop doing it. ] 17:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Show evidence and stop making baseless accusations here. I know I was editing for years before LB joined Misplaced Pages. Many of us follow the list Wikiproject. If you could search for all AFD I've been in that aren't list, and then somehow check for others, then you'd be able to determine what the truth is here. Otherwise you just seem to be saying what you want to believe is true. I remember for years I'd was very active in the articles for manga and Anime, following that Wikiproject's list of things at AFD, and don't recall ever seeing any of the others there. I exported articles with their entire history over to the manga fandom to save threatened ones quite often. ] 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Meh, DF and I both follow Lists delsort. We all edit and follow our interests. The guy is allowed to ivote wherever he decides. This thread is a mishmash of grievances, some of them have no merit. ARS has no membership, it has no affiliations. It exists to feritt out one - maybe two articles in a week. The rest of the time we edit in our areas of interest. Just like you do, and everyone else. ] (]) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Some of them do indeed have no merit, but quite a lot of them do. "ARS has no membership" - do you take the community for idiots? ] 17:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::He never noticed ] and never signed it. But having your name on a list doesn't matter, people show up regardless. ] 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Thanks DF - cool that people made statements when they signed up - I read yours too. For clarity I should probably put my name in there. I see ] joined in 2012 and said this: {{tq|Semi-regular dumpster diver saving articles from deletion via CSD or AfD with numerous resulting DYK credits, particular expertise on geography and bands.}} And I especially like what ] said when he joined in 2007: {{tq|The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP.}} I am going to sign up and say this: {{tq2|The first rule of ARS is you do not talk about ARS. The second rule is you do not talk about ARS.}} ] (]) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::While it's true I did sign up to the ARS early in my serious wiki-career (2012 onwards), I did also quickly in June 2012 when I realised it was counter-productive and could happily rescue articles without being an active part of it. ] ] ] 19:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] I have always considered you to be a fair arbiter on the project. The record will show that I trust your judgement. I almost always agree with you on RFA also. I was a bit shocked to see your comments in this thread above, but I gave them appropriate weight based on my opinion of your body of work. I was chuckling about the A-Team pop-culture ref. Not ass-kissing but keeping it real. I still see value in the ARS project, I sometime disagree with things posted there, and many times I post a stinker up there and nobody shows to help. This long thread is an example of long memories and perceived slights. AfD naturally brings drama based on the fact that someone's creation is thought to be unworthy of main space. I understand that. Too many nominators are married to the thesis in their nomination. For an example of a nominator that is not married to the thesis - see ] the nominator is presently adding to the article. It is how things should work. ] (]) 19:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::For me, I think the point at which I thought the ARS ] was at or around ] when Milowent yelled at someone, calling them a "pizza cheese jihadist" and later "{{xt|I'm done with you pizza cheese heathens. I can't argue for 7 days non-stop about whether pizza cheese is independently notable as shown by myriad sources. Famous Evil Deletionist Tarc actually !voted to keep above, so I don't think I can say any more}}". That's just ... bonkers. ] ] ] 20:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{ping|Ritchie333}} bahahaha. ]. and Pizza- Do the right thing. ] (]) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tqq|Show evidence and stop making baseless accusations here.}} Are you kidding me? Scroll up, I posted two lists of AFDs. ] 17:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: {{u|Levivich}} You're wasting your time. There has never been, even in years past where a number of members were blocked and banned for disruption, any admission from the core ARS members that anything they do many possibly be wrong. ] 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *If the articles they or anyone tries to improve are improvable to the point of being acceptable they will be kept; if not, they will be deleted. Anyone who thinks we should be more deletionist in an area can influence decisions just as much as anyone in the ARS. . If people show up at AfDs and make no substantial statement about how the article meets (or doesn't meet) policy, their !votes will not be taken into serious consideration. Anyone participating in that project will soon learn what is worth working on. Looking at ], some are saved; some are deleted, some are merged--just as would be expected. | |||
| :The main area of contention at the moment is the individual Tuskegee Airmen--results at AfD seem to be variable , and it would be good to have a discussion somewhere in order to get consensus on the standards to be used. | |||
| :looking to see who else in the project !voted is meaningless--there are a great many members, most of who are listed to indicate their general support, but, like me, never look at their lists. As background, in 2006-7 there was very great variation in AfDs, much more than at presen; we all were still trying to find practical interpretations of the written criteria. There were at the time some editors repeatedly listing articlews for deletion until they by chance got deleted, and there was a need to encourage each other to opppose them. Most members signed up around that time. --''']''' (]) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|DGG}} Thanks DGG - I do respect your measured response, and loved your statement in there. From what I see many of the AfDs suffer from lack of participation. When I participated in FOOTY AfDs I realized there was a core that made their own local consensus on every one and ivoted without regard for the guideline. it was a loser so I stopped. I experience the same underwhelming participation in GEO articles. Usually three guys turn up and they have like minds. They are not wrong on GEO, but lately I have disagreed about notability of cemeteries. Sadly there is not a guideline for them. Many things should be deleted and I get that. ] (]) 20:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tqq|If people show up at AfDs and make no substantial statement about how the article meets (or doesn't meet) policy, their !votes will not be taken into serious consideration.}} We like to think that, we like to say it, but in reality it doesn't happen. And when it does happen (discounting of votes leading to a close against the majority), that gets DRV'd, and those DRVs also get ARS'd, eg ]. ] 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah… that isn’t exactly how !vote works. Because, y’know, who gets to decide one argument is more valid than the other in that case? A self-appointed closer? It’s based off consensus, which very much correlates with the numbers. Often you can sway the numbers with a convincing argument (given large enough participation), but in small sample sizes, eh… e: Although I agree that there are times you’ll see a closer who is willing to defy the numbers substantially, when warranted. Sometimes it’s allowed to stick. But such closers aren’t necessarily common ] (]) 20:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Obviiously, what counts as policy-based argument can be a matter of dispute. In contested AfDs, usually we do accept a bald statement of a reason unless its part of a group of identical statements. This does give some weight to the number of people, and the dependence of afd -- and WP decisions generally-- upon the self-selection of whoever chooses to !vote is one of the weaknesses of the system, but it is difficult to think of an alternative. However, any close that says it is based upon pure vote counting where the result is clearly contrary to policy should be appealed to del rev. -- Del Rev should be getting considerably more business. ''']''' (]) 21:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) � ''']''' (]) 21:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * There seems to be some stress here on looking editor's history of keep versus delete versus keep votes. Depending on how one tackles AFD, that's not going to tell much. Personally (and unlike many here), I oppose anyone voting one way or another without a good series of Internet searches - 5 minutes minimum, perhaps a lot longer; I think AGF requires that much study into any AFD. There seems to be to many people who'll vote Delete, without much thought. And too many AFDs to ever look at. If I've got time to start looking at AFDs, and at first blush I think it's a delete, I'm not bothering to do enough to cast a vote. If I start researching deeper, and it's likely going to end a delete, I stop. It's only if I take a really deep dive, and conclude it's a delete, that I cast a Delete vote (more often or not, it's only iffy, and then I don't vote, or only comment). It's only when I suspect that there's something really fishy (like people who never actually existed, etc.), that I bother to research enough to do a delete. I don't find deleting a lot of stubs helps the project much. So I focus on what I think should be kept. There's no doubt then that my votes are definitely skewed keep. As I've said before - those that manage to do 30 delete votes in 20 minutes without researching them are a bigger issue. I think this has gone far enough, and should be closed. With no prejudice against future ANI discussions about individual editors (though to me, a lot of the claims above seem cherry-picked and trumped up - like minded people who follow the same lists, might well look like they are block voting - that doesn't mean they are block voting). I don't see how this is anywhere close to being ArbCom worthy at this point.] (]) 00:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with multiple editors above, one editor's actions are far more egregious than the other three listed (despite some minor disagreements I have a lot of respect one of their number), I think a detailed review of the most egregious member's conduct is warranted, either here or at a higher more structured venue. But ... comment sums up the ARS approach, {{tq|Afds are all about who shows up}}, and as has been shown repeatedly above canvassing undoubtedly occurs on the ARS rescue list, and then the core ARS membership frequently swamp a discussion with ]s (not ]s). I too think this has repeatedly proven too hard for the community to resolve so ARBCOM is now likely the appropriate venue. ] (]) 02:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| ::And further, as the core ARS membership have never admitted any fault in any of their actions they should welcome this. ] (]) 02:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| :::{{tq|Afds are all about who shows up}} aren't they? I just demonstrated that in Footy and GEO. If you think one, two or four guys can disrupt the project you have not followed AfD. I deletion sort so I see all the AfDs that come through. My point in saying that was clear by a full reading of the AfD. Tendentious - bludgeoning, by me too probably. And I was finally saying that was enough of our back and forth: Maybe do not cherry pick the one line, it deserves context. Your argument is nonsense if anyone reads the page {{tq2| It is all about who shows up and who cares enough to research beyond- the refs are weak...delete. This kind of "yes it is..no it's not" back and forth is mind numbing ...As I said above, you and I are at loggerheads. We cannot agree to apply policy instead of an essay. And we need to wait to see who shows. That is all that matters.}} ] (]) 02:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * In 2019 a few editors (including myself) suggested changes to address canvassing concerns: , , , . These proposals were met with personal attacks, defensiveness and a refusal to address the concerns of editors who were not ARS participants so I've tried to steer clear of the project since then. To their credit the more recent entries have been written as requests for article improvement rather than explicit requests for Keep !votes, but this discussion makes it clear that the battleground mentality is still there and legitimate concerns are still being dismissed as nonsense. Although a good idea in theory, ARS functions as a meeting place for editors who bring unnecessary drama to AfD and create work for others who must deal with their fallacious arguments and bad sourcing. Shutting down ARS would allow members to do their article improvement work without all the drama, which seems like a win-win. Editor behavior should also be addressed on an individual basis. –] ] 03:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *All this project seems to do is impart its participants with an attitude of superiority (e.g. framing deletion !voters as "destroying the encyclopedia") and an often-successful pathway to garnering a numerical advantage in keep !votes (refbombing either the discussion or the article itself). The latter is especially problematic as it muddies the perception of sourcing for later AfD participants and forces someone else to review all the new refs for quality and coverage, which are often decidedly not met. While both these behaviors can and would happen without ARS, I think the existence of the group only encourages behavior that, to many new editors and the outside media, would appear to be officially sanctioned by wikipedia. ] (]) 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. <b>]</b> ] | ] 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Possible solution proposal: Should a <s>SysOp</s> ArbCom be the one to give the final word?=== | |||
| With what is being discussed and the fact that currently all of the final decisions and the outcome's actions are done by an Admin, I think it is time to place some form of higher balance of power into those to discussion boards. I propose that a <s>SysOp</s> ArbCom should now become the one to give the final word, and do the final action, as I never have heard of a <s>SysOp</s> ArbCom breaking the rules or being unjust. <s>Although they are a type of Admin, they at least are more cautious of their actions when compared to other admins.</s> ] (]) 01:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Admins to not have the authority to supervote in the manner you are suggesting. ] ] 01:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{reply to|Pppery}}If not then where should this proposal discussion be? Or are you referring to something else when you say "supervote"? ] (]) 02:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*You stated: "I never have heard of a SysOp breaking the rules or being unjust." I can't tell if you are joking or not. ] 02:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|Dream Focus}} I am not joking. Even if there were such incidents, then it must be a lot less often than that of admins breaking rules or being unjust. This is because the process for being a SysOp is much harder, and SysOp applicants are more scrutinized than that of Admin applicants. ] (]) 02:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::A SysOP is an administrator. ] reads at sentence one: ''Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Misplaced Pages editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Misplaced Pages.'' ] 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|Dream Focus}} Well then, still although they are administrators, those with the title of SysOp usually do act with more caution then regular admins. ] (]) 02:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can you link to someone with that title? Are you thinking of Arbcom? ] 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{reply to|Dream Focus}} You were right, my bad, 🤦♂️. I mixed up a lot of user levels and privileges. Came back to Misplaced Pages editing after almost a year. I mixed up SysOp with CheckUser, and thought CheckUser was a different level. But yes, you got what I was looking for, ArbCom. Fixed the title of this sub-section as well. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. :) ] (]) 03:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I think what you're looking for is ]. In this case either ArbCom ''or'' the community could authorize discretionary sanctions that would allow admins to act fairly unilaterally. In that case, an admin could restrict ARS participants from !voting in AFDs, etc., crack down on continued disruptive beahvior, etc. | |||
| :For what it's worth, there is a multi-pronged aspect that makes this difficult when summarizing this ANI post: | |||
| :#First, members of ARS have had serious behavior problems individually, usually hallmark tendentiousness that wastes community time. That's where the focus on individual behavior comments come in over focusing on the group. | |||
| :#The ARS group is also serving as a focusing point for that behavior, so the group itself is part of the disruptive behavior. In many ways, it is easier for the community to place restrictions on the group as a whole because of that because of how intertwined that has become. | |||
| :#Others like ] how the group is very different than other Wikiprojects in that it has a stated goal of "rescuing" articles that in practice can often be at odds with policy as it isn't really a disinterested party like a noticeboard might be. Good at times, but also easily abused as we've seen in practice with includes things like votestacking, canvassing, and refbombing AFDs as I've seen described here and witnessed myself too often. There is definitely something inherent to the group that can quickly turn disruptive if not managed carefully, almost to a similar parallel to how we treat ]. | |||
| :I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the ] or looking at the ]? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion. | |||
| :That's why at this point, it does seem like it would reduce disruption for the community by enacting restrictions related to the group as a whole, which the community can do since 1 above so far hasn't been addressed very well by community discussions. Here's the options we seem to have left: | |||
| :Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. <b>]</b> ] | ] 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is guidance on how to use the {{tlx|Talk header}} found on its documentation page at ] and also at ]. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in ] and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like ], ], ], ], ] for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at ] or ]. -- ] (]) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with ], but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get ] article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. <b>]</b> ] | ] 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|5}} Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- ] (]) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. <b>]</b> ] | ] 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#'''Delete the project through ].''' There is guidance specific to Wikiprojects there, so it would be the correct venue. Part of that guidance says {{tq|It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted . . .}} That does not say must, and ] is the overriding policy. If there is consensus on the community that the project has become a net negative sink for the community and deletion is best, then it can simply be done. If consensus is that it's a problem, but the project should be made inactive without posts allowed (essentially perma page protection), that too can be done. This would be the sixth MFD though. It could be worth a shot, but the history means the remaining choices would be valid. | |||
| ::Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you {{tq|absolutely agree with}} isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- ] (]) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#'''Community imposed discretionary sanctions on ARS participants'''. As mentioned above, the community could hand this to admins to impose specific editing restrictions, more easily enforce blocks, bans, etc. like we do in other areas where people are expected to be on better behavior rather than doubling down. We could also just directly authorize a narrow editing restriction here that participants of the project must not !vote at AfDs, etc. There's been some discussion on that already, so someone better versed in that than me '''is free to directly propose a broad vs. narrow sanction in a new section that could bring this ANI to a natural close'''. | |||
| :::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :#'''ArbCom'''. They can either impose discretionary sanctions themselves, propose specific remedies, or both. Considering MFD has been tried multiple times, and dealing with problematic projects is not something the community can easily do, this would be a valid time for ArbCom to take it up. Someone could try MFD one more time independently of all this, but if someone proposes a community authorized sanction and it fails at this ANI, then ArbCom would be the only choice left. | |||
| :That's enough text from me, but this section does bring up the point that we're practically at the point the discretionary sanctions are the only way to handle it unless the MfD route bears some fruit after a sixth nom. ] (]) 06:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Discretionary sanctions helps with volume. There is no volume problem here, there's just no consensus of what solution to go for, and perhaps not even consensus that there's a problem. Someone needs to clearly lay out the problem from the massive wall of text above, and from there a solution can be devised. It could be that there is no problem here, it could be that the project is fundamentally flawed and needs to be disbanded, or it could be that certain participants are the problem and require individual sanctions. ] (]) 13:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Discretionary sanctions helps with volume. There is no volume problem here}} the recurrent issues at AFDs say otherwise, especially with the under the radar sniping, etc. (though often not really under the radar honestly), canvassing, etc. At this point though, no one should really be arguing there isn't consensus there are serious problems within the group. That's well documented already. The issue is what remedy is needed or really feasible at this point. As already described above, it's not an either or issue. There are issues with the group as a whole and issues with individuals within. Neither can be ignored at this point. ] (]) 18:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply to|ProcrastinatingReader}}The problem the OP raised, is a problem that has diverse points of views that sometimes are conflicting with others point of view of the problem, and that is the main problem. One person may view the problem as specific users are only causing the problem, while another person may view the problem as systemic in the AfD noticeboard itself. The only people known to be able to fix and rectify problems like these are ArbCom. However, as it was stated at multiple points in the wall of text above, this problem had been found multiple times in the past and were fixed. Nevertheless, it seems the problem just keeps coming back. Thus the only fix as I stated in the begining of this sub-section, is for ArbCom members to be the final ones to give the decisions on discussions on AfD and ARS, and also to be the ones to carry out the task decided by that final decision. This makes it unlikely for the problem to come back up again. ] (]) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::We need sanctions against at least one member of the project who is disrupting deletions in a ] way, and ArbCom is the way to do it. I don't think the community at AN(I) is able to review the evidence of disruption, plus ArbCom's evidence page is a better place to present said evidence. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 13:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Well ... look. We are now seeing proposals to tban the most egregious ARS offenders from the deletion process. And that's not only the right thing to do, it's the only method of producing concrete improvements to the situation. Because whatever some of us think about ARS -- and trust me, I think no better of them than the most militant of you do -- "banning" the group is not only the wrong thing to do, it's a futile thing to do.<p>In the first instance, to remove ARS is to tacitly claim that every single member of it is disruptive and acting in bad faith. No one has proven anything of the sort, and that's a tough charge to sustain. I would want to see some vast evidence for it.<p>In the second instance, as others have said, it just won't work. The group can go underground or off-wiki, and no one could do a thing about that. Or they can simply pop up again with a shiny new acronym, and no one could do a thing about that either. Some ARS members are talking about a witchhunt. The best way to scotch that charge is not to have one. ] 21:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|This thread is more than long enough without pointless side conversations. --] (]) 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| *COMMENT: On what basis do editors believe that ARS is a WikiProject? ]] 07:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **They do call themselves the very first line on their front page. {{tq|Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron (ARS)}}. It differs from most in that proper Wikiprojects are dedicated to improving articles in one subject area, and the ARS are neither focused on a precise subject nor on article improvement: a dedication to "keepkeepkeepkeepkeep" at all costs isn't about improvement. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:Despite how they might badge and categorise themselves, they do not appear to be . ]] 10:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::A WikiProject is, really, just a group of editors with a certain shared purpose (usually the development of articles relating to a certain subject matter, but not necessarily). ] is a WikiProject, as such. ] (]) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::{{reply to|William Harris}} Just asking, is that a valid source to find a list of WikiProjects? The webpage does not seem to be from the Misplaced Pages domain name. ] (]) 21:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:::Please refer to ], the Bambot option. Just because a page in mainspace is tagged with the category "WikiProject" does not make it a WikiProject - I can do that on my User page. ]] 21:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::::Whether or not a bot picked up the project, they most definitely are one. ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::::It's also listed on the automatic list, ]. ] 19:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::Those two are listings are based on the category tag "WikiProject" - I can place that on my User page and have it included on those lists as well. ]] 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Non-neutral paid editor == | |||
| ===Example of how it should be done=== | |||
| ] was nominated for deletion, and marked for help at the Rescue Squadron by Andrew. I, Lightburst, and 7&6=thirteen went and helped him work on it. The article's nominator, Platonk, also did some work on it. Discussions in the ] happened on how to make improvements, no one just showing up to spam delete because of its condition at the time. The nominator then withdrew the nomination praising the "wonderful effort and a great result" of the work done on the article in the past 24 hours. I wish I had a list of how many times we've done things like this, but alas, never thought to make one. For years now this has happened. If anyone sees other examples of this, please post them here. ] 20:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * "How it should be done" versus "how it's often actually done" is kind of the problem here, and how that balances in terms of disrupting the community. -] (]) 21:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Not to mention that examples from after this ANI and the scrutiny started are completely irrelevant. My guess is that it will be either crickets when it comes to examples from before the ANI, or if they do materialize, they will be extremely cherry picked and completely miss-characterized. Also it's a little weird that you want examples of "how it should be done" when no one from ARS thinks there's an issue with it in the first place. Including you. If that's the case wouldn't every example be of "how it should be done"? --] (]) 22:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| @] is heavily editing ] in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As has been said repeatedly, ''it all depends on whoever shows up.'' If you have an opinion about an article, go and say something policy-based. If those who are unhappy do not even bother to appear, I do not see how they can complain about the consensus of the editors who do. | |||
| :And if you see bad articles and think they won't be deleted, try to improve them. Until you've tried, how can you be certain that they're bad? The strongest arguement for deletion , is that "I tried to fix it by looking at the appropriate sources and rewriting the pifle, and I found it couldn't be done." Of course, you may encounter someone who tried harder. Either way, you'll learn how to improve articles. The people I've learned from here have been my opponents. --''']''' (]) 22:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)`` | |||
| ::And what you're bringing up as being said repeatedly is woefully inappropriate. When editors or a group are disruptive and a timesink for the community, editors are not told to spend even more time holding them at bay while trying to deal with bludgeoning, canvassing, or battleground behavior. That is what sanctions are for so the community doesn't have to constantly show up for repeated disruption. | |||
| ::The whole point of this ANI is that community processes are being disrupted, and to instead paint a caricature of unhappy people not bothering to appear at AfDs is pretty insulting to those that have tried to deal with this problem. ] (]) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::To which I'd add: while it's generally true that AFDs are decided by whoever shows up, if the problem is a group of editors showing up and disrupting the AFDs (e.g., non-policy-based arguments, poor sources, incivility, bludgeoning), ''one way'' to solve that problem is to have ''more'' editors show up and make policy-based arguments, as DGG suggests. This ''increases'' the amount of editor time required per AFD. ''Another way'' to solve the problem is to remove the disruption in the first place, which ''decreases'' the amount of editor time required per AFD. I think the latter is better. ] 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, its like editors who take an article that ended in Keep, and renominated it for deletion less than a day after the previous AFD closed. Lot of time wasted because of things like that. ] 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply to|Dream Focus}} I wrote this somewhere else in the wall of text, but I am going to be concise here referencing it again. There was an AfD discussion that ended up in keep, even though the article was backed by very poor sources. These sources were YouTube videos made by the subject of the article, a newspaper article from a website where users are able to make article by making an account, and a gaming news blog website. What you are saying is that all decisions at AfD should be full and final and no one should put up a very poorly sourced article again in AfD relatively soon. What I just described is similar to the problems which are being described here. ] (]) 00:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Note this also an example of an article nominated for deletion 38 minutes after it was created then massively expanded and improved upon by members of the Article Rescue Squadron. The original nominator withdrew their nomination based on the improvements made. The article was then mentioned on ''Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 March 2020'' ] 23:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, ], ], and ], are good examples of how ARS is used to push ]. There are others like ] and ]. But those are old now. ] 23:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The ] AfD is a perfect example of why ARS and it's members are problematic and should be dealt with. --] (]) 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}} This comment is classic ]. ARS isn't at ANI for when it has done good, but the problems it is causing. ] (]) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits: | |||
| *My main problem here is that ARS seems immune to admitting where they were wrong about something, and deciding to not repeat it again. Most if not all ARS members have been here for years and should know better than using Find-A-Grave or blogs as sources (as one example) or should also be sure to check that the source they list (and page numbers) actually discusses the topic at hand. Even if it only happens to 1/3 of the articles they rescue, they should know better. And it seems all we're met with is ]. -] (]) 02:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals. | |||
| :* The OP's claim and complaint was that the ARS is all about canvassing. ] is described above as the "perfect example". But notice that, even though there were back-to-back AfDs, that I didn't attend either of them. When are the complainers going to admit that they were wrong about something? | |||
| :* Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity. | |||
| :: What's actually going on is that there is a fairly small pool of AfDs – about 100/day – and a similar small pool of editors who regularly attend them. Naturally, you often see the same editors again and again. For example, yesterday I took my wife to the hospital for a test. The nurse exclaimed that they had the same birthday but this is a very common coincidence. See the ]. | |||
| :* - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted. | |||
| :: ]🐉(]) 09:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing. | |||
| :::I said its a perfect example of why ARS and its members are an issue. A basic reading through this ANI complaint makes it clear that canvasing isn't the only problem. Or am I wrong about that? On the "you often see the same editors again and again" thing, no you don't. Even if you did though, there's a big difference between your wife and the nurse being the same room randomly and having same birthday, versus say them being in the same place with the same birthdate because you put an add on Craiglist inviting everyone with the same birthdate as her to her birthday party. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one of those scenarios is relevant to the voting habits of ARS members and which isn't. --] (]) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably ]. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. ] (]) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't disagree that canvassing is a part of the issue but I don't think deleting the forum where canvassing takes place is ultimately going to be very effective: I'm quite sure that LB is capable of checking in on Andrew's contributions or scanning the list of recent AfDs or whatever, and so are the rest of them. In my opinion, it would probably be more effective to restrict the most problematic 1 or 2 ARS members (most aggressive canvasser, but more most NPA violations / highest hostility levels) from deletion entirely (via either a TBan or a block). I mean, there's no reason it has to be either-or instead of both-and, but it would be nice not to let the other (more?) serious issue go untreated. --] (]) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Indeed. As I said before, I don't consider canvassing to be an issue here, but " NPA violations / highest hostility levels" are a major problem. Everyone and their dog should be allowed to participate in AfDs - as long as their comments are constructive, not ]-encouraging, toxic and/or pure noise (keep because googlehits, etc.). I'll also add that IMHO it's just a tiny number of editors who have fallen to those abusive behaviors, and it is sad to see them dragging this otherwise noble project down and giving it a bad name. Cleaning up the house is in everyone's best interest here. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 13:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] reasons for them. | |||
| ::::::Frankly, there was never anything "noble" about ARS. It was created back in the "inclusionists vs deletionists" days, when people hated each other based on the (perceived) views of what belonged on the Wiki. ARS was very much in the extreme inclusionist camp from the start, arguing to keep '''everything''' added to the wiki. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::#By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as ''"has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world"'' and ''"The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality"'' + ''"The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"?'' Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate ] and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a '''very''' strong statement cited to..., seemingly not even peer-reviewed. | |||
| :::::::{{green|"when people hated each other based on the (perceived) views of what belonged on the Wiki"}}, after reading the massive wall of text in this discussion, I don't think that has changed at all, except for the fact that ARS appears to have fewer supporters from the wider community in the present. ] (]) 18:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::#Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally ], and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. '''If''' that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, '''then''' it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it. | |||
| ::::::::Or just people see a massive wall of text and ignore it. Or that the supporters got mad with all the stuff they liked getting deleted over the years, and just edit wikia/fandom now. Most of those complaining are familiar names seen arguing with us in AFDs far too often over the years. ] 20:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::#Do you '''really''' think phrases like ''"China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments."'' are consistent with ]? '''Really?''' ''Maybe'' cutting '''all''' of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that. | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Dream Focus}} Spot on! There are many examples of ], ], ], and ], occurring in AfD articles, or the article talk pages. ] (]) 00:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::# That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently . It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary. | |||
| ::::::::::There's nothing wrong with people contributing fan articles that don't belong here to other projects. --] (]) 02:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably ]" seems downright ]. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * When the ARS are working constructively they can be a real force for good, but when certain members decide not be be constructive (and I do not count all four in this), they can display ] tendencies. Examples have been shown above of them cite bombing articles with utterly junk “sources” then edit warring them back in when attempts are made to remove them. Or refusing to actually discuss said “sources” when attempts are made to, instead giving utterly inane responses like {{tq|I disagree with your assessment}} and {{tq|I've already expressed my opinion}}. Perhaps a 1RR restriction on some of the member’s edits in articles under discussion would fix this, forcing them to then engage in constructive discussion. ] (]) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| :::Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns ? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a ] and ] manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that ] is supposed to prevent. --] (]) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: An article 1RR would not address the important problems, which have to do with behavior in discussions. --] (]) 20:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like ], you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't ''bad'' by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply ''not good enough'' or ''relevant enough'' for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards. | |||
| :::It could be extended to the AfD discussion, if a clearly rubbish source is provided as “proof” of notability (or upon verification it is found to be misattributed), another can remove it and discussion could occur on the AfD TP. ] (]) 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Given ''this'' context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not ''obligated'' to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. ] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Cavalryman}}, This is why I think we need ArbCom page where we can present evidence against particular users. I, for one, haven't seen much junk refs added to an article, only junk refs (mostly offtopic or SICOV-failing google hits) added to the AfD, coupled with an attitude that's dismissive/condescending at best aimed towards the nominator, as well as occasional mass deprodding with no evidence that the deprodded read the prod summary or did any BEFORE on their own (although I'll note that this is not required, so from the strict technical sense, mass deproddings by the so-called "PROD patrol" are fine, even if a "PROD patroller" is a clear inclusionist indiscriminately deprodding anything in sight). Add to this occasion removals of notability and other maintenance templates with no edit summary either... For this, 1RR is not relevant, what is needed is some sort of topic ban. Again, it is likely we are talking here about behavior of different ARS users, which has different levels of severity and requires different sanctions (and IMHO neither of those translates into the clear need to deprecaite ARS itself). Hence, my strong belief that ArbCom is needed, to review behavior of various users. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 09:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @]'s paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @] provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/ | |||
| *::We wouldn't need an Arbcom page at this stage. We'd need an AN/I about each problem user, with diffs. If AN/I can't resolve the problems, then Arbcom might be a possibility.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. ] (]) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] The problem is that in the past, the user I am concerned with was subject to several AN(I) discussions that IIRC were mostly inclusive, maybe with one ending with a warning for civility at best (I'd have to double check). While I could try to make the case that their behavior has kept on deteriorating into more conflict-generating, IMHO that behavior was already bad enough in the past - but AN(I) did little to put a dent in it. And now that we may want to review behavior of several more editors, plus whether the entire ARS project is not violatating some policies, I think this is big enough we need ArbCom's touch as the matter is too complex for AN(I). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Adding'': Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 ] (]) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Piotrus}}, apologies for my late response, I have been enjoying freedoms gained after the world’s longest covid lockdown. The discussion has obviously moved beyond this, but as indicated above I think ARBCOM is a good idea. Further, if I were in the position of the ARS I would be seeking it, as surely they believe they will be vindicated by the process. ] (]) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC). | |||
| *An editor with a declared COI should ''never'' be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the {{tq|strongly discouraged}} wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I have started such a section below for the user I find most problematic. Let's see if this solves anything. At least now that I wrote this up, my future if-needed ArbCom evidence is mostly ready to copypaste... :P <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 11:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:] So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this {{redacted|]}}? | |||
| :::::So we are clear if an article's AFD is actually posted at ] list, the notice that it was posted is routinely placed on the discussion. It is in ALL of the discussions in which I participate. I always double check that. If it is missing, I add it. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that '''if''' is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering '''is not even seen anywhere on their front page''' - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as . The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. ] (]) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)}} - that would be wrong. See ]; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we ''want'' editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read ], and especially ] Having a ''perspective'' on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. ] editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then ] needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors. | |||
| ::::It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah ] editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that ''every'' edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it ''strictly'' barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --] (]) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's ''not'' the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change {{tq|strongly discouraged}} to {{tq|prohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)}}. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though. | |||
| ::::::Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be ''manually'' saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that {{tq|editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests}} - but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I ''need'' to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to ''this'' case, rather than a general statement. | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tqq|So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this}} Uh, guys? Does ] mean nothing to you? - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Well, this is proving useful, I see=== | |||
| *:@] - I think that '''sanction should be swiftly applied'''. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. ] ] 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Proposals to topic-ban certain editors from certain areas, mainly because they are part of a canvassing team voting ''en masse'' on AfDs, is promptly voted on ''en masse'' by said editors and their ARS fellow travellers. If you ''actually'' want to do anything about this problem, ArbCom is the only venue, for that exact reason. ] 18:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: {{ping|InformationToKnowledge}}, '''do not''' attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with ''anyone's'' real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Eh, I say give it more than a day as I have faith in our colleagues' abilities to close discussions. (And maybe we could merge these subsections into one discussion subsection?) ] 19:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *And why can't the person who closes this discussion just weigh the arguments and make a decision. If there's no consensus, that's when arbcom should ''enter'' the discussion IMO, and not before. In general, I think it just adds noise to these noticeboard threads when people throw their hands up part-way in, when proposals are still being developed, splintering the discussion to include "go to arbcom" as a viable outcome. "Go to arbcom" shouldn't be an outcome at ANI; it should be what happens when everyone tries their hardest to resolve things at ANI and fails. If a bunch of people decide it's not even worth it to try, that more or less ensures that ANI will fail. Meh. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|And why can't the person who closes this discussion just weigh the arguments and make a decision.}} ] or ] illustrate why it's not always so simple. In all honesty though, that's likely backfiring here and instead creating an ample ] situation they are putting themselves into. The issue is how much effort it takes for the community to sort through all that at AfD or here, which is where I can see Black Kite's frustration coming from. ] (]) 03:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the ''principles of privacy'' still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. ] ] 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|Black Kite}} Yes, it has produced en masse voting by said editors; but after 23 hours they're outnumbered roughly 2-to-1 in the section <s>above</s> <u>concerning Lightburst</u>. Perhaps you should add your voice there, as well. --] (]) 00:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Could we get an edit to ] for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. ] (]) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I've done so. I'm still unconvinced that this is the best way to approach it, however. ] 18:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I tend to agree. This very much looks like something for ArbCom. I doubt any admin will even ''want'' to close this monster of a discussion. I certainly won't be reading the whole damn thing. Arbcom cases have word limits to stop this sort of insanely long debate. ] (]) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From recent experience, I tried to to shortcut the traffic on ANI. The result was there was a general consensus that the community ''should'' be given the opportunity to let these threads pan out, no matter how long and tedious they get, and only defer to Arbcom if nobody can agree on closing anything. ] ] ] 21:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Some of the editors who are suggesting this thread should be closed because it's unwieldy are also adding new subsections to this thread. ] 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Aye. Well, let's see where it goes, and if we end up in the usual "meh" situation, ArbCom is still an option. I've added my comments to the subsections, and those paying full attention will not that they're not all the same, either. ] 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I've skimmed most of the discussion and would be willing to close it. I'd want to give it more time since the two most recent proposals were recent, so I can probably close everything on Wednesday assuming no one proposes anything new or substantial. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 23:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:In a couple days you shouldn't have to worry about it, as the mass and density of discussion will likely cause it to implode and form a singularity. If we're lucky, it may take all of ANI with it when it goes. ] (]) 23:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::I fear we have crossed the ] ] and observers may be affected. ] 04:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** That cite sounds like something Andrew would say at ARS. ] (]) 04:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === ] back to Andrewjlockley === | |||
| === Best solution of all. Close this, and open a discussion about this at ArbCom noticeboard. === | |||
| :I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. '''However''', that does not change the fact she has been one of a '''literal handful''' of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in ] over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen. | |||
| It seems that this discussion about something serious is not getting anywhere on ANI. Usually when something serious is going nowhere on ANI, it is closed and the problem is brought up to ArbCom (one-level above ANI). Seriously, I do not think this discussion on ANI is going to get anywhere due to conflict of interest, as many of those with power at AfD and ARS usually are Admins. It's like we here at ANI are asking Admins to solve problems with Admins. In my opinion, even if there are Admins at ArbCom, they usually are not the ones who will have a conflict of interest. Therefore, it would be wise to close this thread, and inform ArbCom to make a discussion on their noticeboard, about the issue. That or, just move this entire Wall-o'-Monster to ArbCom. I am more keen on the first one. ] (]) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :With that in mind, I would like to say I have '''great''' difficulty assuming ] here - not when the OP editor {{redacted|]}}, which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective '''and''' when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report. | |||
| :I tend to agree with your assessment. What happens at ANI is we get a ] and many ivotes are colored by old grievances and perceived slights - evidenced by the discussion and diffs from two years ago etc. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but ANI is for stopping an immediate disruption, and ARB is for persistent disruption. For my part I will stop all editing on the project while this is debated or arbitrated. ] (]) 19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the ], the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does. | |||
| :P.S. This is '''really''' not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::With the greatest of respect @], your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @], or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether ] had a conflict of interest when they edited ], which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. ] (]) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself. | |||
| :::All of this is pertinent. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that {{noping|EMSmile}} has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that {{noping|Andrewjlockley}} is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. ] concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too. | |||
| ::::The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If {{noping|InformationToKnowledge}} is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be ''they both should be'' though. | |||
| ::::Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. ] (]) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. ] ] 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please reread ], and especially ]. The suggestion that being a ''published academic on a subject'' constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of ], which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--] (]) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::as per {{redacted|]}} is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech. | |||
| :::Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. ] (]) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to ]. ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse. | |||
| ::: | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? ] (]) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. ] (]) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of ] before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? ] (]) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for ] that arises as a result. | |||
| ::::::*With regards to ] has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the ). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner? | |||
| ::::::*AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for ''more'' SRM research in their day job {{redacted|encouragement of ]}}. Also, ] explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be ''against'' doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well? | |||
| ::::::*I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by ] on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides). | |||
| ::::::*Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). ] (]) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery or], but I'll respond anyway. | |||
| ::::::::I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm. | |||
| ::::::::Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way ] (]) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wish to clarify the relationship between the (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG. | |||
| :::::Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was , for ten years, and is the l. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is , one of five authors of , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of . By quick count, of the other 14 authors on , one other is on the governing board, at least eight are , at least two are , and one is among . | |||
| :::::In the other direction, of ESG's , eight have signed the . | |||
| :::::The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. ] (]) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@], would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? ] ] 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine. | |||
| ::::::For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an ''oversight'' on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The problem as I see it is that AfD is an adversial process which, by its nature, tends to generate conflict rather than collaboration. It has always been this way and that's why we have a long-standing article about ]. I was looking at that recently and found an based on a study of about 2 million AfDs from 2005 to 2018. You can read it for yourself but what stuck out for me were the following points: | |||
| *:This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. ] ] 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that {{user|EMsmile}} has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is '''also not on'''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::... gonna ask in talk page of ] if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point ] (]) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::], I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{ping|Liz}} the diff of them ''placing'' it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named ], then it constitutes ] (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at ] think it would be easier to avoid. | |||
| *:::::opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases. | |||
| *:::::alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? ] (]) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on ] of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant ] and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't ] people or contacting their employers. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# "''AfD participants cluster in two major groups, colloquially referred to as the ‘inclusionists’ ... and the ‘deletionists’ ..., which suggest the presence of substantial social bias in the AfD process overall.''" | |||
| *:@] I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# "''the administrators who close the discussions do have an effect on the final outcome.''" | |||
| *::This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# "'' there are strongly polarized groups in the AfD community, and that the evolution of group structure in different cohorts of editors reflects different historical periods''" | |||
| *:::I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding. | |||
| ::# "''In particular, we find that one group (strong deletionists) is much less susceptible to change than others.''" | |||
| *:::Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts. | |||
| ::# "''the proportion of Delete to Keep votes is roughly 68%, while for outcomes it is 77%. This suggests that delete votes are more decisive.''" | |||
| *:::BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# "''4 main groups, roughly corresponding to the following classes of users: a) strong deletionists, b) moderate deletionists, c) moderate inclusionists and d) strong inclusionists.''" | |||
| *::::i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point, | |||
| ::# "''Editors who joined before 2007 tend to overwhelmingly belong to the more central parts of the network. These earlier cohorts are not only formed by more experienced and more active editors, but they are also the largest''" | |||
| *::::the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous. | |||
| ::# "''Editors involved in AfD discussions adapt to a particular voting tendency early during their tenure in the AfD process. This is reminiscent of results from prior work, that found that highly active contributors are active from a very early stage. In the context of AfD discussions, this finding could potentially suggest the presence of social learning mechanisms, for example due to imitation. Also, strong deletionists seem more resistant to changing their opinions compared to other groups. More generally, an interesting open question is to determine which stable user characteristics in peer production systems are due to learning phenomena or to the presence of inherent individual traits.''" | |||
| *::::AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. ] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia. | |||
| *:::::Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Does Wikimedian in Residence apply? === | |||
| : So far as this discussion is concerned, the relevant point is that editors seem to form clusters on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. And, of course, the strong inclusionists won't tend to get along with the strong deletionists. That's all we're seeing here – a natural antagonism which is generated by the process. It's a structural, systematic issue. | |||
| EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] seems analagous to . See also ]. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no ]. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. ] (]) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? ] (]) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : ]🐉(]) 19:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate you citing a quality source, and providing quotatiosn - if only you could do this at AfDs. Regardless, a structural, systemic issuse needs to be addressed by the community. And sometimes the solution is to change policies (like, let's say, requiring deprods to have informative edit summaries) and/or force editors who commonly disregard some policcies (like CIV, AGF, etc.) to follow them, through various sanctions. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :My situation is totally different to @]. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @] adjusting the page '''to favour her client''' (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. ] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Looking over the two proposals ArbCom might be the answer for 7&6=thirteen, but there seems to be a clear consensus to topic ban Lightburst. Either way I don't see why both proposals can't play out first though. There isn't any evidence that it's something ANI is completely unable to deal with. I'm sure the closer will consider the COIs with ARS members. As well as taking other relevant factors into account. If not, then IMO that's when ArbCom would be appropriate. --] (]) 22:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the ] article ]. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per ]. | |||
| ::{{ping|Adamant1}} Right, that sounds legit. Cancel the opposition. I am sure you know that a good closer will weigh the arguments and not just head count. It might also be a conflict of interest for those who support my ouster who are still smarting over something from years ago. All that matters at ANI is whether there is an immediate disruption and can it be corrected. The choice should be for the least possible non punitive means of stopping the disruption. Not cancelling people without a warning. Here is an example of a PA against me at AfD an admin had to because the user would not allow me to strike it. Then he added a second PA. Nobody is warning them or threatening to tban them even though they bludgeoned multiple AfDs. i think we are all on the same side, and working toward the same goal. I have owned my behavior, and I think we all should. ] (]) 01:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding ]- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this. | |||
| :::And if you can believe it, . Remember it is not a PA if it insults an ARS member ] (]) 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. ] (]) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Doubling (tripling?) down on your persecution complex isn’t helping your case. ] (]) 01:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. ] (]) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the record, his account isn't very accurate. The so-called 'personal attack' was me asking him not to be willfully ignorant after he distorted a statement of mine. The admin only deleted the conversation ''after'' I launched the second so-called 'personal attack', when I asked him to stop 'acting like an immature child' after he had repeatedly ''']''' my own comment with my own signature. Sure, that second comment may have been an overreaction on my part, but your conduct was hardly exemplary either. ] (]) 02:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Avilich}} I had already forgot about it until I saw your name in here today. I was shocked to see you put it back in there today. I see the AfD closed and sadly is now the permanent record. ] (]) 02:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looks like my ] I found quite a few sources very quickly. I see it even changed someone's mind in there. AfD works like that. ] (]) 02:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Lightburst}} I went out of my way to say that the closing admin should consider other factors because I am aware that some users who are involved in this might have long-standing problems with you that might be affecting their judgement. Although, that would make sense considering how many people you've gotten into it with. I don't see that the same way as the clear bandwagoning going on by ARS members around each other though, even in crystal clear cases where the behavior was erroneous. Which IMO should be treated by the closer no differently then a nonsensical, BATTLEGROUNDish AfD vote. Neither one is "canceling" anyone. --] (]) 04:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile === | |||
| * I strongly support this, as the current discussion was nearly unreadable a full week ago, and has now progressed into total chaos. The parties here are not remotely neutral -- sure, there is a bloc of editors who tend to vote together on AfDs, who are all agreeing here about how the ARS is fine. But there is also a bloc of editors who tend to vote together on AfDs, who are all agreeing here about how the ARS is a cancer upon the project. This is not a situation that's going to improve by two armies of editors ganging up to defend themselves and balloon out AN/I to four megabytes calling the other groups "arseholes" for another (day? week? month? who knows). ''']'''×''']''' 10:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your being massively hyperbolic. No one has called anyone an "arsehole" in this discussion. You and Lightburst are literally the only people who have used the term. It's complete nonsense to say that only people who can have an opinion about this are people who haven't participated in deletion discussions. Realistically, no one is going to know enough about this to have an educated, experienced opinion except for other users who have participated in deletion discussions. --] (]) 10:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Search for it. It has been used as an insult in a different section of this long ongoing discussion as an insult to members of the ARS, and has been used previously elsewhere as well. ] 10:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::* The word that has been freely used as an insult here is "]". There's an ] issue with this as it's more common in British English than American. Per the '''' it means, "''A person's buttocks; the bottom, the backside. Also: the anus; the rectum. ... A stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person; a fool.''" So, this is clearly a ]. The fact that this insult has been permitted to stand tells us all we need to know about ] and the quality of this discussion. ]🐉(]) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I did search for it. JPxG claimed "groups" where being called "arseholes." Someone said "Project Arsehole" one time at the start of the thread and the same user said "Arse's" twice later. That's all I could find outside of the usage by JPxG and Lightburst in response to it. No one aside from the single user has said it though. So no "groups" are being called "arseholes" and it's not "freely" being used as Andrew is claiming. In the meantime how much hemming and hawing have you and other ARS members done about cherry picking? Yet you've all made this much hay out of a single comment made at the start of the discussion to try and discredit the whole thing and portray yourselves as the victims. --] (]) 10:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You also have to search for just arse. Its just Roxy the Dog doing this here as well as in past AFDs such as ] 10:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hhmmm, yeah that instance didn't come up when I searched for it. Still though, it's only one user and it isn't even that much of an insult since your project literally sounds like arse when it's abbreviated. "arseholes" shouldn't be said either way though, it's just juvenile, but I can see where someone might spell it "arse" because that's how it sounds. --] (]) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't think it's right to minimize this. Repeatedly calling ARS members "arseholes" is a level of incivility that does constitute disruptive behaviour. Luckily this is AN/I so we can hope that a sysop has spotted this and will provide the appropriate support and direction.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Adamant1|S Marshall|Dream Focus}} I linked to the ARShole moniker in the thread about me. I hesitate to bring up other folks as they will be pinged over to show their open hostility. ] (]) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Perhaps if you all weren't so completely transparent in your bloc behavior (especially repeated defenses of straightforward civility violations), people would take you more seriously when you whine about being attacked. Or, you know, you could do what I did and put together a clear, actionable complaint. --] (]) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - ArbCom is not a noticeboard for discussions. The originator of this subtopic probably means to request that the ArbCom open a full case. ] (]) 16:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Agree''' with requesting a full case. The volume of the evidence that has been entered is more appropriate to the quasi-judicial proceeding of the ArbCom than to a community decision. ] (]) 16:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} In case you were wondering: as of 11:55am central time, this thread is 52,404 words 388,321 characters. Contrast with one of my favorite novels: ] which only has 30,000 words. ] (]) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see any point to posting this to the arbcom noticeboard. A full case would be a better route. The committee uses the noticeboard as... a noticeboard. Cases are where things actually get done. ] (]) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Agree''' I don't think community input will clear things up here from what I see. It would take me hours to actually read through everything in this discussion and same goes for any other editor trying to see what's going on and pitch in. Thus, this either should go to higher ups if stronger action is taken or consider ways of wrapping it up. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** There’s definitely a consensus to topic-ban Andrew though. ] (]) 22:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* {{u|Dronebogus}} yes, and I agree with that consensus. I just think that maybe the tban proposals should be spun off to their own threads so they dont bulk up here if no clear consensus, or closed if clear consensus. It's much harder to close discussions if they're one in 8 subthreads than if they're stand-alone. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <span class="anchor" id="Tryp"></span> | |||
| *I just found out about this discussion (and am glad that I don't look at ANI more frequently than I do). It does seem to me that, once there has been enough additional time for this ANI discussion to reach an astronomical length without consensus, thereby demonstrating the community's difficulties in resolving it, that an ArbCom case with all four of the principal ARS members as named parties will be the best way to go. It really requires taking some time to look at evidence, and decide which evidence is solid and which is not. (I think that decisions here about which of the four are more disruptive are being made too quickly.) I also want to say that, some time ago, I spent a lot of effort trying to convince ARS to use ] at every XfD they list, and to adopt the wording of their Code of Conduct as it exists now. And the amount of pushback I got was... unpleasant. It was the verbal equivalent of being spat at. --] (]) 23:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:You went to a Wikiproject you have never had anything to do with, other than insulting it in many places, to edit war in changes you wanted to our code of conduct. You then told others on a talk page what you had done, with a follow up post soon after that read: "I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this." . So that's basically canvassing. You had enough people you knew hated the ARS to go over and edit war with the regular members to get something in, that was then totally ignored. If you remember where the long conversation/argument about this was at, please post a link. The edit history I linked to should show enough of what really happened. You finally gave up after a time and removed the nonsense you wanted added in, that stated that unlike other Wikiprojects, we should have to tell people we saw it listed on the Rescue list. ] 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Thank you for providing me with up-to-date evidence of your battleground conduct. And here I thought I would have to give ArbCom evidence only from some years back. But now, I have this diff. Of course, your description is inaccurate. But I'll see you at ArbCom. --] (]) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Yes, anyone disagreeing with you is doing battleground conduct. The record clearly shows the edit warring you did, gathering up like minded editors to help you win your "battle" against a Wikiproject you don't like. If it goes to ArbCom they'll read through the entire mess and see that. ] 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|'''<u>our</u>''' code of conduct}} (emphasis added){{snd}}''Our code of conduct.'' Wow. Everything you need to know about ARS is in this one diff to their "code of conduct": . This little group is sounding more and more like ] all the time. ]] 03:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::For those playing along at home, here is the edit history of the conduct template: , and here is the accompanying discussion: . --] (]) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I don't have time to read through the discussion at this point, but is there a particular reason that ARS is against using Template:Rescue list at every XfD they list? I had suggested it a couple of times myself as one of severally good faithed compromises ARS could have taken when this whole thing started and the suggestions appear to have been mostly ignored. --] (]) 02:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I always use it. Some don't, I don't know why. What he tried to edit war in was the requirement that every single person who went there told people they saw it on the Rescue list. Two totally different things here. ] 02:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hhhmmm, OK. I know it's different, but I thought I'd ask. requiring that every single person who went there told people they saw it on the Rescue list is kind of ridiculous. There should at least be a basic requirement that AfDs that get posted to ARS are notified of it though. --] (]) 02:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It's only "different" if you believe what you are being told. This is a good reason why there needs to be the more controlled process of an ArbCom case. But to answer your original question, ''currently'' the ARS people do a middling-good job of using the notification template, but when I had those discussions with them, nobody was using it, and there was immense pushback against using it, on the grounds that no one should tell them what to do and they were doing everything just right. --] (]) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also worth considering: ]. --] (]) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd just like to say that, for the moment, "move it ARBCOM" seems pointless considering the progress of the discussions of topic bans. And it would undoubtedly benefit those who are seeing more support for topic bans against them by delaying the issue. ARBCOM is supposed to resolve intractable disputes, not prolong resolution of issues where the community is taking action. -] (]) 00:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:This was started over a week ago. It is massively long and rambling. It will never end. We will go down in history as the longest pointless conversation ever long before it ends. ] 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems like were are moving towards a topic ban or two. It is somewhat convenient for the ARS crew to advocate ending the discussion now. I suppose they would recommend the Germans tell the Allies on May 7, 1945 "Ah this fighting is all pointless and is leading nowhere, why not call it a draw?" -] (]) 03:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with Indy Beetle, the discussion has spawned several proposals which are approaching consensus even if the main thread is too chaotic to close properly. A lot of editors have a lot of things to say and that's not a bad thing. If the length is causing problems, would it help to move the tban proposals to their own sections and close them separately? –] ] 03:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Andrew's proposal could almost be snow closed and clasped as an indef ban at this point. That would save a lot of space. Looking the over "votes" it's like 25 support and 4 or 5 oppose. Depending on how much weight Andrew and a few other ARS members "votes" are given it's probably less then that for the oppose side. So I don't see the outcome not being an indef ban unless something drastic happens between now and Wednesday when it sounds like the whole thing will be dealt with. I don't see why other ARS members wouldn't support that if they think this is to long and rambling ;) --] (]) 03:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Close Andrew’s case as indef ban from all deletion-related stuff per above. ] (]) 04:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Not going to lie, just the sheer volume of text the ARS editors are adding to the thread almost feels like ]. I'm glad consensus is still somewhat clear but damn have they made it so much more tiring to get there. In any case, I suggest next time something like this happens that the tban proposals get spun off to separate ANI threads while the main discussion remains about what to do with ARS as a whole. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Although I, too, can see some emerging consensus, there are problems with depending on this ANI discussion and excluding the option of an ArbCom case. Of course, I get it, that editors are eager to have some resolution sooner rather than later. But I'm not seeing a careful examination here of what has been going on. Just look a few lines above at DreamFocus' conduct, and then consider how the discussion here, so far, has not centered on that editor. In my own interactions back then, DreamFocus was just as problematic as you see here, whereas Andrew D. was actually pretty cooperative. But from the rushed (and yet interminable) judgment here, it looks like the community could get it backwards. --] (]) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Someone can also create a proposal for DreamFocus if need be. I probably wouldn't support it myself, unless the evidence was particularly strong and I doubt it will be since DF seems to be on the lower end of problematic ARS people, but it's not like that isn't an option. --] (]) 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*], and that's a good illustration of why I believe that an overly-long and overly-chaotic ANI thread will not achieve what ArbCom could. --] (]) 23:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, I missed it because I hadn't gotten that far down in my reading of the latest comments yet. Which can happen even with less chaotic and long ANI threads. That aside, I think there's a benefit in doing it this way because it keeps everything together as a single coherent topic and makes it easier to sus out particular voting patterns if any exist. --] (]) 00:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. {{Noping|EMsmile}} is a paid editor who violated ] - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight ''are highly disruptive'' - and that's notwithstanding the ''paid editing.'' Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. </s> Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. ] (]) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Counter proposal=== | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Not a serious proposal | |||
| }} | |||
| For years, the ARS has cried out against the deletionist boogeyman. I say we make that fantasy a reality and start the <big>'''ARTICLE DESTRUCTION UNIT'''</big> and just blatantly canvass delete votes on a big list. ] (]) 21:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>Oh ], Beebs! ] ] ] 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *] confirms the existence of the deletionist cabal. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Apparently I was aware of it 12 years ago . ] (]) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The sad thing is that, 12 years on "{{xt|But on the other hand, it's hardly our fault if it's unencyclopedic, fancrufty bollocks that stands as much chance of being a serious article as Boris Johnson is of being a credible politician.}}" (though recently changed to "haircut") hasn't dated as a comparison. ] ] ] 22:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Destruction" is the more engaging action word. Draws more likes, thumbs, subscribes. "Delete" seems so... keyboard-constrained. ] (]) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm looking for editors interested in joining a cabal of people who unaccountably show up at AfDs to !vote neutral? Anyone in? Or not, I'm not too fussed either way. ] (]) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no strong feelings, one way or the other.] (]) 23:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::With comments like this and almost 2,000 edits in 18 days, you're living up to your username. ] 23:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support ban on Beeblebrox from the topic of making suggestions''' - If this proposal passes, , closer. ''']]]''' 00:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * All these random side threads really aren't helpful. --] (]) 02:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| === A Discussion on helping avoid discussions as inordinately long and disorganized as this one === | |||
| * Hi! I recently started ] to see if we can as a community find ways to avoid creating the massive long wall of text this whole thing is, identify how to move discussions along when they start becoming too complex for a single thread, or other issues y'all might be identifying with this thread. Rather than complain here about how long, messy, unreadable, and battlegrounded this has sort of become, I recommend y'all to go there and propose solutions rather than just adding more and more text here that admins will have to pour through when resolving this. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 13:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :'''<s>Oppose block, support ]ing EMS for almost ], ]ing AJL for aggressive interactions</s>, warning ITK for ].'''- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy. | |||
| ===ARS Proposal #1: A concrete proposal - Topic-Ban ]=== | |||
| :the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically ] suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group ] (]) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Lightburst is '''banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months'''. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by ]. Two important caveats. This ''does'' prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does ''not'' prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion. The ban may be appealed after 3 months. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::From ] {{tq|WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages}} - this seems not to be the case here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The central concern of the discussion was whether Lightburst's participation at AFD was disruptive and if that disruption was sufficient to justify a ban from deletion discussions. The consensus was yes, and editors justified this position in two ways: (1) concerns about conduct and (2) concerns about policy competence. | |||
| :::like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias. | |||
| :::want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi applies] (]) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by ] - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. ] (]) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. {{U|Bluethricecreamman}} has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether {{U|EMsmile}} was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see ] apologize for the ] that occurred. ] (]) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. ] (]) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Strong oppose''' <small>(uninvolved)</small> there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in ''simple ignorance'' (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not ]). | |||
| ::That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, '''it fails a DUCK test''', and ''looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor''. What I see is a properly disclosed ] editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. ''These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors.'' Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't ] going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :] ] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: <small>((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above)</small> 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, ''otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month'', 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that ''AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI.'' They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including ''very questionable'' off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where ] was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT ''recent'' contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a '''grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI''' (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month ''for over 11 years'')... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either ] or ]. ] ] 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe everyone gets ]s at this point and we move on? ] (]) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats. | |||
| :::::However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for '''potential civil-POV'' which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like might come off is overly whitewashing, but {{tq|China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious ] (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.}} but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does <u>call into need for a closer look</u>, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. ] ] 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group | |||
| ::mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. ] (]) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strong support'''. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, ] applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that ] only ''strongly discourages'' paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --] (]) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose and IMO unthinkable''' They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Editors concerned with conduct took issue with ], ], and civility in general. The initial proposal cites a number of diffs that allege incivility in particular, and while editors did not view those ''specific'' diffs as particularly problematic, many argued that the pattern of behavior as a whole creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment at deletion discussions. Other editors argue that the cited incidents don't go beyond the typical zealous advocacy typical in our discussions, though some come to support a topic ban for competence reasons. While most editors at times have been too pointed in their arguments, the main argument made by supporters (and in the thread generally) is that the ''scale'' is unusually large and disproportionatly degrading the topic area. | |||
| *:{{tq|made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit}}: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.<br>I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. ] (] · ]) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Personally, I am much more concerned about '''un'''declared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet ] . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. ] (]) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I meant meat puppet. ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Tentative oppose''' - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates''' with no opinion on indef block at this time. | |||
| From what I can see, looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the ]: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide (emphasis in the original). | |||
| The other argument forwarded in support of a topic ban is best summarized as a lack of policy competence. Regardless of conduct, editors took issue with the sometimes frivalous arguments Lightburst made in deletion discussions. Various diffs were provided of misapplications of policy, arguments contradicting core policies, or outright unhelpful comments. These comments, the argument goes, are disruptive and unhelpful in building consensus. Regardless of whether they were made in good faith, the disruption caused still justifies sanctions for the sake of the project (see ]). Some editors were uncomfortable with this idea as it comes close to topic banning editors for having a different opinion (which ultimately undermines the consensus process). This is a serious concern, but as I understand the argument, the concern here is not that Lightburst's oppinions happen to contradict policy but that they are ] (see ]). | |||
| Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination: | |||
| * August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA. | |||
| * Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary. | |||
| * Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with ] , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of ]. | |||
| When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil. | |||
| EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "{{tq|And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.}}." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "{{tq|That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.}}" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client. | |||
| Numerically, a substantial majority favored a topic ban. There was sizeable opposition largely predicated on the weakness of the evidence in the proposal, but most editors rejected that argument. However editors on both sides suggested that, given the generally low-level civility issues, a time-limited topic ban would be more proportionate than an indefinite ban. I tend to agree. I'm not sure there's a consensus if we take out the editors supporting a time-limimted ban so there needs to be a time frame between nothing and forever. A ban of about 3 months was explicitly brought up and had some limited support, but given the bulk of discussion was in support of an indefinite ban, editors seem to think these are problems that will take longer to resolve than a couple months. Given the discussion and a bit of discretion, I think a ban of no less than 3 months and no more than 6 months is consistent with the consensus here. For clarity, that means the ban is for 6 months, but may be appealed after 3 months. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Several people above have suggested that the problem with ARS is best addressed by dealing with the ARS members as individuals. On that principle, I would like to make the following proposal: that '''Lightburst be indefinitely topic-banned from participating in deletion discussions and DRVs'''. The thesis here is simple: Lightburst is a high-volume contributor<ref>If I read their contributions correctly, they have 1000 edits to WP space since September 30, of which more than 500 are at ]. Of those 500+, the majority are delsort listings, not substantive edits.</ref> at AfD and related venues. Setting aside the quality of their substantive contributions, Lightburst is chronically abusive and uncivil towards other participants, creating a poisonous atmosphere via their frequent personalized attacks on nominators and others. For example, in the week from October 17 to October 24 (just before this ANI thread was opened), I find the following four comments: | |||
| . (In the last, one should read the link ] to understand what is objectionable.) Any one of these might be excusable in isolation, but the rate and volume (one personalized attack every 2 days) should not be acceptable; yet it is easy to confirm (by repeating my experiment in other time-periods) that this is a longstanding pattern of behavior. The proposed topic ban is narrowly tailored to deal with the locus of disruption, and I believe it would go a significant way to improving the overall tenor of AfD. --] (]) 01:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| *Why is a problem? Are you mad his edit summary is (Star Trek beats Star Wars)? How exactly are all of these personal attacks? Can you find some better examples to make your case or is this it? ] 01:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:What's not a personal attack about "When a nominator has to type a 1000 word dissertation to obfuscate a deletion rationale"? The nomination rational by Mztourist was only like 400 words and seemed pretty reasonably thought out to me. I can guarantee if it was shorter that one of you would have bitched about how Mztourist didn't really think about it or research the subject before doing the nomination. --] (]) 04:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I<nowiki>'d issue a warning for PA over this, but if this is the worst, I don't see grounds for a topic ban. If there is more diffs showing repeated PAs from a longer period, then we could discuss something, but this is why we need a proper ArbCom evidence page. ''</nowiki>''Maybe''<nowiki>'' there is something to worry about here, but the four diffs above are not enough to see it. On a sidenote, I am used to "much worse" PAs fro some other(s) ARS members. If this would lead to a TB, then more will need to be handed out, but I'll repeat that I don'</nowiki>t find the diffs presented here sufficiento endorse it. Reviewing the three other diffs, contains no valid AfD argument but is not otherwise offensive, just "noise". The other two diffs seem more or less fine given the context. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::: As my statements says, this is not "the worst", it is what I found by looking through ''one week of their edits''. Repeat the experiment yourself and you will find that this is chronic behavior (and doubtless you will find many worse examples than the ones above). --] (]) 12:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Lightburst has been uncivil, argumentative, proffered various spurious/fringe arguments and provided dubious sources to support their position at a number of recent AFDs. ] (]) 04:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' One good example of questionable behavior is Lightburst saying "Apparently the dissenting voices must be scrubbed from the internet. Can we save the minority voices? Should we? Or must we all speak with one voice? Perhaps we can demonstrate the usefulness of ] by organizing the dissenters?" in an Article Rescue Squad discussion from the end of 2019. I'm sure there are others. As a side note I find it semi funny that people are saying ARS isn't a canvasing platform and only cares about article improvement while it's members are trying to "organize dissenters" so their voices aren't scrubbed from the internet. In the meantime that is clearly a ] way to treat AfDs. The fact that it's from the end of 2019 just shows that it's a chronic problem, that is unlikely to go away on it's own. I also find the example provided by JBL to be problematic. (BTW, in case anyone asks for it, I tried to link to a diff of the comment, but it wouldn't work for some reason) --] (]) 05:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' In addition to the incivility, they have a history of questionable AfD !votes. Although we welcome a wide range of opinions in deletion discussions, ones that violate our policies and guidelines are never appropriate. Here are a few that I've run into recently in geography AfDs: | |||
| ** - LB argues that passing mentions in news articles are sufficient to establish notability. This is a long-running pattern, and LB is far from the only offender, but it violates our ] guideline which requires that sources "address the topic directly and in detail" and be "more than a trivial mention". | |||
| ** - Again presenting passing mentions as significant coverage, as well as advancing (and ) the bizarre theory that the rail junction was notable because somebody thought that a city would spring up there. Remember, ] is a policy. | |||
| ** - Citing ] as a reason to Keep. This is entirely nonsensical since GEOPURP simply tells us which topics fall under the geography SNG, not whether or not they're notable. When this was pointed out to LB, things went downhill , with LB that "We do not need sigcov based on my rationale and based on Geo". Please note that according to ], the only places that don't require SIGCOV are "Legally recognized, populated places"; LB is choosing not to follow that guideline. | |||
| ** - Personal attack: Accused me of saying something shitty and wished me a nice day. –] ] 05:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''FWIW''', Dlthewave has been pretty unforgiving since I became active on WP in 2019. I even caught a block because he kept reverting my properly attributed block quote in an article I started. I went to ElC and asked him to take a look because it was an edit war - he immediately blocked me because he said, I had reverted to my preferred version before coming to him. Then ELC called it "borderline copyvio". Welcome to the project! It is pretty difficult to start up here. Especially if you join up with the ARS - I have never seen such vitriol. Above the name calling is allowed. I even had an admin revert me when someone called me an ARShole and I removed the personal attack. I have not been on the project long despite my years, but I have contributed much to the AfDs. Regarding DLthewave I have ivoted with them 90% on GEO items. However we are on opposite sides when it comes to cemeteries - which I see as historic, permanent, man made - I called out GEO PURP as an overriding guideline stating the purpose of GEO. There is no cemetery guide. He said and I am paraphrasing: you don't know what you are talking about, go study before you participate here. Dlthewave has proposed two other GEO items in the past few days that I researched, he disagrees with me, that is how AfD works. Nothing to see here. I held no grudge for catching a block from the edit war he started, and I held no grudge from him tell me to go study the guidelines before I participate. I held no grudge against the admin who thinks it is not a PA to call me an ARShole. I held no grudge against ElC. FTR: Dlthewave had no problem with 90% of the GEO ivotes that agreed with his. If WP:CIR then we would have just a few DLthewaves participating at AfD ] (]) 23:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since I am hardly an inclusionist, I'll play the devi's advocate (as I do believe there are some problems with some ARS members),. The last difs violates CIVIL and mayb a PA. It should be crosed out/refactored/lead to a minor warning. The other three arguments are debatable as to whether they are good or not, policy-wise, but I don't think we should topic ban or otherwise sanction editors who occasionally make bad arguments. Now, if someone wants to show this editor repeatedly makes weak/bad arguments that go against eventual consensus/decision, we could consider this, but for that we need many more diffs, showing this is a long-standing problem the editor has been cautioned about yet disregarded the critique, plus a simple statisticsal analysis of what % of LB's votes go against the consensus. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks {{ping|Piotrus}} I like to think I am a work in progress - I find myself verklempt for many reasons. ] (]) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' AfD needs high standards of civility or it quickly turns into a circus. This user's behavior has fallen below those standards. However I believe 1-3 months would be sufficient in this case rather than indefinite. <small>] <small><sup>Need help? ''']'''</sup></small></small> 06:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' These examples are ridiculous. None of them seem to involve the ARS or canvassing which is supposed to be the issue here. And the quality of the evidence is feeble. For example, look at #4: ] The crime here is supposed to be a vague wave to ] but lots of editors make vague waves at AfD all the time. And notice that Lightburst just 3 minutes after making it! So they seem quite capable of pulling themselves up and doing better. The other point about that discussion is that there was hardly any participation by <u>anyone</u>, even after relisting. If editors are driven off from AfD for making hasty or light-hearted comments then the place will become a desert and the relisting will get worse. ]🐉(]) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:They aren't light-hearted comments. Allowing users to repeatedly attack nominators and voters without consequence will actually turn AfDs into deserts. Just in a way that you'd probably be fine with. Whereas, in the meantime, getting rid of a few bad apples isn't going to do jack to AfDs except make them less of a toxic cesspool. --] (]) 07:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Example #2 about the ] is especially light-hearted, with cartoons and much joking. If someone is a "high-volume" poster then it is too easy to cherry-pick examples and try to frame them as problematic. For example, at , we see JBL striking a comment because someone complains that it is uncivil. You need evidence based on the full set of contributions, not a few isolated examples. And the examples chosen in this case do not show what is claimed for them. ]🐉(]) 07:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::How come you didn't have that attitude when you voted to have me perma blocked multiple times a few months ago? There were plenty of examples of me being civil. --] (]) 08:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Adamant1 seems to be refering to the ]. In that discussion, I did not support the proposal that they be "''topic banned from all deletion discussions about schools''". Instead, I presented some detailed evidence about the full range of their activity, suggested a weaker sanction and did not make a formal !vote. Q.E.D. ]🐉(]) 08:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You said "This shows that, before schools, they were trying to delete colleges and universities and, before that, it was hospitals. And then there are topics like Matriculation in South Africa which would generate tiresome arguments about "broadly construed". I reckon it would be better to start with all proposed and speedy deletion activity because it doesn't appear that they are doing them right and such activity is less visible than AfD", because you wanted to have me blocked and my edits reverted more broadly. Instead of being confined to deletion discussions about schools as was being proposed. That's it. No where did you say you didn't support sanctions. In the meantime a lot of my PROD and speedy deletion nominations where subsequently deleted. You never said jack about the ones that weren't being cherry picked. --] (]) 08:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Andrew Davidson has been a member of ] since ], and is the subject of ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' only the first out of the OPs list of four diffs ( ) seems to be a clear personal attack, albeit a mild one. The rest are at worst just arguably wrong - e.g. for the 3rd I'd not have classed Sandsteinds close as a supervote. AfD's are inherently emotive, how can they not be when dozens or even hundreds of hours of other editors hard work are at stake, not to mention coverage of notable topics. If the community was better at discouraging the timewasting nomination of worthy articles - which itself can be see as highly uncivil - then there might be a case to give Lightburst a 3 month topic ban. As things are, I think a warning to be more civil is the most that is warranted. ] (]) 08:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: All four votes make personal criticisms of nominators or other voters. This kind of personalization is poisonous to good-faith discussion. I invite you to repeat my experiment in any other week of LB's editing -- they do it routinely and have been for a long time. --] (]) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **FeydHuxtable has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I have noticed that once Lightburst joins a deletion discussion it can quickly become rancorous. Further, they will stoop to very low levels to fake notability, for instance and in an article about a truely obscure Spanish terrier like dog with absolutely no known connections to the New World, pure ]smanship. Further responses to my first post above demonstrates why any objections from other core ARS members should be ignored, basically they believe the ends justify the means including every underhanded tactic available <small>(despite the means having absolutely no bearing on the ends in that instance)</small>. ] (]) 09:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Bar the first one, the four diffs provided by the OP don't appear to be personal attacks at all. Regarding the diffs supplied by dlthewave, the last comment was out of order but I don't see a problem with the other three. Bad arguments should be disregarded by the closer. We all form our own interpretation of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and there is no need to abide by them to the letter in every case - this is why ] exists. Thus it would be inappropriate to ban someone from participating in AfD discussions simply because they are more inclusionist than most. ] (]) 10:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: "there is no need to abide by them to the letter in every case" Indeed; and if the 4 examples above came from, say, the last year, that would be a very good argument. But in fact they are four examples of personal comments that create a poisonous atmosphere that I found by looking through ''one week'' of their contributions. You should look through a different week of their contributions to confirm! --] (]) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::"Bad arguments should be disregarded by the closer" I've seen this comment many, many times from folks who make bad arguments in RfCs, AfDs, etc, but when a close actually goes against the numeric vote count they inevitably fight it tooth and nail. There's even an in this proposal. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with Sandstein's actions there but LB is clearly saying that a close should not go against the majority !vote. –] ] 14:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **NemesisAT is not listed at ], but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time , and has voted with ARS, for example at ], ], ], ], ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I have expanded the title of this section to name its subject. I have deeply mixed feelings. I think that LB and the other three have been uncivil influences in AFDs and DRVs, but AFD is unfortunately often uncivil. I agree that Lightburst has been abusing ], using it to mean ], but I am not sure that that abuse of Speedy Keep should be sanctioned. ] (]) 12:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' No clear evidence presented proving this is a problem. Some of those who support this action against him, are familiar names seen voting opposite of him in multiple AFDs. Of course maybe they are just upset he said (Star Trek beats Star War) in his edit summary. People have argued and raged against one another for that previously, among other pointless things that don't really matter. ] 12:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: I think it is really disappointing that you (and the other better-behaved ARS members) haven't taken the time to reach out quietly to your poorly-behaved colleagues and encouraged them to behave better; instead, you have abetted and promoted the behavior that is likely to have you all end up at ArbCom or whatever. --] (]) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Personally, I don't like either. Also, I agree with JayBeeEll that the way ARS members have supported each others bad behavior is disappointing. Wikiproject's should be able to regulate themselves to some degree. --] (]) 23:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Dream Focus has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per evidence presented. Deletion discussions go into the gutter once this user participates, let's see if removing one bad apple straightens out the rest. ] (]) 13:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Lightburst is persistent, his views on deletion-related matters are unique and idiosyncratic, and the sources he introduces are often an extreme stretch, but to topic-ban him for incivility is also pretty far out there. He's not even the worst member of the ARS for incivility. To tackle this issue I would recommend that we begin with topic bans for those who have been shown to fabricate source page numbers. For the rest of the ARS I would advocate (1) a restriction to only one comment per AfD and (2) a complete ban against all accusations and attacks on nominators, to include a specific restriction against invoking WP:BEFORE.—] <small>]/]</small> 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks {{ping|S Marshall}} I certainly can improve - it has been an evolution and a deep dive into acronyms and conflicting guides, policies and essays. ] (]) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:] one finds evidence for another ARS member inventing page numbers. As for Lb himself, there are some damning accusations , which I can't personally confirm, though other editors who commented here can. ] (]) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have also been . Here is a double PA that an admin removed. But nobody is calling for your ouster or sanctions. I had already forgot about it and it was less than two weeks ago. ] (]) 00:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::and now . I have no idea why that is ok. even after an admin removed it. ] (]) 01:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sure, let's go with that. See proposal #2 below.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Some more examples''' of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from Lightburst just on the AFDs I've been involved in: , "attack on history", claiming I'd deleted correct information , poisoning wells , adhom attacks , attacking closer on their Talk Page , accusations of bad faith on relisting , , and , , ] (]) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, Lightburst can bring a battleground approach to AfD. I don't think I see anything all that egregious in the diffs presented, but that doesn't make them excusable, either. The thing is, and I think this is important, he does seem to regularly ''improve articles'' when rescuing them. So I'm surprised to see him as the first concrete proposal following this thread (certainly not the ARS member who comes to my mind first when it comes to being a consistent net negative at AfD). In the case of Lightburst, I'd prefer to see something less than a total topic ban from deletion discussions. Ideally we wouldn't tban someone who regularly improves articles they try to save, and just address the battleground part. Perhaps a formal warning that personalization or a battleground approach to AfD will result in escalating blocks or something along those lines (while we're at it, how about a general announcement along those lines combined with more cracking down of bad behavior at AfD in general). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:This has come up so many times that a warning would be redundant. Otherwise, this is a limited topic ban as they would still be able to participate in article improvement in mainspace, just not the AfD itself. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *:: {{ping|Rhododendrites}} The proposed topic ban does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are up for AfD, just from participating in the discussion -- if they improve an article, I'm sure the AfD participants can be relied upon to notice that and take it into account. In other words, this ''does'' narrowly address the battleground part. Based on the substance of your comment, I think you should support the proposal. (Also if you want to put together a separate cogent proposal about one of the others, be my guest -- I picked the one I'm personally familiar with.) --] (]) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This is actually a good middle ground in this case. The ban from AfDs, etc. would not be a ban on ARS activities when it comes to improving articles. If anything, that is how things should be done with the group. The justification for this is pretty well documented already despite denials from other ARS members when I read over the history. ] (]) 15:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above, though since there’s only like four “oppose” votes and three of them are from ARS members this is probably leaning towards a ] close. ] (]) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW I think it's best to leave this open for 24 hours at the very least. There may be folks who have not had the chance to weigh in, and a hasty close brings the risk of others coming forward with more information that challenges the outcome. –] ] 16:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't agree with your numbers. I know I didn't use the word "oppose" in bold, but, read what I wrote.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Sorry for my tardiness, it is quite a thing to wake up to. Apologies, I took a year off of editing on the project, and may have had some rust. But I will speak to the edits in the nomination. In one of Jaybeel's examples #38 -I struck that comment myself. I will AGF and assume you missed that. See here: Sorry if I go all over the place a bit here but I think I am mostly here because of the the MzTourist. The toursit does not assume good faith and said so both and to . I think the tourist is wrong in trying to delete multiple Tuskegee Airmen and poisoning the AfD with an adhom in the nomination. I will take responsibility for #35 and my elevated tone. I did leave that AfD. One can see how bludgeony it is in there even without me. Anyone who ]. So I did leave that AfD in #35, and that is the most recent example. Maybe someone can tell me about Jaybeels objection with my saying the , it was in fact a Supervote and was overturned. Great arguments on both sides - but the consensus was keep. Maybe Jaybeel should illustrate his own response to my ivote there. Saying I made an . In #36 above I was trying to be funny. Apologies if that is out of bounds. Look at the subject and I dare you not to laugh out loud. Maybe Jaybeel did not look at the article? let me summarize: {{tq|Over 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page before a consensus was reached to capitalize the "I".}}. i am still laughing about it and may spit my coffee out again. It was the definition of pedantic. Many of the other supporters above - I understand, I have ivoted angularly to their deletion goal. I can only call them like I see them. Lately I see ivotes like this. Delete: ping me if anyone finds anything. Delete per nom. I will not call out who they were, but it happens. I won't bore anyone with the personal history I have with any of the supporters of this tban. I will just speak to my own actions, I think I bring a research first approach to AfD. I know I have over participated in some AfDs especially the Tuskegee Airmen AfDs, and so I have tried to participate less - like in the example of the Herbert V. Clark Afd. I am sorry for any disruption I may have caused and I cannot respond to all of the diffs above. I can certainly be more civil and participate less at times and I recognize that. ] (]) 16:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: Is it too much to ask that you spell my username correctly? --] (]) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::To be fair and in defense of Lightburst, it's a bit confusing as your signature doesn't match your username. ] (]) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{ping|JayBeeEll}} Definitely no attempt to offend you - what NemesisAT said. Regarding your proposal thee purpose of blocks and Ibans and Tbans are to stop disruption. I am disappointed that there was an effort to swing so hard on a proposal to remove me indefinitely from AfDs. I have never been warned for behavior on AfD. I see this as punitive. I am a rational person who can change without being hit with a hammer. Which these measures are not supposed to be. We are all working for free on this great project. Sometimes it is important to remember that somehow the encyclopedia gets built in spite of arguing over whether to capitalize the letter "I". ] (]) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: Thanks, no offense taken. As I have mentioned in response to a couple of other comments, this proposal is structured not to prevent you from building the encyclopedia (and I am happy to accept the assertions of others that you do that well). --] (]) 00:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{ping|JayBeeEll}} It is very large sanction, no simpler sanction or warning has been tried. I am a logical person and can change. I truly did not understand what you meant at DRV. Turns out the guy behind me didn't either. He said {{tq|Appallingly condescending and egregiously offensive comment by JBL Urselius}}. it is easy to take someone wrong on here. ] (]) 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Lightburst added their name to ] on ] but has been an ARS participant since before renaming this account, having made 516 edits to ] , and is the subject of this TBAN proposal. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Extensive evidence of canvassing and battleground behavior on ]; clearly (as a consensus above seems to agree) ] is a net negative for the project and has disrupted discussions it has gotten involved with. This comes down to the activities of its most active members, of which Lightburst is a member. And a topic ban from AFD specifically should not be a big deal - it is not a place where editors should be staking out positions on deletion policy and pouring huge amounts of time into pushing it; what it needs is experts on the specific articles being discussed, rather than factionalism. Note that Lightbursts' "defense" is to re-litigate a massive pile of AFDs, and completely ignore the ] and ] issues that are the real issue here. Take some time off of AFD, contribute elsewhere - save articles ''before'' they come to AFD by improving the ones that really need improvement. --] (]) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Short-term Tban''' there's enough tendentious comments/battleground behavior/snide remarks to justify some action. (I still don't agree there is a "canvassing" issue that needs to be addressed.) However, an indef TBAN from AFD is too much, and a "warning" will do nothing. Perhaps 1 month away from voting will correct the issues; Lightburst should be welcome to improve articles that are at AFD in that time. ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a short-term t-ban per 力. If Lightburst's ultimate aim is to save notable articles from deletion by improving their sourcing, this can still be done entirely independently of participating in xFD discussions, and showing a track record of doing so without needing to vote, debate, or argue tendentiously would be a boon to all sides. ] ] 19:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', with a ban on DEPRODing as well. The closing administrator would be wise to ascertain what is the ARS voting position here, and what is the community's voting position. ]] 20:27, 31 October 2021 | |||
| *'''Support''' I think my above comments provide my reasoning. -] (]) 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' – a good editor and a net positive. His actions were not egregious - the most they warrant is a warning. Canceling out a participant who does the hard work at AfD (and he does it mainly by substantially IMPROVING articles) should not our goal. Indeed, his record in starting new articles is commendable. This man is an asset to the encyclopedia.<br> Censoring opposing viewpoints and editing when AFDs is unbecoming of Misplaced Pages. All editors are created equal.<br> From what I can see this editor never even had a warning for AfD behavior.<br> I hesitated to raise this, as I foresee that I will be a detriment to his defense. Apparently some of you think that I am guilty as charged, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary.<br> There are those who will see this as further proof that there is an ARS cabal that should be squashed. Truth be told, ARS has 500 subsribers, and very few of them contribute. You have made a mountain out of a molehill. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 23:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **7&6=thirteen has been a member of ] since ] and has made 755 edits to ] , and is the subject of ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Some of might remember''' an RFA that did not go well for the candidate. After the thing was crashed and the candidate was destroyed we found out the guy had a heart attack. I was a "no" ivote at that AfD and I was sad. It helps to remember there are rational people at the end of these fake names. I have never even been warned about any behavior at AfD. And now I have to watch the World Series. ] (]) 00:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Doubling down on the ] with a side of ] isn’t going to convince anyone of anything. ] (]) 01:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** {{ping|Dronebogus}} I this this comment was unnecessary -- LB is expressing here that they find this all upsetting on an individual level. That seems quite understandable, and I think it deserves to be quietly respected, not mocked. (The relevance of Guy Macon's RfA to the present moment is not exactly clear, but that's not a crime.) --] (]) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **** If you’re trying to defend yourself from accusations with irrelevant rambling then you’re using the Chewbacca defense; if you’re not trying to then it’s still ]. ] (]) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for indef tban. Most of the linked "personal attacks" are a pretty big stretch. What I see as an uninvolved editor is a bunch of shitty !votes at AfD and light canvassing. I don't think any of these actually rise of "personal attacks" that we block for. A lot more editors have gotten away with a lot less, and it seems like we're just trying to kill Lightburst as the ] and imputing all of the sins of ARS onto them. Calling the deletion of a Tuskegee airman an "attack on history" is pretty strong but it's not a personal attack. Nor is accusing an admin of supervoting in a DRV, given that DRV is effectively a process to determine whether the admin did in fact supervote. These NPA claims are baseless and without merit. But the AfD !votes are garbage. It's not Lightburst disagreeing with others or disagreeing how a policy should be applied; or even just misunderstanding policy. Lightburst has consistently demonstrated a pattern of !voting with complete disregard as to what policies actually mean. Unironically !voting ] and using a non-specific comic strip (xkcd presumably) as a gauge of notability is useless and disruptive. So is !voting "lol". So is the nonsensical citing of ] as a notability criteria in and of itself at Philip Linn Pioneer Cemetary. This is actively disruptive behaviour in the manner of a ]; in the sense that Lightburst is making legitimate sounding arguments that deliberately misconstrue the wording of policy to create points that have no basis whatsoever (for the record, I am not calling Lightburst a terrorist). This is a waste of time and disruptive. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Chess}} Didn't ivote lol. Here is the thread: ]. There was a describing the pedantic dispute by Cartoonist ]. Commons deleted for license. It was also funny. But regarding the AfDs - I have ivoted or otherwise participated in many, and I mostly have cogent arguments. Have a that are not selected to make me look incompetent. My cemetery rationales I outlined, sometimes a novel argument can make me people consider. In the case of GEO the same three editors go to every one and they all basically ivote the same. Arguing GEOPURP is a loser as it has distracted editors and made it seem as if I am being obtuse, I was saying the purpose of the guideline was to consider {{tq|a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.}}. That is what I interpret a cemetery to be. We keep lakes, streams, and permanent man made structures that fit our criteria. The idea was rejected. That is how AfD works, if we all arrive there and rubber stamp the AfD we are not doing our due dilligance. I had no intent to disrupt or engage in NOTTHERE behavior. I have been in this ANI too much, but it is stressful when a long record of contributions is mischaracterized. ] (]) 03:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The cited examples are at best reason to issue a warning over focusing on the content not the person, an indef topic ban without a prior warning is a very severe reaction. -- ]] 03:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **GreenC is not listed at ] but has edited ] 190 times and votes with ARS, for example at ], ], ], ]. ] 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Responded since you posted the same thing here. -- ]] 18:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': It's quite hard to tell if the accusations being leveled here really warrant an indefinite tban -- a lot of the people commenting here are themselves quite ardent AfD warriors. But maybe they do. It is something that should be settled through an actual arbitration procedure, rather than a twenty-four hour walltext marathon, appended to the most asininely long AN/I thread in months, ''on Halloween''. Before someone accuses me of being an "ARSEHOLE", note that I am not a member of ARS and I do not check their article lists; furthermore, I said the same thing (i.e. that defenestration was silly and unnecessary) when someone made a thread here to defenestrate Mztourist a few weeks ago. ''']'''×''']''' 09:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*] what are you referring to in relation to me? ] (]) 10:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JPxG}} Thanks. I love your reasoned and researched AfD ivotes on the project. you were instrumental in several. I certainly want there to be less animosity everywhere and I have to work on myself first. It is old news but I did not want anyone to think it is invented. Here is the ARShole moniker being used in sentences, notice I twice reverted it as a PA, but the (admin who claims to have coined the term), and Serial# agreed that it was not a PA. . People are quick to show their bonafides - and compete with each other to show their disdain for the project or the ARSholes in it. I left the project for a year shortly after that exchange. ] (]) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' for indef tban as above; aside from the evidence posted above, I've seen incivilities by this editor myself over the years in such discussions. ] 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] Could you link some for us to review? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' TBan - I wasn't actually as aware of this editor's persistent issues as the "usual suspects" - but yes, the evidence enough is too many times. ] 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom and the other support !voters, whose arguments/evidence I won't repeat. These concerns were previously raised at ANI (in boomerang fashion at threads started ''by'' Lightburst) in ] and ]. I support an indef duration because LB went on wiki-break from Nov 2020 to Sep 2021, and since they've been back, it's been right back to the disruptive behavior. A time-limited tban will just be waited out. (Indeed they already posted a notice of a wikibreak on their userpage.) ] 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Yes, I didn't get into this in my proposal, but looking at the threads LB has started at ANI and also at ] is very interesting. I think LB has started four or five threads at 3RRN, ''none'' of which have resulted in administrative action against the reported user (there was one warning administered), and several of which have resulted in administrators questioning LB's behavior. --] (]) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' case doesn't seem that strong. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be a separate ANI thread - all these late-in-the day block discussions in a discussion that should have been closed days ago, are very confusing. Make a simple case in a separate thread, after the dust settles. Is this even the forum? I don't see an imminent or urgent threat. ] (]) 20:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: It's almost enough to make one think that vague process-based complaints are not always made entirely in good faith. --] (]) 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I would first prefer a warning per Piotrus and Rhododendrites. The majority of the diffs seem pretty typical for AfD comments and don't yet warrant a far-reaching sanction. I certainly have seen Lightburst make many constructive contributions to deletion discussions and hope he can continue to do so. If there is a topic ban, the closer should take into consideration the nature of the diffs and make it the 3-month TBAN offered by powerenwiki. ] (]) 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Though Worldywise () is not listed as an ARS member, they have a very interesting contribs history. In the last four years, they have made 3,427 edits, 3,372 of them to mainspace . Of the 55 non-mainspace edits, 25 are Misplaced Pages-space edits , and include ], ], ] (in the 2019 thread about 7&6) (the diff is revdel'd, so search for "worldlywide"), and ]. The only MFD they ever participated in was to ]. They've only participated in 8 AFDs , mostly ARS ones: ] ] ] ] ], and ], the only DRV they've participated in. Their only edit to the Misplaced Pages talk namespace was to ] (the only other editors voting "remove" up to that point: DF, 7&6, AD, and GreenC). Their only two edits to the User talk namespace that weren't to their own talk page were both on an admin's talk page, ] posting on behalf of DF, and ] posting on behalf of Lightburst. (Note this editor was discussed in a ] and has already been to ].) ] 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' combative and battle ground mentality drives away editors from contributing to discussions and this users is immune to reacting positively to feedback. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Spartaz. Anything that reduces battleground behavior at AfD is to be desired. ] (]) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Per the comments above by ] and ], I don't find the instances of incivility to be sufficiently egregious to warrant a complete topic ban from deletion discussions. ] (]) 05:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I dislike tbanning anyone from one of their primary interests when I'm sure they're well-intentioned and have done good work, but the whole ] thing was just really bad. When I asked which three sources could go to proving notability, LB basically told me it was up to me to figure that out from the literally dozens of crap sources ARS had added in an apparent attempt to refbomb, and which I had to clean up after. I do not think LB should be !voting at AfD. I'm not sure they should be adding sources to articles at AfD. ] (]) 17:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per their behavior at the ] and its ]",* here. ]] 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC){{pb}}<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>As Lightburst put it (), prior to being reprimanded for personal attacks.(). ]] 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * '''Support''' routinely creates more heat than light through battleground behavior --] <sup>]</sup> 20:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' In the case of ], I can see Lightburst said up front, "" which is just not good enough for BLPs, and is a monumental lack of self-awareness. However, this issue is two and a half years old; I don't know what was said to Lightburst in the interim, but if ] is indicative of Lightburst's conduct, then I don't see an issue. It's not a crime to try and fail to rescue an article for deletion, and some discussions such as ], he seems to give as good as he gets in terms of blunt and terse replies. I don't think you can say he caused the "shit show" there ''single handedly''. So the bottom line is I can't support anything more than an admonishment to Lightburst to stop taking comments at AfD personally, and that it is never okay to respond in kind to incivility or snark. ] ] ] 22:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Re {{tq|I don't think you can say he caused the "shit show" there ''single handedly''}}...since I said no such thing, you'll apologise, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and acknowledge that the salient point was not minor incivility in a room full of robust back and forth, but the fact that ''in that very room of robust back and forth'' they were the ''only'' editor to be warned ''by an admin'' against personal attacks. WP:STRAWMAN applies. Cheers, ]] 11:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>(for the avoidance of doubt, "you" here refers to the ] ie: I don't think ''anybody'' could say Lightburst caused the "more heat than light" conduct issues in that AfD solely by himself. ] ] ] 12:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC))</small> | |||
| ::<small>Self disclosure : The user Ritchie333 has been mentioned on the ARS member list since 2012, and self-declares an interest in rescuing articles from deletion; however he likes to keep an open mind and has ].</small> | |||
| *'''Support''': I am an inclusionist and I find it repugnant that some of the above !votes for "Support" overstep the line on trying to ban people for their opinions. It is perfectly acceptable to !vote at AfD in contradiction with a policy or guideline, so long as there is rational reason behind it, per ]. Some policies and guidelines should not be regularly violated, but others—particularly those that are going to turn up most at ]—aim only to ''describe current community opinion'', so permitting views outside of these PAGs will be necessary in order for community opinion to ever change. {{pb}} So, let's get to the reasons Lightburst ''should'' be topic banned. Battleground behaviour and incivility is the main one, and though Lightburst is careful not to overstep the line that would get them blocked for any particular comment, or even warned, they consistently devolve the tone at AfD in a way that makes it a very unwelcoming place for anyone who wants to disagree with them. We see that, unsurprisingly, transfers to their conduct around this ANI discussion. The next is a failure to comply with ''basic'' content PAGs like ] and ] (these are ''not'' matters of reasonable disagreement between inclusionists/deletionists). For instance, valereee points to an AfD above where Lightburst introduced a multitude of BLP violations in the form of unsourced or poorly sourced information, including that of low-profile individuals (the family of the biography subject). Lightburst should ''not'' be permitted at AfD because they show no interest in actually improving articles but in feigning a case that chosen articles should be kept, in the name of a greater good—ardent inclusionism. — ] (''']''') 22:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', as I don't think that the instances of incivility presented are severe enough for a full topic ban.] (]) 23:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ARSers act as if ] lets you add up trivial mentions to meet SIGCOV; I don't see why the same approach can't be used for their numerous instances of sub-PA-threshold incivility. This is in addition to the more egregious accounts of battleground behavior. ] (]) 04:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I actually think that the evidence here is stronger than that for Andrew, whose sanction has already gotten consensus. To some extent, I think that Lightburst means well, but there are just too many instances of bad judgment that their participation in deletion processes becomes a net negative. --] (]) 11:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I rarely agree with LB in AfD discussions and they clearly have strong and somewhat idiosyncratic opinions on what notability means but their arguments are characterized by good faith. Yes, they push the envelope on civility and equally they push the envelope on sourcing but I've never seen them break any clear lines on ] nor am I impressed by the evidence presented here against them. I have little doubt that a similar body of evidence could be compiled against any editor who has commented frequently in AfD discussions. I may not like LB's participation, but I don't see the need to TB them. ] ] ] 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Oh, {{u|Eggishorn}} no way: {{tqq|I have little doubt that a similar body of evidence could be compiled against any editor who has commented frequently in AfD discussions.}} I triple-dog-dare you to come up with a similar body of evidence about ''any other editor'' at AFD. Absolutely no way. I'm sorry but that is such baseless and dismissive reasoning. ] 14:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{reply to|Levivich}}, challenge accepted: {{diff3|1049452540|Personalizing a debate}}, {{diff3|1045797451|questioning an editor's competence}}, {{diff3|1027755775|telling another editor to stop contributing}}, etc. I obviously don't think that I crossed any lines other than using sharp and pointed commentary. I think the majority of the evidence here is merely that: sharp and pointed. ] ] ] 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Shit, {{u|Eggishorn|Egg}}, you win, that was extremely well-played. I did not expect that! :-D After reviewing your supporting evidence, I can no longer argue that your rationale is baseless or dismissive. ] 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Whew! I was ''sure'' those diffs would be mine. ]] 22:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per the many examples given above of personal attacks and battleground behavior. (FYI: I've also considered myself an inclusionist). ] ] 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I agree with much of what has been expressed in prior support comments. One example no one else explicitly has mentioned is using ] as a reason to keep, which has nothing to do with determining notability and clearly says "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion", yet LB applies this in AFDs. ] 16:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| I looked at ] last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics '''written 73% of the article''', in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing. | |||
| ===ARS Proposal #2: Topic ban for 7&6=thirteen=== | |||
| {{atop|result='''No consensus''' for a formal sanction.{{pb}}The main proposal cites an alleged incident of 7&6=13 fabricating a source as its only justification, but subsequent discussion demonstrated that this was likely a good faith error where two sources got confused. Given that explanation and the lack of other evidence ''in the proposal'' editors were hesitant to implement a formal topic ban. However, editors raised concerns about the behavior of 7&6=13 unrelated to the alleged fabrication such as civility concerns and the quality of sourcing offered in general at AFD discussions. These were raised in individual comments and generally did not demonstrate sufficient consensus that a topic ban was an appropriate solution.{{pb}}While there is no consensus for a ''formal'' sanction, this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning. If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) }} | |||
| Based on the evidence ] this user seems to have fabricated page numbers and, likely, falsified a source in an effort to prevent an article being deleted. I propose a topic ban from AfD.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The article has been deleted, and I don't remember which book it was exactly, though I remember checking and confirming it myself, and I'm pretty sure {{u|Mztourist}}'s comment about there only being 223 pages and not 386, 512 or 514 as 7&6=13 claimed is basically accurate. He could've simply been careless and not acting in bad faith, but I'm not aware of him retracting his statement afterwards; he never came back to answer the charges I explicitly laid before him at that discussion, and his contribution to that AfD, like many many others, was simply saying "the article has been improved since nomination" (really, he always says that). ] (]) 14:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't recall the book name, but it was very clear that the pages didn't exist and as Avilich notes, 7&6=13 didn't respond to the comment. ] (]) 15:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Click on "search inside" and then "Display all" in the book. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 17:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Appears to be , which ends at page 223 or 224. He was pinged after the error was noticed; a response/clarification would've been nice. ] (]) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes that's it. ] (]) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I used the "Search Inside" function and didn't find any results for "Reginald". Am I missing something here? –] ] 18:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I also used the "Search Inside" function and didn't find any results for "Reginald". (Is it possible that Google Books makes certain parts of the book available and unavailable across time?). ]] 22:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|William Harris}} That's because everyone is looking at the wrong book. See below. ] (]) 22:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks, you are correct. ]] 23:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This example could have been malicious or as already mentioned above it could simply be an error. The lack of response is frustrating but I don't think its grounds for a ban from participating in deletion discussions. ] (]) 15:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction. | |||
| :*Alone this wouldn't be grounds for a tban, but his use of ARS for canvassing (], ]), coupled with his spamming of WP:HEY in multiple discussions (, ) and overall tendency to throw around keep votes just for the sake of it (as in , to which he was ]), calls into question the idea that he was there to genuinely improve the article in the first place, rather than simply on an inclusionist crusade. ] (]) 15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*What does "spamming of ]" mean exactly? They told me not to say "No compliance" or poor compliance with ]. So I don't. And if the article is improved with substantial additions of content, that's an impermissible observation now too? See . And the deletionists and ARS worked together. Your ]s on my right to express my ] opinion is a bridge too far. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 23:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Whether ARS activities should be regarded as canvassing is disputed, per the above discussion, and I feel it is a separate issue. There is nothing wrong with citing ] and votes with poor or no reasoning, or "per nom" votes are common and certainly not a serious offense punishable by a ban from participating in deletion discussions. The proposal was on the basis of falsifying sources, and for now I don't think enough evidence has been provided for a ban to be warranted. ] (]) 15:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know where you've been all this time, but the evidence for canvassing is unequivocal and indisputable, per the discussion above and the evidence at ARS. I just showed you an example of him and the usual suspects teaming up (through ARS) to obstruct the AfD nomination of a well-meaning editor with subject-matter knowledge. He's not on trial just for misrepresenting a source; that's just the formal pretext and the tip of the iceberg. And while unproductive AfD votes are not technically grounds for blocking someone, they indicate and exacerbate this sort of behavior. ] (]) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yes, he is on trial, if you like, for falsifying a source. That's ''really serious'' misconduct.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Read my comment again, I agreed with you ] (]) 20:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::NemesisAT is not listed at ], but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time , and has voted with ARS, for example at ], ], ], ], ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the falsified source was unacceptable. That together with their prior warning and more recent comments such as these: , , and show an ongoing problem ] (]) 15:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine. I guess I was wrong. | |||
| ::::I got a notice that I have fabricated references. Not true. It is possible that the display in google books (when you ask it to show all the references in the book) showed on screen content and pages that were inconsistent with the hard copy. Which of my 140,000 edits and 14 years of editing are you talking about? What was in it for me? I would also say that I often improve articles and sometimes vote at AFDs. | |||
| ::::I do not ever say any more that there has been bad or no compliance with ], even when the article improvements convincingly demonstrate that fact. | |||
| ::::There are folks participating here who have over the years expressed enmity toward me and WP:ARS. ] has been vocal and a deliberate disruptor at ]. You don’t like opposing views at AFD or improvement of articles. But I do not choose to respond in kind. | |||
| ::::Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. You are culling the voters; and deciding who gets to vote based on scoreboarding and outcomes. I try to improve articles and seldom vote. I choose not to blindly vote keep; and I do not participate on many articles that appear on the rescue squad page. | |||
| ::::Reasonable minds may differ as to whether articles should be kept or culled. That there is an opposing view is a hallmark of fair debate and a catalyst for balanced consideration. And when it is posted at ARS, articles are in fact often improved. That some of you don't like the improvements or the sources is no proof of misconduct by the improving editors. | |||
| ::::I have successfully helped rescue many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at ]. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that ] was ignored or done haphazardly. I don't write that at AFDs any longer, but it is a fact. And it is not a "personal attack." | |||
| ::::FWIW, I am not singling out the repeat deletionists who are partipating here. And I am not asking that they be banned from participaitn at AFD. | |||
| ::::I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. (Apparently we are not allowed to name names on defense; while these persecutors are immune.) And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct. | |||
| ::::The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> | |||
| :::::7&6, you wrote: {{xt|I have successfully helped rescue many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at ]. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that ] was ignored or done haphazardly.}} That is just not true. At ] you accused the nom of having not done her BEFORE. You and other ARS members added completely unusable sources until someone who could search in Dutch came in and found a couple of reasonable sources that eventually supported notability, but you and your work had nothing to do with it. I had searched, the nom had searched. I found a single source in English -- which you had not found -- that could be used to support notability. You were adding poor sources and accusing the nom of not having done her BEFORE because she hadn't added those crap sources. ] (]) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::You didn't like the sources, and you changed them. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative process. The article was kept, notwithstanding your best efforts. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 19:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* Calling everyone you don’t like a hater deletionist doesn’t work when there’s direct evidence of misconduct on the table which you haven’t refuted. ] (]) 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes making more personal attacks on me with the comment "MZ:Tourist has been vocal and a deliberate disruptor at WP:ARS. You don’t like opposing views at AFD or improvement of articles." just further strengthens the case. ] (]) 16:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' one of the best editors on the project. I worked with him many times and I can give a few examples of our tag teams, ], ] - and many more. I am quite stunned by the efforts here. He has cogent arguments at AfDs. we can all get a bit snippy in AfDs, and we do not tban people for mistakes. And as i said above MzTourist said he does not AGF regarding . ] (]) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*And given my previous recent history with 7&6 as detailed in my Support above, not AGFing from them is a perfectly reasonable position to take. ] (]) 16:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thanks for pointing us to ] where 7&6 made this comment to ] in their edit summary ] "precursor (you are picking fly turds our of pepper)" ] (]) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lightburst added their name to ] on ] but has been an ARS participant since before renaming this account, having made 516 edits to ] , and is the subject of ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' He has done quite a lot of work on articles. list some of them. A valuable contributor to the encyclopedia who creates valid content. If anyone has a complaint against him who isn't also constantly arguing with him in deletion discussions, please, post away. I'm curious about your opinions in this. ] 16:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** You do realize this is just a topic ban, right? We’re not kicking them off the encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] I'm sure several Users who 7&6 edit warred with on ] five days ago would complain if they were aware of this discussion, do you want to notify them? ] (]) 16:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was no "edit war" at ]. I disagreed with the editors who wanted to delete it. And I added ]s, which are ''still'' in the article | |||
| :::And I did not come to ] to initiate a complaint. I have been importuned to intervene. And I have been lied about; so I do not want someone to take my silence as some sort of an admission of guilt. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really? ] clearly didn't think so which is why they placed an edit war warning on your Talk Page: . ] (]) 03:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dream Focus has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Plenty of evidence of ] behavior on AFD, which makes the mistakes above hard to credit; likewise, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're ]ing in order to "save" articles from AFD. We don't need a repeat of the old deletionist / inclusionist factionalism that used to surround AFD, and the easiest way to prevent it from recurring is with topic-bans for people who get too battleground-y there. For the people above who say that he has good edits elsewhere, ''sure'' - the whole idea behind a topic ban is that an editor's problems are confined to a specific area. They'd still be able to improve articles, just not contribute on AFD or on discussions and wikiprojects (like ]) manifestly about it. And the reality is that it does seem like their contributions on those places have become combative, disruptive, and - even by the most lenient interpretation of the errors above - ''careless'' enough that it would be better if they focused their attention elsewhere. --] (]) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per Aquillion. ] (]) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' <s>I'm struggling to wrap my head around the whole page numbers thing. GBooks is essentially a scan of the hard copy, which could be off by a few pages due to title pages etc, but ''nearly 300 pages'' seems implausible especially since shows 223 pages for the hardcover version. I'm also not finding any results for "Reginald" when using the Search Inside function. Even if there is some sort of mismatch, it's unclear why an experienced editor in possession of a hard copy would cite Google Books without verifying the page numbers. Admitting that you screwed up would go a long way towards building goodwill with your fellow editors.</s> <small>See below</small> –] ] 18:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not say I was in posssession of a hard copy. That is your assumption. I can assure you I did ''not'' make this stuff up. These were all good faith edits. ] apparently has been repealed, too. | |||
| :And if I erred, it was unintentional. If I screwed up, I apologize. And if I screwed up, it was undone by one of our other esteemed editors. I did not put it back that I recall. So confession may be good for the soul, but once it was undone there was no point. Other than to make you and your friends feel better. | |||
| :That AFDs are sometimes overly long and positional is true. | |||
| :But my comments are limited solely to the merits of the AFD and the quality of the article, the sourcing and the potential sourcing. That there are folks that have chosen to do masss deletions and ignore ] is not my fault. | |||
| :You ought not to make it your business to tell editors what the acceptable votes are at AFD. Nor should you be purging the voting rolls of those who choose not to grease the wheels of the oncoming train, even if the result seems predestined to you. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 19:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::How can that ''possibly'' have been an accidental error? I can't envisage any way that could have happened.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Update''' I'm convinced by Suffusion of Yellow's discovery that the page numbers were a good faith error, not an intentional misrepresentation, and I won't support a block based on that. However, the above comment about "purging voter roles" and "greasing wheels" is the troubling type of personal accusation that we see all the time from ARS participants and 7&6-thirteen would be well advised to steer clear of such comments. I'll keep an eye on this thread and may consider a "support" or "oppose" !vote depending on what evidence is brought forward. –] ] 12:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' if the evidence has been deleted, this will need to go to ARBCOM. Presumably the editor intended to refer to some book other than , a book with more pages and mentions of Reginald Smith. ] (power~enwiki, ], ]) 19:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * ], did you maybe mean by Charles E. Francis? Because I a find Reginald V. Smith ''there''. ] (]) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Even if that's the book 7&6 meant, there's nothing on those pages that supports the sentence "His wife Rogers Mae and sister Annie Marietta Smith-Randolph attended his graduation", which is what 7&6 appended the ref to. ] (]) 20:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Deor}} But we're not talking about "fabrication" anymore, are we? The book exists, and Smith in mentioned on those pages. Maybe 7&6 just appended it to the wrong sentence. ] (]) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{re|Suffusion of Yellow}} To me, adding a citation that doesn't support what it's supposedly referencing qualifies as falsification of a reference; that the referenced work exists is immaterial. The only thing supported by those pages (two lists and a caption) is that Smith graduated in 1945—which was already referenced in the article—and mere listings certainly contribute nothing to notability. ] (]) 20:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Or, ]. That is, we can now {{tq|envisage any way that could have happened}}. {{u|Deor}} (or any admin), do you mind undeleting the article to user or draftspace, so we can at least see who added what where, and when? It's impossible to tell from the archive.org copy. ] (]) 20:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm sorry, but I don't recall what I was doing. I think I added several books but honestly don't recall. You edit articles, and move on. I may have mixed them up. ] will exist in 141,000 edits. Sorry. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::*That's presumably the correct book given the coincidence of page numbers, but even so, the pages appear to be entirely devoid of prose, so it's not clear that this should be referenced to anything at all. I can't see the full pages, but, from what I can make of the snippets, it's just a collection of names, possibly part of some image caption or roster, or both. ] (]) 20:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::*:The subject of this thread is not "Is that an ideal reference?". I can see the full text (must be regional copyright thing...), and it is ''not''. This sub-thread was started with the premise that 7&6 {{tq|fabricated page numbers}} and some people have already voted to TBAN 7&6 based on that. ] (]) 20:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I didn't vote against anyone as of now, and I'm not even in favor of making this source affair the center of this whole deal; the overall collective behavior of ARS should still be the focus here, and evidence against individual members should be viewed with that in mind. Deor seems to disagree with you on the contents of the source, though. ] (]) 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] making a mistake is one thing, 7&6 failing to address that mistake when I pointed it out, specifically tagging them: and then commenting above "I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine." shows more intractable behavior. There are also numerous examples of battleground behavior and personal attacks and incivility shown by 7&6. ] (]) 03:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I haven't had a chance to fully weigh the merits of this particular topic ban proposal yet, but I will echo Mztourist that this example and related responses are a highlights of ] editing. While in isolation they may just seem inconvenient, but a consistent pattern is disruptive, a time sink, and often hidden either purposely or by obliviousness by claiming it wasn't so bad. At the least, there is merit here that 7&6 has individual issues related to the larger ARS problems that go beyond just simple mistakes. ] (]) 04:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Kudos to ] who has provided a reasonable explanation – that this was confusion between two sources. When working on content, some editors tend to have many tabs open as they compile information from a variety of sources. As some passages may involve more than one source, it's then easy to get them mixed up. | |||
| : Confusion like this is why we have the guidance to ]. Per ], the general rule is that a ] is usually a more plausible explanation than a conspiracy when something goes wrong. See also ]. | |||
| : ]🐉(]) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Andrew Davidson has been a member of ] since ], and is the subject of ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The page numbers thing is a problem, and if his user was willing to accept responsibility for it then why would another user need to explain their mistake? Refusal to accept responsibility is an ARS problem. Also this user’s desperate dressing up of the Attack On HMS Invincible article (deleted with solid consensus) shows they aren’t doing us as much good at AfD as they could. Since they don’t seem to show any indications of sincerely willing to improve its best they be told to move their efforts elsewhere. -] (]) 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' since I haven't said so explicitly above. No, I haven't looked into the greater issue, but the ] with an accusation than can no longer be supported. Would we ''really'' be having a thread about ''topic-banning'' right now, if 7&6 had cited the correct book in the first place? ] (]) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Probably yes, since he was already singled out as one of the four special ARS editors above, and it's not like the problem with ARS starts or ends with wrong referencing, anyway. If you want more evidence of poor referencing habits, there was an AfD I participated not long ago in which he to support a non-trivial statement that was not otherwise properly sourced. And there's also : here he seems to have simply searched the subject's name in each book, taken note of every single page number for which there was the even the most trivial of matches, and dumped everything in one place, without bothering to check if the ref actually matched with the corresponding sentence or was even adequate.<p>I can believe that in each and every one of these occasions he was acting in good faith, in the sense that improvement, not disruption, was his sincere objective. But when you resort to keeping superficial appearances of notability and making the sorting-out process as difficult and nightmarish as you can, coupled with ] (which was already acknowledged even before this vote started), then you're not being a positive element on AfD. ] (]) 00:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Avilich}} could you explain in more detail the problem with the first diff you linked (])? It looks like that diff added four citations. Which of them did you have an issue with, and why? ] (]) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I should've mentioned that I was referring to the ones highlighted in blue specifically, though I did notice the others too. The second is a picture where the subject appears and that's it, no prose. In the first, he seems to be mentioned in a listing of individuals, possibly as part of an image caption. I can't see the whole page, but the snippet says, "Back row: (...) (...)", and doesn't appear to indicate any sort of significant prose commentary. ] (]) 01:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see the issue with the second cite. I'm looking at the page now, and the caption does verify part of the accompanying sentence (that Fuller was a member of class 42-G). I could see an argument that the sentence is overcited, but it's not totally obvious - e.g. if the first three (web) sources are considered to be only marginally reliable, it might be worthwhile to add "redundant" cites to published books, even if they only verify a portion of the claim. ] (]) 02:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It gives the partial name at most, and only because the picture is of the class to begin with. It's not clear at all that redundancy was the intent, let alone appropriate. The web sources for this specific batch of articles tended to be unreliable and user-submitted, a point which was extensively brought up in the corresponding AfDs. The correct thing would have been to simply remove them. ] (]) 03:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Avilich}} and re the second linked diff (]). You say that "he seems to have simply searched the subject's name in each book... and dumped everything in one place, without bothering to check if the ref actually matched". But did ''you'' bother to check whether any of the refs ''didn't'' match? If not, this seems like simply an assumption of bad faith. Also, I think it's worth noting that the edit you linked was the first of a long series of consecutive edits made by 7&6=thirteen over the course of a day. Looking at that diff, my initial assumption was that he just swooped in and dropped a huge number of refs in the intro without improving the article in any other way. But ] incorporating all 53 of those edits, shows a very different story - it appears he made a lot of substantial changes throughout the article. ] (]) 01:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The cite bomb is still there, he just relegated it to a footnote. And yes, I did do a check. Typically all the pages in which the subject is mentioned are cited, even the indexes and captions. As for the other improvements, again, I don't think he lied or acted with malice, but what's being discussed here is his stance and conduct in AfD, not his basic competence in everyday editorial procedures. ] (]) 01:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I agree the page number thing is a problem. One of many really. While Suffusion of Yellow's explanation is plausible, it's just as plausible that 7&6=thirteen never addressed it because they knew they made it up or were otherwise being miss-leading. Otherwise, they could have just dealt with it at the time when they where asked by multiple people why the page numbers were off. At his point it just seems like a post-hoc justification for bad behavior though and it's not like that's their only issue. Including other times where they were extremely lose with providing accurate sourcing. It's not that far of a stretch that someone who chronically shows zero respect for the process, guidelines, and nominators might make up page numbers or lie about what a book says. In the meantime 7&6=thirteen's dismissive and combative comments here haven't done anything to make me think it was a good faith mistake and not just an intentional BATTLEGROUND move, that they and ARS members are now trying to make excuses about and blame others for. So we are long past the opportunity to AGF about it. --] (]) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Really? I guess 14 years of faithful service (presumably complete with mistakes) won't persuade you. | |||
| :Let he who is without error cast the first stone. | |||
| :Disappointed. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 22:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was recently blocked and took a self imposed 3 month break from AfD because I couldn't handle it without acting inappropriately. I think that was the right thing to do. Both my mental health and the project are better off. So at least my case I'm coming at this from a completely none privileged perspective of what is the best option for everyone involved. You can still improve articles if you aren't involved in AfDs and likely in a much more productive way then treating AfDs like a battleground. --] (]) 23:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', as there is a good faith explanation for the error.] (]) 23:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **No: there ''really'' isn't. Look, this is core policy stuff. WP:V requires that material that's {{tq|challenged or likely to be challenged}} is supported by {{tq|an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material}}. It then goes on to say {{tq|The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)}}. And when an editor does supply an inline citation to a reliable source, we assume that they've done it in good faith. In this case, the user cited the wrong book, and when we look at the page in the book they meant to cite, it doesn't support the material. That's ''utterly reckless'' behaviour. It means that all the citations that this user has provided at AfD need to be checked by someone who takes more care.—] <small>]/]</small> 00:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***<s>So anyone who accidentally copy-pastes the wrong title, or URL, or transposes the digits of a page number, or makes any other mindless error in the course of referencing should be banned from the project? That seems like an incredibly harsh policy. Anyone could make such a mistake. I'm sure I've done so in the past, and encountered plenty of examples in the wild left by other editors - when I do, I fix them, the same way I would fix a typo or any other error. (] is just one example I recall off the top of my head - in a GA no less! We worked on fixing the issue - it never occurred to us to seek the head of the editor that introduced it.)</s> ] (]) 00:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****But this isn't just a copy/paste error. The citation this user intended to add doesn't actually support the claim being made.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****Ah, sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. (I missed the detail of it being the wrong book ''and'' inappropriate page numbers. That makes it less straightforward.) ] (]) 09:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *See my reply to Suffusion of Yellow's oppose vote above. Good-faith or not, this is not just about a single mistake, it concerns chronic behavior. ] (]) 00:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] good faith would have been acknowledging and correcting the mistake at the time not adopting the attitude of "I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine." as 7&6 stated above. As Avilich notes and as shown by various diffs above on just my encounters with 7&6 this is chronic behavior. ] (]) 03:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Falsified page numbers? How many times did this happen? Links? Seems a bit detailed - and why would one, as you don't need page numbers in a reference. ] (]) 01:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The proposed punishment far outweighs the supposed infraction. Anyone who does a lot of work in AfD or Misplaced Pages generally, it's inevitable reasons for complaint can be generated. It's a logical fallacy ]], sifting through reams of edit history ignoring the positive contributions. Basically what I see here is an attempt to find an objective reason for banning, but there is nothing to see here but mistakes that could be good faith and differences of opinion over what is a reliable source. -- ]] 03:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|S Marshall}}, While the claim of source falsification is serious, mistakes happen - I will play devil's advocate again and note that on a few occasions I've used wrong page numbers too by copy paste or typo accident. Before I vote here, I'd like to see what 7&6 has to say in their defense, and whether there is any evidence there is a pattern of low-quality or fraudelent voting. I am not prepared to endorse a topic ban based on a ''single'' wrong ref added to an article. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 09:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not just a wrong page number: the citations this user ''intended'' to add don't support the claim being made. It's not a single wrong ref: it's three times in the same article.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I'll trust you on that, but did this happen in another article or several? I am still willing to AGF that when something like this happens once, in a single article, it may be some sort of unintentoonal error or misunderstanding. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 12:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*GreenC is not listed at ] but has edited ] 190 times and votes with ARS, for example at ], ], ], ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I am concerned by article deletion activity on Misplaced Pages. I try to participate in AfD when I can, but have not had as much time for it recently, find it best in small doses, not all the time. Trying to ban active members of AfD because of their inclusionist bent seems like a step backwards because it's already under-participated, banning people has a sense of book banning. Would require serious infractions and not really seeing it, mostly just disagreements over content, at the root. -- ]] 18:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{tq|Trying to ban active members of AfD because of their inclusionist bent seems like a step backwards}} it's a good thing no one is doing that, then. --] (]) 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban based on a single alleged error; I say "alleged" because the page in question has been deleted and hardly anybody even seems to have a solid grasp of what the hell it was (or what the book was). If this is really a big enough deal for a topic ban, surely it's a big enough deal that people should actually see the evidence (e.g. in an ArbCom case)? ''']'''×''']''' 09:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose:''' Unless this is a consistent pattern, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather not burn someone over what could be an honest mistake, following ]. I don't intend this as a general statement about their behavior at AfD. There could be other reasons necessitating intervention, but I don't think it should be based on this particular matter (again, absent further evidence of malice). – ] (]) 10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Falsifying sources is indeed most serious, but as others are saying we should want several more examples before assuming it wasn't a good faith mistake. I've made the mistake of adding content not supported by the source myself, no one can be perfect all the time. If anything, it's probably better for content creators to make a very occasional OR type mistake rather than erring in the other direction and sticking so close to the sources that they violate copyright. ] (]) 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **FeydHuxtable has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The only thing necessary here is to tell 7&6=13, "please don't do that again". ] ] ] 18:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I've banged my head on the desk regarding 7&6 before but in the end I believe they are not here to disrupt. But for $DEITY's sake, please stop pulling stunts like this, because the community's patience is clearly not endless. ] 18:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' not because of the falsified page number which is serious, but because of his incredibly appalling behaviour, his incessant incivility to and PAs about nominators (yes usually minor but staggeringly common), his continued use of absolutely terrible “sources” despite being repeatedly pulled up on them in multiple forums and his flat out refusal to discuss them. With regard to his sourcing, I cannot decide if it is a deliberate attempt to game the process, or he really just has no clue, neither is a valid excuse as he is either being ]or is ]. He might require a trip to ARBCOM. ] (]) 19:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support''' but for different reasons. It's not just that they put the wrong book title or wrong page numbers in a citation. It's that the ''correct'' citation didn't support the content cited, ''and'' that when this was pointed out, 7&6 didn't correct it or even acknowledge it; it took other editors, here in this thread, to speak for them, because they ignored it. Even still, that one incident alone, doesn't merit a topic ban, but that wasn't an isolated incident; it's indicative of a long history of problems at AFDs that continues up to this day: | |||
| **There was the ] and the ], at which I posted a bunch of examples of incivility and other problematic conduct. What's happened since the Aug 2020 ANI: | |||
| **Attacks at the ARS page, for example "]" and "]". When I raised this with ARS at ], I was ignored. | |||
| **More recently, the usual battleground at AFDs, such as ], ], ], ], ] (search for "thirteen" on any of those pages to read the comments in context) | |||
| **And it's not just AFDs, the disruption also extends to mainspace. ] is an instructive example. It's an ARS AFD, and aside from the battleground behavior in the AFD, there is edit warring on the page and using lax sources: | |||
| ***], ], ], ] | |||
| ***] from non-RS www.dogonews.com, a children's website; ]; ] changing "paltry" to "small" (still SYNTH, still not an RS); ]; ] with the edit summary "take it to the talk page" (heh, how I love it when people reinstate their bold edits and tell others to take it to the talk page) | |||
| ***Removes a edit warring notice with the edit summary "]" | |||
| ***I believe that every single edit of 7&6's on this page ] that was reverted was reinstated by 7&6 in whole or part. It's indicative of the "must-win, sources-be-damned" attitude. | |||
| *:All in all, the "page number" example is indicative of the non-collaborative nature of 7&6's general approach to deletion discussions, and how this creates unnecessary work for other editors who have to clean it up or otherwise deal with it. A tban from AFD is frankly long overdue. It's necessary to prevent disruption, such as what's going on at the Big John AFD and article, in real time, right now. ] 19:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Levivich}} You might find this talk page discussion interesting. It was about 7&6's references for.] not backing up what he had written in the article.], is the complaint department really on ] 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Moderate support'''. This is maybe the relatively weakest case of the current 3, but as others have said, a decision, whether support or oppose, should not be based off the somewhat premature OP of this section that left out a lot of evidence. I originally wasn't going to !vote here, but Levivich's post above convinced me (which says a lot if someone is assuming supports are just voting in buddy-buddy blocks). The evidence in this section so far and the overall ANI show a battleground attitude along with competence issues (assuming ] rather than malice) in poorly using sources or going for pseudoscience sources. Going on about deletionists as a ] tactic here put it over the edge of merely tepid support for me at least. | |||
| :However, this is the only one I can say the behavior (that I've seen at least) may not warrant an indef topic ban. They're going down a bad path, but I'm not convinced it can't be redirected unlike the other cases that are pretty exhaustive so far. In this case, a six month ban would give them time away from the subject to try to force some reflection while allowing the overall subject area to cool down. It's also partly a mismatch with the current editing environment than just 7&6's direct behavior, so I say this in part for what may be best for the community while giving 7&6 a chance. When 7&6 would come back, the other bad actors would mostly be gone from the looks of it, and ] would be the guiding principle for what happens with 7&6 after the ban. That would give them the opportunity to turn things around with the expectation that there would be more direct focus on their behavior if the others in the group aren't around anymore. ] (]) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment for those who are focused on the book pages''' - There are other reasons to be concerned here, such as this user recommending a blog post be considered a reliable source at ] or withdrawing their keep vote at a PAID ], not because they admitted they might be wrong, but because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing delete consensus. -] (]) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' I don´t really buy the excuses around misclaiming sources but contributions to the area frequently degrade the quality of the discussion. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Since there is no consistent pattern, we should assume good faith. This discussion is by itself a punishment and warning so we should leave it at that. ] (]) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I just do not, frankly, think a good enough case has been made here. Compare this thread to the one below, which begins with a pile of diffs. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 05:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*<small>I'll do mine: Rhododendrites is not listed at ], but has listed maybe two things at ARS ever. He has agreed with ARS members at times, disagreed at times, and has been critical of some of their practices many times. He doesn't particularly like long walks on the beach, but does think these !votes should be evaluated on the strength of arguments, and being a member of ARS doesn't disqualify an opinion any more than having long feuds with members of ARS. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 05:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per ] and ]. I am not persuaded that the case is sufficiently strong to warrant the extreme sanction proposed. There is reasonable doubt as to whether the single cited sourcing issue was intentional or accidental. Given that the alleged sourcing issue is limited to a single instance, I am inclined to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{yo|Cbl62}} what do you mean, "single"? There are multiple. ] 12:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am using the word "single" in its ordinary English-language usage. The proposal set forth above, as submitted by S Marshall, was premised upon the alleged falsification of "a source" (and page numbers therein) in order to prevent "an article" (i.e., "Reginald V. Smith") from being deleted. If there are other alleged instances of falsification of sources, they were not referenced in the proposal. What do you mean by "multiple"? ] (]) 13:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Cbl62}} yes it was unfortunate that there was only one example in the proposal, but there are diffs to additional items in Mztourist's support vote, and my support vote, above. Whether or not those additional diffs are convincing, I don't know, but there's more to look at than just the one thing mentioned in the proposal. ] 13:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, sorry about this, but I'm afraid we've learned a lot from each other during this discussion. It's necessary to follow the arguments, then look at the now-deleted edits, then form an opinion about whether the three separate references this user added really did support the claims being made. The case for a t-ban is no longer that this user wilfully fabricated the references, because we now know that they meant to add a different reference entirely. It's now that the three references they ''meant'' to add did not in any way support the three claims being made. I put it to you that this editor has been so reckless and negligent with references as to forfeit the community's trust at AfD. And as Levivich says, there's additional evidence by others to consider as well.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Again I dislike tbanning anyone from one of their primary interests when I'm sure they're well-intentioned and, particlularly in the case of 7&6, have done very good work, but the very poor sources added at ] -- while accusing the nom of not having done her BEFORE -- in an apparent attempt to refbomb the AfD, and which I ended up cleaning up after, are very troubling. I would feel more comfortable with a stern warning not to ever add crap sources at AfD ever again, but I'll go along with a tban in the hopes that this editor, in an unblock request, will agree to stop behaving this way. I don't want us to lose this productive editor, but adding just completely bad sources is too big a problem. ] (]) 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I was on the fence about 7&6, but I have to agree with S Marshall's post above Valereee's. People who play fast and loose with refs are among my personal bugbears, and this situation is just too reminiscent of the days when A Nobody would attempt to derail AfDs with "sources" that had nothing to do with the topics of the articles under discussion, such as citing scientific articles on static molecular analysis to justify an article on the concept of "molecular static" in a fantasy TV show. The current tactics of some ARS members aren't as blatantly loony as that, but the indiscriminate throwing of irrelevant sources into AfD discussions and—even worse, I think—the rush to introduce into articles themselves references that often turn out to be erroneous or irrelevant can only be harmful. If an article is kept at AfD, any bad references that have got into it are unlikely ever to be checked and removed. ] (]) 18:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' routinely creates more heat than light through battleground behavior --] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', as per ]. Looks like a mistake, or perhaps a small series of mistakes. The mistakes were corrected. I don't see any "pattern of falsifying sources" here. "ARS activity", or other ], may be other topics for discussion. ] (]) 20:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', anyone who has made as many edits as 7&6 is going to have made a few mistakes. If any editor has cited an incorrect page number or even an inappropriate reference it can easily be challenged on the relevant page (and often is). A topic ban is a significant over-reaction. ] (]) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose''' as, in AfD terms, I have not done a ]. That is, on the basis of the evidence presented, there is no reasonable case to topic ban 7&6=thirteen. I have not investigated to see if one exists. There has been only one case of "false" references presented, which was a mix-up of which book a set of page numbers belonged, and a comment about its coverage that most people disagreed with. This is ''not'' even slightly close to evidence of deliberate falsification; anyone who has not made such mix-ups from time to time themselves has not been engaged in content creation sufficiently to have any place at this discussion. As for incivility, I'm not seeing the evidence presented, and though other editors may know without checking based on regular encounters with 7&6=thirteen, for a community-given topic ban someone needs to lay out the evidence clearly. — ] (''']''') 22:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak support'''. Per battleground behavior pointed out by Levivich and others. Making honest mistakes in reference page numbers is forgivable. Linking to what turn out to be trivial mentions as potential GNG sources is lame but at least could offer a stepping stone for more industrious editors. Regularly misrepresenting ''clearly non-RS and non-SIGCOV refs'' in AfD discussions/articles in an effort to sway other !voters '''is a problem'''. Their confrontational attacks on other editors '''are a problem'''. While they are certainly not the worst of the ARS group, and while any single example is not sufficient for a TBAN, I think the fact that we have multiple examples at all is an indication that their AfD editing '''is problematic'''. ] (]) 04:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' As ] cogently states, regularly misrepresenting refs at AfD is manifest bad faith. There comes a point where you just can't airily wave off a string of the same as "a few mistakes." Because here's where we all ought to stand: ''no one has any business registering a vote at AfD until they are certain that their stated position is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and that their assessment of the sources is in accordance with community standards.'' An editor who has a track record of not being able to do these things? We bounce newbies right and left on ] issues. Editors with many thousands of edits have no excuse. ] 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I recognize that 7&6 is an editor who makes good contributions in other areas, but this sanction would only apply to deletion. And I've seen too many examples of personalizing and assuming bad faith of good-faith complaints about ARS. --] (]) 11:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' While not impressed by the page number problem that began this in isolation, it is indicative of their general, "throw every scrap of possible source at the wall and see what sticks" input. The Big John AfD and others mentioned above show that 7&6 has little regard for the ] in trying to find something, anything they can to support a "Keep". The point of both AfD and ARS is to see if an article nominated has sources to support inclusion but 7&6 reverses that and tries to create sources to force inclusion of everything nominated. {{diff3|1053211199|Sources}} that (badly) fail ] or {{diff3|1052030325|sources}} that fail to even mention the supposed subjectare brought up to justify a pre-determined position. They are obviously putting the first result from their searches into the articles without any selectivity. And then there's, well, whatever {{diff3|1049043610|this}} is. ] ] ] 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===ARS Proposal #3: Topic ban or other restrictions for Andrew Davidson=== | |||
| {{Archive top|result=There is clear consensus that Andrew Davidson should be topic banned from deletion-related activities (including, but not limited to AfDs, DRVs, removing prods etc.). The topic ban is indefinite, but of course can be appealed at ] after a reasonable time period. ] ]] 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Hello ], we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of ]. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (] (which is an alliance), nor the concept ] itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website. | |||
| While I am still not convinced we can solve much here, and ArbCom might be preferable, as I was asked to present the evidence I mentioned above, here it is, coupled with the proposal to a) topic ban Andrew Davidson from AfDs, dePRODs, and removing copyediting templates, or b) at least to require him to provide an analysis of all sources he brings to AfDs (discussing what makes them reliable and containing significant coverage), to provide a similar rationale for his deprods or removal of copyediting templates. This is because I believe that his votes are repeatedly low quality, based on ], that he is often uncivil in his AfDs comments, that his repeated deprods, low quality votes, and abrasive behavior have been producing a battleground atmosphere in the deletion TA, and that he has been repeatedly, and for years, been asked to behave better and to follow best practices, requests he has disregarded over several years. PS. My preference is for b) rather than a) if it is judged workable by the community (while a) is simpler but b) might be more constructive). | |||
| :FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: ] and ], then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course). | |||
| :FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project. | |||
| :If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for ] apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from ]? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life? | |||
| :Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements. | |||
| :Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks ''in this thread'' but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." ] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't ] or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are ], which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.{{pb}}Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact , which states that {{tq|he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.}} This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". ] (] · ]) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to ], or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. ] (]) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::did report to ] ] (]) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they ''do'' make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we ''do'' allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. ''edits'' that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] put this back into our court. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Oppose''' indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. ] (]) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile === | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item one: Prior discussion of Andrew's behavior in context of deletion and civility | |||
| <small>I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) </small> | |||
| }} | |||
| :::<small> The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.</small>True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its <s>direct</s> affiliates, broadly construed. This ''obviously'' include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from ''citing'' the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * December 2017 ] (now ]) proposed a topic ban for Andrew from RfAs | |||
| ::::Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)? | |||
| : ] While not directly related to deletion discussion and closed with no consensus, the closer also noted that “A common theme, however, is that people regard Andrew's votes on RfA as against consensus, petty and unlikely to gain traction, and he should consider changing tact” - this is relevant given the notes about tone and incivility are similar to many latter complaints regarding his deletion comments. Note that this was the second attempt to ban him from RfA (the prior one was from January 2017 filled by ] and also closed without action ]; and again the issues raised were related to civility and attitude). | |||
| :::: | |||
| * 18 June 2018 at AN ] complained about Andrew’s behavior at AfDs. Closed as no action. ] | |||
| ::::By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on ] (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week). | |||
| * 5 November 2018 ] proposed at ANI that Andrew should be required to provide rationales for his PRODs. This has been closed as no consensus. ]. Same day ] proposed a topic ban and block for Andrew for his deprodding without a rationale. This has been closed as no consensus as well ]. | |||
| ::::] is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-) | |||
| *September 2020 A general complaint about Andrew's "bad faith editing" by ] was closed with no action due to no consensus but also a note that “Andrew is advised to take seriously the feedback (and in some cases warnings) offered by many, particularly around personal attacks, in the thread.” His behavior at AfD has been criticized there, for example by ], see ]. | |||
| ::::I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those ''grey areas'' while editing the ] article as mentioned above by ]. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the ] article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged"). | |||
| * talk page warnings: | |||
| ::::Oh and should the ] where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). ] (]) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** a discussion leading to a topic ban suggestion on Andrew's talk page in 2018 | |||
| :::::For the topic ban, you can add it to ]. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about ]. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being {{tq|a pioneer in opposing SRM research}} is sourced... to ETC Group itself). ] (] · ]) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** ] Andrew that “I'd support a ban if it ever came to one. It's clear that Andrew is abusing the system and wasting everyone's time by serially removing PRODs from articles that just end up getting deleted at AfD. Then instead of doing simple things multiple people have asked him to do, like leaving a changeset comment” | |||
| :::::EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a ]. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** more requests/warning to be more civil on his talk page: a complaint by ] , , December 2020 ] complains about Andrew's behavior (civility) in the context of AfDs, nothing "You seriously need to get a grip. Afds are not a personal attack on you" , February 2021 warned by Ritchie333 that calling others a “dick” is out of line and not very constructive; pnn August 14, 2020 ] asks him to stop attacking the nominator | |||
| ::::::Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| ::::::For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item two: Andrew's AfD stats | |||
| :::::::As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at ] violated ] quite egregiously. Do you disagree? | |||
| }} | |||
| :::::::Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Andrew’s Del stats accessible at https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Andrew%2BDavidson&max=500&startdate=&altname= are are around 50% (i.e. half of his votes match up with the community). At that level, they are arguably not distinguishable from random noise. A longitudinal analysis suggests his ratio is getting steadily worse each year; and dipped below 50% last year. In my view, an experienced editor should be "correct" more than half the time, anything below this suggests his actions are not aligned with the prevailing consensus. | |||
| ::::::::I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I ''tried to'' make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive. | |||
| ::::::::Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive." | |||
| ::::::::I believe my edits for the ] article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. ] (]) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page ''on the topic of ESG and its affiliates''. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a ''symptom'' of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like at SRM and at ] (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Note that https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=Andrew+Davidson&search=DEPROD&server=enwiki&max=500&ns= will show articles Andrew dePRODed which were not deleted (many were not followed up with an AfD due to the nominator not being aware that they were deprodded; others were redirected, often without merging). Some of those were redirected. I am not aware of how to produce a count of articles Andrew deprodded that were subsequently deleted, but I believe that number is very high. What will follow next is the analysis of various problematic cases I am aware of. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item three: Mass deprodding of low quality articles | |||
| }} | |||
| Item three: Andrew is habitually doing mass deprodding as part of ]. I have no issue with this project, it’s a valuable initiative just like ARS, but in my experience (judging by edit summaries and seeing who actually deprods articles I prod), Andrew is responsible for 90% if not 99% of deprods coming from this project. I am not aware of any other editor who has been doing mass deproddings on such a time scale (several years), who is not willing to compromise in any single detail (such as adding justifications to their deprods), and who is also so aggressive and ABFing towards those who prod or AFD articles. | |||
| * Here is a sample (starting in November 2019) of articles he dePRODed with this generic rationale, ALL of which ended up deleted. Despite being pinged and asked to explain his views in the following AfDs, he did not participate in a single one; the AfDs subsequently ended up with a strong consensus to delete: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]... There were several more that were redirected or merged following his deprod. The above list is a good illustration of how Andrew forces the community to waste time discussing uncontroversial (and cleary not meeting our modern standards) articles at AfD. As far as I remember, he deprodded every single article about the B5 TV show I or others PRODed during the cleanip of articles related to that series in late 2019, did not participate in a single resulting AfD, and each and every AfD ended up with the article being deleted (a few were redirected). Andrew could have saved everyone’s time by redirecting them himself to ] (and if he did so, more of the content would’ve survived in the redirect’s histories; by taking the hard inclusionist stance he wasted others time and got more of the content “hard” deleted than he would have if he tried to compromise). | |||
| * Least someone argues that this is stale stuff from a two years ago, here are similar cases of DePRODs from last and this year - deprods of articles who are often unreferenced, and end up being deleted/redirected with little or no objection: ], ], ], ] (He participated in those two AfDs. Note that his keep vote was the single keep among other 6-7), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (his keep is again the sole dissenting vote), ], (sample article he deprodded that got redirected shortly afterward by another user), ], ], ], ]... please note this is a sample, not an exhaustive list of such incidents - the full list would be several times longer. My aim is to show this is a long-standing pattern. Please note that even if he is pinged to elaborate on his dePROD in the AfD, very often he ignores such a request entirely. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item four: repeated concerns about not providing PROD rationales | |||
| }} | |||
| In addition to mass deprodding, those deprods themselves are, well, mass produced and thus poorly rationalized. He has been asked numerous times to provide prod rationale and use more informative edit summaries. He will either ignore such requests or reply that DEPROD doesn’t require doing so. Over the years, numerous editors have complained about this. See ], ] (by ]), ] (by ]), (by ]), ] (by ]), ], (by ], ] (by ]), ] by ]), , ,, (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), , (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), (by ]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&diff=860123649&oldid=860042869&diffmode=source | |||
| ] (by ]), by ] and ] , by ] (note Andrew just deleted the post, this is quite common way he "replies" to such concerns, see also and note the edit summary to ]).... Recently ] and ] faced similar problem, see (resulting AfD: ] - resulted in deletion at AfD, like many of the rest). That's... quite a lot, isn't it? I am sure there are more than just these, I might have missed a few. I'll highlight , where Andrew mocks a user who says they are experiencing significant stress and note that at ] ] warned Andrew that “You should probably also bear in mind that while there is no broad community consensus that editors in general are required to provide a reason for deprodding, there was a pretty strong consensus that you specifically should provide a reason when you deprod, or potentially face sanctions”. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item five: a sample of AfD votes with no or bad rationale, including personal attacks | |||
| }} | |||
| Some of them are jokes, rants, condescending personal attacks, etc. | |||
| * , , insinuation of racism in ] (see discussion there, also ] noted ), , . Referring to in this AfD, ] called it . another editor calls him out for being too sarcastic. This is not new behavior, in 2017 ] asked Andrew ]. Not much has changed since, certainly not for the better. | |||
| ** After nominators note there are no good sources, Andrew often calls their claims false, even if his sources are found wanting and don't sway the discussion: ], ], , | |||
| ** He repeatedly called Prods or AfDs disruptive or otherwise problematic, often in a disparaging way. Another term he has used that has been criticized is “cookie-cutter nominations”. This has been criticized and here by ] | |||
| * votes where his sources seem google-hity, others have pointed out they are irrelevant to the discussion, likely showing Andrew did not read them, just googled something with the discussed word in title/body, and threws it into the discussion with a variation of "keep, there are sources": ], ], etc. Here ] concludes that Andrew "didn't even look at the source before posting it". Similar case here: ]. ] | |||
| * . ] closed this AfD noting that “I must discount all "keep" opinions because they fail to address the suggested reason for deletion (lack of coverage in reliable sources), or violate ]/], or both.” A few days later, on July 14 2021, ] commented during a deletion review which was closed by Sandstein on Andrew’s behavior: “It's not OK to charge around AfD punching nominators on the nose, and I view the behaviour in that debate as ''totally'' outside Misplaced Pages's conduct standards. Andrew Dingley and AlgaeGraphix's contributions both demonstrate their need for some support and direction from a member of our administrative corps.” ..<small>(Note: I believe S Marshal meant Andrew Davidson, not Dingley; I'll correct this sentence if I was wrong).</small> Andrew’s response? “Sandstein's ]s are getting beyond a joke. "I must discount all "keep" opinions" is quite typical of his style which fails to observe ]'s guidance to "''respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants.''"” Well, I believe that it would be nice if Andrew would start to respect the judgement and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants he so vocally criticizes in many deletion discussions. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item six: removal of copyediting template | |||
| }} | |||
| Lastly, a new (I think) and worrying development this year has been Andrew's removal of copyediting templates. Now, not only is he opposed to deletion of articles, but he is also opposed to tagging the as in need of fixing. | |||
| * February 9, 2021 | |||
| he was not to remove cleanup templates (notability), endorsed by another editor, ] who additionally also asked him to use informative PROD summaries. Andrew never replied to either of us, removing the section without archiving it | |||
| * Following this, he kept removes notability templates (as well as occasionally others, such as “more citations needed”, “dictionary definition” or “original research”) from articles that have no clear claim to notability with the ] edit summary, despite some of those articles not having many tags (just a single one). Here is a sample series of deprods also removing notability and other cleanup tags from July 2010, 2021: , | |||
| , , , , , , | |||
| ... I have asked him not to so again in July 2021 to which he replied aggressively, changing my neutral section heading to “barking” and attacking me with comments directed at who knows whom, like “Piotrus' edits often seem contentious”. And he kept on removing templates with the same rationale , , , , , , ... | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>(involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before)</small>. To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Femke, I've modified the ] article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion. | |||
| ::I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the ] article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the ] article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page ]. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) ] (]) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a ] or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like ]. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction. | |||
| :::At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a ] to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for ]" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be '''extended to future employers''' too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per Femke. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' and will withdraw my proposal above. ] (]) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed''' <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 ]s long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. ] (]) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. ] (] · ]) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support as proposer''' and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Voluntary restrictions=== | |||
| I rest my case. I believe the links above show that this is a long-standing pattern of problematic behavior - from disruption to personal attacks and battleground attitude - that many editors have complained about. Can the community do something, or do we need ArbCom to step in? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 11:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|EMsmile}} Just clarifying | |||
| *When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force. | |||
| *Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits? | |||
| Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support (A)''' Saying that Andrew D. is intentionally disruptive is an understatement. It's hard to estimate the countless hours of wasted time people have spent having to nominate articles that normally would have remained PROD for deletion, only for them to later be deleted regardless. Not to mention the time spent refuting arguments that, on their face, seem like valid ones, but on closer inspection are clearly meritless with bait and switch sources. Just because he ''technically'' does not break the rules doesn't mean it is not having a massive chilling effect. There's a term for that, ].<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 11:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{ping|Zxcvbnm}} while I have no opinion on the rest of your comment, please don't characterise run-of-the-mill editing by other editors as "chilling". Even if you're making a valid point otherwise. That term means "horrifying or frightening", and accusing editors of that usually implies some sort of ] or trust and safety issue is at play. Clearly not the case here. Calling things "chilling" seems to be cropping up more and more in discussions these days, and it is over the top as well as making it harder to deal with genuine issues of harassment. — ] (]) 15:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's usually used in the sense of a ], which is to say actions which discourage others from contributing or acting; in this phrase it is "chilling" in the sense of freezing, causing inaction, not in sense of "horrifying or frightening". ] ] 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' , some end up as valid articles that are kept, others deleted. The first thing listed at right now is A user without many edits prodded it and from the looks of it, it is a valid article, so deprodding was valid. Prods are meant for deletions that had no one likely to disagree. They are unfortunately misused at times. ] 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's ], I am afraid - like saying "it's ok when cops shoot civilians, after all, just yesterday I saw a news piece about this cop shooting a criminal and saving some innocent person" (read: article). Nobody is denying Andrew does some good, but he also does a lot of collaterall damage at the same time. Damage that he could easily prevent by being civil, assuming good faith, and using informative deprod edit summaries/talk page comments, and by providing source analysis instead of just linking google hits results in AfDs. Some of his deprods/votes are fine, but way too many are not, and I think the amoung of those problematic comments/votes/deprods is too high to ignore. It's the case of doing more harm than good, IMHO, a net negative. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 12:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Dream Focus has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' "There are times when someone goes around rapidly proding things, he goes about deprodding all of them" You are not helping his case. Making changes to articles without actually reading them should be avoided. Andrew D. neither spend time evaluating the articles, nor made efforts to improve them. ] (]) 15:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza == | |||
| *'''Support 30-day topic ban''' from both AfD and de-prodding on grounds of many examples of gross incivility. Unlike Lightburst, I feel that this user's habitual unpleasantness does rise to the level of disruptive behaviour.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} | |||
| **You want to give someone who has been active (and consistently problematic) at AfD for well over a decade, with countless warnings and several blocks.... a 30 day tban? What exactly would that accomplish? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Religião, Política e Futebol}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| {{u|Religião, Política e Futebol}} and {{u|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} have both been edit warring at ] over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration. | |||
| *'''Support some topic ban:''' Since I was tagged here, I will give my observations. I noticed a pattern with Andrew Davidson in the back half of 2020. Andrew has a constant track record of going into AfDs with a "protect the article at all cost" mentality and will often stretch the meanings of certain policies and criteria (or evoke them even in situations where they obviously don't apply) to justify his ''Keep'' votes. I have never seen him vote ''Delete'' on anything and this sort of thing has happened persistently over a long period of time. This behaviour has extended into obfuscation, incivility, and general attempts to mislead. I attempted to reach Andrew on his talk page and elsewhere back in August 2020 politely asking him to stop, but all he did was say "I don't know what you are talking about" and then resumed what he was already doing. I haven't spoken to him in quite a while, but the concerns raised by Piotrus are not imaginary. ''']]]''' 12:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* A recent example of my !voting ''Delete'' has already been provided – see ]. That was not four years ago; it was just a few weeks ago. This demonstrates both that I'm expressing my own honest assessment of topics and that I'm not blindly following an ARS party-line. See also ]. ]🐉(]) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Do you legitimately think that voting delete just indicates that you are "not blindly following an ARS party-line"? Does your "honest assessment of topics" truly result in notability nearly 90% of the time? ] ] 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Although deprodding itself is not the problem (prods can be removed for any reason) and good faith users are sometimes ] into being ] (I can see a couple of long-term partisons voting here right now, unfortunately), I'm sorry to say that this is an example of a clear-cut case of non-constructive behaviour on your end. It's not just your one-note record, but also the long-term sample size, the persistent weightlessness of your ''Keep'' arguments, the general (and sometimes even dishonest) behaviour surrounding anything related to deletion, your demeanor towards anyone and everyone who nominates anything for deletion (even for legitimate reasons), ETC. It's pretty much all of it packaged together. ''']]]''' 19:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Again, this is an indiscriminate ragbag of issues, most of which are unrelated to the supposed issue of the ARS and canvassing. The idea seems to be that if you keep slinging enough mud then eventually something will stick. Anyway, let's start at the top with the first points. There's a misunderstanding of ] which I have already explained above. That essay doesn't mean that editors should not use Google to find and list sources; editors are explicitly expected to do this. | |||
| :And then the first detailed item is a complaint about RfA from 2017. That's over four years ago and so is very stale. But notice that I haven't opposed anyone at RfA for years now because I decided that this was a mug's game as people just didn't listen. So, having driven off opposers who did detailed research like me, the result is that you get RfAs like the recent one for ] in which you get huge numbers of supports and only one oppose until it is realised that closer inspection is required and RfA can't be trusted to get this right. | |||
| :But even though opposition has been silenced, people still complain that RfA is toxic and so we have another round of reform. I have commented in that and my suggestions are being listened to — even Piotrus agreed with them. | |||
| :But talking about RfA is a huge tangent from the OP's original issue and so quite off topic. This is what happens when you leave discussions open for too long — you get thread drift and a free-for-all. | |||
| :]🐉(]) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Andrew Davidson has been a member of ] since ], and is the subject of this TBAN proposal. ] 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Andrew Davidson}} It has already been stated clearly by {{u|Beeblebrox}} and the rest of the Arbitration Committee that the discovery that Eostrix was a sockpuppet of IceWhiz was only obtainable by ''off-wiki'' evidence, and it was also clarified that '''no fault''' should be found on the nominators {{u|HJ Mitchell}} and {{u|Girth Summit}} ''whatsoever''. So either you had a lot of convincing off-wiki evidence to prove this case to Arbcom, in which case you should have worked with Arbcom to get a ban invoked before the RfA even started, or (more likely in my opinion) you are casting unnecessary aspersions and antagonising people. I haven't decided how to vote in this sanction yet, but if you continue to make antagonising comments like these that annoy people, you're likely to find the ban proposal will reach consensus. Now please - knock it off. ] ] ] 17:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The only one of these I'd support. I always find it painful to support sanctions on long-term good-faith contributors. I think Andrew has done a lot for Misplaced Pages, but, unfortunately, I've also long been under the impression that he's a net negative at AfD. Andrew is likely to attack the nominator, seems to frequently try to circumvent real discussion by wikilawyering about the nomination statement (or cherry-picked elements of the nomination statement, while ignoring the rest) in ways that hurt rather than help discussion ( ). Andrew has idiosyncratic opinions about deletion, and will aggressively present them not as opinion but settled fact, and those who disagree as somewhere between a fool (to be corrected) and a vandal (to be scolded). Even when ostensibly being helpful (and FWIW I don't mean to imply that Andrew is never helpful at AfD -- that would be untrue), the effect is still often negative. For example, responding with a list of titles apparently copy-pasted from a list of google books/scholar hits, with no information about them or what they contain and not so much as a simple link to let people know what work he's even talking about. Everyone else has to do the work of finding them. Too often, whether linked or not, the sources wind up being low quality or barely mention the subject such that it's hard to believe Andrew actually read them before pasting the titles (there are lots of examples of the non-linking and use of poor sources, and these are not the most illustrative, but they're what I have ready to hand: ). These lists of sources (or sometimes just one, or just a link to google hits) are treated like they absolutely rebut any possible argument while making it hard for people to track down and verify his claims. All of this stuff just makes an already frequently unpleasant corner of the project that much more difficult and unpleasant. And, although I consider this less important, amid all of the talk about ARS and canvassing, there are frequent examples of Andrew ''actually'' using ARS as a keep club (e.g. rather than a neutral explanation of why it merits rescuing as per ARS's own guidelines). He has the worst afdstats I think I've ever seen from a long-time contributor, and has had problems with deletion going back more than a decade (prior to Piotrus's links, too, under Andrew's other account, Colonel Warden). A caveat, though: my support is ''completely unrelated to deprodding'', which I don't particularly care about, and which I frankly think is a mistake to bring up here given how many times it's been reaffirmed that deprodding can be done for any reason. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) <small>Updated to include more diffs, and I edited part of it in the process. Should there be any doubt, to my initial comments. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :* Rhododendrites doesn't give any examples, so I looked for one. The most recent case where we commented together seems to be ] – one of the ] that have been the main bone of contention lately. In that case, I removed the PROD from the article. If this had not been done, it would have been deleted without discussion. I then commented briefly at the AfD, citing both a source and policy. And I improved the article by adding an image – it did not previously have one. So, I was working hard in several ways to save a topic which seemed to have good promise. In that case, Rhododendrites !voted Keep like me so I'm not quite understanding why they see me as such a villain. Are they going to take over such duties if I am banned? Or are they content to see such topics deleted without discussion? ]🐉(]) 13:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Indeed Colonel, the fact ARS legends are getting attacked by those we've often colledgially worked shoulder to shoulder with is what makes this such a distressing thread. ] (]) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm starting work at the moment (sorry, in hindsight I should've waited to post until I could respond/update accordingly), but will return to this this evening with examples and a follow-up. If you would prefer (and not anyone else), you have my permission to remove my comment above (and these replies), which I will restore later when I have more time to respond/add later. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Updated now with some more diffs. FWIW I don't see you as a villain at all. It might not mean much given what I've written, but I get the impression you're a smart and good humored fellow who cares deeply about this project. I just also get the sense that the deletion process you want (or the community you want -- one which understands and treats deletion the same way you do) just doesn't exist. While I'm all for a dissenting view and disrupting traditional ways of thinking, it's just gone on too long, too consistently, and too inflexibly. It's one thing to speak out in dissent; it's another to force everyone to listen to the same arguments and put people through the same haranguing tactics over and over, for years. It's just time. I genuinely hope you'll stick around and continue to voice your opinion about deletion when it comes to our policies and guidelines (and continue to improve the project). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 04:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I agree with the OP on one point – the Colonel can be a little abrasive, and makes more point scoring type votes than is necessary. It would be good if he could make an effort to be more respectful of those with different opinions at AfD. Overall though, my view is that the Colonels contribution to AfD & prod patrol is a huge net positive; he's saved countless valuable articles from deletion, and his scholarship often elevates the debate. To address the “low quality, based on WP:GOOGLEHITS” , I can see why it might appear that the Colonel relies on professor Google , he speaks with authority on such a wide range of topics. Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting the Colonel in RL know differently – he can talk knowledgeably and spontaneously about all sorts of things, one of the rare few who warrant being called a walking encyclopaedia. And often his arguments are based on extensive printed sources from his private library, not google. I remember the first time I met him in RL at a meetup with Sue Gardener back in 2010. At the time, Deletionists were targeting London bus routes – the Colonel brought a stack of about a dozen books to the meeting, just to show the extensive coverage that London bus routes actually receive in reliable sources.{{pb}}This whole thread is starting to take on witchhunt qualities, it's starting to feel like parts of the community won't be happy until there is blood on the carpet. Even broad minded editors long respected by the ARS, such as good professor Piotr, Rhododendrites & S Marshall are pitching in. Please someone close this nightmare. ] (]) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{tqq|Even broad minded editors long respected by the ARS ... are pitching in}} ''or'' maybe they have a legitimate concern that remains unaddressed. ] 14:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{tq|It would be good if he could make an effort to be more respectful of those with different opinions at AfD.}} I think it is really disappointing that you (and the other like-minded but better-behaved editors) haven't taken the time to reach out quietly to your poorly-behaved colleagues and encouraged them to behave better; instead, you have abetted and promoted the problematic behavior that is the reason we are here, as you are doing above. Removing a small number of chronic caustic contributors at AfD is going to have a large positive impact on the environment there. --] (]) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:Indeed. This is the "end justifies the means" mentality that leads to the building of groups, including voting blocks. As I said many times, the goal of ARS is noble, but some of its members have gone too far, turning AfDs into battlegrounds, with the logic that if they attack the "evil deletionists" and make them leave the project ("your kind is not welcom here!"), they'll "save" the project. Sacrifice a bit of civility in order to prevent the deletion of useful articles - I am sorry, but this is not the right way to build the project. I don't even mind the existence of the ARS voting block, and their coordination and such - as long as the end result is a constructive, polite debate. But when instead the result is a development of civility-violating behavior (understandable, after years of hard work and slow burning out and radicalization) and defending it because the editor is "on the right side" of the "inclusionists vs deletionist" debate, then this is the AN(I)/ArbCom problem to deal with :( <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **: @JayBeeEll, It's not correct to assume such quiet words have not been had. I created ] back in 2009. In 2011, I had a long off wiki chat with the Colonel about a Deletionist we were frequently tangling with at the time (ScottyWong) , who I argued deserved our respect. The Colonel even agreed. In later discussions concerning other editors he did not - but then the Colonel is a much better scholar than myself, so it's understandable he sometimes sticks to his guns. an example from just over a year back where I partly agreed with Reyk on the Colonel's AfD conduct, even suggesting he might benefit from the occasional AfD break – and that was on a thread where the Colonel was enjoying much higher support than here. Squad members and other inclusionists are always having quiet words with each other, there would be hundreds of diffs if I had time for some digging. I recall benefiting several times from good advice from Dream, when I made a vote that wasn't well grounded in policy. That said, while I agree the Colonel's conduct isn't beyond improvement, I don't agree it's majorly problematic. It's a valid perspective to see putting an article up for deletion without following WP:Before as inherently aggressive. Criticising the nom can be a good thing, even if the Colonel probably does so too frequently. On balance, I don't even agree with the assumption I'm better behaved that the Colonel - more like he's someone for me to look up to. If not for my flaw of being excessively adverse to online conflict, I'd be involved in more AfDs, even sometimes making warranted criticism of hasty nominations. Then the Colonel might not feel obliged to shoulder so much of the burden himself. Now these assumptions have been clarified, perhaps you'll consider amending your vote? ] (]) 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:: So, to summarize: you agree that AD's behavior is problematic, you think it would be better that they stop, and you believe that non-coercive methods of getting them to stop have failed. Sounds like a strong Support to me! Separately, w.r.t. {{tq|my flaw of being excessively adverse to online conflict}}, if AD shared this flaw then we wouldn't be here. --] (]) 19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **FeydHuxtable has been a member of ] since ]. ] 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' There is no requirement to provide a rationale for PROD removal. They're quick to add and quick to remove, that's the point. I'm uncomfortable with sanctions based on an editor's AfD stats or PROD removals because these are all within our guidelines, and editors should feel no obligation to follow the trend and likewise shouldn't feel scared to post a keep if others are voting delete or vice-versa. A ban for these reasons would send out the wrong message to other users. ] (]) 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **NemesisAT is not listed at ], but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time , and has voted with ARS, for example at ], ], ], ], ]. ] 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:Why is this relevant? Ironically, I didn't realise the ARS existed until I saw someone complaining about them on an AfD. I usually avoid voting when articles are likely to be deleted and focus my time on those that could be kept. ] (]) 16:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::Same reason {{tls|canvassed}} exists; provides info for the closer. ] (]) 17:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:::For the sake of completeness then, Levivich votes delete/merge/redirect ~78% of the time and the OP Piotrus votes delete/merge/redirect ~90% of the time. ] (]) 17:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::::Yes, mine and Levivich's tag team is a thing to be feared... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (a) (that Andrew Davidson be t-banned from AfDs) on grounds of incivility. The evidence presented in items 1 and 5 shows that Andrew has a longstanding behavioral problem that contributes to the poisonous atmosphere at AfD. I think it is unfortunate that the nomination mixes this up with questions of the ''quality'' of Andrew's contributions to AfD; Andrew should be topic-banned because they treat AfD as a battleground, routinely making personalized attacks on other AfD contributors, despite many warnings (as documented above). As applied to AfDs, I do not think (b) is workable or that it would address the problem; this comment should not be taken as either support or opposition on the question of PRODs. --] (]) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' current policy on prod removal is that "You are encouraged, but not required" to explain why you are removing a prod. I can see a good case for changing that policy, at least for experienced editors. Filing an RFC and calling for a change to that policy is a legitimate way to change policy. Seeking to change policy by attacking those that follow a policy is a form of harassment and should be treated as such. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: The proposal (regrettably in my view) mixes together several different issues and several different remedies. This response relates to one area only (PRODs). (Several other commenters above have explicitly separated their comments about AfDs and civility concerns from their comments about PRODs.) --] (]) 15:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Item seven: Extension of item one, failure to AFG about subsequent nominations | |||
| }} | |||
| Andrew loves to complain about , ]. This is usually in poor faith and entirely unconstructive. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *'''Support''' I have added item seven. Besides his rote copy-paste of Google Books titles that do not necessarily mention the topic it hand, much less provide significant coverage, Andrew is regularly dismissive of the very concept of deletion, and the fact that AFD is forum for discussion, often shutting things down with a rude " ", as if anyone thought they could change his vote in the first place. It's fine for someone to reply to a !vote for others to see without you attacking the fact they've addressed your points. | |||
| Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. ] (]) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Further bad faith comments include , , ], and where he literally calls me "a dog returning to his vomit" in one his useless trite quotations, this time to a Bible verse ("See also Proverbs 26:11.") ]<sup>]</sup> 15:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Adding that like Reyk below, while I have had strong disagreements with Lightburst and 13, they do not leave such a bitter taste in this process and do not reject the process itself as Andrew does. "Speedy keep" is a common refrain when a nominator would be fine with a merge or redirect and total deletion is not requested, even when he states he may agree with one of those ATD options; this obstruction of the discussion is not helpful when outside input is sought and those are valid options at AFD. His ] of book titles that happen to include some of the same words as the article title without showing how they'd improve the article or show notability (or the need for a stand-alone article sometimes) – and his often sarcastic adages – are rarely useful to "rescuing" articles or promoting good discussion. With respect to PROD, one particularly reflexive and unhelpful one was when the tag said the topic already existed at another page. Even if a merge/redirect was better, the rationale was left ignored. At least he seems to have gotten over the phase of spouting "per WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:PRESERVE" as if they were blanket bans on the concept of deletion. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. ] (]) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. ] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at ], not here. ] (]) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Sundayclose}} Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says, {{tq|This complaint is not about the content directly}}. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. ] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. ] (]) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *There have been numerous edits to the ] article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits. | |||
| * '''Support''' indef topic ban because Andrew is probably the most blatant canvasser in the ARS with his dumb no-context “wink wink nudge nudge vote keep” jokes in place of information. A topic ban is a comparative slap on the wrist next to more serious sanctions (like total banning) but has more of a tangible effect on solving the issues at hand than just a warning (which has already been tried). He’s also persistently uncivil and a look at his stats suggests he’s a blind partyline voter. ] (]) 15:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of '''information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family'''. | |||
| *'''Support''' indef topic ban from deletion related issues and maintenance tags, broadly construed. It's clear that the Colonel is not capable of working collegially in these areas. The fundamental issue is that he ''does not care'' if mainspace articles are of awful quality, contain inaccuracies, contain irrelevant or falsified sourcing, copyvios, spam, or whatever else gunk you can think of- provided it's kept and that those advocating cleanup or deletion are called names and left frustrated. He's been white-anting the encyclopedia for over a decade and people just don't want to see it. Piotrus has done a good job of presenting evidence; I'll point out a few extra diffs and links to add to the pile: | |||
| **The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs: | |||
| **The mendacious approach to sourcing is by far the biggest problem. As pointed out by Rhododendrites the Colonel often presents lacklustre "sources" that don't support the claim and which he may not have even read. Piotrus has linked to a few discussions already; I'd just like to show that not only would the Colonel like to load the encyclopedia up with inaccuracies he'd also like to censor people from pointing inaccuracies out. See for instance ] where a dumps a bunch of irrelevant sources into the discussion and then claims {{ping|Ravenswing}} isn't allowed to scrutinise them because, the Colonel's opinion, he hasn't sufficiently abased himself at the holy altar of ] (and the Colonel will ''always'' claim that). An earlier example of attempted censorship is ]. Basically, a book previously used as a source for numerous Misplaced Pages articles was found to be riddled with errors and utter gibberish and the user page in question catalogues the errors and set out why that book shouldn't be used as a source. Well, pointing out inaccuracies in WP content is extremely felonious especially if it leads to articles being deleted, so this user space page had to be quashed using the most tortured interpretations of ] and ] I've ever seen. Luckily nobody was deceived but I think it shows the mindset pretty clearly. | |||
| **{{ping|Sundayclose}} Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant. | |||
| **Maintenance tags do not have an expiration date; they do not go "stale". They expire when the problem they alert the community to has been resolved, not before. Typically the maintenance tags he removes are neither "vague" nor "stale". A recent, typical, example is , where a BLP-sources tag was deleted. It was obvious at a glance that the article contained at least three contentious and unsourced statements regarding a living person so there's nothing vague about it. Eventually the issues were mostly dealt with by removing or properly sourcing that stuff and ''that'' is when you remove the tags- not because you find them unsightly or because you want to undermine and sabotage the maintenance tag system. As for "stale", if a previous AFD in 2009 is cause to yawn "NOTAGAIN" today I don't see how 2019 can be considered stale. | |||
| **During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, {{u|74.12.250.57}}, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, {{u|2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803}}, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"): | |||
| **As for the serial deprodding, "I'm allowed to do this" stops being an effective justification when the volume and repetition of it is getting disruptive, you're ''obviously'' just trying to be obnoxious, and people have legitimate questions about your motivations. We passed that point long ago. | |||
| **The article was then confirmed-protected for two days. | |||
| **Others have mentioned the personal attacks, including Piotrus and Reywas separately noting that he's called them dogs. I've ] his love of falsely calling people racists before yet has about making actually racist remarks himself. | |||
| **On 10 January, {{ping|Religião, Política e Futebol}} made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits: | |||
| **I haven't !voted on Lightburst or 13's discussions and I'm not going to. There may be concerns about hurling insults and presenting sources of dubious provenance at AfD, but if so it's clear who they're trying to emulate. Removing the Colonel from XfD broadly construed would only reduce the amount of acrimony there, and the amount of shite in the mainspace. ] <sub>]</sub> 16:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Another IP, {{u|2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40}}, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff: | |||
| * '''Support''' topic ban. This editor is disruptive to the PROD and AfD processes, blindly voting keep and mass contesting PRODs without any good reason. Numerous examples are included above. ] (]) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff: | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban from all the mentioned problem areas. Leaving aside any questions of ARS canvassing and the like, Davidson is a net negative to the project in this realm—removing valid cleanup templates without any apparent significant thought or cogent argumentation, consistently poor conduct at AfD, and this has been an issue going back years and years and nothing has modified their behavior. Darkknight2149's summation of the behavior as "protect the article at all costs" is accurate, and where I think AD's behavior is clearly tendentious. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff: | |||
| *'''Support A''' per ] description. B isn't easily enforceable. The lashing out at AfDs, superficial refbombing, etc. are almost the norm from Andrew nowadays, and I'm surprised this wasn't the first topic ban to be proposed. I do think this needs to be both an AfD and PROD ban to truly get them to step away from the behavior issues.] is one that caught my eye awhile back. Right away, Andrew just launches into attacks like {{tq|More abuse of our deletion processes}} directed toward nominators followed by an alphabet soup of wikilinks and misuse of sources called out by ] . | |||
| **Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff: | |||
| **On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff: | |||
| **Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff: | |||
| **I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection. | |||
| *In regards to '''the mention of Baena's suicide''', this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January. | |||
| **{{ping|DiaMali}} did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff: | |||
| **Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , , | |||
| **The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when {{ping|Ibeaa}} removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff: | |||
| **On 7 January, IP {{u|2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196}} adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff: | |||
| **The next user to re-add the info was {{ping|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff: | |||
| **The IP {{u|2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8}} removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff: | |||
| **{{ping|Sundayclose}} reverted the IP on the same day. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff: | |||
| **Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing {{tq|committed suicide}} for the first time in this edit, which IP {{u|50.71.82.63}} fixed. Diff: | |||
| **Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information ''five times each'', no edit reasons in sight. | |||
| ***Zander: (above 1), , , , | |||
| ***Ibeaa: , , , , | |||
| **I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff: | |||
| **Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff: | |||
| **On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff: | |||
| **Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff: | |||
| **Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is {{tq|accurate and properly sourced}}. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the ] article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff: | |||
| **Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. ]. | |||
| ***I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time. | |||
| **After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff: | |||
| **I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection. | |||
| **Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem {{tq|vital enough}} to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff: | |||
| *] (]) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] Closed as no conensus, but ] warned them {{tq|if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable.}} and endorsed by other admins like ], ] , and ]. This isn't a new/recent issue, and Andrew has had plenty of time to change their behavior despite multiple admin and regular editor warnings. | |||
| :This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at ] or a request for page protection at ] would be more suitable than ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :These AfDs below are all from mostly just looking in their AfDs through this past summer. Besides the incivility others have posted evidence on, just a lot of time-wasting, etc: | |||
| ::You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to ''acknowledge'' the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. ] (]) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Sniping, lashing out, or straight up personal attacks at AfDs. ] seems to be a common target}} | |||
| *{{tq|It's the nomination which is indiscriminate as there's no clear reason for its existence}} | |||
| *{{tq|Another vexatious repeat nomination. . .}} (result was delete) | |||
| *{{tq|The usual cut/paste, drive-by nomination. . .}} | |||
| *{{tq|How many fingers am I holding up? That's the number of times that this page has been dragged here to Room 101 for a Two Minutes Hate before it is dropped down the memory hole.}} | |||
| *{{tq|Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find. . .}} article deleted | |||
| *sniping about ], {{tq|The references to TNT are in poor taste here as TNT is a toxic explosive which was used to kill many people during WW2}} | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| == Death threats by 2.98.176.93 == | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Reference hand-waving, wasting the communities time on ], often uses superficial "appears in numerous references" comment}} | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *] | |||
| | status = BLOCKED | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *{{tq|The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD.}} responded to by {{tq|The term is used exactly one time in that source, we're nowhere near passing WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{tq|Keep A respectable scientific association. Finding sources is just a matter of looking – see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOEFFORT.}} responded to by {{tq|Then what exactly are these sources that are supposedly so easy to find? Sandstein 12:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)}} result was delete | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| | result = Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Then there's ]. {{tq|This has already been discussed here and the result was keep. This fresh nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD. . .}} responded to with {{tq|The last nomination was 9 years ago. You are acting like it was two weeks ago. Consensus can change, and surviving an AfD doesn't grant an article lifetime immunity if the issues persist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{userlinks|2.98.176.93}} Left a death threat {{diff||1270338492|1270334632|here - diff}}<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: 30 day block by {{user|Bbb23}} ] (]) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Death threat left after block. Talk page access? ] (]) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*TPA removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think {{tl|Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. ] (]) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you use ], you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I can't believe that. I use Twinkle all day long and I never saw that option. There are always things to learn here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Exactly, ], thank you very much. I have the hardest time locating the right template regarding admin work. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Templates are a convenience but not at all necessary. It does not take long to type "Your talk page access has been revoked. See ] for your options." ] (]) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Repeated copyvios by Manannan67 == | |||
| :This is all hallmark ] behavior where in isolation no one is going to bother reporting or sanctioning, but the persistent behavior is apparent when you total up diffs. ] (]) 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Manannan67}} | |||
| *'''Support''' a (presumably indefinite?) topic ban for AD per previous discussions on their WP:POINTy WP:BLUDGEONING of AFDs, rarely via constructive criticism but containing PAs of varying degrees, often but not exclusively based on their perceived lack of WP:BEFORE, something which they rarely adhere to in their presentation of 'sources' with the same exacting expectations as they require of others. ]] 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ), | |||
| *'''Support''' a ] from AFD's, as per more evidence above than should be repeated. I will also cite: | |||
| most recently , when I discovered a they placed on . The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did one early warning from the talk page. ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Abuse of ] in saying that the nominator has not offered a policy-based reason to delete, when ] is the failure to offer a reason to delete. ] (]) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}}'''Support topic ban''' per the evident disruptive blind-!voting of repeat AfDs brought up by Reywas92's item 7 and KoA above. The opposes above only cover the PROD concern (which personally I do not have an opinion on) or that the given items do not relate to canvassing and ARS (which is nonsense as this is a proposal against Andrew alone and not ARS in general). Andrew's ] that he is "not blindly following an ARS party-line" is also rather telling as in fact he has had - this certainly feels like a repeat of what Darkknight2149 mentioned: that {{tq|all he did was say "I don't know what you are talking about" and then resumed what he was already doing}} when asked to stop. ] ] 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' I supported something similar in September 2020 and the disruptive behavior has continued. ] ] 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support (b) or (a)''' {{tq|at least to require him to provide an analysis of all sources he brings to AfDs}}. This is the bare minimum we can ask for guys. If you provide an offline source then you're expected to have read it, to prove that notability is evidenced by those sources. All he does is blindly throw a dart expecting to hit the spot. It takes nothing from him to spam those long list of offline sources in all afds, and he knows those sources can't be dismissed without others having actually read them. Once a source is pointed out to him as having little to no association with the subject in question, he pivots to other sources or other arguments. This is a reliance on unfalsifiability. This is a massive drain on others though, when this action is repeatedly abused. Also, prima facie, based on his comments on other editors, I feel, any other person would have long been banned for personal attacks. An afd t-ban would solve the purpose by actually having him rescue articles rather than just saving them from deletion by hook or by crook. You can't say that all abortions must be stopped, but also then abandon the child once it is born. Why not save articles worth saving and let us abort the shitty ones. - ] (]) 17:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban''' This user has often dumped sources of minimal relevance into AfD discussions and simply driven on to another discussion. Let’s have them actually use relevant sources to build the articles rather than try and win deletion discussions. -] (]) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support TBan''' We're here again, how many years down the road is it since the multiple previous issues first came to light? It's time to stop at least ''some'' of the issues. ] 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongest Conceivable Support:''' Andrew's not merely a cancer on every level of deletion practice, but his indefatigable incivility, tendentious arguments, wikilawyering and agenda pushing is a running sore to Misplaced Pages at large; I would cheerfully support any sanction against him up to and including a community ban altogether, and an indef tban from any level of the deletion process, from AfD to deprodding to DRV is the ''least'' that should be enacted. If he wants to save articles from the axe, then he can go and improve the articles ... something he seems militantly opposed to troubling himself with (his mainspace edits, INCLUDING deprods, are only 30% of his total edits). And the worst of his nonsense? That if he throws up a bunch of links/sources in support of his assertions, you pretty much have to ''assume'' it's all bullshit -- that he's just cherrypicking from the first page of a Google search, that he hasn't examined a single link, and that he hopes no one else does either. (Honestly, reading a couple people defending his "scholarship" produced enough of a derisive snort from me to scare my cat out of my lap.)<p>To anyone sitting on the fence on this issue, or contemplating leniency ... look. At what point is ] and ] worth actually enforcing? Andrew's antics are enough to have gotten a hundred newbies indef banned, and you all know it. Hell, Mick MacNee had ten times the productive edits Andrew's made. ] 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{tq|a cancer on every level of deletion practice}} A somewhat bizarre view, but at least I now feel I understand the social dynamics that enabled the Athenians to vote to permaban Socrates. The Colonel is a truly unique scholar and Misplaced Pages will never again see his like. I know for a fact that several other worthy causes & projects in and around London are appreciative of the Colonel's time, so on the bright side, unlike with Plato's teacher, there will be several winners if your sort of rhetoric carries the day here. ] (]) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I understand that you’re quite personally fond of “the Colonel”, but ] is not an excuse when a ton of evidence has just been presented that he is, and will continue to be, a disruptive, toxic influence at AfD and that he can devote his knowledge and skills elsewhere on the project if he wants to improve it. ] (]) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll also second this. It seems quite often when people are trying to deal with Andrew's bevhavior, Feyd is close by engaging in "Colonel" puffery. That interaction isn't core to this particular dispute, but maybe the ban will help cut down on some of that tangential aspect. There often does seem to be a sort of battleground attitude of how dare someone impinge on the "colonel". ] (]) 19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seeing him as a “new Socrates” is the bizarre view. It’s also, frankly, disturbingly obsessive. '''' isn’t “the unexamined life is not worth living”. ] (]) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Agreed; if anything this is just a sign Andrew is inspiring a weird, disruptive level of fanaticism that no editor should ever have, let alone an editor who clearly isn’t among Misplaced Pages’s best and brightest. ] (]) 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: And by that you mean…? ] (]) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That you are right that we are seeing some weird appeals to emotion / save-my-buddy stuff here. And it is also a very valid point that we need to make a strong case that his behavior does not represent best practices, and that it ''should not'' inspire followers. Case in point: ] (ping ] - read this thread please, and reconsider the advice you received there...). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 21:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You've pinged me here for a reason which is unrelated to the developing consensus in response to your proposal outlining allegations about Andrew's lack of civility, and probably has more to do with your long-running feud with Andrew since you are insinuating that I am a "follower" of him. The PROD policy clearly states that ''it must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected'' and providing the reason for deprodding is ''encouraged, but not required''. It's not something Andrew or any other editor had made up on your own. Had Avilich, the person who left the PROD in the first reason, asked me to explain my reason for the deprod prior to or during the AfD, I would've given one without hesitation. It is also clear that the outcome of that particular AfD indicates that more then one editor opposed the deletion and thus it would be controversial, which means it is unsuitable to be subject to a PROD in the first place. ] (]) 09:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: {{u|Dronebogus}}, I must warn you that if continue to blaspheme our Lord and Saviour the Coloniel, you will spend an eternity in the fiery lake of Jimbo Whales. No pension in the afterlife for you. You will respect he who votes ''Keep'' and gives you fried chicken, praise be the Holy One. ''']]]''' 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* If Misplaced Pages never again sees his toxic like, the encyclopedia will be a better place for it. It is entirely possible to be an inclusionist and still not be a troll. It is entirely possible to passionately wish to save threatened articles and yet avoid disruption, deceit and constant bad faith. ] to the mountain of evidence contradicting your attempted panegyric, but while you're talking about "scholarship," you might puzzle out why there are ''dozens'' of editors here so willing to come down on your hero. ] 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ] of this group borders on the tragic. ]] 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per all above (FYI: I've always thought of myself as an inclusionist). ] ] 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Full Strong Support''' The evidence provided here is incredibly extensive, thorough, and complete. I have had the displeasure of trying to reach out and reason with Andrew Davidson in the context of PRODs and AfD's and it was entirely ineffective. He operate in bad, rules-lawyering faith and is a net detriment to deletion discussions. Per the noms, he should be banned indefinitely from all deletion sections of wikipedia. This should include undeletion as well because if he is permitted to go there, it is almost certain he'll take strong advantage of that loophole. The core interaction I had with him is cited as item 95, but it went further. The discussion on his talk page can be where in I provide my analysis. He unfortunately deleted this off his talk page after that. It is also of my opinion of no action is or can be taken here, it should be escalated to ArbCom as the disruptive nature of Andrew Davidson is more than strong enough to necessitate that. --<span style="color:#150160">''']'''</span><sub>(] ])</sub> 19:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' indef topic ban, per nom and other support !votes above, which I won't repeat. I remember ] and even putting the PROD stuff aside, the examples in the nom demonstrate that basically nothing has changed since the last ANI. A topic ban is overdue here to prevent the ongoing disruption. ] 19:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Pardon me for rambling here. I can only imagine all of the editors pounding the keys out of their keyboards and refreshing the thread. A long term editor like Andrew, who regularly deprods articles is bound to ruffle feathers. The challenge is to find one article that a prodder was wrong about: if the article deserves deletion it will be deleted and no amount of editing can save it - believe me I have tried. Many things need to be deleted, I have seen it researching the AfDs of Reywas92: he does that hard work in GEO - and I saw Giant Snowman did that work in FOOTY.. I almost always agree with some of you about deleting rubbish - I do not think the project needs more ] trivia and I don't think Andrew does either. Regarding Andrew's tenure on the project...They tell U.S. Senators to run for President right away - like Barak Obama did. Do you know why? It is so they do not have a long record which others can pick apart. Well Andrew has a long record here, and more things to pick apart. And couple that with his affiliation with a group that takes on articles that many of you think should be deleted...well that is a recipe for the cathartic explosion in this thread. He can tone down his acerbic behavior and I will tell to him that. Right after I tell myself. Recently I complained that an Admin was snarly - others were quick to defend them, and then that admin basically said they were entitled to that attitude after 15 years on the project. My own opinion is this: would we allow a McDonalds Employee to mistreat customers because of their tenure? Probably not. So yes, I think Andrew gets it. You cannot work at McDonalds with an edgy attitude. ] (]) 20:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** About 90% of that was irrelevant ] rambling, but I got that you think he shouldn’t be banned for de-prodding. But did you just ignore everything ELSE he’s accused of? ] (]) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:"He can tone down his acerbic behavior and I will tell to him that". Don't hesitate to show us the diff of this admonishment. And I'd love to see Andrew apologize for his "acerbic behavior" and promise to mend his ways. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think Lightburst needs to, I've given Andrew a serious head's up that if he doesn't change his tact PDQ he's going to get topic banned. His reply so far is not encouraging. ] ] ] 21:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* This basically boils down to "this user is not to blame for having a bad record", and my only question is, why? And, the thing is, if Andrew had apologised for their previous errors and/or moved on from them we wouldn't still be here, would we? The analysis of AfD stats above shows that Andrew has consistently voted in ways up to the present day that are at odds with wider consensus. Not an indictment by itself, but clearly showing that their standards for keep are way lower than everyone else's. A simple acknowledgment of "Hey, sorry we didn't use the best sources, we'll try better next time" or something similar from the ARS crew would have gone a long way IMO in preventing ANI discussions involving topic bans. -] (]) 21:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* @Piotrus, it's not the Colonel's style to frequently apologise. He's rather meticulous and rarely makes mistakes, at least by not his own standards. But he does offer olive branches. Like for example only a couple of months ago he explicitly said he'd created an article in from your good self. That's the Colonels way of showing he has good will towards you, despite the fact you often oppose each other at AfD. Frankly, I can't believe it's looking like you're going to be the one to finally bring him down. ] (]) 21:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::* “The colonel” is not so ineffably perfect that he’s somehow above apologizing for bad behavior and admitting to mistakes, and normal civility doesn’t cut it. What do you think he is, some kind of demigod we should be happy even noticed us mere mortals? ] (]) 21:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Why are you debasing yourself with such servility and highfalutin language. "It's not the colonel's style to apologise", "he's a modern day Socrates". Wow. Listen to yourself dude. - ] (]) 21:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*He "rarely makes mistakes, at least by not his own standards". Unfortunatley, his own standards are irrelevant, what is relevant are the standards required by ]. ]] 07:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::* His "style" is not to apologize? The only standards he deigns to follow are his own? '''Then he does not belong on Misplaced Pages,''' and it's sad that you refuse to see that such behavior is incompatible with a consensus-based project. He's ''capable'' of making good faith suggestions? Well, la-de-dah, he made one to me once, and I thanked him for the good advice. And yet here we are. Acting in good faith isn't merely something editors should be capable of doing. On Misplaced Pages, it is required to be ''every editor's standard operating procedure.'' ] 10:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:{{u|FeydHuxtable}}, Weeell, I appreciate Andrew's creation of that article, but it's a form of ] - it does not address ''any'' concerns of mine regarding his other behavior. Many editors have been sanctioned, even indeffed, despite having tons of otherwise good edits in various areas of the project. Incidentally, Andrew inspired me to create an article as well, ]. As I said at that time, he would do well to focus on the "silence" (writing/improving content) than "speech" (voting/commenting). It seems that the community concurs. I am glad this is stopping short of an indef ban, and as I said above, I'd even support restrictions lesser than a topic ban from deletion topics, broadly construed, which seems likely right now. But sadly, it seems that Andrew standards, and the community, have diverged too far to allow lesser remedies (which, for the record, I'd still support - IMHO we could always revisit this later, if lesser remedies, such as the requirement to provide analysis of sources, would be ignored/gamed). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', A) per above. I've come to believe Andrew is a net negative to these areas. I've looked at many of the above diffs and found my belief reinforced time and time again, additionally through my own experiences. Most recently, at ] he managed to accuse me and others of using afd to boost my edit count, presented no valid rational for keeping and mis-cited 'speedy keep' as being applicable (which I'm sure he well knows the criteria), and did not reply to my ping. (Note that this is ] he feels correcting/explaining his mistake would be digging a hole deeper, somehow... That feeds back to the problem that many of these users are unwilling to admit to a mistake.) The examples go on, but the trend is clear: Andrew either fundamentally misunderstands how our deletion processes work or chooses to ignore it, and is actively disruptive. He seems to view AfD as a battleground, which is incredibly problematic. This may well be my first substantive comment on ANI, fwiw. ] <small>''<sup> ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 21:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' per above arguments. Sometimes enough is really enough. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' so that I can stop looking at this massive thread and cannot be tempted to (God forbid) close it. ] (]) 22:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Looking through the diffs at AfD and the de-PRODing it’s pretty much ] Utter disruption anyway. ] (]) 22:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support'''. T-ban and DEPROD ban. In addition to the items raised above, for far too long this editor has deprodded articles with no edit summary nor reason on the Talk page - which are "encouraged, but not required" under ] - but are required under ARS's own : "Prod on an article you don't want to have deleted→Evaluate the article and prod concern→Deprod. Explain why on the article talk page. Optionally, leave subst:deprod-disagree|(pagename)on the prodder's User talk page." Additionally, there was no answer provided on their Talk page when politely asked the reasons as to why there was a deprod, which indicates either incivility or that the deletion was not done in good faith because the editor did not know the answer to this question, or both. ]] 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's the ] not the Article Rescue Squadron. ] 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is and the link to it can be found on an ARS page under ''Articles proposed for deletion (prod)'', so I assume they endorse it. ]] 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' A). I think a fair case has been made, with sufficient examples, that this editor often does not act in good faith at AfD and with de-PRODing. Just one example that comes to mind is ] where Andrew asserted "If you are not British and have never listened to an episode of The Archers, you are unlikely to fully appreciate this topic." In jest or not, this kind of behaviour is not really appropriate or useful. Editors should be doing a thorough WP:BEFORE and making arguments accordingly which Andrew rarely does. ] (]) 00:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Clearly Andrew did not heed or care about serious concerns about his behaviour raised during the 2020 ANI discussion. His persistent incivllity towards nominators is more than enough reason topic ban him. ] (]) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Indef topic ban from anything to do with article deletion. Including deletion reviews. Since there's overwhelming evidence that he is a net negative to those areas and has repeatedly refused to modify his behavior when asked to. Even by people who are not "deletionists." I had a run in with him myself a while back over a bunch of PRODs that he removed and didn't leave a comment for. When I asked him why he removed them the answer was because they are controversial. Then when I asked what was controversial about them his response was "their controversial because I say they are." Afterwards he tried to use the whole thing as reason to have me blocked for incompetence. The whole thing was extremely circular nonsense. Going by the examples other people have provided it's clear that's just his overall mentality about this. "I'm right because I say I'm right. How dare you question me." I hate to think of how many people where turned off of contributing to AfDs or left the project because of it. Also, I find the whole cult of personality around him by certain people to be rather bizarre. It seems be something he actively fosters and the community shouldn't allow for it. --] (]) 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concur. I ceased doing PRODs for WP:DOGS-related articles, and no longer considered AfDs for that project viable. ]] 04:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] re: "I'm right because I say I'm right. How dare you question me." See my small essay at ]. Would you say this ampty describes the problem here? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite ban from all deletion processes.''' There is ample evidence of disruptive behavior over a number of years with no intent to change or even acknowledge the problem. The lack of specific rules surrounding AfD !votes and DEPROD rationale does not entitle one to constantly make bad arguments or DEPROD indiscriminately; most editors are able to self regulate and function just fine in this environment. Our shared goal of building and encyclopedia (which includes culling unneeded content) takes precedence over any individuals right/privilege to participate in these processes. –] ] 02:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * cataloguing Davidson's lies around deletion and support for falsehoods in articles from 2010. Good times, good times.] (]) 02:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some "outside views" were provided at that time, eh? The definition of "outside" - one would assume neutral - appears to have been serverly stretched. ]] 04:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' indef ban. Uncivil inclusionist who will do anything to Keep pages regardless of low to non-existent sourcing. ] (]) 02:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I can't ignore the irrefutable evidence supplied by Piotrus and Rhododendrites, plus my . Indeed, in debates such as ], I would speculate that some of Andrew's involvement makes it ''more'' likely that an article will get deleted as people !vote delete to refute his badgering instead of being indifferent about it. Despite hoping Andrew would ], it doesn't look like it's going to happen per "{{xt|''Fan qua sentiat'' – say what you think. Both TRM and myself have gotten in trouble for doing this but so it goes.}}", apparently showing that he doesn't care who he offends or disrupts. I would also like to admonish FeydHuxtable for continually referring to Andrew as "the Colonel" and would remind them that in-jokes can cause annoyance and frustration with other editors. ] ] ] 09:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: The admonishment is noted but not accepted Ritchie. I'm not the only one who calls him the Colonel, & in my case at least it's not a joke. In appearance, demeanour & abilities, he strongly reminds me of ]. We've met in person Ritchie & you made a very favourable impressions, I could never feel the slightest ill will to you even if you indeffed me - which is the only way you'd get me to not call the Colonel the Colonel. To save anyone further commenting that Im posting for the Colonel for WP:ILike reasons, the last two times I was on ANI it was defending prolific deletionist editors with whom I've no strong relationship. The trend towards sanctioning long term productive editors who arent always word perfect is not a good one, IMO. As for the Colonel not caring, he's actually extremely caring, giving up way more of his time to good causes than most others. It's more a case of stiff upper lip, one of the many fine qualities the Colonel exemplifies. Almost every hero eventually. ] (]) 10:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': In the past, I have seen examples where AD's input at AfD discussions has been constructive, but the majority of what I had seen were hand-waving at non-existent sources or comments that were lacking in rationales based on policy or guidelines. That's not cause for significant sanctions, even if it is frequently counter-productive. However, the more serious issues with regards to incivility and disruption are supported by many examples here that are sufficient to demonstrate a consistent and long-term pattern that has not stopped despite numerous complaints. The proposed indefinite topic ban seems appropriate here. Hopefully, AD can use this broad body of critique for future improvement and for future productive contributions, regardless of whether that is in the deletion realm of Misplaced Pages or in other areas. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Big kudos to Piotrus for going to the trouble of collating the material above. This has been an issue for many years (tempted to say a decade by now?) but never got anywhere. Yes, Andrew is a perennial facepalm (at best) or disruption (at worst) in the large majority of AFDs he comments on; and his single-handed holding hostage of the PROD process has been a problem forever and a day. There is clearly no bad intent behind any of this, but if being an inclusionist at Andrew-level generates such friction with what almost everyone else is trying to achieve, then he has to stop doing its. Hope we can finally get this done. ''(currently I'm largely off-net and so will restrict myself to a basic support statement; I'd have <u>much</u> more to say at another time)'' --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 12:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Both the evidence above and my personal experience convince me that Andrew Davidson's participation in the deletion process generates more heat than light, and given the long history of problematic behavior I believe this is the only solution that has a chance of working. ] (]) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=]. {{nac}} ]] 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC) }} | |||
| ;Summary of consensus as of now: | |||
| <small>(note: this is not meant to establish consensus just by votes, but a cursory look at just the numbers paints a good enough picture of community opinion on the editor)</small> | |||
| :*In favor of an indefinite topic ban: {{no ping|Piotrus|Zxcvbnm|Rhododendrites|Darkknight2149|JBL|Reywas92|Dronebogus|Reyk|Trainsandotherthings|David Fuchs|KoA|Serial Number 54129|Robert McClenon|Eviolite|Cullen328|Hako 9|Indy beetle|Black Kite|Ravenswing|Paul August|Tautomers|Levivich|Eddie 891|Spartaz|Deor|DeCausa|William Harris|Vladimir.copic|Hemiauchenia|Adamant1|Dlthewave|Mztourist|Ritchie333|MarkH21|Elmidae}} | |||
| ::*In favor of a temporary topic ban: {{no ping|S Marshall}} | |||
| :*Against any length topic ban: {{no ping|NemesisAT}} (note: {{no ping|Levivich}} suspects them of being associated with ARS) | |||
| ::*Subset including those editors that are also a part of ]: {{no ping|Dream Focus|Andrew Davidson|Feydhuxtable|WereSpielChequers|Lightburst}} | |||
| :I am writing this so no fresh editors feel it is absolutely necessary for them to also join in and ]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to ] which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. ] (]) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* May I make a suggestion? How about being a member (or not) of ARS being no part of this proposal? I certainly have strong feelings myself about ARS, and that it is less about saving articles than in Thwarting Deletionists By Any Means Possible, but in debating whether to levy topic bans on an editor, his associations should not be a factor: only his actions should be. If those of us who believe that AD should be tbanned are not to be accused ourselves of acting in bad faith, we shouldn't be implying that others are without much better evidence than "But they're ARS people!" ] 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to ]. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. ] (]) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I included that information because the proposal is within a thread titled "ARS is getting problematic". Seeing how most of those in my list confirmed to be ARS are themselves the subjects of other proposals within the thread I thought to include it. I will remove the information if others also feel it has no place here. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 15:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. ] (]) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Naniwoofg == | |||
| *Sorry, AC, but this reminds me of an essay I've been meaning to whip up for a while now: ]. That you have explicitly tried to marginalize certain participants makes it an excellent example of why this sort of section is a terrible idea. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* I'm looking forward to reading the essay again once you finish it, but I did not mean to summarize the discussion in order to prevent the closer from reading all the information (I assume that any admin that will resolve this will look at all arguments, evidence, and make a professional judgement by themselves), but only so that editors see that a lengthy discussion has already happened and don't feel the need to pile on just to give their take (unless of course they have new evidence that they feel is crucial to the discussion). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| {{User|Naniwoofg}} has been the subject of a complaint at ] for issues involving images and ]. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. ] (]) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Re|A._C._Santacruz}} Not that I oppose the result, but I feel it necessary to clarify (for archival purposes) that I supported ''some'' topic ban on Andrew Davidson and not necessarily an indefinite one. Additionally, if Andrew were to appeal six months to one year from now, I would be in favour of letting him be heard and potentially taking it under consideration depending on the appeal itself. ''']]]''' 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we get a follow-up on this? @] has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. ] (] • ]) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Dream Focus=== | |||
| :'''Support''' sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on ] article, which . Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the ] ''before the 2019 renovation''. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">] <span style="background:#68FCF1">('']''|'']'')</span></span> 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It seems odd to me that we have discussions (one now closed with a sanction) about only three of the four editors who are generally recognized as the principals in the ARS disputes. As I've commented in a thread above, I'm of the opinion that ANI is not going to get resolution for all four of these editors, and that this should wind up at ArbCom, particularly if some of the discussions end up as "no consensus". But can anyone give me a good reason (especially seeing the battlegroundy nonsense ]) not to examine this editor's conduct, as well? --] (]) 21:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe they looked at the link to the evidence in the discussion with you above and saw what really happened instead of just believing what you said did. Anyone who wants to read through that, please do so and then state your opinion if you believe it is relevant to this case. ] 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) == | |||
| I already outlined one issue with DF above which I think demonstrates blind keep voting without basis or research. is slightly better than Davidson but still a whopping 91.6% for keep. I can see a common trend with DF of voting and then ''later'' asking ARS for help finding sources leading me to the conclusion little to no ] was done or ] was done and turned up nothing so the vote was in bad faith. Some examples from 2013-2021: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: (This one a week after their vote, they say they cannot find any sources) | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| #Vote: → Asking for sources: | |||
| These are not all super damning and are just a sample but I think demonstrate a worrying mindset towards AfD not based in reading sources but voting first then worrying about how to justify a vote later. ] (]) 22:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The first one is from 1 May 2013. Are we seriously complaining about something that happened 8 years ago? ] 22:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Examples are from 2013-2021. I believe in the law profession they call this a course of conduct charge. ] (]) 23:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict, I was going to replace my comment with this) The first two are from 2013. Are we seriously complaining about something that happened 8 years ago? The third one is from 2019 so I'll comment on it. I posted a valid reason the article ] should exist, then as an afterthought posted on the rescue list: "Are there any film students who have textbooks about this? Surely its listed somewhere, people studying things that happened in the industry and what effect it had." I have participated in quite a lot of AFDs over the years. You seem to have dug through a lot of them, and all you found was that, two things from 8 years ago, and the rest I haven't looked at yet, but it seems like you don't have much a case for banning me. If I want help finding additional sources, I posted to ask for it. Many people ask for assistance on the Rescue list after voting in an AFD. You believe an article deserves to exist, you just want more help working on it or finding sources, you post a request for help. Simple. ] 23:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::These 8 examples (+ the one mentioned above) were just a sample from a 5 minute skim of a few ARS archives. I didn't mention a ban or any other sanctions. These examples just seem to demonstrate an unhelpful approach to AfD that you may wish to consider for future participation. For instance example #5 has you voting keep and later admitting in ARS you are struggling to find any references. You do not appear to be in a conciliatory place though so I will bow out and let other editors discuss. ] (]) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was in January 2019. I posted '''''Keep''' Her discovery was on the cover of ], it quite a notable scientific achievement obviously. Scientists are notable by their achievements, they don't do interviews and get written up in popular news media. Misplaced Pages isn't just about popular culture, its educational as well. She meets ]''. No one said delete other than the nominator at that point, I thought this an obvious thing. I check back 8 days later and notice its still at AFD and some aren't convinced so I look around for more sources to convince them, fail to find any, so ask for help with "She seems like a notable scientist, but having trouble finding references. Anyone familiar with articles for scientists?" I see nothing wrong with that, but whatever. I still believe Misplaced Pages should have educational articles about people notable for their accomplishments, not just popular culture things that get coverage in mainstream media. ] 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|I still believe Misplaced Pages should have educational articles about people notable for their accomplishments, not just popular culture things that get coverage in mainstream media.}} Uh, we do have these articles, and in fact NPROF offers the most straightforward path to notability of any guideline, what with all the automatic-pass criteria and the complete separation from GNG. ] (]) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Mm. I've clashed with Dream Focus before, and think that there's improvement in AGF that can be made. (Hell, if we're going to talk caricatures and knee-jerk opinions, just glance at DF's user page, a 30,000 word paean on How All Deletionists Suck.) But I don't think that DF's monolithic here. He's voted to Delete at AfD. (Even if the ] was one of the most egregious "What the EFF were you THINKING?" ones in Misplaced Pages's history.) I've seen a lot of reasoned arguments out of him. I've gnashed my teeth at a number of his stances, but it's out of disagreement, not that I think he's acting out of pervasive bad faith. I'd need to see a great deal more concrete evidence -- and, as DF reasonably states, from a lot more recently than eight years ago -- to support any level of sanction. ] 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:If it were simply a matter of !voting inclusionist, I would have no problem with it, and indeed, !voting patterns by themselves are not informative. The issue for me is conduct, and the attitude expressed towards anyone who challenges how ARS operates. --] (]) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am not advocating for any specific action here but just want to clarify that only 2 of the 8 random examples I gave above are from 2013 the rest are from the past couple of years. DF's comments might make it seems like I am pettily basing this off ancient history. My last example is from this year. ] (]) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' I have only had one interaction with Dream Focus but it was not encouraging. After 7&6=thirteen posted an emotive and wildly inaccurate notice on the ARS rescue list , despite only being able to find a single, self-published, clickbait article that in makes a single, passing and inconclusive reference , and after mulling it over on the ARS rescue list for over a week ] they still thought they would assist their friend with oppose vote. And response above is perfectly illustrative of the ARS ] never admit any wrongdoing approach to what is clearly unconstructive behaviour, if they just admitted their vote (not !vote) was in no way grounded in policy and apologised I would accept it, but that they are incapable of admitting such speaks volumes. Perhaps any trip to ARBCOM should review their conduct also. ] (]) 23:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC). | |||
| *I'm guilty of putting some information ], and some here, sorry for that. But here are some more links to discussions: , , , , . Some of these concern Dream Focus directly, while others involve other ARS members, and provide context. --] (]) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think the proper context is what I responded to your nonsense above that then caused you to create this section. Since people might not see it I'll repost it down here with some minor editing: You went to a Wikiproject you have never had anything to do with, other than insulting it in many places, to edit war in changes you wanted to our code of conduct. You then told others on a talk page what you had done, with a follow up post soon after that read: "I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this." . So that's basically canvassing. You had enough people you knew hated the ARS to go over and edit war with the regular members to get something in, that was then totally ignored. You finally gave up after another argument later on and removed the part of your edit that everyone was complaining about, that stated that unlike other Wikiprojects, we should have to tell people we saw it listed on the Rescue list. ] 00:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::This comment does at least establish that Dream Focus has a pretty strong ] issues. ] (]) 00:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seriously? Pointing out someone posted on a talk page to get people to edit war with them against active members of a Wikiproject they don't like, is "battleground". Do you find Tryptofish's actions in this and him bringing it up after all this time to be "battleground" or acceptable behavior? ] 01:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't necessarily endorse it as a tactic, but when I was blocked recently a few people brought up a couple of pretty minor incidents from like 5 years ago that I was never reported for at the time. No one seemed to care that they went that far back to find evidence of my bad behavior. So that just seems to be how ANI complaints can go sometimes. --] (]) 01:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That you view trying to deal with the very clear problems affiliated with ARS as battleground (which is the reality of what was going on when reading through those interactions) is the issue here. Your behavior and attitude seems to be the primary instigating factor when focusing on your interactions. Trying to project that as otherwise is why I'm cautioning you now that you're putting yourself on thin ice. I suggest heeding advice here rather than lashing out about it. ] (]) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'd like to echo the suggestion about heeding advice. Something roughly along the lines of ''I don't think that some of the accusations are accurate or fair, but I do recognize that other editors have good-faith concerns, and I'm going to take that seriously and try to improve where I can'', or something approximately like that, would really help a lot. Continuing to insist that I and other editors are the real problem would be the opposite of that. --] (]) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' while I don't think that Dream Focus is anywhere as problematic as Andrew is/was, I still think they show a variety of behaviour at AFDs that needs to improve. These are all examples where we have both been involved in the 6 months: not AGFing, not quite battleground but certainly going that way: ; moving to OR/Synth to keep pages: , , ; poor understanding of military awards and their relevance to notability: , and ; and List protector , , . ] (]) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Cherkash}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' Personally I'd support a proposal for a warning. I had a feeling there would be a proposal for Dream Focus eventually. So I did some research ahead of time and couldn't find anything that rises to the level of behavior displayed by the other three. In the meantime, sanctions based on disputes over what constitutes SIGCOV, in-depth coverage, or similar would just be excessive and set a bad precedent IMO since they aren't clearly defined concepts. Unless it can be proven that Dream Focus intentionally made up coverage that didn't exist or otherwise tried to pass off something that was obliviously BS as usable. In one of the examples above this he provided a source in a comment that was OR, which isn't great, but it wasn't being fronted as part of a vote rational. So I don't see what the issue is there. Sources provided in comments should never be taken as the same to ones provided in a vote. That said, I think a warning would help curb the more questionable behavior. --] (]) 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see ], ]). </br> | |||
| ::I concur with your comment about SIGCOV not being well defined, and a clearer definition should be one of the actions that emerges from this incident. ]] 06:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I think DF is the most extreme inclusionist on Misplaced Pages that I know of. I think he seriously believes that deleting articles is nasty, mean behaviour and he sees himself as holding back a tide of evil deletionists (a label he applies to others very liberally indeed). I don't agree with him very often and some of his discussion contributions are way outside Wikipedian norms. On the evidence above he does appear to vote before searching for sources. But we don't topic ban people for being wrong. Show me diffs of him being rude or a diff of him falsifying sources.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think being completely, disruptively, extremely wrong is a violation of ]. ] (]) 10:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** While CIR does include "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus", I take it that this applies to content work. Taking such a broad view of CIR so that it requires following an orthodox interpretation of policy in collective decision making I think would be very harmful to the encyclopedia. — ] <small>]</small> 18:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** Both Dream Focus and you yourself, Dronebogus, have been completely wrong on occasion. I could post diffs of either. What I haven't seen is either of you being ''disruptively'' wrong. That's a claim that requires supporting evidence.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****If one looks at the links I have provided here, one will see just that: being rude and more. Unfortunately, that requires making the effort to actually go through the provided links, which is why I believe that ANI is going to be unsatisfactory; editors are, understandably, reaching the point where this has gone on so long and at such length that there is a growing desire to just wrap it up without any more headaches. This is why I have insisted that this will need to go to ArbCom. In that case, there will be time to evaluate whether or not there is recent disruption. As for recent evidence, just look at what he has directed at me in this current discussion. Don't take what I say on face value, and don't take what he says on face value either. Look at the links I've provided to the events in question, and judge for yourself. --] (]) 11:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the ] pages and even had raised the issue here , with no visible actions following. | |||
| Vladimir: {{tqq| ... which I think demonstrates blind keep voting without basis or research ... I can see a common trend with DF of voting and then ''later'' asking ARS for help finding sources leading me to the conclusion little to no ] was done ...}} | |||
| Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg | |||
| DF's response: {{tqq|... all you found was that, two things from 8 years ago, '''and the rest I haven't looked at yet''', but it seems like you don't have much a case for banning me.}} | |||
| They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints. | |||
| QED 😂 ] 11:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: , | |||
| *The heading says "proposal" -- is there a proposal? "What about Dream Focus?" doesn't seem like an ideal way to frame something at ANI. Might as well say in advance that I don't think there's going to be much of an appetite for additional sanctions in this thread unless a proposal includes the kind of copious diffs that Piotrus gathered about AD. It'll just wind up as an RFC/U with tense exchanges and hurt feelings and nothing done (not that I'm saying anything needs to be done). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I used "ARS proposal" for all four sections that I split out to keep it consistent, but I guess that's not quite accurate here. Feel free to change it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'm not seeing any proposal here to vote on, but from the diffs Vladimir.copic shared I'm not seeing a problem worthy of a ban, especially from the more recent diffs. In these, Lightburst didn't claim to have sources. In the latest one, ]. There is no justification for a ban here. ] (]) 13:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *It's unfortunate that the header was changed from what I originally wrote. If someone wants to make a proposal, please do, but it has become clear to me that people are getting exhausted and commenting here without having read the evidence provided so far. As someone who only found out about these discussions a day or two ago, I for one have not had time to collect extensive evidence. All of that is an illustration of how ANI is suited for brief and obvious filings, but not for complex and multi-part ones like this. --] (]) 15:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I don't see action being taken similar to the other proposals above (unless someone proposes something with concise evidence), but I personally think it's best to give the current sanctions a chance to settle things down (hopefully). From what I've seen here, DF does need a look at their behavior, but it's not at the degree of Andrew, etc. so far. In this case, the best course of action is to warn DF about their behavior and leave it at that for now in terms of ]. If they don't take that seriously, that can be ratcheted up at a new ANI or Arbcom later. ] (]) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm just going to re-post some things I already posted in this section, but perhaps this will help, given how hard it has become to keep track of everything here. I've said that Dream Focus has been battleground-y, and he has replied that it was I who was in fact the problem. So here are two of those discussions in which we both participated: and . Judge for yourself. --] (]) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **It just occurred to me: Although this discussion (overall) has been in the form of proposal–!vote, this is ANI, as in incidents noticeboard for ''administrators''. ], and ''any'' admin can evaluate evidence and choose to enact something. Just saying. --] (]) 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ]. | |||
| ===Conclusion=== | |||
| The storm appears to have abated, and this incident has gone quiet. Someone needs to wrap this up. (You have my deepest sympathies!) ]] 10:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm pretty sure an admin who's been reading through it said they would close it today. I can't find their comment though. Wait, Wugapodes said they would three comments above the "Best solution of all" section. --] (]) 11:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyone who thinks that this has gone quiet has stopped reading. Which, frankly, is quite understandable. That's why ArbCom is going to be needed. --] (]) 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why Arbcom? There was hardly any imminent danger - as evidenced by the examples above, over a 9-year period - so it was never an ANI issue. I think Arbcom has better things to do than be involved in every witch hunt. One has been topic-banned, and the other three will presumably be warned. | |||
| I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. | |||
| :::Though I'm a bit puzzled at the outrage at those who are actually trying to improve the encylopaedia on a wide range of topics, even if occasionally misguided. If only others who vote keep did as much to improve articles! Though I wouldn't blame Andrew for taking it there - and I hope they continue to improve articles up for deletion, even if they don't participate in AFD/DRV/prod removals (I'm a bit surprised he wasn't topic-banned from ARS, given what else was done). The only real issue I see is some incivility. Well, that and some of the lack of AGF in the witch hunt. ] (]) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the ], e.g. about normalising ], and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in ]. | |||
| ::I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via ''de facto'' statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often ], which I cannot even comment on. ] (]) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is a link to the last time this was raised here. | |||
| :::The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine). | |||
| :::I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that {{User|Unas964}} should adhere to ] while {{user|Cherkash}} needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? ] (]) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith ] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at .-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. ] (]) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Out}}UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their ''de facto'' territories in out articles. ''De jure'', there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. ''De jure'', the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, ''de jure'' there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Yoruba disruption (still) == | |||
| ::{{re|Simonm223}} Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their ''de facto'' state. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a ''fact'' that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a ''fact'' that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes. | |||
| :::Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map. | |||
| :::As a corollary it is ''in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals'' to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @] - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @] has seriously failed to ] by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Simonm223}} I '''don't''' {{tq|have the terms backward there}}. I literally stated that {{tq|''De jure'', there's no Taiwan}}, and also what I meant for {{tq|facts, the ''de facto'' state of the world}}. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires ]. // and no, '''it is not''' {{tq|a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine}}, as ''de jure'' {{tq|the ] violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union}}, as I had already wrote, because ''de jure'' the ] didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had ''de facto''. Do better. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and ]. In theory, that does not align with ], since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the ] the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. ] (]) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration ] (]) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is fast reaching ] territory. ] (]) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We also have ]. ] (]) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. ). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the ], ], ] and ] by some ''de facto laws''. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only ], ] and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. ]). That renders ''de facto maps'' a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality. | |||
| :Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of ] and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. ] (]) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|''de facto laws''}}? You're way too confused. {{langnf|la|de jure|by (some country's) law}} is the total opposite of {{langnf|la|de facto|by facts, in reality}}. That's the point. Nice list of stuff tho. Have fun. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, ]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (],] etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some ''consensus'' or ''de facto bodrers'' pretexts, then indeed it has no sense. | |||
| *:If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. ] (]) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I'm a bit concerned that {{U|Unas964}} has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes , regarding ] "pro-Russian attacks." at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a ] mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to ] was reverted with an edit summary of - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. ] (]) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. ] (]) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal - short duration block for Unas964=== | |||
| * {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Ppdallo & West Africa issues}} | |||
| I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to ] and that is replete with ] violations. They have a severe ] mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to ''help them understand'' concepts such as ] of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would ''really'' like to see this closed properly. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. ] (]) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Edward Myer == | |||
| :Next time propose a sanction. Saying "all I know is that something needs to change here" and not proposing any changes is going to make it difficult for an admin to close. I believe this is the plot of a "Yes, Minister" episode about the ] where we all end up agreeing that something must be done yet the bureaucracy of the situation results in the "something" being referred to further study until we all just forget about the issue and nothing happens. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 15:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@{{u|MJL}}, {{u|Chess}} does make an excellent point. I’ve made the same error over and over again, wherein I report an incident without proposing a sanction, thus making the report hard to officially close by sysops, I believe the onus is on us to initiate a proposal. ''']''' (]) 16:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] and ]: Alright, I have re-notified Ppdallo about this issue. Let's talk ]. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Edward Myer}} | |||
| :]. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Edward Myer}} was recently ] for two weeks, for creating a sock account to retaliate against myself and another AfC reviewer whose reviews they didn't like. (The socking was just the tip of the iceberg, there's much more to this as ] shows.) That block expired a few days ago, and since then they're back on the war footing, complaining and insinuating ], ] and ]; as well as posting similar stuff on the talk pages of ], ] and ]. I think this needs to stop; for one thing it's a time sink, and I for one really don't care for the belligerence. I don't think I should be the one to indef them, as I'm involved, but I'd be grateful if someone did. --] (]) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I am not involved except insofar as I have declined ], but I saw their behaviour towards others and it made me consider whether I would make a review, especially to decline. A less resilient reviewer might well have avoided it. | |||
| Now the edit warring has spread to the talk page itself, ]. A table of sources was created, and the entries had been numbered for the sake of referencing them in the subsequent discussion. Once that had begun, one of them unilaterally rearranged and renumbered all the items, rendering the previous numeric references opaque. Those changes have now been undone and redone three times, with accusations of having deleted one user's commentary on top of the complaint over the renumbering. I ''think'' Ppadallo is the one who re-sorted and renumbered the table, creating the disruption, per Talisman-white's new entry at ], with Ppadallo, who didn't create the table, insisting that it has to be ordered in Ppadallo's preferred way. ] (]) 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support {{u|DoubleGrazing}}'s well measured request on that basis. | |||
| :My view is for one final attempt in case they are educable. If they are not then 'final' should mean 'indefinite editing restrictions' 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::They have been ], . it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at ]. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. ] ] ] 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, the sandbox may have a better shot at acceptance! I aways believe in extending my good faith as far as possible. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds by doing so. Obviously there comes a point, but I am not wholly sure we are there yet. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for taking the initiative in filing this ANI, DG; I was || this close to filing it myself. This user ]. - ] ] 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. ] (]) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{smalldiv|1=The above post is a duplicate of that posted at . ] ] 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Seems like a clear case of ] and just wanting to push an article to mainspace and ] without even citing such. Sounds like a longer block may be necessary. ] ] 23:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], this is serious. Have you read over this complaint? Can you let this grudge go and go on to do some productive editing and let the past be the past? If you continue on this path, I don't see you editing on Misplaced Pages for the long term. This is a moment where you can choose to change your approach and turn around you time here as an editor. But it is up to your willingness to do so. Does that sound like something you can and want to do? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: Here I am, trying to watch '']'' only to get a notification about this edit warring. If this doesn't show what I mean by this report that Ppdallo is disruptive, then I don't know what will. | |||
| *:My field of expertise is Hip Hop. I do intend to do other articles on other subjects, and add relevant updates to current live articles. I'm here to be apart of the community and contribute to[REDACTED] in a specific field that I'm passionate about. I hold no grudge or ill will for no one. As I said to LiZ I had to get adjusted to how communication on[REDACTED] works. ] (]) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For any admin out there, the report is ] (]). –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Before any action is taken, I have made a substantial offer of assistance to Edward Myer on their user talk page. I am no-one special to make the offer, and I would like us to take a little time to see if it can be effective before reaching any conclusion. I have had some success before with helping editors who are in pain here. The offer is in the spirit of my early post in this thread. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposed T-BAN === | |||
| ::I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. ] (]) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Per the evidence laid out ], and seeing that Ppdallo has failed to ] on the matter since its opening, I would like to formally proposed that Ppdallo receive a T-BAN for the topic of West Africa ethnic groups, broadly construed. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::We have started to work together. May I suggest respectfully that any other matters be set aside for the duration? They can always be returned to if deemed necessary. My hope is that editors will not feel it to be necessary. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support.''' As proposer. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? ] (]) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' I have nowhere near the context that most of the participants in this discussion will have had, plus I'm not an admin, so I won't !vote, but at this point I draw your attention to the latest discussion, which I have found quite perplexing, at ], initiated by Ppdallo just over a day ago. After a bit, this appeared: {{tq|That was why opened this new section and as soon as the protection on Yoruba People page is lifted i will go ahead and enforce (WP:ONUS) by reverting the Etymology section to just before you illegally made drastic edit on it, pending our resolution of the dispute in this new section.}} I read this not as "I will bring the article into compliance with any resolution that is reached" but somewhat closer to "I'll wait till the page is no longer protected and then I'll undo your work and return it to my version." Certainly nothing about taking into account other people's opinions as to which onus has or has not been met by any participant. ] (]) 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Honestly? That reads a bit ] to me. If they are openly saying they are going to revert to their version as soon as they are allowed to, I fully *'''Support''' a topic ban for them. ] (]) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' — per analysis by {{u|MJL}} and {{u|RickinBaltimore}}. ''']''' (]) 21:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' As involved user with a brand new ] report it was just suggested I move into this voting section. -] (]) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)<br> | |||
| :I think I should look for the suitable noticeboard to report all of you. Why do you folks so readily and selectively pick on me? Thank God there are procedures for doing things on wikipedia. ] (]) 18:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: This is nothing personal. If I am being honest, I don't think you are the only one that could have done things a lot better. ({{u|Oramfe}}, you have been no angel in this dispute.) However, Ppdallo, you're contributions to this topic have been the ''most'' inflammatory; the most disruptive contributions I have seen.<br />I do not come at this from the perspective of a Nigerian as I am an ]. Things like I find personally appalling and do not conform to Misplaced Pages's policies on ]. You can blame no one besides yourself and your own words for finding yourself here (again). –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: @ ] are my statements any more inflammatory than the the Islamophobic and hate statements made by ] and Oramfe who, in addition, called a particular Tribe of people as "slaves, menial job doers, inconsequential, opportunistic vultures and willing tools"? Whoever or whatever you are does not matter here, I find your partial and selective reporting me to be even more serious than what you are accusing me of. By the way, how partial can you be on this issue when you are already involved in the dispute, by siding with Talisman and calling one of my reference as "citogenesis"?] (]) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It is what it is. I'm done responding here. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - As an involved user, the current dispute is only the most recent I (and others) have had with Ppdallo and he has shown no sign that he would make any change for the better. He had previously engaged in an edit war over a map involving the Yoruba people | and my reply to that here and here. Even accused my person of "wanton expansionism'' and sowing seeds of ethnic conflict in West Africa" here He has been constantly engaging in edit wars on the Yoruba people across various subsections. <sup>]</sup></span> that was the context of some of the exchanges you may have seen me having with him, until I eventually had him reported over failures to heed edit warnings. How can he turn around to accuse multiple editors of ''readily and selectively picking on him" when he is the only common denominator with the various people? #Pointing fingers. ] (]) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:@]: What {{u|Ppdallo}} said to you is irrelevant and no excuse for comments like where you indeed called the ] {{tq|opportunistic vultures|q=yes}} before immediately inquiring if the other editor in the dispute had any relation to that ethnicity (among other inappropriate things you said there). If I see something like that again, the next report will be about you. | |||
| *:The reason I had not said anything sooner is (A) it was a month ago now, (B) Ppdallo's disruption is still ongoing, (C) I didn't want to overly complicate this report, and (D) I have not had a good opportunity to bring it up. Let this be your only warning to never make a comment like that again. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)<br> | |||
| ::: @] ]<sup>]</sup></span> this was his words ({{tq|Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.}}) Why are you covering things up? For your information i am not disrupting any Misplaced Pages article, rather i am doing my best to correct misinformation on articles i have knowledge on. Just check out the current dispute here and you will see. I might just as well add here too that It is what it is. I'm done responding here. ] (]) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per other supporters and the blatantly inflammatory rhetoric Ppdallo has used here. A T-ban will be getting off easy, in my view. ] (]) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - although not involved in the current debate, previous interaction with Ppdallo showed that there was no reasoning with him once he was set on a path, and the above discussion shows no change. ] (]) 07:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I == | |||
| *'''Mixed thoughts from someone who watched the dispute unfold:''' I became aware of this nexus of disputes a little while before MJL's first thread here a couple of weeks back, after receiving an FRS notice to a discussion on the Yoruba people talk page. When I arrived, I found the entire discussion an irreconcilable mess of confused argumentation and bad formatting. Essentially at that juncture it was two groups of less than perfectly informed editors lobbing massive walls of text without using indentation and without adequately premising their arguments in policy. There was plenty of suggestion of ethnocentric bias coming from both directions, with inappropriate "you people"-adjacent comments coming from both sides, as well as general incivility crossing the line into outright PAs; not every one of the editors who commented in those discussions pre-RfC behaved in this fashion, but it was certainly a two-way street between Ppdallo and some of their rhetorical opposition. | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked for a week. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|_Valentinianus I}} | |||
| ] is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to ] topics. | |||
| * As background, this editor was notified repeatedly by ] in August , and clarified . Melik again notified Valentinianus a month later in response to more edits that were not exempt , . | |||
| :That situation has slowly but substantially improved now, following some strongly worded guidance from uninvolved editors on the talk page. The discussion is much more easy to track now and there is movement towards consensus building (if still widely divergent opinions between the two camps). I'll be honest: I don't think that Ppdallo has the right end of the stick with regard to the majority of the content still in dispute (some disputed issues seem to have found general consensus, but others differences of opinion remain). To be fair, I have not seen his most recent proposals yet (because of a miscommunication/tempest in a teapot regarding a meta discussion issue), so I can't say with absolute certainty that new sourcing from Ppdallo won't change the course of the discussion. But based on the current sourcing, I think Talisman-white(aka Oluwatalisman) and Oramfe are probably likely to be found to have the more policy-stable arguments on the remaining points of contention and therefore to carry the ultimate consensus. At that point, depending on how Ppdallo reacts, I think the proof will be in the pudding as to whether or not they are editing within the sphere of a strident (but barely within the bounds of process) editor, or if the ] and ] extend to a level where they are unable to drop the stick, necessitating a sanction of some sort. I have seen repeated evidence that Ppdallo is attempting to adjust their approach and work within process. What remains to be seen is whether or not they are capable of accepting the consensus result if it does not favour their preferred version of the content. | |||
| * Valentinianus was blocked for a few weeks in October until ] unblocked them after giving benefit of the doubt. I'm only bringing this up because Rosguill, during the unblock reference notified Valentinianus that they would "like you to confirm that you've read and understand ] by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward." | |||
| :But if there is one complaint that Ppdallo has some reasonable claim to, it's true that the two recent threads here at ANI have focused upon some of his missteps a little bit more than some very similar issues coming from his opposition on the Yoruba article/talk page. That said, while there was plenty of blame to go around initially, the editors on the "other side" from Ppdallo have been very quick to accept feedback and to alter tone and form of their arguments. Ppdallo has been comparably a little slower to adapt to more appropriate strategies, as evidenced by the recent edit war to preserve alterations to another editor's talk page commentary (though even there, there are some mitigating factors that explain why they might not have seen why this was inappropriate). | |||
| * ] notified Valentinianus on 1/18 that they were making inappropriate edits in violation of RUSUKR and was violating ] as well . Valentinianus replied that asking for a rename and calling for a subsequent rename vote were edit requests . | |||
| :So where do I land on the proposal? I'm rather divided on a sanction at this moment in time. Bluntly, I have seen a lot in Ppdallo's approach that suggests that this might just be an area they shouldn't be editing in. However, given three important factors--1) that there was plenty of initial problem editing on all sides, some of which prompted Ppdallo's own problematic comments, 2) that things are inching towards resolving the editorial deadlock on the talk page, and having Ppdallo present his evidence in structured fashion should resolve the question of whether he has a leg to stand on when it comes to the sourcing/content, and 3) thereafter we will have a better understanding of just how problematic Ppdallo is in this area--I'm kind of leaning towards a tiny additional extension of ] here. I think erring on the side of a light touch/final warning here might also be warranted because of the procedural history here: I very much view MJL's decision to renew this discussion after the original thread was archived for lack of community action twice in the best possible good faith light (they were uninvolved in the original dispute and I believe they have no other objective but to act in the best interests of the project), but that said, any relatively inexperienced editor (Pdallo has just over 700 edits total) could find themselves facing a slide into the community's bad graces if we take enough bites at that apple and keep them under a microscope. I fully appreciate that there is a good chance that egg will be on my face here after I advocate for restraint and Ppdallo keeps plowing on with problematic actions, but I still think there's enough mitigation here arguing for a last chance/let's try to see resolve the content dispute and see what happens next approach. '']]'' 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: How I got familiar with this dispute was the same as how you did (seeing the three concurrent RFCs). However, I saw on your comment and felt optimistic it could be handled until I saw on your talk page you were only semi-active. It was obvious to me that Talisman-white was the newest in regards to Wiki discussion, so I and left it at that.<br />From there, I got pinged a lot (as I am sure you have) which kept me up-to-date on the situation.<br />For me, ] cuts both ways. While it is obvious that I have more experience than Ppdallo, the same can be said that Ppdallo has more experience than Talisman-white.<br />I saw the dispute kept going for the entire month of October, so eventually I resolved to intervene. I don't think the community is generally well equipped to handle more than one problem user at a time, so I felt the need to initially focus on Ppdallo.<br />My original hope was the first AN/I thread would get closed with a warning, I was going to then follow-up on it later if I saw any further disruption come from Oramfe. Sadly, no uninvolved user came around to close the original AN/I report. As far as I can tell, nothing significantly has changed since I opened it, and with the just recently (which has yet to result in any action), I am less optimistic than I once was about this getting resolved whatsoever. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough--and certainly there is no judgment here for your proactive approach, especially in the circumstances. Nor can I fault you for your skepticism that more rope would help. But the record is mixed enough here that personally I'm reserving final judgment/endorsement of a ban until after I see how the situation plays out, now that the situation is (I think) fairly close to having something that might qualify as consensus on the talk page. Of course, given the way the discussion is rolling, I doubt my hesitation is going to change the outcome of this proposal discussion. And for that matter, I do think there are very decent chances I'll regret advocating (sort of) for a benefit-of-the-doubt approach here. But in close cases I do like to err on the side of a last chance, even when there's opportunity for further disruption. '']]'' 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| *'''Comment.''' Per the outcome of the ], Ppdallo was given a final warning and blocked. I'm fine with that being the end of this assuming that we see no further disruption. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ironically enough, after the continued IDHT at the AN3, on the talk page, and in the unblock request, I'm having doubts about the wait-and-see strategy that I was leaning towards above. Nevertheless, I've made one last effort on the article talk page to communicate to Ppdallo why the behaviour that got them blocked was problematic and that they need to take the final warning of the blocking admin (and the other concerns expressed by community members here) seriously. Given the !votes above, I'm not sure the TBAN will be avoided, even in light of the lesser sanction invoked at AN3. But in the contingency that it is, I can only imagine the forewarned indefinite block being avoided through a radical change in approach. I hope Ppdallo gets that at this point, because, even aside from the possibility of independent administrative action, the next time these issues end up here at ANI, I can only imagine the CBAN !vote switching from mostly to completely unanimous. '']]'' 04:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ''After'' that reply to Isabelle Belato (so that there is no question Valentinianus is aware of the latest warning), Valentinianus made five additional edits to ]. None were remotely along the line of constructive edit requests, the problematic ones being to argue that a source is a "Ukrainian shill site" , a project complaint about the infobox , and ] about the bad faith of the other editors on the talk page . | |||
| == Multiple incidents by ] == | |||
| While in isolation, no individual edit is egregious, this editor has been warned several times about the limits of RUSUKR, and adding ], ] , and ] violations in this area to the number of ] violations, I believe an indefinite topic ban from ] topics, broadly construed, is appropriate. | |||
| ] (]) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I've just blocked them for a week instead. If they're ignoring the ECR restrictions, they'll just ignore a topic ban; that's because the reason they're ignoring the ECR restrictions is either ] or the fact that they don't care, and either would apply to a topic ban as well. Perhaps they'll get the message after this block, or perhaps they won't at which point we can look at further sanctions (which, let's face it, is likely to be an indef). ] 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| *Just noting that the prior block before this was a sockpuppetry block, which I lifted as I found their explanation of how they came to make their edits plausible. The further editing since the unblock as outlined in the block actioned by Black Kite seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|LupangMalabo}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *Are we looking at the same editor, ]? Rosguill never unblocked this editor but Beeblebrox did back in December. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a few comments here that seem muldly disconnected from exactly what happened previous to this, but probably not to the point whee it changes the math on this latest block. ] ] 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It appears I was unclear. I was quoting Rosguill's reminder about RUSUKR in the conversation ''about'' a possible unblock . My point wasn't about the block itself, but that the editor received an additional warning about their edits in that area. I missed including that specific diff. ] (]) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] (]) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk page access, Wiseguy012 == | |||
| I don't know what this user's problem is, but their entire edit history consists of a very clear lack of understanding of how articles are created, which includes improper page moves without going through Articles for creation. I don't know what action should be taken here, but I at least need to see an admin get through to Lupang to try and guide them in the right direction. ] ] 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : AFC is completely voluntary, and people shouldn't be move warring to put an article in AFC when that action has been contested. As ] says: "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD. A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." ] (]) 06:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Blocked user ] is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at ] and that they continued there as a sock account, {{noping|Friend0113}}, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? ] (]) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, and this is why I attempted to PROD ] rather than going through the annoying effort of moving back to draftspace, and plan to do the same with other objected moves to draftspace if this keeps happening. The problem with Lupang's moves mostly comes down to a lack of knowledge of notability guidelines for each subject as well as the Articles for creation process. Also, recently, I tried pushing Lupang a second time to consider asking for advice on their editing at the teahouse, but the user continued to repeat their same editing behavior following my message. As was stated from the beginning of this thread, I do not think this editor should be blocked from editing right away, but rather be given proper warning from an established administrator and guided in the right direction. This may be a misguided editor, yes, but I don't think I've had enough encounters of this type of misguided editor to give a proper opinion on what should be done. ] ] 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| :::To be honest, I don't think they're as clueless or misguided as they lead us to believe. Persistent disruptive editing, incoherent replies to queries or messages, etc. I think they're trolling. ] <span style="font-size:88%">] • ]</span> 04:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no ] account. Did you mean someone else? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, ] is probably not the way, since a single objection is enough to end a proposed deletion. It should probably be AfD'd and then maybe move protected or ]ed? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}} An update since I opened this page: user has just recently blanked ], a page they had created in draftspace. Not sure what their intent was, but clearly disruptive. ] ] 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As of writing, they: | |||
| ::The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. ] ] 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* made a ] of ] | |||
| :::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* made a of | |||
| : |
:Still misuse of talk page for spamming. ] 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : LupangMalabo's edits look like minor league disruption, the kind that might get solved just as easily if you leave notes explaining how Misplaced Pages works on someone's talk page. Have you tried that yet? And I don't mean leaving some Twinkle template that says "welcome to Misplaced Pages, now stop screwing up or you'll be blocked". ] (]) 21:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == |
== Caste-based disruption == | ||
| {{u|HistorianAlferedo}} has engaged in contentious ] style editing in the ] related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in ] POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as ] (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits: | |||
| {{userlinks|188.149.107.101}} | |||
| *, , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses | |||
| *: clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject) | |||
| *, , , , : POV caste-based insertions | |||
| *, : POV caste-based removals | |||
| This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a ] t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . ] (]) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| How this IP has casually been doing this for a year is perplexing. Most of his/her edits (which have been reverted) have to do with pushing a fictive Kurdish or ] origin to various articles. It's literally gonna take an hour or two if I am going to link and explain all his/her disruptive edits, so I'll just link a few of them. Looking at the talk page of the IP, I seem to have reported him/her before, but to no avail. I can't find the original discussion though. EDIT: Found it | |||
| :], you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you ] (]) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay @]. Please have a look at pages: ] and ] I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@] just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by ] == | |||
| I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI. | |||
| To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of. | |||
| Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from ]. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In ] and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on. | |||
| From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to ] we reached a consensus after several days of discussion. | |||
| Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as ] as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles. | |||
| When I had nominated his article ] for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to ]. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me. | |||
| SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly ] and a suspected COI paid editing on article like ]. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see | |||
| He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here {{redacted}}. I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years. | |||
| When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have ] relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article ]. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it. | |||
| I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed ] on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get ] or ] by him as we both are from ], India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. ]<sup>2003</sup>(]) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented. | |||
| :{{Blockquote|"During this, I was much subject to ] on major of the articles I created such as ], you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had {{Diff|Tsumyoki|1240530309}} as SerChevalerie would just ], arguing by citing essays like ] instead of finding a resolution or just ]."}} | |||
| :In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed. | |||
| :If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided ]. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments. | |||
| :I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to ], but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. ] (]) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. ] 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits == | |||
| {{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <br>I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}} | |||
| Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender? | |||
| Judging by these edits, it goes without saying that the IP is clearly ] --] (]) 14:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I left the IP a warning. Please let me know if problems continue. You might do that by adding to the IP's talk with a diff or two and a brief explanation of the problem, and include a ping to me. ] (]) 02:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: Please check the IP's latest edit: ]. I blocked the IP as they were continuing their unexplained and unsourced changes. ] (]) 02:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder if {{userlinks|2A00:23C6:4E12:D601:8DCE:1BE6:84A1:4343}} is related, or simply coincidental. ] (]) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The user in question is relatively new. (Yes, an early edit stated she had a previous account, but she used it for roughly one day in December 2024 before {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|losing her password}}, and she had no warnings at all on the account, so abuse of multiple accounts does not apply here. | |||
| == Babydoll9799 == | |||
| With her new account, she quickly {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse|prev|1265829279|received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic|diffonly=yes}}, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including: | |||
| This editor {{user|Babydoll9799}} is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at ] as an example. They are removing {{cat|People from District}}, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both {{cat|Profession from City}}, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified ''only'' by {{cat|Profession from City}} (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the {{cat|People from District}} category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category. | |||
| * This sequence of edits to ]: | |||
| Furthermore, edits like violate ], and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in ''less'' precise categories! | |||
| ** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270570240|Edit summary: ''men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)''|diffonly=yes}} | |||
| ** {{Diff|List of media notable for being in development hell|prev|1270571663|Edit summary: ''Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry''|diffonly=yes}} | |||
| * {{Diff|Dawn M. Bennett|prev|1270573048|To Dawn M. Bennett|diffonly=yes}}, removing an image with the edit summary ''she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image'' | |||
| * {{Diff|User talk:TTYDDoopliss|prev|1270578539|To her own user talk|diffonly=yes}}, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary ''please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world'' | |||
| I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I concede her point that, generally speaking, men in the world have done and continue to do pretty crappy things to women. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to ], and IMO, some of her edits are even going counter to the viewpoint she holds. I also know that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social platform, and I worry that her behaviour, unchecked, will result in her crossing a line that gets her blocked, where an admin, regardless of gender, has to stop the disruption. | |||
| A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? ]] 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —''']''' (]) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.] (]) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just ] right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? ] (]) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. ] (]) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: ], ], ] ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this is a straightforward ] or ] block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. ] (]) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them ''removing'' mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, ] in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. ] (]) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Hrm. So is the inference that you ''willingly and knowingly'' made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —''']''' (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|benefit of the doubt}}{{snd}}Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? ]] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Surprised they weren't blocked after the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::that’s… not an insult? just an observation ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL ] (]) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::“Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over ], it’s easier and takes less time. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is ''not'' what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm suspecting trolling, here. ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for ] violations. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information ''about the exploitation caused by the games industry'' - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make ''women working in the games industry literally less visible,'' seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body}} Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay.]] 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks.]] 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::clearly you’ve never had a ], or ]. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You've already been told by {{U|Liz}}, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked.]] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *], I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed. | |||
| :And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like ] but for women? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm looking at edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --] (]) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. ] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What we would expect is to find ] compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in ] in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. ] (]) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK. Now I'm looking at edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|I removed it because it made me upset.}} What? Have you read ] and ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just ], a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::fine ill shut up now ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: also looks like parody. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the ''male'' protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. ] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No one said or implied any such thing. ] (]) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: actually takes a ] cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners." | |||
| :::::::However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because you have disrupted multiple topics. ] (]) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. ] (]) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. ] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::what can I do to make you guys believe me? ] 👻 | ] 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That ship has sailed. ] (]) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. ] ] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposal: Indefinite block === | |||
| For disruptive editing and ]. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per nom. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. In addition, ] and ]. - ] ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. ] to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just ], their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' per nom ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. ] (]) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I believe we're being trolled. ] (]) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom. Good block by CT.]] 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an ] person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. ] 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ]: ] and ] behaviour. == | |||
| The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. ] (]) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the ]. They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at ] and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue. | |||
| :Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ". | |||
| :The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. ] (]) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. ] (]) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like (removing category) followed by (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both {{cat|Politicians from Liverpool}} and {{cat|People from Aintree}}, why can't Billy Balmer be in both {{cat|Footballers from Liverpool}} and {{cat|People from West Derby}}? You have contradicted yourself there. | |||
| ::If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything? | |||
| ::You ''did'' refuse to discuss, you ignored ], you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. ]] 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also no, a person cannot be in both {{cat|People from Liverpool}} and {{cat|Footballers from Liverpool}} per ]. People get categorised into district ''and'' profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. ]] 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. ] (]) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. ] (]) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. ] (]) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. ] (]) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| (The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value) | |||
| As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) ] (]) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. | |||
| : You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. ] (]) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| More specifically this line: | |||
| ::Your point, as expressed , seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the {{cat|People from District}} series. This is a ] argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the {{cat|People from West Derby}} category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on ]. ]] 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through.}} (right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change) | |||
| :::My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" ''and'' "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica';">THIS IS ]</span> 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what ] (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. ] 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Levivich}} - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include and and . Therefore, in the absence of a {{cat|Footballers from West Derby}} (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are {{cat|Footballers from Liverpool}} and {{cat|People from West Derby}}. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing {{cat|People from West Derby}} has been disruptive, has it not? ]] 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah this is just classic ] editing ignoring ] (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position ''I know the truth, sources be damned!'' If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Misplaced Pages, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. ] 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Levivich}} perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). ]] 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No need, helpfully {{ping|Orangemike}} has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. ]] 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Levivich}} I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is ''known for a fact'' to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. ''']'''×''']''' 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("{{tq|or called for a moratorium on changes}}") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content ({{tq|Only one active discussion-engaged user}}). Other editors, like @], have been calling them out for this as well. | |||
| :I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman. | |||
| :In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England. | |||
| : I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. ] (]) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. ] (]) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). ] (]) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too. | |||
| ::No, you do not get it. Here on Misplaced Pages we ''do'' categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. ] and you do not seem to have any. ]] 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. ] (]) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... ]] 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :@], please take some time and review our ] and ]. While you're at it, you should also read up on ] and ]. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as {{tq|minding my own business}} when you're being disruptive. ] (]) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. ] (]) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with ''. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for ''so'' many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs. | |||
| :Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Misplaced Pages ''or anywhere else'' works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. ] (]) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. ]] 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at ] and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at ]). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the ] article. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Liz}} - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see and and as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. ]] 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The page-in-question ''should'' be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. ] (]) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. ] (]) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? ]] 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. ] 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: {{u|Warrenmck}} wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page. | |||
| {{od}} I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see and and . They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. ]] 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :What {{u|Warrenmck}} does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up ''all the time''. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach. | |||
| :For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was {{u|Czello}}. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages. | |||
| :I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've ''added'' additional citations to address {{u|Warrenmck}}'s concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. '''] ]''' 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a ''minor faction'', per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that | |||
| ::{{quote|Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?}} | |||
| ::and you responded | |||
| ::{{quote|Which is labeling the party as it.}} | |||
| ::Which isn't how NPOV editing works. | |||
| ::Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus. | |||
| ::{{tq|I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes}} | |||
| ::Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point . Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. ''I did not make the change I knew would be controversial'', that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal () Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events. | |||
| ::This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. ] 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though. | |||
| :::What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? '''] ]''' 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Literally in this ANI: | |||
| ::::{{tq|Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"}} | |||
| ::::That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page: | |||
| ::::{{tq|Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.}} ] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are making a distinction without a difference. '''] ]''' 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. ] (]) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. ] ] 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *My view on this is that if Babydoll continues to make these changes going forward, they ought to be blocked. The canvassing linked above is definitely poor form, but also quite obviously ineffective so it doesn't really concern me. What ''does'' concern me is over the past year (although about 300 of them are from the past three days) that all seem to either remove categories, or otherwise change geographical details (e.g. in infoboxes), and many are still the current revision. What are we doing about those: leaving them? Reverting them? Anyone want to go through them all and check? (I don't, and also I don't have the knowledge of UK geography to know if they're good or bad.) Personally I'd support mass reversion because about 300 of them are from the past three days. ] 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]: | |||
| ::Given the clear issues raised here and shared by the community, I suggest a mass revert. ]] 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{quote|An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.}} | |||
| :::+1 on the mass revert. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica';">THIS IS ]</span> 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here ] and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a ''hell'' of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards. | |||
| ::::{{ping|Levivich|Trey Maturin}} is one of you able/willing to mass revert? ]] 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has ]ed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As ] said, {{tq|"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"}} ] 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, I no longer have the script and long ago asked for the perm to be removed. ] 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. ] 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I started doing a mass revert, but am now reverting some of my own edits in cases where the change by Babydoll9799 was fine. – ] ] 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place ''after'' I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer ] problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an ] mentality. ] (]) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::thank you {{ping|Fayenatic london}} - if you are unsure if the Babydoll edit was 'good' please let me know. ]] 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. and . I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff: | |||
| ::::::::Well, that was more fiddly than I expected, but is now done. The repopulated categories are now in ]. – ] ] 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late}} | |||
| *::::Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @] appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up ''all over''[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. ] (]) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find ''years'' worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments. | |||
| *::::::If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling ] 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. ] (]) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Respectfully ] and ] are behavioural problems. ] (]) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (). | |||
| == Two requests regarding Emigré55 == | |||
| :while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree ''at all'' makes this pretty ] behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for ]. ] 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' ] for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was | |||
| :{{quote|Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.}} | |||
| :This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. ] 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to ] more than ]. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. ] (]) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. ] 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. ] (]) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. ] (]) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.}} | |||
| ::::And ''very clearly'' retaliatory. ] 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per ]: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually. | |||
| :::::You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. '''] ]''' 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}} | |||
| ::::::Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the ''exact'' types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. ] 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. '''] ]''' 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with {{U|Springee}} about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. ] (]) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for ''the exact same behaviour''. ] 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist. <s>This is because it says that the party isn't ''just'' a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist ] and the fascist propagandist ]. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop". </s>] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok here's the correct quote now: {{tq|The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.<br /> This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.<br /> While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear.}} | |||
| ::::::Now this article does compare the ''Democratic party'' as a whole to ''Trump'' on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is {{tq|It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.}} The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. ] (]) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Also, the ''New York Times'' introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." ] says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source. | |||
| :::::::It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used. | |||
| :::::::My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. ] (]) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what ] says {{tq|When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.}} ] (]) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. ] (]) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.}} | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| :It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. ] 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === First request: ] between myself and him === | |||
| Hi! Over the past few weeks the interactions between him and I have been of contentious, personal, and aggressive character so I am seeking an IBAN. Another possibility that might be suitable here is a topic ban for both of us. I cordially invite {{u|JBchrch}} to pitch in, they have been invaluable in mediating between us two and helped me realized when I had crossed the line when interacting with Emigre55. I know you wanted to avoid an IBAN but I just want to forget about Emigre and be done with this. | |||
| ==== On my side ==== | |||
| I have been disrespectful to him in multiple cases: | |||
| :* with my apology | |||
| :* with my apology | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| ==== On his side ==== | |||
| He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case: | |||
| :*, , | |||
| The following diffs refer to either his general conduct in the talk page or main page of the Article on Eric Zemmour, which should be taken into context when dealing on this matter. | |||
| Aggresive ]: | |||
| Perhaps this characterization is not the most accurate for all the diffs and another way of qualifying the disruptiveness (as I see it) of his edits listed below, but I leave that up to others to comment. | |||
| :* See , , , , , , , | |||
| ]: | |||
| :*] I am claiming hounding here as the only way I can see him finding this link is by watching my contributions. Note his wording "I noticed ..." ]. If I am wrong on this point, I will quickly retract this accusation. | |||
| === Second request: === | |||
| I don't have a specific request, I just would like for editors reading my submission here to take into account other instances of his disruptive editing to either other users or other pages. {{u|Munci}},{{u|Hemiauchenia}} feel free to contribute if you see it necessary. Other ANI-related discussions in the past: ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
| === Final comment: === | |||
| I might have not followed the WP procedure for creating this page discussing the incident, in that case I apologize in advance as my only previous experience in ANI was with ] (which I think got resolved after I asked for the relevant pages to be semi-protected). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| ==== As to the first request: ==== | |||
| :1/ On accusation: ''“He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:'' | |||
| :*, (...) “'''' | |||
| ::Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, where it can also be seen that I announce it in the commentary of the diff (''"→International relations: see following sentence and ref"''), I have provided 3 citations and a source immediately after this revert, . | |||
| :*, | |||
| ::Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, I have not refused to seek consensus: <br> | |||
| ::I have first answered her question, and stated, as precisely as I could, the reasons why I thought/think that there is “undue weight” in the § in discussions. <br> | |||
| ::Furthermore, I have then, with the last sentence of my edit, asked a question: ''“Please, explain if you see another way to improve neutrality and also undue weight of the whole section relative to the whole article”''. Question which remained unanswered by Santacruz. She then only answered: ''“Well, I disagree Emigré55"''. | |||
| ::It appears to me that, by only answering then that she disagreed, and not answering my questions and/or suggestions on how to reduce undue weight, she decided to leave the debate on that particular point, which was hence closed “de facto” by her without the search of a further consensus on her side. | |||
| :2/ On accusation of ''“Aggressive wikilawyering"'': <br> | |||
| :*I have always tried to explain precisely what I understand from the rules, citing them and mentioning what and how is pertinent to the case or the point in discussion. E.g., , and again: | |||
| ::Particularly on « undue weight », ''« So, rephrasing my question could be: What to do to correct the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements" of the first sub section, which is presently given an "undue weight", because of them ? »'', I do not understand why this can be qualified as ''«aggressive wikilawyering»'', having patiently rephrased my question and further asked how to make the article better in her opinion, following the rule as explained. Here again, I also received no answer to my question. | |||
| ::I have also never been ''«aggressive»'' , no example is even given on this point. | |||
| :3/ On ]: | |||
| ::I have never ''"joined discussions on multiple pages or topics (she) may have edit(ed) or multiple debates where (she) contribute(d), to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work"''. Since September, I ONLY contribute to the Eric Zemmour article, which can be easily verified. | |||
| ::Furthermore, the rule states that ''"the contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases"''. | |||
| :In my opinion, the first request is hence based on accusations against me lacking all merits. <br> | |||
| :Reading WP:HOUNDING, I noticed that it also states that ''"Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."''--] (]) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== As to the second request: ==== | |||
| :*] states : ''« It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »''<br> | |||
| :*Also, I do not understand what is the request, with several diff given “to be characterised” or assessed by others, what appears to me, for lack of a better word, as “]”, or approaching this practice.<br> | |||
| :*If a request is not characterised, I think that this “claim” should be dismissed, as being unduly brought. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== As to the Final Comment: ==== | |||
| :Finally, I would like to add that I have introduced the sections on Zemmour's political ideas at the end of September, somewhat reorganised them, waiting for others to bring input, which did not happen. I started then, slowly, carefully, to improve and substantiate them, as they should be more important than controversies, as was and still is the case now in this article.<br> | |||
| :Since September, on an article which was/still is to a large extent (before I started patiently editing it) heavily biased, breaching neutrality as well as balance and BLP rules, not to mention lack of content on the real substance of his political and economic ideas, I have contributed 261 edits, 57,4% of all edits, or 31,4% of the article by added text. | |||
| :Becoming, to my surprise, the first contributor to this article. | |||
| :By contrast, A.C.Santacruz appears to have made 3 edits, and appears to rank n°36 among all 266 editors. | |||
| :See statistics of the article, :<br> | |||
| :Top 10 by edits: | |||
| Emigré55 · 261 (57.4%) | |||
| ActiveContributor2020 · 45 (9.9%) | |||
| Hemiauchenia · 36 (7.9%) | |||
| Philip Cross · 24 (5.3%) | |||
| JBchrch · 20 (4.4%) | |||
| Steve Smith · 18 (4%) | |||
| Causteau · 16 (3.5%) | |||
| MB · 15 (3.3%) | |||
| Munci · 11 (2.4%) | |||
| Xiaopo · 9 (2%) | |||
| :Top 10 by added text (approximate): | |||
| Emigré55 · 45,979 (31.4%) | |||
| BrownHairedGirl · 37,083 (25.3%) | |||
| Xiaopo · 27,324 (18.7%) | |||
| ActiveContributor2020 · 10,791 (7.4%) | |||
| Munci · 7,033 (4.8%) | |||
| Steve Smith · 6,899 (4.7%) | |||
| Malaria28 · 5,513 (3.8%) | |||
| Hemiauchenia · 2,246 (1.5%) | |||
| Causteau · 1,852 (1.3%) | |||
| JBchrch · 1,656 (1.1%) | |||
| :--] (]) 07:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Response to Emigré55's retorts === | |||
| :1. Disruptive also means to disregard other editors' explanations for their edits, such as you did . On refusing to build consensus, such is your endless arguing ad nauseam that ]. | |||
| :2. On wikilawyering, i especially refer to the section describing it as "brandishing Misplaced Pages policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution". You frequently wave the name of NPOV around to back your own claims while forgetting that we are all biased and thus need consensus to find the best way to show information on this project. In the discussion I linked about Zemmour's trials section, I to change the section from a he said/she said type structure to a chronological one in order to encourage less bias. You not only , but then . I realized that anything short of exactly whatever you were asking (perfect partiality suiting your bias) would not be enough for you and just left the discussion. You were, in my opinion, not suggesting solutions as much as brandishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to shut down other editors in the discussion from proposing solutions and finding common ground. | |||
| :3. You justify your watching my contribution log as being useful to "dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases". However, what dispute resolution or arbitration case are you referring to where you needed to gather evidence on my actions? Why was it necessary for you to complain against me asking for a neutral editor to judge the discussion? | |||
| :4. Why are you trying to use statistics on the contribution of the article here? What does that have to do with anything? <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 09:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::You presented your arguments in your initial 2requests/complaint. I presented then mine in response to your accusations, which, as I have shown with diffs, have no merit in my opinion.<br> | |||
| ::I think there are enough arguments for an admin to make a decision, if needed. | |||
| ::You seem to further want to argue, with this "response" to my previous statement. I don’t think it is necessary to further argue here: | |||
| ::* Either on your side as you just did above, because you seem to be willing to extend the dispute to new grounds, thus escalating the dispute you started before. | |||
| ::* Or on my side, although I would have precise arguments to answer you, because I do not wish to fuel such escalation. | |||
| ::I will therefore not answer you, unless an admin finds it useful and/or asks me to do so. | |||
| ::Thank you for your understanding.--] (]) 11:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|A._C._Santacruz}}, it's inappropriate for you to link to editorial processes on the article talk page Those are only intended for sources and/or explanatory notes about the content. ] 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, it's inappropriate to invoke ] for ''anything'', seeing as it's still ongoing. You need to wait till it concludes before consensus or lack thereof can be asserted in connection to it. ] 15:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wait, I just noticed this. Your edit summary says: {{tq|Edited page based on closed RfC}} () — but it ''hasn't'' been closed. Okay, now I'm confused. ] 15:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|El_C}} See and subsequent . ] ] 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Eep. ] 16:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yeah I thought that since no one had talked in the RfC in 3 days, and with it being open for over a week with only one editor disagreeing w consensus on far-right it was safe enough for me to close, my bad on that. JBchrch instructed me on how to do it properly and I thus filed the closure request. I'll take into account in the future not to link talk pages on efns. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey === | |||
| ::I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. As {{u|A._C._Santacruz}} noted, I sort of attempted to moderate the disputes between the two editors. I have ostensibly failed, but that's beyond the point. In my view, there's nothing here that reaches the intensity required for administrative action. As <s>Arb</s> {{u|Dennis Brown}} recently at ] "some heat is expected in contentious areas, and is tolerated by the community". Both editors just need to take a chill pill, and either drop the ] in relation to the disputes they are involved in, or seek ]. They should both be ] upside the head for their agressive demeanor over the last week and their consistent failure to de-escalate (maybe {{u|A._C._Santacruz}} should be trouted a second time for this ANI request), given some Tylenol, and sent on their way. ] ] 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions. | |||
| ::{{u|JBchrch}}, Dennis Brown is not an arbitrator. ] 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources. | |||
| :::Thanks {{u|El_C}}. Calling every admin an arb is my way of networking with the admins. ] ] 17:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Appears unnecessary. Granted, I've only taken a cursory look, but if you were rude, but have the good sense to apologize, and the other party doesn't want a iban, and both have been rude to each other.... then go do something different for a while. I'm not trying to be overly simplistic, but maybe that should be tried first. Misplaced Pages has no deadline. We will get by if you don't edit in that area for a time. You have the power, use it. I say this because I do not like ibans, and my history of using the admin bit has been filled with TOPIC bans and extended mutual blocks instead, refusing to support ibans in virtually all circumstances. As an admin, my goal isn't "justice", it's about finding a solution that benefits everyone, not just you two. There are plenty of other areas that can benefit from your efforts, just go do something else for a while, will you guys? Chill out, and figure out how to get along, because an iban isn't something I'm likely to support. ] - ] 21:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. ] (]) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{u|JBchrch}}, {{u|El_C}}, {{u|Dennis Brown}} After seeing this was going nowhere and I had removed the relevant pages from my watchlist I took some time off to reflect on my and Emigre's actions and wrote a ] on it. I added a section based on the insanely long ARS thread above. I'm still somewhat wilded out by him watchlisting my contributions (or however he found out about my closure request), but I don't see any action happening there and I'd much rather focus my time and stress on fixing the article on the ] in my ]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." | |||
| * '''Oppose''', obviously. Seems like a heated content dispute, which could have easily been resolved at the talk page if either user just took a moment to cool down. As an aside, I seriously believe something needs to be done with the essay project at this point. Even if they're labelled "humorous", I find it quite derisive of our entire volunteer experience – and counter-intuitive to our policies – that someone can passive aggressively vent their frustrations at another user in that manner. ] (]/]) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist? | |||
| ::::If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. ] (]) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page: | |||
| # The OP made a thread on ] saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right". | |||
| # Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this. | |||
| # ??? | |||
| # AN/I thread | |||
| Is there anything I'm missing here? <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? ] 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == NPA issues, possible harassment at ] == | |||
| ::You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning? | |||
| ::But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. '''] ]''' 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN: {{tq|There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines}}. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out. | |||
| :::You’ve been doing this for ''years'' and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been ''very'' explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @]’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a ]. ] 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Self reporting for my behavior at ], to include possible violations of ], failure to abide by ], possible ] failures, and depending on how you choose to define it harassment of {{User|Andrew Davidson}}, {{User|Dream Focus}}, and {{User|Dronebogus}}. Reporting myself because I feel that editors in general and admins in particular need to be held accountable to the community, to include accountable for actions on and off the article space, or as I put in my userspace, "Be thou for the contributors." ] (]) 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: ], just in case anyone wants to review it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @] engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating | |||
| :::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}} | |||
| :::::In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing . | |||
| :::::A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. ] 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them. | |||
| ::::::*First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the ] page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of ''this'' report. | |||
| ::::::*Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you ''still cannot define what POV I am pushing'' - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning ''is''. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list ] and ] as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is ''yours'', because it's been utterly ridiculous. | |||
| ::::::*You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. '''I think everything I said is correct'''. Your proposal was '''bad'''. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly. | |||
| ::::::*Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me '''here''' of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to ''agree'' with me. | |||
| ::::::*Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over. | |||
| ::::::*I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting '''my''' time, you are wasting '''your''' time, and you're wasting '''everyone's''' time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. '''] ]''' 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. ] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*::TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are ''several new peer reviewed sources'' that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of ''multiple other editors'' and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. ] (]) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example: | |||
| ::::::*:{{tq|Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.}} | |||
| ::::::*:Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the ''context'' in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a . | |||
| ::::::*::'''1.''' You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to. | |||
| ::::::*::'''2.''' Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for ''years'', once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not | |||
| ::::::*::'''3.''' In the absence of any substantive objection, ] material should be added in. | |||
| ::::::*:] doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and ] then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. ] 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*If you're going to accuse {{ping|Springee}} of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here. | |||
| ::::::::*Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a ] exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you. | |||
| ::::::::*With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. '''] ]''' 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*:Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @], who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. ] (]) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*::Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? ] (]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*:::I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. ] (]) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*::I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. ] (]) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Warrenmck}}, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards ]. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I can back away ] 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated WP:GS/AA violations == | |||
| * No worries. Nominating an FA for deletion is not a normal process and so it's naturally uncomfortable for us all. I once took a tour of the ] and still recall being impressed by the size of the shells which were stacked up on the deck. In the good old days, people actually used to fire these things at each other so we should count our blessings. ]🐉(]) 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * There are a few other people who should be composing a ''mea culpa'' in that discussion. I note that after the first expressions of outrage, there is now a more measured discussion concerning what is appropriate for the encyclopedia according to policy. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 00:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree the temperature looks like it's gone down a lot here, so blocking at this point wouldn't help. If it stays on the track it's on now, that's fine. ] (]) 01:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant. | |||
| :I agree that if you weren't such a productive editor you'd probably have been blocked for "Don't gimme this "snow keep" bullshit when its overwhelming clear none of you even bothered to read the damn thing, nor have you put any meaningful thought into your keep votes. Try again, gentlemen, and this time try not to embarrass yourselves by getting giddy over the bronze star, shall we?". I think it's pretty great on your part to want the same standards applied to all Wikipedians regardless of status and it's even more amenable to offer yourself up as a martyr for such. At the same time though you really weren't ''that'' bad during the deletion discussion itself and you seem to be overstating the gravity of your WikiSins. | |||
| :I would suggest that a better method of dealing with your guilt would be writing an informal apology of some kind on the affected editors' user talk pages; rather than starting an AN/I thread & leaving the rather impersonal AN/I template. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Chess}} Even if they weren't "''that'' bad" I do not want to foster a perception that I'm one of those "untouchable" or "unsanctionable" editors on site. We've seen how the community struggles to deal with people like that, and the end result is usually either omnipotent apathy (no one every does anything and thus the offender is empowered/embolden) or a catastrophic nuclear incident (along the lines of ]). Trying to reign myself in here is an effort to allow others to weigh in on the matter by acknowledging that I helped to power this thing whether I wanted to or not. In this case, if I were on the other end and bring this here, I wouldn't block, but I would demand a shot across the bow at the very least since the five pillar include AGF and civility, neither of which were demonstrated early in the discussion, and if I was on the other side I'd similar expect to be reminded that simply because its a featured article doesn't make it an untouchable article, if its afd its at afd for a reason, so reading the article and the nominator's rational (however brilliantly or poorly phrased) to understand why its there should be within the realm of common sense under the BRD method since the goal is consensus and it can't be obtained if two parties dig in and fortify. ] (]) 11:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|I would demand a shot across the bow}}{{snd}}Well, this is the right article for that. ]] 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, that does amount to gross incivility unbecoming of a sysop. You should consider going back and striking the most egregious of those remarks, then unwatching the discussion. There is also scope for further apology if you're of a mind (but don't apologize insincerely).—] <small>]/]</small> 09:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by ] such as the following: ], ], ], and made poorly sourced POV additions such as: | |||
| == User:PoWaiFung again == | |||
| * | |||
| {{userlinks|PoWaiFung}} | |||
| * | |||
| Hi admins, this is the second time, I'm filing this report after ], as PoWaiFung clearly couldn't bother to care about following guidelines on not to overcite. I have previously tried communicating to user couple of times as mentioned in the first report filed previously, user was also informed by ] previously as only bonadea replied to the previous report. But guess what, just 5 days ago, the same thing happened again by adding 32 sources reporting the same news. I believe temporary blocking should be issued to user to give them a wake up call, speaking to user doesn't yield much result and fell into deaf ears. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :Chiming in here, so it doesn't get archived again without a response: it is hard for a non-Korean speaker to evaluate whether something like ] is in fact constructive – PoWaiFung added three sources to support some very rudimentary info about an upcoming episode, where there was already one source. I ran all four through Google's web translation thingy: is the source that was there already, and were added by PoWaiFung. It's certainly the same press release, even if the autotranslated semi-intelligible text is slightly different. So it is ''not'' constructive. | |||
| Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the diff posted by Paper9oll, that's obviously over the top, without any need to translate the sources – 32 citations for the same fact. There are at least six posts on PoWaiFung's user talk page with information, cautions, and warnings (not all templated, but actually explaining the issue) about ]. See for instance ] and ]. It looks like a language barrier problem, but at least it is not a question of ], since PoWaiFung has responded a couple of times to the cautions and warnings. Other warnings on their user talk page mention ] . --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 18:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Frankly speaking, I'm not every pro at Korean-language either but do have little bit of understanding of the language. I can confirm that, the 3 additional sources that PoWaiFung added is reporting the same news abeit with the different writing styles but the topic and subject involved (which is who is guesting in the upcoming episode) remains the same. Fyi, before PoWaiFung added the 3 additional sources, I have actually removed the 31 sources that PoWaiFung included earlier. I'm just find it weird that despite telling PoWaiFung couple of times to not overcite, PoWaiFung chosen to ignore it despite maybe knowing it, since this was communicate twice in March 2021 and September 2021 section, of which PoWaiFung replied in both occassion to the initial post while not replying to subsequent reply. In such situation if other party doesn't reply for subsequent reply, for me, I would just assume that they has acknowledge/seen the reply but chosen not to reply to it, in WhatsApp context, that would be blue-ticked. While, I'm not saying PoWaiFung editing is bad faith but I do believe some sort of competence is required. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 08:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| ::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. ] (]) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. ] (]) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: . It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. ] (]) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again. | |||
| ::This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't ] enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. ] (]) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Caribbean Hindustani == | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Caribbean Hindustani}} | |||
| This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the ] article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, ] 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| :Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: ] (]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nonadmin}} So somebody beat you to the punch? That is what you want administrator attention for? ] (]) 10:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. ] (]) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, as an admin, I can tell you the first thing you need is images. Is there a map image or something of that nature so we can see where it is? Also, photographs from the place would be good. And you could deal with the citation needed tags in the infobox as well as the last section concerning wars, which is presently no cited at all. Otherwise there is little we can do save but for to remind you that "he who hesitates has lost" :) ] (]) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written. | |||
| :For further clarification, unless Ella Lachow used some of the content from the draft page, there is no real reason why they had to re-use the draft page to create the article. And the draft page is so short plus partly contradicts the information in the new article so I suspect the content from the draft page wasn't used. Also if the article they created was quickly developed so it was sufficient to exist in mainspace, there's no requirement that they must use the draft space. <strike>In other words, it doesn't seem they did anything wrong.</strike> ] (]) 11:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information. | |||
| ::Apologies for the final line in my above response which I've now struck, it looks like something quite wrong was done even if not the issues stated in the opening comment. ] (]) 08:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Is that article not a copyvio ? That website (gijash.com) appears to be copyrighted, so it would appear, could someone confirm? ] 15:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like definite copyvio, {{u|Black Kite}}. I stripped out the copyvio, which doesn't leave much left. ] (]) 17:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8) == | ||
| {{atop|1=Blocks guaranteed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| The IP ] was banned on December 29, 2024 (6 month block duration) for disruptive editing. To be specific, they would write in a delay of a Starship launch by exactly one month, without any citations. | |||
| They had been banned before (two month ban) for the same behaviour. | |||
| A few examples that I sourced in my : | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| IP ] is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion. | |||
| This IP user is always been adding an unsourced edits, keeps adding the airline and destinations at the page of ] | |||
| Out of the five edits made by this IP: | |||
| (This is the page history of Soekarno Airport that edits) | |||
| Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source. | |||
| (Below edits are 115.178.210.186 and other IP started 115) | |||
| , , , , , | |||
| Delays ] on ] from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added. | |||
| I already give warning to that IP but still continue to disruptive edit.] (]) 16:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added. | |||
| :This IP user again have been continue to disruptive edits at ] . i don't what to say but these IPs were the previous sockpuppet of ] and ]. Both of these accounts were blocked, but seemingly continue to edits with this similar edits of IP. ] (]) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added. | |||
| Also, this user continues to add unsourced content on Sriwijaya Air operating flights to Balikpapan, Yogyakarta, Ambon etc which SJ no longer operate this route just around this year. This guy must be a Sockpuppet of ] which this user has long history of doing same thing as well. ] (]) 15:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added. | |||
| == Problematic new IP editor == | |||
| This is either a similarly disruptive editor, or more likely, a ban evader continuing their vandalism. Either way, they are ]. ] (]) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could someone take a look at the edits by {{IP|49.178.138.126}}? The good news is that they are keen, and they are not vandals. The bad news is that they are adding poorly worded and improperly formatted text into multiple articles, at a speedy rate, and appear to be very reluctant to accept advice as to how editing should be carried out here. They seem unconvinced by arguments that they should improve their own skills, rather than expecting everyone else to clean up their mess. ] (]) 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban. | |||
| == Disruptive behaviour on airport pages == | |||
| : | |||
| : ] (]) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. ] (]) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] ] (]) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Danny5784 == | |||
| {{userlinks|Danny5784}} does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite ] and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy: | |||
| * After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ]. | |||
| * Danny5784 created ] with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After {{u|Djflem}} wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both ] and ] apparently as ]. | |||
| Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and ], then did ] here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria. | |||
| With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a ] editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. ] (]) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| <!--{{hat|1=A wild ] appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}--> | |||
| :Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done. | |||
| :Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than ] so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. ] (]) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. ] (]) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. ] (]/]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear {{confirmed}} result.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. ] (]) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Liz}} I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!--{{hab}}--> | |||
| :::::::No problem, ever, with unarchiving, ]. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). ] (]) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For several months the ] page has been disrupted by {{User|Andrewgprout}}. This user does not add any new content for the page or add any value, but merely reviews the history and polices whether they think the sources are good enough. There are many examples of where the user simply reverts the edit to what is clearly incorrect information. It is often reasoned by some pedantic and contentious issue they have with the source. The reversion usually makes Wiki worse because it reverts to clearly incorrect information, rather than loosely sourced correct information. I would think that a user that spends so much time policing references to seemingly improve Wiki would make an effort to improve the page by correcting the sources to what they believe is better. However they seem more bothered by references and sources than about improving the content. | |||
| :Clerical note that this user is not the ] DannyS712. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article == | |||
| A recent example is where Wiki ] cited a KLM flight to Amsterdam as launching this week (November 4, 2021) sourcing an article 6 months old (May 2021). A quick review of KLM's timetable or Orlando Airport's new service page makes it clear that no so such flight exists and appears no longer planned to launch. As such I deleted the entry from the Wiki page. {{User|Andrewgprout}}'s response was to undo the deletion and tell me that I shouldn't be removing referenced material. If that were true then the entire site would be full of incorrect information although with lovely references. | |||
| {{u|LivinAWestLife}} made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. ] (]) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Andrewgprout}}'s talk page is full of comments from other users about {{User|Andrewgprout}}'s disruptive behaviour and edit warring on several Airports pages (Cork, Dublin, Newquay, Manchester...). A similar war over sourcing has occurred with {{User|EireAviation}} | |||
| :Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have previously suggested that {{User|Andrewgprout}} might not be disruptive if he were to correct the sources and help make the page better instead of just policing references and sources and reverting content. However, the user continues to just revert and add no value. | |||
| ::Vandalism is vandalism and is ''not'' funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a ''very'' low tolerance for trolls, ''especially'' in contentious topics. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also worth noting that ]. Regards, ]. (] | ]). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. ] (]) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you ''really'' have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see ]. ] (]) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. ] (]) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Couldn't you have just used inspect element? ] (]) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're taking a ''very'' long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. ] (]) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «''Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back''» and there are no consequences? ] (]) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their ]. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. ] (]) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. ] (]) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor repeatedly reverting edits == | |||
| As {{User|Andrewgprout}} does not make any value-added comments or seek to improve Airport pages, but seems to cause disruption and edit war, then the user should be considered from being blocked from making any edits to Airport projects. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}} | |||
| This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.! | |||
| ] (]) 10:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away! | |||
| For such behavior the editor has been | |||
| This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] , | |||
| :*You must provide ]s in order to back your argument. I'm not saying I doubt your claim, but a cursory look through the page history of OIA indicates an edit war and rather than digging through mud in many articles, a list of references to back your claims would be appreciated. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| While i was trying to improve the ] article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per | |||
| ] where it is clearly mentioned | |||
| "''In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.''" | |||
| Please see the edits made here: | |||
| Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1051869223&oldid=1051835327 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1050841616&oldid=1050752019 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1050131533&oldid=1050123619 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orlando_International_Airport&diff=1038255398&oldid=1038231555 | |||
| I don't know why the editor doesn't understand ] and ] are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! ] (]) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A quick look at {{User|Andrewgprout}}'s contributions page here... | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Andrewgprout&offset=20211022094303&target=Andrewgprout | |||
| :First ] is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry@] actually before this, i went on your to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided . ] (]) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's '''your''' action, not theirs. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They are the one who started removing/reverting repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are . Plese see ] edit history. ] (]) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". ] is a bright line. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They edit in group, while i started a discussion but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on ] but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. ] (]) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the ] for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a ] sanction is appropriate here. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ...demonstrates that the vast majority, if not all, the edits are related to somebody's references or sourcing rather than engaging in improving the content. The user appears to want to police references and sources and engage in warring about it rather than help make Wiki better by making simple edits themselves. | |||
| ::? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Yeh, I went to the ] noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my . What do you want to prove through this? ] (]) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with ] from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I read over ] discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on ]. Thanks again ] (]) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked. | |||
| On 20 October 2021, ] had to be put under special protection because of edit warring by {{User|Andrewgprout}} and I would hate to see that happen again because it is disruptive for everyone who is genuinely trying to make better content. ] (]) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This can also be interesting: ] <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :But taking it all in, it just seems to be a content dispute that can be solved by replacing both related sources by ''independent'' sources. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm afraid it goes beyond a content dispute on a single edit because this user has a track record of engaging in the behaviour over a long period of time on several pages. The pattern is that the user monitors airport pages and will pick holes in references, almost as if it is their daily fun. They have done this on several pages. It then discourages anybody from editing, posting, etc...sometimes it results in edit warring over pedantic and controversial references. Their behaviour is not in line with the wiki community. If they were seeking to make the content better or more reliable then they would be contributing. This users contributions are all different themes of reference disputes. The user only reverts or deletes, never adds content. It is as if their job is wiki police. ] (]) 20:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is ] , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent ], ] and and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --] (]) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If I may add a bit of context, I have several airport articles on my watchlist, but I largely ignore them because of the constant churning of edits about airlines serving the airports, cities connected by those airlines, gates used by the airlines, and dates for the beginning or ending of various services. In my opinion, most of that information violates ] and ]. I fail to see how information that changes seasonally, monthly, or sometimes, daily, belongs in an encyclopedia, even if there are reliable sources available. - ] 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I |
:I don't know what you're up to, but , I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks ] (]) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{tq| I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above}} That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --] (]) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if {{they are|Sokoreq}} using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, {{their|Sokoreq}} own behavior. --] (]) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Trolling at ] == | |||
| ==DinosaursLoveExistence== | |||
| {{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|DinosaursLoveExistence}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}} | |||
| Hi Folks!!. I would like, if possible, that the articles created by ] could go through Afc in a similar manner to FloridaArmy's. These article of which there is reams of them have barely any references, often in format that you can't tell what they are, and often only one or two. They are lowest type of junk. I've reviewed several of them in the last hour, some were redirected, other sent to draft, as part of the NPP review process. This is the 2nd editor I see in the last couple of months, and I was planning to post the editor but they have started adding much better references. This article ] is an example. This is a BLP. It has three links, nor refs, the 1st is a companies house profile page, the 2nd is another profile, the 3rd is the front page of some website. I've sure ] is more than capable of adding properly formatted reference of the correct type, as they have been here since 2005. Quality must be better than quantity in every instance. Thanks. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : |
] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Roxy the dog}} Well, if you're interested, you can sign up on their ]; I'm sure they would appreciate the help! ''']'''×''']''' 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking through their ten most-recent page creations (out of 1,000+ total), I agree. Most don't seem to meet notability guidelines and the referencing seems questionable. ] 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder if a conversation with this editor could be productive? Their talk page is almost entirely template messages, which doesn't help them understand what they did wrong with the articles in question. While many of their articles are low quality, particularly when it comes to sourcing, I don't think they're a lost cause. ] (]) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Semi-protected now, thanks ] ] (]) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| * IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :FloridaArmy's creations go to AfC because they often ''do'' demonstrate ], albeit not always on the first attempt, and generally relying on fairly obscure conditions of notability. In contrast, the complaint here is that DinosaursLoveExistence's creations are never or barely ever showing notability. We should first be talking to DinosaursLoveExistence to tell them very clearly that standards are much higher than they were in 2005, and they need to spend much more time on much fewer creations. {{pb}} I would guess that they simply pick a topic and go for it in writing what they can—this won't work. You need to have a research phase ''before'' typing a single word in the edit box where you find all the sources you can and very carefully read the relevant notability policies, and assessments of source reliability (e.g. ], or searching for mentions of the source in discussion pages). Only if you are convinced that the topic is notable can you proceed. This has worked for me in my 130+ article creations, but it also has led me to discard maybe 20–50 potential topics as non-starters, because I was surprised to find the sources were simply not there. {{pb}} (If escalation is needed, limiting DinosaursLoveExistence to AfC will not be the right move, as this would not really change the amount of volunteer time needed to reviewing their creations.) — ] (''']''') 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::;SportsOlympic | |||
| **:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is another editor who doesn't reference articles, ]. This is an example of one of their articles ]. The references are two database generated profile pages, with no secondary sources. The editor complain incessantly when their articles are sent to draft. It would be ideal if both these editors were sent through AFC for six months to upgrade the quality, as its trash. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::The sentence is started with "''This is another editor who doesn't reference articles''", adding one example saying "Here is one example, all his other articles are the same". I don't like you complain about me at ANI, while you ''never'' came to my talk page to talk. If you blame someone of something serious, do a bit of research (I asked you before), especially if it could be a false accusation. Your example of ], probably a deliberate choice but not mentioned before, was created by me during a few days I started creating cyclists who competed at the World Championships. Between 23 and 26 October I created about 50 articles on cyclists who participated at the ] or ]. | |||
| {{hidden | |||
| |Cyclists created by SportsOlympic between 23-26 October | |||
| |* ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| :::If you check the list, if's actually hard to find articles without secondary sources, so it looks like you well selected your "example"; but it doesn't show "all other articles are the same". | |||
| :::But nevertheless, all these articles are meeting notability guidelines of ] under ]. Please read ]. Draftification during page review is "an alternative to deletion". People meeting the notability guidelines are likely to survive an AFD; so those created articles shoult not be moved to the drafst space. | |||
| :::I already told you that when I came to your talk page in June ] and the other time last September ]. Your response last time to that was inappropriate in my opinion, with a personal attack and threat with words like "''No, dude. I'm not... ...What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest..''". I looks personal, while you never came to me to talk about the problems you have with my articles. | |||
| :::In addition other users didn't agree with you to move my content to draft space (for instance , and ) | |||
| :;:To reply to your request, I created over 2250 articles in the last 1,5 years. And they have all been reviewed by PageReviewers. To save time of the reviewers at AFC it would be better, in my opinion, that you start talking with me; instead of going straight to ANI with only a few sentences of complaints requesting for AFC. ] (]) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Ping|Scope creep}} please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Rude and abrasive behaviour, such as that which SportsOlympics evidences, only ever entrenches disagreements and makes it almost certain that the other editor will not improve their quality of content creation. Referring to another person's hard work as "trash" is disgraceful. Additionally, it is short-sighted to propose that editors be limited to AFC when this will do nothing to reduce the amount of reviewer time that will have to be invested. — ] (''']''') 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What personal attack exactly? Ok, got you, that was probably a bit out of order. Sorry, that was crass. SportsOlympic, I've spent the last month or two trying to get you to up the quality of your references. You can't even accept maintenance tags. I know you can create great articles, I've seen them, but there is reams of article which have 1 and 2 references, that are barely there. They often don't have the correct website name on them, just the shortened domain name. They're is generally no authors, publishers, page numbers, dates, access dates times, language versions or locations. All it is doing is creating masses amount of work for the future, when those links disappear. Here is an nother example, with a link on it: ]. Even domains change. They're a reason that all the guidance asks for a many fields as possible to be filled in, because it's to stop the article aging. It's storing up trouble for the future. In the argument above you stating the review time is problem, but FloridaArmy's draft articles are not much better in terms of quality than they were a years, otherwise they don't get throught. The reality that in 5-10 years time, most of these references that SportsOlympic are adding, are going to be dead and invisible. They break every convention of referenced publishing. The review time is nothing compared to amount of work that will be required in the future to fix these profile articles. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's best to start a new section for SportsOlympic, with a lot of diffs or links to recent creations, the issues with them, and to discussions already had with them on their user talk page. Sadly, there are plenty of issues, see e.g. his latest creation from today, ], where two of the three sources are to a Wordpress blog and the third is a statistics database: all three sources have very little information, which is turned into a somewhat fanciful narrative in the article. So yes, there clearly are issues, but it's best to start this section from scratch (and separately) if they are ripe for an ANI discussion. ] (]) 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You know, this sounds like what ] was doing a few years ago. Creation of many marginally-notable or non-notable athletes. Not saying that the user here is SvG, just noting the similarities. . ] (]) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn == | |||
| == Vandalism and personal attacks == | |||
| {{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism and personal attacks| – ] 16:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}} | |||
| ], so bringing this here. ] and I engaged in an edit war at ], which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for ), ] shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the for the "win", whilst predictably . How is this not ]? | |||
| I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at ] and see if anything needs tweaking at ], but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. ] (]) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Out on the Misplaced Pages I have been receiving threats since yesterday, right now the person with a new account https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/PediaXmark has only reverting my edits 5 times and calling it non notable, where as admins have approved the content before. He also did the same thing here https://www.wikidata.org/search/?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=1520675494 I request editors and admins to ban that account so he can not revert the edit again. | |||
| :It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? ] (]) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've restored it to the pre-socking version and {{U|Daniel Case}} has semi-protected the article.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. ] (]) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118) == | |||
| He is doing revert editing to https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Pakistani_animated_films ] (]) 16:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear ], I'm just removing spam/promotional links and it looks like you have a special care for the subject but let me tell you that it doesn't work on wikipedia. There is no notability and the references seems to be self-published by author. is an example. Admins can search "DJ Kamal Mustafa" on[REDACTED] and they can clearly see that this person's name has been inserted at different places on[REDACTED] by you. For example: . I'm an SPA and I leave this decision to the admins. Regards ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::: please come up with real account, I somehow got it who you are dear :) I m editing for everyone, not attached with any one so first correct your first. in the animated films page you have removed all 6 films where DJ Kamal Mustafa name was added, you said self promotion? here is the link of the media Gulf News https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/pakistan-makes-short-film-on-abhinandan-capture-1.66011154 Geo News https://www.geo.tv/latest/263717-only-22-urdu-films-released-in-pakistan-in-2019 and the News, https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan and this is not a self promotion please next time if you have any dear talk via page. ] (]) 18:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For Tribune one's you are right I should not add it, so accept the apology for that, admins can revert it without any hesitation. ] (]) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You have said about Daily Times, but let me tell you dear, Daily Times link was not even added to the article so outside of the Misplaced Pages you can not pick anything, I know the rules, the links I have added on the pages is from Geo News, Gulf News, The News, that's it, please recheck again. ] (]) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Your comments are a bit hard to follow, Static Hash, because it seems you have some confusion over how Misplaced Pages works. All edits to any Misplaced Pages page go live immediately and with no human oversight (with rare exceptions seemingly not applicable here). ] have some additional technical tools (such as the ability to delete pages) but they have no hierarchical power over the content of articles, and are only permitted to use their tools to change content when implementing the outcomes of discussion between editors whose comments are weighed based entirely on evidence and reasoning, and not on any form of seniority. {{pb}} There are other issues in your actions at ]. Please read ], with particular attention to the three-revert rule, and how conflict with another editor should be resolved by discussion, not reverts. You should also note that "]" is a technical term with a very specific meaning. — ] (''']''') 23:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: To add to what Bilorv has said, it's advised you try to talk the editor before bringing the issue to ANI. It appears you interacted with {{noping|PediaXmark}} only once before creating the thread, which was to accuse them of ] and to give a "last warning". You also mention here you've received threats. Could you post ] showing those threats? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ]. | |||
| *@] Threats were out of Misplaced Pages as I have mentioned in the first line, that's why I didn't have to say much I know who is behind this. He removed all the 6 films name which DJ Kamal Mustafa has produced, he even removed the list name, he then went to Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/search/?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=1520675494 to request the team to remove the Wikidata ID of DJ. Now, will anyone explain why he is targeting? why on the first he has removed all 6 films name of DJ? where was the spam promotional content? outside of Misplaced Pages, We have received 3 threats before he starts editing, but is it out of Wiki so I will not discuss further. My reason for reverting his edit because he was removing the film list without any evidence, nothing was promotional but it was personal as it seems with him and DJ. --] (]) 07:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear ], The reference articles you used appear to be self-published as the subject appears to be non-notable. They are not ], anyone can see that. So I put the deletion request for the page and it is now pending a review by the admin. Regards. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::{{Ping|Static Hash}} serious threats of violence should be emailed to emergency@wikimedia.org. In other cases, if you do not wish to discuss the matter onwiki then you could email an ] privately, or even a ] (who has been vetted for trustworthiness in accessing private information). See ] for more. — ] (''']''') 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below. | |||
| == ] and ] reported by ] == | |||
| Persistent unconstructive editing; first reported at ] but not acted upon. The IP ignores my warnings and keeps reverting my reversions. ] (]) 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :This is awkward as ] and ] are prolific editors making unexplained changes to US radio/TV articles. I have no idea whether the changes are desirable. Is there a template-free discussion somewhere about a specific change explaining why it should not have been made? I would have a look but would need explanations. ] (]) 08:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics == | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :EDIT: The IP is now <s>banned</s> blocked, with the original IP's <s>ban</s> block extended by another three months. ] (]) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| ::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * ] | |||
| :::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| While considering a new RfC on this page which had been advertised at ], I noticed ] in which accusations of off-wiki recruitment and meatpuppetry were flying, and requests for people to disclose their RL roles being made. I commented and attempted to close the thread directing people to a more appropriate venue (e.g. here) but my comment (and close) was reverted by {{u|Geogene}} who seems unwilling to restore it or heed it. In any event, an admin eye or two would probably be useful there. ] (]) 04:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with Alexbrn unilaterally closing a discussion with five other participants in it, and I reject the ultimatum he left on my talk page. I do agree though that that area needs admin attention. ] (]) 04:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::You may disagree with my close. But why delete my separate comment? ] (]) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your close was preventing me from replying to a remark there that was directed at me. If you want to leave a comment there that you feel it's an inappropriate venue, I don't object to that. ] (]) 04:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They why did you delete it? You know you generally shouldn't delete other people's comments right? ] (]) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you asking me to restore the comment without closing the thread? ] (]) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{facepalm}} I don't think you are taking proper care in your editing. For the record, what you deleted was this: | |||
| ::::::{{talkquote|This has come up before and as I recall if GSoW is getting fresh editors into Misplaced Pages to improve articles <u>in a policy-based manner</u>, that is welcomed by the community in the same way as edit-a-thons, etc are. In any event, this article Talk page is not the appropriate place for discussing GSoW, off-wiki recruitment, or puppetry - take any further grumblings to ANI or similar, and be sure to ping {{u|Sgerbic}} in any such posting}} | |||
| ::::::] (]) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you don't close that discussion again, I won't revert. If any other editor want to close that, then that's okay too. I think you're being too aggressive in trying to control the talk page (and leaving ultimatums on my user talk). ] (]) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What the hell are you even talking about? You reversed a close and deleted a comment, I asked you to restore the comment. You haven't. Are you in control of your actions? ] (]) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ec}} {{u|Alexbrn}}, you left a comment ''inside the discussion'' in the same edit that you closed the discussion. This illustrates why you don't do that; an auto-revert removes both. You could have either summarized the point you wanted to make in the space allotted for that in the template, or you could have made a separate edit. Participating in the discussion and simultaneously closing it is often interpreted as a ]. That's said, it's pretty clear that was not your intention. Similarly, it doesn't look like it was {{u|Geogene}}'s intention to violate ] by reverting the close. {{smiley}} ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|Are you in control of your actions?}} sounds like a PA. I think I'm done with trying to accommodate Alexbrn's demands. ] (]) 05:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I've actually been watching this discussion as it developed on the talk page today, and this is very clearly ''not'' a case of ]. As far as I understand, off-wiki organization is not in itself against ]s. The editors in question are not newbies and have been careful to follow the rules. The closing user or admin should read the article being used as evidence in that thread prior to making any assessments regarding a potential violation. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 05:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::At ], the policy reads, {{tq|High-profile disputes on Misplaced Pages often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Misplaced Pages assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Misplaced Pages is prohibited.}} I don't understand this , which tries to recruit new editors of a particular POV as a form of activism isn't meatpuppetry. Yes, of course, they claim to be following all guidelines. ] (]) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where's the high-profile dispute? Recruiting competent editors isn't meatpuppetry. Canvassing to influence !votes, for instance, would be. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They're targeting people of a certain POV to teach them how to engage in what they themselves call "activism" on Misplaced Pages. How do you know if they're Canvassing or not when they use off-wiki backchannel communications for everything? ] (]) 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It sounds to me like you're playing fast and loose with {{tq|of a certain POV}} here. Misplaced Pages ] toward science, toward reliable sources, and against conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific dogma. From the mission statement page you just posted, it sounds very much like Guerrilla Skeptics are following ] and improving the encyclopedia. Unless you have any concrete complaints for specific instances of even ''suspected'' canvassing, it doesn't look like there's anything more to address here. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 05:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Guerilla Skepticism doesn't seem to be about reliable sourcing, it seems to be about stuffing articles with as much Skeptic Movement POV sourcing (most of which is actually low quality) as possible. For example, this document describes POV pushing {{tq|I will describe the role I had in converting the story’s initially credulous Misplaced Pages article into its current version: one that makes it clear that the purported “sonic attacks” in Cuba and China all but certainly never happened}} more POV pushing {{tq|Being a Guerrilla Skeptics team member, and having sworn a solemn oath to fight fake news and pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages (wouldn’t it be cool if we actually swore an oath?!) in October 2017 I set out to investigate what the English-speaking world’s number-one source of online information had to say on this subject}} and stuffing the article with commentary from hand-picked Skeptic Movement personalities in order to try to sway the readership to their POV {{tq|The article still included all the injury claims being made by the diplomats, as well as the political finger pointing, but it now included ample skepticism that the medical issues were related to any attacks, and many statements made by sociologist Robert Bartholomew were used. Anyone reading this version of the article (or even just reading the revised lead) would hopefully come away with a very different opinion than they would otherwise have had.}} ] isn't a random sociologist the Guerilla Skeptics found, he's a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which publishes Skeptical Inquirer. ] (]) 05:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The more you expound on your point of view here, the less convincing it gets. What's with all of this loaded language? {{tq|Skeptic Movement POV}}? Referring to ] as {{tq|a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry}} and not as "an expert in fields such as mass hysteria and mass psychogenic illness... frequently consulted by media during... incidences of suspected mass hysteria or panic" as he is described in the article about him? Why wouldn't his work carry due weight in an article about a suspected psychogenic phenomenon, if quoted and attributed in a ]? As a reminder, in the timeframe we're discussing (2017-2018), that was still being debated by experts. The crux of my argument is this: {{u|Geogene}}, can you point to any specific violations? Any bad edits, including {{tq|low quality}} sources? Any instances of suspected ] on the talk page? Or do you just not like self-described skeptics promoting editing of Misplaced Pages? I don't think there are any policies against the latter. Personally, I would encourage it. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 06:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Here's an example of a truckload of bad quality sources proposed just now by {{u|Rp2006}} , he said he knew it would "piss me off" because I believe in quality sourcing standards. ] (]) 06:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't see that {{u|Rp2006}} added any of the more questionable sources to the actual article, and it sounds like the one you have a problem with (MEL magazine) was not a serious suggestion. Do you suspect that this person is associated with Guerrilla Skeptics? A meatpuppet, perhaps? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 06:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, he only proposed adding questionable sources to the article, and then admitted he did that in order to annoy me. You don't see the problem there, either? Perhaps debating this with you is not going to be productive? ] (]) 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Geogene persists in bending the truth. It is disturbing that I can't tell if he does it intentionally or it is a matter of self-deception. ] (]) 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Looking at the actual article and considering sourcing standards - yikes! It is crammed full of bold biomedical claims soured to non-] sources and relayed as plain fact in Wikivoice. If some sceptics ("self-described" or not) were to bring some order to the article, that could be a very good thing! I have posted at ] accordingly. ] (]) 06:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a current event article, and the patients are all anonymous. What do you expect? The best sources currently available are JAMA (which I see you don't like, because you tagged it) and a report from the National Academies of Science and Medicine, that favored the raygun hypothesis. If you want to advance some other hypothesis, then you should publish it yourself. ] (]) 06:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::We should use only reliable sources, and the JAMA sources ain't, for what they're being used for. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for original thought so editors' hypotheses (whatever they may be) are irrelevant. In any case, this is a content question best sorted-out at the articles. ] (]) 06:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then that leaves the New York Times (which you also tagged as unreliable). Or nothing. So what then? That article is using the best quality sources that are available as it is. And I didn't say anything about editor hypotheses, I told you that you should publish your own papers if JAMA and the National Academy of Science aren't good enough. ] (]) 06:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Don't be obtuse. ] and ] are core policies and if we can't relay accepted knowledge we remain silent. There is no word quota for articles which mean they need to be stuffed with sub-par content. ] (]) 06:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, but you're arguing from MEDRS, which isn't a core policy but a guideline that should be followed with common sense. The New York Times, JAMA, and the National Academies of Science and Medicine all pass normal V and NPOV. If you think the article is a candidate for deletion, then you can always propose it. Deleting it would be a better option than stuffing it with Skeptic Movement podcasts nobody has ever heard of. ] (]) 06:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Seriously? ] is by its nature "only" a guidelines, but ] is the policy that requires us to use reliable sources, and ] tells us what those reliable sources are for ]. Articles should always be based on secondary sources. If Misplaced Pages is going to assert things about brain injuries in people it can't do so off the back of primary research, and especially not when that primary research has been questioned by other RS. I don't think your deletion idea is in good faith. ] (]) 06:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, the article already uses the best sources available for the subject. Deletion is what happens when an article doesn't have enough reliable sources available. I doubt you've ever been able to assume good faith, and am not particularly concerned about that. What annoys me is editors trying to use things like podcasts as sources so they can get their preferred POV in. ] (]) 06:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] is a peer-reviewed journal, but neither of the two studies cited in the article support a "raygun hypothesis." At any rate, this is a content dispute and belongs on the article talk page. We can discuss the specifics there. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I told you earlier in this thread that it was National Academies of Science and Medicine that considered the microwave weapon theory the most likely explanation. Please pay attention if you wish to continue this dialogue. Here it is from the The Lancet, which is secondary for this {{tq|A US National Academies report concludes that many of the symptoms felt by embassy staff are consistent with pulsed radiofrequency energy}}. ] (]) 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The grammar in your post implies that the hypothesis is supported by both JAMA and NAS/M sources. I have not read the NAS/M report yet. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 07:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| They have not revealed what they do off-wiki (if anything). . All we know is they claim over 100 members and have an off-wiki email contact to join. We don't know who the members are (specific Wiki IDs, not real names), nor notified if they become involved in a page, controversial dispute, or consensus discussion. We are told to trust them, they follow the rules and do good work. Possibly all 100 members are equally trustworthy all the time. Individuals are highly variable in their knowledge of rules, respect of rules, and pushing the interpretation of rules. If there is abuse of canvassing going on among some members, it would fester and grow with lack of community oversight. I would also be concerned with other forms of potential abuse such as COI pushing certain websites that have a connection to the membership. These are not accusations but concerns of problems that can often arise with secretive offsite groups. -- ]] 07:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Very much agree with your assessment {{u|GreenC}}. The lack of oversight and accountability that a coordinated "international group of 100 or so" members have by not being a WikiProject (as mentioned in your linked diff) or a public list of members (such as ]) is highly problematic, without needing to pass judgement on the actual activities/purpose/interests of such a group. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Most especially if, as they tout in the article on them, their articles receive over 26 million views all-together and are referred to by journalists. They also seem to be .<span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I very much agree that collective action should be coordinated onwiki not offwiki. That's what Wikiprojects are ''for''. Everyone can see what's going on, and contribute if they see fit. ] (]) 09:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you'd prohibit edit-a-thons, class assignments and so on? I'd say there is no problem if the "collective action" is to improve Misplaced Pages. If however the "collective actions" is (e.g.) to promote a product or organization against the grain of the ], or if there is some shared COI in the group, then that would be bad. ] (]) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I may be mistaken, but is it not the expectation that edit-a-thons are for a predetermined amount of time and keep a record of participants (such as ])? Also, I really don't see how the benefits of their collective action cannot also come from them being part of a publicly visible WikiProject (with ] being an obvious alternative). The biggest issue I feel is that we cannot determine if there are collective actions that go against PAG or if there are blatant COIs as all we can do is guess who the members are or are not. In essence,]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 10:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If they like to chat on facebook instead of on a talk page, they can do that. By this logic we'd have to shut down the Misplaced Pages IRC channels, discords, and such. ] (]) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As far as I'm aware, there are not specific IRC/Discord channels for specific ideological alignments, and there are policies in place to strongly discourage anything that looks like collusion on on-wiki activities (the Discord moderators take a rather dim view of discussing ongoing AfDs and the like). ''']'''×''']''' 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not sure that 'pro science' should be considered a problematic ideological alignment. A COI is only a COI when there is actually a conflict between the outside interest and the interest of Misplaced Pages. Any number of edit-a-thons and GLAM projects exist in that space. We wouldn't run a feminist edit-a-thon or an art museum off the project because they coordinated by talking around a conference table rather than in talk pages everyone can see, even if they had an ideological alignment that supported improving content about women or about particular movements in art. ] (]) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I mean, the issue to me is not so much that the POV itself is problematic, but that it is being pushed by a large mysterious group whose membership is not disclosed. And my beef is not even just that they are doing things non-publicly ''per se'', it's that they do that ''and'' their activity involves a lot of contentious editing ''and'' there isn't anything preventing them from running it as a wikiproject. It's not like the CheckUser Wiki or something, where there is a compelling reason to keep the activity nonpublic, or an IRL event, where it would be definitionally impossible to conduct on-wiki (although I suppose you could require editathon attendees to sit in separate soundproofed cubicles and only communicate using talk pages). ''']'''×''']''' 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment and personal attacks == | |||
| ::::::To put it bluntly, {{u|A._C._Santacruz}}, we don't need evidence of absence. We need to ] and not cast ] without evidence. If there ''is'' evidence of wrongdoing, fine; let's hear it. Otherwise, I must confess I do not see any reason to badger the editors involved in that off-wiki project on the off chance that they might do something wrong. This whole discussion should be closed unless something new comes up. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, we know who ] is, and her user page gives a decent introduction to the group and what they do. ] (]) 14:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's like saying if ] did not exist on-wiki, and then if {{no ping|Peacemaker67}}'s page gave a "decent introduction" to a group that edits military history articles worth many millions of views, that the concerns mentioned by GreenC would not apply. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 00:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the post I was replying to you said above you didn't know who the members are or what they do, I was just pointing out some information available on-wiki. ] (]) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| As one of those who said maybe ANI was the way to go. I also said I was unsure what can be done. This does not seem like canvassing, nor do I see any evidence of meat puppetry. what I see is a lot of unfocused accusation. In fact it all reads like a massive ABF and ]'s.] (]) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :What have GSoW done wrong? Everything they do is out in the open on deadface. Bring diffs of their misbehaviour or go away. -] ] 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? Did you even read what I posted?] (]) 16:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe I was not clear I AM saying that those who have been accused of canvassing (they are not) and Meat Puppetry (without any evidence, or specific allegations) have done nothing wrong. I hope that is now a bit clearer for you, I am saying what you are saying.] (]) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::And do not tell users to go away because you disagree with them (especially when in fact you do not, you have just not bothered to read what they have posted), it is rude and uncivil.] (]) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Roxy the dog}} Seems like you put your comment in the wrong place? ] (]) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps. I get it wrong quite often even after all this time. I was just following SS, indenting once more and responding to the silly accusations against GSOW made by somebody who just discovered the excellent work they do. Thanks for the ping. -] ] 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Inconsistent formatting led to the first batch of comments in this section being indented with a bullet point and then another batch of comments not being indented at all. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 19:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What work? We can't really analyze it as theirs can we. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Riventree}} called another editor and myself a , said to the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an . ] (]) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Okay, I don't have a horse in the race with the specific article in question (the only "Havana Syndrome" I'm familiar with is "Havana couple beers"). But I think that a little skepticism is warranted for an advocacy group whose members coordinate off-wiki, especially when said group was previously involved with an (which has since been drastically copyedited for neutrality and tone). The objection here seems to be that the things they're advocating for are good, so they should be allowed to go nuts and do whatever. This doesn't seem very compelling to me: ostensibly, every advocacy group is oriented toward something good. For example, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens will all say, if you ask them, that their purpose is to fight injustice and stand up for what's right. And, I mean, I don't think they're lying: they really do believe this. Nonetheless, it would (and should) raise eyebrows if any them assembled an opaque, off-wiki, hundred-strong group that edited to give the movement more favorable coverage. | |||
| :Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In case you think I am being hyperbolic, note this passage from the original version of the article: | |||
| ::I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but ''indef'' for a user who ''has'', generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked ''once''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|Gerbic states that the "We Got Your Wiki Back Project!" is a popular GSoW sub-project. The project's goal is to improve the Misplaced Pages pages of skeptical spokespeople, especially when they are in the media's eye and their Misplaced Pages page views tend to spike.}} | |||
| :::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Whatever this is -- and, hell, it could be completely innocuous, for all I know -- I guarantee that if I got on IRC and convinced a hundred of my friends to make accounts to edit the articles of politicians/bloggers/etc we liked, called the organization "We Got Your Back", and refused to disclose a membership list, people on Misplaced Pages would not be saying "well, they're probably legit, no need to look into this further". ''']'''×''']''' 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::::It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. ] ] 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is more info on the GSoW at ''''. ] (she/her • ]) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this: {{tq|'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)}}. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. ] ] 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It looks to me like they understand ''what'' they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the ''why'' (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. ] (]) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Per our own internal classification (e.g. ]/]) it is formally a ], and the article ] is in the {{tl|political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate: | |||
| ::::::*"The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman." | |||
| ::::::*"Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec." | |||
| ::::::*"When we get into town, we should track down a food truck." | |||
| ::::::I am not really sure why these sentences would, ''prima facie'', constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this: | |||
| ::... that the ''']''' of stories can focus on female characters to reflect the ] perspective? | |||
| :From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that. | |||
| :I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (]), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far <del>and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet</del>. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. ] (]/]) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. ] (]) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amended, thanks. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|JPxG}} Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. ] ] 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. ] (]/]) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. ] (]/]) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.''}} | |||
| :::: says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|Follow successfully, locate, as in ''I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck''. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.” }} | |||
| :::: says: | |||
| :::::{{tq|If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''She had spent years trying to track down her parents.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.''}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|''There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.''}} | |||
| ::::Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said {{tq|Get this politically divisive ] off the damned front page}} and {{tq|And: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.}} Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. ] ] 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says {{tq|"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."}} on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. ] (]) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person: {{tq|I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.}} This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Proposal: commute block to topic ban ==== | |||
| *I'm inclined to agree with JPxG, but I think they're missing something: this is an anti-quackery advocacy group, and Misplaced Pages –because of its own crowd-sourced nature– has a special need for anti-quackery input. In my view, ] is an anti-quackery 'POV-fork' of ], and basically functions as a canvassing club for anti-quackery editors. But then again, it is my impression that Misplaced Pages ''needs'' this. There are various side effects, some of which are pretty serious problems of their own, but on the whole it's a ''net-positive''. I think that the "Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages" is being given a free pass by many editors (the name alone screams ], and long-term off-wiki coordination by a network of undeclared editors around a certain topic is almost the definition of ]RY), but perhaps for good pragmatic reasons. Maybe it would help if they would change their name and create a WikiProject to at least have an on-wiki presence? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 23:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator ]) and JPxG's ] action should not stand, but a ] isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here. | |||
| *I can't see this being solved here. I think there is a significant potential problem - if nothing else, the Guerrilla Skeptics are not just a Misplaced Pages-editing group, but have also been actively opposing people outside of Misplaced Pages, running sting operations against individuals whom they are potentially writing about here. That creates a serious COI. However, if they are unwilling to self-identify, ultimately it will involve private evidence that can only be managed by ArbCom, not AN/I. - ] (]) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm sorry, so there is a group of people who are coordinating off-wiki to edit an article for the purpose of pushing a specific point of view which they assert is "correct" and people are ''defending'' them? This is absolute madness. Imagine how people would respond if this were a Scientology group. ] (]) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Lengthen the block if you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That would be bad if that's what is happening, but we don't have evidence of that, just a lot of speculation. ] (]) 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to ] ({{diff2|1270933193|1}}, {{diff2|1270933653|2}}. ] (]) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::That does seem to be what they say they are doing . - ] (]) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*:I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. ] (]/]) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *::Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? ] ] 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I interpreted "We wanted to see how many different Misplaced Pages pages we could edit just by using this one issue of SI. Honestly, I had no idea how many we could do, so we set up a deadline of two-months (when the next issue came out) and using the GSoW Facebook Secret Cabal and a Google spreadsheet to keep track, we set to work" as an indicator that they were willing to coordinate editing of Misplaced Pages articles. - ] (]) 01:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits: | |||
| *::::: That was coordinated in the sense of some people were using the same reference material (one edition of an RS magazine). Editors would individually find information there that could be used to improve articles. Is something wrong with that? Does it break any rules? How is that different from several other types of editing events we hear about? ]•] 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::*: unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the ]. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no) | |||
| *::::::It's different because membership in the event wasn't disclosed on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::* Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in ]. | |||
| *::::::: It also wasn't an event. Also, Bilby's quote leaves out the part that it was mostly two people, Susan and David (and a few others). But this sort of "coordination" doesn't break any rules. People say coordination, some think it is some sort of canvassing, while it is nothing of the sort. It is about people discussing off-wiki a way of adding well-sourced information and then doing it. ]•] 13:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::*: Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday | |||
| *:::Well that's a conundrum. Either it proves off wiki collaboration to edit towards a certain pov, or the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used in articles. ] (]) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::*] shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later. | |||
| *::{{ec}} Just look at the talk page for the article, there has very clearly been a concerted effort to push the psychogenic theory. When there are posts on the talk page like ] decrying the {{tq|suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis}}, or posts like ] using language like {{tq|supposed attacks}}, it is not "speculation" to point out the coordinated POV pushing. ] (]) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::**Similarly on other talk pages {{tq|Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?}} | |||
| *:::This whole thing reminds me of how I first heard of the Guerilla Skeptics, when ] became convinced that they were controlling his article. It turned out that they hadn't edited it at all. Just because some folks think mass hysteria is more likely then secret microwave laser weapons, that does not mean they are necessarily part of a shadowy conspiracy. ] (]) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::*] and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster". | |||
| *::::"Just look at it! It is clear!" ''and the thing they claimed was clearly so, was in fact not the case all along...'' {{ping|Mlb96}} The fact that you find something wrong with the language "supposed attacks" just shows how poorly you understand what is going on. The claims of attacks with sci-fi weapons that have never been shown to exist or to even be physically possible are wild speculations. What you're doing is just casting aspersions. This is ridiculous. ]•] 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::* Tried to make the article ] more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying {{tq|UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.}} ]. | |||
| *:::::There is no scientific consensus on what the cause of Havana syndrome is. Therefore, any assertion that any particular theory must be correct, such as what you are doing in this very post, is POV pushing. ] (]) 16:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @]'s concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? ] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I may be wrong as I've not attended Gerbic lectures about Misplaced Pages editing, but my impression is that they attend an introduction, with an encouragement to edit articles including about notable skeptics (not necessarily them). I've sometimes noticed a few WP editors with a mention of the initiative on their user page. From what I see on WP at least, they took some course then appear to be independent editors working where they like. I've noticed that some drafts were sometimes written collaboratively in a user sandbox by two people. Some biographies initially appeared promotional and some suboptimal sources were used; it's something editors learn about when editing Misplaced Pages. This reminds me of students being assigned to edit Misplaced Pages, the result is not always optimal (however, those usually are listed as part of an assignment by a tutor, i.e. see ]). If specific editors need ] or reporting, or have an obvious conflict of interest and repeatedly keep editing problematically (an article about themselves, about the org itself perhaps), that should be handled on a case by case basis... Similarly, if some create articles that should be deleted, there's AfD. As others noted, another similarity is WikiProjects. Some of them appear to be ] members. I see a claim that it's a large organization. Is it? —]] – 00:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least ] broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to the group, they have 130 members who edit Misplaced Pages. They have a private Facebook group and use that for continual training, mentoring motivation and coordination after editors complete the initial training program. - ] (]) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. ] (]) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::From their : {{tq|Do I have to be on Facebook? Yes, we have tried many other ways of communicating, email and a forum. Nothing beats Facebook. You do not have to use Facebook for anything but our Secret Cabal}}. The way they use the word 'cabal' almost seems like a deflection. But I'm especially concerned about the next entry in their FAQ: {{tq|I’m an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, can I join GSoW and skip the training? No. We have found that experienced editors have a very different experience as a team like ours. With very few exceptions we have found that they do not fit in well. We are not “just” editors, we have a different mind-set and focus than a normal editor. We are much more social, use Facebook to discuss, train and motivate. We follow all the rules of Misplaced Pages, and love normal Misplaced Pages editors, but we approach things as a team. If you would still like to join us, please do so, but you will not be skipping lessons, will still have to proceed through training like someone who has never edited before.}} So even if you're a very experienced WP editor who understands and knows how to follow policy, there's still something they insist on 'teaching'? If experienced editors do not really fit in their team, maybe they do not really fit in Misplaced Pages? To be honest, I get the impression that both their numbers and impact are being inflated by the team 'leader'. But in any case an editing team, in so far as such a thing should even exist, should never be allowed to organize strictly off-wiki. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::After reading Gerbic's long post and now reading the above, my impression is that this conveys that the target is less experienced editors or those who never tried before, the goal being to introduce them to WP. I share part of your concern about ], if that's what you mean, on the other hand the WMF itself tries hard to make WP easier to use so it can reach out to less technical people and to most of the world I believe that there's an aspect of elitism felt about WP, its processes, community, etc. —]] – 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Can someone point me to an actual problem as opposed to a potential problem? There is a page of "research" at ] by ] but I don't see anything there that warrants alarm other than the use of Misplaced Pages to construct a list of bad people. ] (]) 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Echoing {{u|Johnuniq}}, the evidence of actual misconduct is lacking in this thread, though speculation and suspicion is rampant. All the "cabal" jokes are variations of commonplace humor on Misplaced Pages. Off-Misplaced Pages communication is common at edit-a-thons, various WMF gatherings, mailing lists, IRC channels, Misplaced Pages related Facebook pages, and so on. There are some aspects of Gerbic's project that I do like very very much, but I do not claim the right to impose my personal preferences on others without solid evidence of actual misconduct. So, it is time for all the critics to furnish the evidence of the misconduct, or to be quiet. ] ] 02:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Ultimately, the only way to provide evidence is to prove that GSoW editors are involved. As they don't generally self-identify, that can't be done without evidence that risks outing. And that - as in a lot of COI cases - can't be made on-wiki. Then even if that is managed, somehow, can AN/I effectively sanction an off-wiki organisation of largely unknown editors? If this is ever going to be tackled it will have to be at the level of ArbCom. - ] (]) 03:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Expressing the view that off-wiki ''editorial'' coordination should not be allowed is not the same thing as speculation and suspicion. Evidence that this type of editorial coordination is taking place has been brought forward, and the fact that they call themselves a 'cabal' is not taking away anything from that (it's a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on WP). Evidence of negative (or positive) effects on actual articles is all but impossible to gather given the fact that no one knows who is part of the 'cabal'. However, to demand article-related evidence to allow speaking of a "real problem" or "actual misconduct" is special pleading. If (and only if) coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways is misconduct, then this is misconduct, regardless of whether the editing activity has a positive or negative impact. Verifiable impact on articles isn't always a central criterion for conduct issues, and in this case it isn't. Finally, though it may be a genuine question whether coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways should be okay or not, comparing it with edit-a-thons or WMF gatherings is inaccurate and disingenuous. As for whether something can be done here or by regular admin action: the leader of this group is editing here, and could be approached with proposals for more transparency. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 04:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I want something much simpler. Is there an article which has had bad content in the last month and where any of the potentially problematic editors have contributed to the problems? ] (]) 04:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| You know I can read right? You all are talking about GSoW and myself as if I'm not right here, you can ask me if you have questions. This happens from time to time where editors learn about our project and freak out, not over what we do, but over the idea of the possibility of maybe some people might be doing something wrong one day. Really? Listen to yourselves. BTW this challenge happens when some other editor does not like our editors pushing the science narrative on a page, you know, following the rules of Misplaced Pages. It's "look over there at that person they are a Cabal" not "don't pay attention to me who is trying to add nonsense to a page". Go back to the talk page of ] to see what started this recent drama. You can't stop people from gathering together off Misplaced Pages to talk about editing Misplaced Pages, we aren't changing our name either, so what is the point of this discussion? And ] seriously? You are going to make a list of GSoW editors? What are you planning on doing with that list? Just research? Really? Just FYI you have about two thirds of that list wrong, a couple people on that list are now dead, and some haven't edited with GSoW in years and years but still edit Misplaced Pages. People come and go, are you going to follow them around Misplaced Pages and do what, out them? For what? If you have a problem with an editor on a specific page, then deal with them on that specific page. Just like you normally would, cause guess what, we are you. And ] , Seriously? ] (]) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *How about this interesting remark from ], the Guerrilla Skeptics' founder on BLPN from April. {{tq|Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Misplaced Pages page it would have been rewritten years ago ... correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys.}} Diff . I presume that's Gerbic referring to herself in the third person. Complete archived thread (which is an interesting read). I believe that this notion that she has a team of editors that will or would attack articles on her command ''is'' something that the community should be very interested in, whether AN/I is the perfect venue or not. ] (]) 05:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** I wonder if we've reached peak ANI when there's a call to consider the grave matter of whether somebody has (not) used their space monkeys to correct their biography? ] (]) 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *** You mean, merely possessing an acknowledged army of meatpuppets that you could use, but claim you haven't yet, is just fine and there's nothing to see here? ] (]) 05:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{u|Geogene}}, what you need to produce here now, is persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Bring it forward for evaluation. If you are not able to do so, then please do not persist with unsupported allegations of misconduct. I hope that you understand your obligation to provide persuasive evidence in support of your recent allegations. Once you have provided your solid evidence as opposed to speculation, the community can evaluate your evidence. Maybe you are right. Produce the evidence. ] ] 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****As I understand it, statements like '''I have a team that would descend on any editor messing with my BLP like rabid space monkeys''' ''is'' persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Saying that you have meatpuppets at your disposal is evidence of meatpuppetry. ] (]) 06:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******It seems that you understand incorrectly, {{u|Geogene}}. In this case, the editor was using routine Wizard of Oz humor to say that other editors would protect her BLP from attack by the type of people that {{u|Jimbo Wales}} called "lunatic charlatans". I hope that you do not deny that these charlatans exist, or that they target Misplaced Pages biographies like this? Where is the evidence of actual misconduct? Please furnish it. ] ] 06:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *******You interpret that very differently than I do, then, Cullen. ] (]) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ********Yes, {{u|Geogene}}. I am doing my best to interpret things based on persuasive evidence presented here. In my opinion (I could be wrong based on evidence yet to be presented), you are relying on speculation and innuendo. Please prove me wrong. If you do so, I will be happy to concede your point. ] ] 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *********What are some examples of things that you would find persuasive enough to take action on? What sorts of on-wiki evidence would you reasonably expect a meatpuppetry campaign would leave behind? ] (]) 06:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **********We don't normally debate what is inside people's heads—we don't know if it was a joke or an actionable threat. The important point for Misplaced Pages is whether anything actually happened. Apparently nothing has happened apart from moral outrage. It's up to the accusers to produce an example of bad content. ] (]) 06:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***********By "bad content" do you mean article content only, or is proposing bad content on an article talk page sufficient? ] (]) 06:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} What I am asking for is quite simple, {{u|Geogene}}. Please provide ] of the meatpuppet edits with convincing evidence of meatpuppetry, or refrain from further accusations. I already said that I am receptive to evidence. Please provide it. ] ] 07:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} If there were any evidence of meatpuppetry, it would have been provided already {{endash}} perhaps on one of the three occasions when I asked for it in this thread. Instead, we're treated to repeated accusations and vexatious reiteration of the same evidence-free suspicions. Was I asleep for so long that I missed the time when ] ceased to be a guideline? This discussion has long since run its course and should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 07:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Small reminder for everyone to please remember using ]<span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Since the people that are demanding "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" are unable to define what that might even look like, I will simply remove the conflict area from my watchlist instead. I believe the community as a whole will deal with this problem in due time; it's not my responsibility to demand that now. ] (]) 07:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:You want us to speculate on what the evidence that you presuppose exists might look like? How would we know? If there is an evidentiary basis for accusations of ], then you can just lay out whatever you have gathered. If there is no evidence, then why make an accusation in the first place? If I were to come to ANI to discuss an instance of meatpuppetry, then I would be here with diffs and timestamps of 1) specific discussions or RfCs that look like they were influenced by meatpuppets and/or 2) specific edits to articles where it looks like meatpuppets are ] an edit war and/or 3) an influx of new users and ]s with a specific common goal arriving around the same time with no other reasonable explanation. Did you come to this discussion with any of that prepared? Do you have a different idea of what "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" would look like that you would like to share with the community here? If the answer turns out to be "nothing," then what was the point of all of this, {{u|Geogene}}? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 09:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **::The kind of evidence you're asking for is the type that would be appropriate at ], i.e., where there are indications of collusion between different accounts without any indication of which organization is behind it. But here we have the exact opposite: we have an organization explicitly declaring that they exist in order to collude on specific Misplaced Pages articles, but no indication of which accounts are doing it. It is one thing to say that the evidence given is not sufficient to be actionable, and a wholly different thing to say no evidence is given at all. I've already that there may be special considerations to allow an anti-quackery group to do something which we would never tolerate from, say, a pro-fringe group. But it would be incredibly helpful if it would be admitted that the existence of an off-wiki facebook-only editorial group focused on a specific set of controversial articles is a topic worthy of discussion by itself, and not in any special need of SPI-like evidence. Such a discussion may quickly come to the conclusion that it should be allowed, especially if the group's goals align with those of Misplaced Pages, but at least that would be an honest discussion. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **:::The whole Misplaced Pages editorial corps is (or should be) "colluding" to improve the encyclopedia, and every Misplaced Pages editor should be "anti-quackery" in line with the relevant PAGS (so yes, we do treat anti-quackery groups differently from ] ones; that's one of Misplaced Pages's best features). It's just GSoW seems to have this particular focus. This has come up from time-to-time over the years, and the pattern this time is the same . If there are specific problems (and there may be, such as an in-group bias towards sourcing which would have been okay 10 years ago, but isn't now) - then let's see some specific examples. Misplaced Pages cannot prevent people communicating on FB. ] (]) 15:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Proposal: Reinstate indef ==== | |||
| Cavansing must be "come to this page and make these edits" or something similar, I have seen no evidence they have done this. No direct accusations have been made against any user for being a meat puppet. As such, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, but a lot of "I do not like it" (so actually there is, these accusations violate ]).] (]) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| A discussion is needed on this to prevent ] from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made. | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. ] (]) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' reinstating indef, '''support''' gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --] 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. ] (]/]) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{u|Voorts}} and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}}. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. ] (]) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — ] ] 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous8206 == | |||
| The problem with off-site collaboration is it's difficult to investigate or prove, especially when ] is taken into consideration. In this situation the difficulty is compounded because of the fact that the POV, in general, aligns with the views of most editors. I think that we can ignore the possibility of meatpuppeting and collusion until it becomes obvious, and instead just make sure the articles that could be affected are edited in a neutral manner. The biggest problem I've seen is over-reliance on primary sourcing to insert negative content into BLPs. I don't know that this is a concerted effort by GSoW, but it also doesn't matter. Just removing the material and watching the articles often works well enough. If a problem arises from that routine editing, then we can take action in specific cases. I think that looking at ] on ] in relation to it's use on BLPs would be a great step. It ends up being used as a primary source for investigations and sting operations on BLPs. is a decent example of over-reliance on SI as a primary source, quoting someone who {{tq|spent her career photographing babies at a department store}} as an expert of the level necessary to add negative content to BLPs. I think we can all agree that psychics are woo woo bullshit, but that doesn't excuse violating our editing standards. Pinging {{u|Sgerbic}} and {{u|Rp2006}}, as I've mentioned them. | |||
| {{atop|1=Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anonymous8206}} | |||
| Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at ] for over a year. Examples: . | |||
| They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In conclusion, discuss Skeptical Inquirer on RSN, especially for use on BLPs. It may also be worth discussing if something only covered in a primary source is ]. In some cases SI's investigations have been covered elsewhere, but if SI is the only source discussing a thing they did, is it really due? Also keep an eye on articles, and clean up as necessary. Doing such will cause problem editors, if any exist in the topic area, to become apparent, at which point they can be dealt with. ] (]) 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. ] (]) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: ]. <s>I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.</s> ] (]/]) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to ] in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. ] (]/]) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual== | |||
| : is a great example of the poor editing in this area. This was created as a hit piece in 2018, calling him a convicted felon in the lead with no sourcing, then continuing to assert that in its own section, still without a source that actually supports it. I've cleaned the article a bit in the past, but it still reads like a hit piece. ] (]) 11:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result={{NAC}} Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| As the title suggests, this includes: | |||
| *{{userlinks|SuvGh}} | |||
| === Please, do not discourage editors from investigating === | |||
| ::Making personal attacks such as "Enough of explaining r@cist Brits what to do", "you're probably an ignorant British man", and has tried to remove relevant content about 4 times now. | |||
| {{cot|User subpage has been deleted, collapsing tangent from main discussion}} | |||
| Hi. Just thought I'd leave a comment outside the above discussion. Some users have linked to a user subpage I have created called ]. I am highly offended by users trying to rope that into the current discussion. As I see it, the discussion above is about principles. The research I wish to do '''which is by far not complete and will take quite some time before it is''' is to see if I can find overlaps between different users to see if there actually is some level of coordination between skepticism-interested editors. It is most absolutely not a "list of GSoW users" or some kind of witchhunt. Notice I myself am in the list of users, as well as highly unlikely GSoW editors such as Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Did I share that page here? No. I definitely did not. Did someone go through my contributions in order to find it (as I hadn't linked it anywhere)? Most likely. This is a blatant offense to my ability to interact on Misplaced Pages independently through harassment. Let me do my work in silence if I choose to do so in silence, and once I find it is worth sharing I will. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :For clarification, I decided to make the page as a subpage of my userpage rather than do the work off-wiki because I believe in making such work transparent, both for peer-review of my methods and as a principle I hold to be as transparent as possible with other editors in this Wiki. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 07:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Smells of ] - and maintaining personal lists of users for possible later busting is something ]. Conversely, reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine, ''especially'' at ANI. ] (]) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::A cursory look through my user page should dispel any claim that I'm all bark no write. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Creating and maintaining a page with a list of editors which could result in ] them to an off-wiki group or to real-life identities without their consent is in my opinion much more offensive than having somebody draw attention to your public edits in userspace, which you presumably understand you ]. If I were you, I would ask for the page to be deleted to prevent any unintentional harm. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 08:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|AlexEng}} there is no intention on my part to post private information on editors or tying them to an off-wiki group where I cannot verify their membership. Users above kept asking for evidence that some level of canvassing has happened. This is what I thought was the best way to do so. What others would you suggest? <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I read your silly little list. You might wish to note that Susan, bless her, refused to marry me. Her loss. -] ] 08:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Roxy the dog}} please there is no need for such language. Why belittle me like this. I don't understand. Its not a silly little list, I wanted to do some mathematical analysis on user contributions in skeptic areas but needed to gather a large enough set of users for it to be meaningful. Why is everyone taking it as a personal attack of some sort when even my name is there. I don't understand. I'm just trying to help give some clarity to the whole situation but I get such jerk-like comments from you. Where's the need. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 08:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not all harm done is intentionally done. You can just use the user interaction tools available to find suspected instances of canvassing. I think examining actual edits in RfCs and other talk page discussions for evidence of suspected canvassing or meatpuppetry would also be more productive than maintaining a list of users who participate in a specific area of interest. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fair point, I'll look into that :) <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why dont you just join GSoW on bookfarce (now deadbook) and you can find out all you want. I believe they are an open group, and all their discussion is open. Susan seems to take newbies like yourself and turn them into decent wiki contributers. You could do worse. -] ] 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::One of the reasons for caution here is that FB's "real name" policy combined with sleuthing about Misplaced Pages editors there is a recipe for ] and opposition research activity which is likely to be career-limiting so far an editing here is concerned. ] (]) 09:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please stop making such derogatory comments. It doesn't help the discussion. It doesn't contribute anything. It just serves to make me feel bad and for you to stand on a pedestal. It's completely unnecessary. Please please just stop and find something else to do than entertain yourself at my expense. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 09:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless this is being used to build a case it may well violate ].] (]) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was being used in order to build a case to show evidence of GSoW coordination, but I have since G7 deleted the page. Don't think the attention it is receiving is worth the effort, especially as it is distracting from the main discussion above. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 11:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It that case continue, if there is meat puppetry we should know about it (and it should be stamped down upon), but it has to be pretty clear.] (]) 11:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Decided to take it offline and will move it to a new user page once I'm done. It's getting some weird attention and ] so it's best to build the case and then show how I built it once its done. The thorny replies from roxy, Sgerbic, and others in SGoW do indicate that perhaps there is something to gain from poking around a bit, but I'll wait until I have a very detailed case. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps the fact that you have pre-decided that you'll have a "case", and that there is "a massive problem" might have led people to suspect this wasn't an entirely impartial endeavour? ] (]) 15:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll help you ACS. I ''am not and never have been a GSoW member''. Therefore, please remove my name from your post above. Thanks. -] ] | |||
| {{od}}Ironically, it's only ''two days'' since an admin ] that {{tq|your actions at ANI... are becoming disruptive, and need to remind you that we are here to write an encyclopedia}}. And yet, here we are again. ]] 16:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Please, why are y'all scrutinizing me like this. Roxy was incredibly insulting above in this same thread and now you also begin with ad hominems. Please stop. There is no need for all these personal attacks. Stick to the discussion at hand. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 20:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea what Roxy said up there. But making unsupported accusations of personal attacks is itself an ]; please be mindful. See ] for details. ]] 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right! This thread is about scrutinizing people who may possibly violate rules some day in the future, not about scrutinizing people who actually did violate ] and ] already. --] (]) 20:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :To be fair to ], both situations were good faith attempts to help, and that didn't sound like a formal warning that {{u|Ritchie333}} issued in his capacity as an admin so much as an expression of concern{{emdash}}though he is free to correct me if I'm wrong. {{smiley}} My point is that it's not probably not fair to conclude that both events are part of a disruptive pattern. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 19:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::An alternative suggestion might be that ACS may need to be encouraged to find their editorial feet before attempting to wade themselves into these murky waters. Not only will the purpose of the project become clear, but they will gain experience of consensus building, action through discussoin, and find themselves able to contribute rather more usefully to meta areas such as this. Unfortunately, we are not at that stge yet. Cheers, ]] 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}} | |||
| ===Continued discussion about GSoW=== | |||
| ::Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See ]. | |||
| From GW posted above: {{Tq2|GSoW editors have collectively created or completely rewritten more than 630 Misplaced Pages pages, which together have garnered over 28 million page visits. They’ve worked in multiple languages in addition to English, including Spanish, French, and Arabic. A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next.}} That's an off-wiki canvassing club. That is ''not'' like an edit-a-thon or Discord or anything like that. This is a problem because there is no transparency and thus no accountability. Instead of a private Facebook group, they need to set up an on-wiki WikiProject, and have their discussions there. Also I'm wondering if this group is contributing to the overzealous anti-woo we've seen arising over the last couple years, currently being discussed ]. It's hard to say without a members list. ] 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That does read like it might be meat puppetry, but we still need names of people who are clearly acting in that way, not vague assertions. But this does raise some concerns about breaches of policy.] (]) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with your assessment. Nothing in the quotation that you provided supports or even implies an {{tq|off-wiki canvassing club}}. Maybe you could re-read ] and point out the exact part of the guideline that you think is being violated based on the quoted text. Otherwise, I think you should strike that remark. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 17:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tqq|Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)}} ] 17:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Levivich}} maybe I missed something, but I am not grasping where you got {{tq|Contacting users off-wiki ... to persuade them to join in discussions}} out of what you quoted in your original comment. Perhaps you would be kind enough to connect the dots for me? Is there another section of the article or some other source where you can see that they are claiming that they canvass their users into discussion threads? Discussing edits off-wiki is not against guidelines. Collaborating off-wiki to decide which articles should be edited is not against guidelines. Stealth-canvassing users to bias and sway discussions to create a false consensus is obviously against guidelines. I don't see anything to support the perspective that that is happening. If you do, please share that with the community. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::(after tiresome edit conflict - why can't we just use a decent free off-the-shelf forum package that has room for an extension for Mediawiki markup?) "A private group on Facebook ... where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next" would certainly seem to violate ]. How can it not, if it is private? That canvassing is done in a cause that I support doesn't stop it being canvassing. ] (]) 17:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm a little unconvinced that they have as many regular editors on enwiki, to be honest. I have a lot of woo on my watchlist and I haven't really noticed any new editors suddenly appearing on multiple articles - though, perhaps, many of the ones I do keep an eye on have restrictions in place already. To be honest, I wouldn't have a massive problem with a group which was simply dedicated to removing nonsense from fringe subjects, but I'd be far more concerned if they were - as it appears - editing BLPs, especially of those who fall on the "woo" side of reality. ] 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's only canvassing if they're doing it to influence the outcome of discussions. That's the crucial bit that's missing in this discussion - some pointer to a discussion that they've tried to influence. For all we know they're just critiquing each other's grammar. It would certainly a bit weird to do that on facebook, but we don't have any rules against it - nor could we effectively enforce them if we did. - ] (]) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes we do have rules against it, it's stealth canvassing. "For all we know..." is exactly the problem: because it's a private Facebook group, we ''can't'' know. GSoW sounds like a laudable group with a laudable goal, but they need to move their activities on-wiki and use WikiProject pages just like Women in Red and Milhist and all the rest. Which articles to tackle should be discussed at the WikiProject page, and how to edit articles should be discussed on the article's talk page. A private Facebook group is not an appropriate forum to coordinate editing, and that's per our canvassing and meatpuppet policies. ] 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It does all smack rather of something to hide.] (]) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm a proponent of everything-on-Wiki and scrutiny, I have email disabled and other than my personal notes, my username isn't used anywhere else, I don't use chat, social networks or WP-oriented websites in relation to Misplaced Pages, I don't even blog about it. I understand that this is not necessarily policy, but for this reason I too encourage members to favor WikiProjects and on-wiki processes. —]] – 22:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|:::::}} Agree. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :See, these comments are illustrative of my problem with the argument being made, and I haven't seen any supporters of this point of view address it yet. We don't ''need'' to know what they're talking about off-wiki. It's not our problem. We ''need'' to assume they are acting in ] until shown otherwise. It ''becomes'' our problem when they coordinate off-wiki in an attempt to violate or circumvent PAGs. Nobody in this whole ANI section has pointed to a single violation of ]s caused by this group {{endash}} with the pointed exception of ''suspected'' ] {{endash}} again, with no proof. '''"That's suspicious" is not a policy-based argument against off-wiki editing interest groups'''. If you so badly want this to be against PAGs{{emdash}}it is not currently against PAGs{{emdash}}then you should consider making a reasoned argument for why this behavior should be barred in a policy proposal at ]. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 18:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this argument is pedantic, as it's suggesting that it's not OK to canvass people off-wiki to discussions on-wiki, but it ''is'' ok to have the discussions themselves off-wiki, which is nonsensical. And AGF is one thing, but I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in ''zero'' on-wiki discussions along the way. ] 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe, but we still need actual evidence (not assumption) of wrongdoing. I agree it is odd, but without evidence, it is also not actionable.] (]) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is a minor example, but does it help? ]: the article is created by a GSoW editor, then when a new editor disputes the content, three separate GSoW editors revert in minutes of each other, even though none had edited the article in the past, while another asks for protection. - ] (]) 19:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, that might well be a good example.] (]) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's helpful to have at least something to look at that may be evidence, and I appreciate you providing that. Which of the editors are affiliated with GSoW? The only one I know of is {{u|VdSV9}}, as he chose to disclose that . Perhaps you could provide some clarity on what happened here, {{u|VdSV9}}? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 19:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''No it is NOT a good example.''' This seems like a no-brainer. Gerbic already said that her team work on articles together to support one another to produce the best quality material. So once such an article is published, I would think those editors, as well as other skeptics and friends alerted to a new article from Gerbic's social media posts about it (she says she posts often and in many venues), would put it on their watchlists. The Idaho one I think I discovered due to such a FB or Twitter post (or maybe stumbled upon earlier in the year - I don't recall), saw the vandalism by a SPA (HFITruthBeTold), did a revert, and asked for page protection. I have email notices turned on and get notices about edits for HUNDREDS of articles on my watchlist - many I may have not yet edited yet. Why do that? If the topic is of interest and I like the article contents, I take an interest in battling vandalism on it. And BTW, claiming "three separate GSoW editors..." seems to be a claim based on {{Ping|Bilby}} '''knowing''' who is on Gerbic's team. Citation Needed! ] (]) 20:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If it helps, the announcement that they had created the article, reverted the edits, and were organising to have it protected is . - ] (]) 20:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It looks like protection was accomplished based on one editor's report at . In what sense did they organize to to have it protected? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 21:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::All I know is that they described it as "We got this - so don't panic, we should be able to get the page locked so they can't keep doing this" in the announcement. I assume that this was a reference to the request for protection. - ] (]) 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: If I read the diffs correctly, a GSoW member created the article, and another GSow member reverted POV pushing vandalism to it by an anti-vax SPA. I would say that's a net plus for Misplaced Pages. The fact that they might have communicated with each other on Facebook isn't concerning to me, since all editors have email and can potentially communicate with each other. I'm not affiliated with this group, and I dislike excessive userboxes, but if there was an "I support the work of GSoW" userbox, I would be tempted to display it on my user page. - ] (]) 21:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the difference between two actions is the difference between a rule violation and a non-violation, then it's not pedantic to point that out. Re: {{tq|I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in ''zero'' on-wiki discussions along the way.}} {{endash}} that's a fine opinion to have, but it's not fine to assert it as fact with no proof. It's also not improper for individual editors to participate in on-wiki discussions if they are not in violation of ]. To wit, a solitary GSoW editor participating in an on-wiki discussion is not a violation. Agree or disagree? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 18:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't ''currently'' editing it appears. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : The issue is how can we be sure that people in this discussion are not undeclared members of this organisation? There is history of off-site coordination of efforts to dictate content on Wiki, which has resulted in colossal and continuing damage to the project. How can we be sure that this is not another EEML. A secret group of self-selected "special" editors who are trying to force there own views on the project is just as damaging as spammers or state-sponsored disruption of the project. GSoW should either move completely on-Wiki or be thrown completely off.] (]) 19:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a ] attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. ] (]) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. ] (]) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Glad I picked such a scary name for our off-WP group, The Secret Cabal oooooooo you make us sound so ominous. As I have stated in interview after interview (remember I've been running this for over ten years) I first tried WikiProjects and found them to be overly technical, lousy places for conversations, and dead or dying. And BTW many GSoW are on various WikiProjects, just nothing really happens there. | |||
| I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I created training for people who have no skills in editing any kind of code. Instructions here on Misplaced Pages are just giant walls of text to my little brain and freak me out when I encounter them. Plus this weird language you all use, imagine what that looks like to new people trying to make their first few edits. And "new" can mean someone editing for a long time if they are attempting something different than they tried before. I have training assignments that are the ones I would have liked to see when I first starting editing and was nearly banned because I didn't know what the heck I was doing. Tears people, you don't understand how scary you are and how frustrating understanding the culture and rules are. | |||
| ::::::Before they join the Cabal they are asked to make an account and make a user page, why is that first? Because I'm training them to be you, to be awesome editors, who exist here for years and years. One of the very first instructions my new people are to learn is how to use Ctrl-F Ctrl-C Ctrl-X then they use Hatnote, which is to listen to Misplaced Pages, so they learn they are in a world of other editors working to create this amazing website. Next it is to learn how to add a photo to a Misplaced Pages page, (I've written at least two non-Misplaced Pages articles explaining this) I am always asking people to upload photos to WMC of odd museums, people ect. I keep a spreadsheet with all the photos waiting to upload, and my new people select the photo to add to the Misplaced Pages page. SCARY - They move on to learning how to hyperlink, to understand what R/S is and is not. How to cite a source and how to use it multiple times in an article, how to write a lede, how to add an info-box, what do the categories mean and what is a talk page. Common terms that you all use all the time so they can understand this language. | |||
| ::::::Training can take up to four months, I work with people one-on-one, in person, over zoom and over whatever social media they are most comfortable with. Along the line I have trained some people to be the most amazing editors that have been here for years, you work with them nearly every day, others have moved on, we work in lots of languages. We have lost many new people because they weren't a good fit, sometimes life interferes, we are real people, just like you all are. Babies, elderly parents, sick significant others, job changes and more. They edit when they can, or not at all, some leave the project, but still edit. Some quit because some of the "senior editors" are brisk, curt and downright rude to new people. Many of you have been kind, helpful and wonderful people. | |||
| ::::::Some of my people spend their time here on Misplaced Pages teaching others, answering newbie questions, others work in other areas of WikiMedia, and remember we are in many languages because it's not just about English. | |||
| ::::::The very last assignment for one of our new people is to rewrite a stub, usually something that has been abandoned. I prefer biographies because they have a beginning middle and ending, some but not all are BLP, this really puts all they have learned to work, photos, audio, citations, info-boxes, categories, hyperlinks. We discuss all kinds of things in our Secret Cabal, you would be amazed at the nefarious communications between people. OMG we discuss American English vs Australian English, commas before the citation number or after which is one of my pet peeves, looking now ... someone is discussing an article from WP "Verifiability, not truth" another Cabal member is talking about a critical thinking class they are teaching and the use of WP. Here is another scary discussion on the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages page for Leflunomide which is a treatment for rheumatic and psoriatic arthritis. Scary stuff. | |||
| ::::::Some of these conversations I'm reading here on ANI sound straight out of 2013-2014 when Chopra, Gary Null and Rupert Sheldrake were freaked out that the "Guerilla Skeptics" were changing their Misplaced Pages pages. OH NO! Editors editing, what's the world come to! The majority of the conversations at the Cabal are from new people who are looking for feedback on how best to word something, and get feedback on the page they are currently working on. | |||
| ::::::We are a community of people who enjoy joking with each other, talking about our pets, sharing a coffee or beer when we are in their town. The social aspect that is missing from Misplaced Pages is strong in our community. I can't prove any of this, except from all the interviews, articles and almost daily postings I do on Facebook and even Twitter talking about it. I have long and short interviews with my team members talking about their training and what it is like to be a GSoW editor, they talk about how important Misplaced Pages is, following the rules and more. | |||
| ::::::So lets get this straight, 25 million page views? Seriously you don't have much Google foo do you (hey that rhymed). I have been all over the social webs talking about how incredible the team is, how I want more people to learn to edit, how basic the training is, and how incredible it feels to improve a Misplaced Pages page. We have written 1,899 pages so far. Over 45% are in languages other than English. I think I see a couple more finished now but I'm over here dealing with this conversation of people who can't bother to ask me questions and instead are coming up with shadow conspiracy's. Those 1,899 pages have been viewed ... checking now ... 101,189,830 times. So that 25 million is a bit wrong. | |||
| ::::::Instead of freaking out on what we might, maybe, someday, possibly, kinda could do, maybe try learning from us. What an idea! Learn from other people! Talk to people, ask questions and assume good faith. You know that is a Misplaced Pages pillar right? | |||
| ::::::We can communicate off Misplaced Pages so just get over it. And guess what you can also as I'm sure some of you are right now. What about it? Transparency, what does that even mean? We could be writing on Misplaced Pages Projects and then having a email conversation with another editor at the same time, how would you know? We are as transparent as any other editor, we use the same talk pages you do. You want to make lists of who our people are? Spend hours trying to find one maybe something that sort of sounds like canvassing to throw in our face out of the thousands of edits we make? Really you want to do that with your time? Damn people, I have better things to do. Even this wall-of-text is sucking the life out of me trying to explain to editors something that has been discussed over and over again and there are recent off-Misplaced Pages sources. | |||
| :::::So, seriously people. Look at who is trying to stir up trouble, draw attention away from what they are doing, point at the scary Cabal people. You got a problem with someone editing a page, take it to talk and deal with it there not making wild accusations over a group that you could understand if you really wanted to, that have been working beside you for ten plus years. You want to talk, I'm here, I'm on Facebook, Twitter and here is my email SusanGerbic@yahoo.com we even have a website and t-shirts. ] (]) 19:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Heh, I take back what I said about a laudable group with laudable goals. ] 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I've said this before, but yeah the parallels to stuff like EEML is obvious. This should be a Wikiproject, there is absolutely no good reason besides evading scrutiny it isn't. Complaining about Discord is valid if you want to keep everything onwiki, but at least Discord has public archives (and from what I've seen the moderators are generally very good at telling people "this needs to go on-wiki". But again, if that's a problem, it should be dealt with too, not used as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny here. Frankly the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Misplaced Pages page was, until the late SlimVirgin valiantly cleaned it up, full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is ''not the person I want teaching others how to use Misplaced Pages'', especially regarding how cavalier they are above about the concerns listed here. It's corrosive to consensus-building, and their contributions thus far are subpar. Bring it out into the open, or shut it down. We absolutely wouldn't tolerate pseudoscience Facebook groups doing the same thing, because we understand innately the problem with the practice, not just the ideological goals. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yet another comment here "their contributions thus far are subpar" that implies not only is there a list of GSoW editors, or at least all the pages that the team has written/edited (and additionally, now the claim that some unbiassed panel have judged their work's quality.) Citation please... or withdraw the arrogant, uninformed claim. ] (]) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't yet read the ] above, but one minor note. {{ping|David Fuchs}} are you implying that {{u|Sgerbic}} wrote her ] in violation of ] and ]? {{tq|the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Misplaced Pages page was... full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is ''not the person I want teaching others how to use Misplaced Pages''}} ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 21:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group calling itself a "secret cabal", whose membership is undisclosed, came ''through some unknown process'' to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are (for all anybody knows, I could myself be a ] ] of the GSoW sent here to foment ]). ''']'''×''']''' 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="position: relative; top: {{{top|6}}}em; height: {{{size|40}}}px; width: {{{size|150}}}px; left: {{{left|20}}}em;">]</div> | |||
| {{User:Yomangan/Humour}} | |||
| ::::Ah yes, we must not joke about the ]. It's deadly serious. | |||
| ::::Anyway, we can all suspect each other of nefarious deeds done in the shadows and call each other ]s and triple agents or whatnot, or we could just ] and not let largely evidence-free suspicion of wrongdoing turn this into any greater a time sink than it already is. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 21:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do not see how what you've said relates to the statement you're formulating it as a response to. Is your claim that some entity having a silly name serves, ''ipso facto'', as proof of whether or not it engages in behavior related to the name? That is to say, if someone's username was "Sloppy Sawbones", would this constitute ''proof'' that they are not a surgeon in real life? ''']'''×''']''' 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Uhh... I think you got that backwards. The fact that an entity has a spooky name does not serve as proof of wrongdoing. It's an obvious reference to a long-standing ] on Misplaced Pages. How one could consider that convincing evidence escapes me. Or if you don't consider that part of your argument, then why did you mention it? ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 01:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay, I will make my comment again without referencing the name: {{tq|I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group, whose membership is undisclosed, came ''through some unknown process'' to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are.}} ''']'''×''']''' 03:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| You all forget that there is another danger which may equal that of GSoW. It is me. I know people offline, and some of them agree with me about stuff. Theoretically, I could coordinate with them and canvas them to support me in discussions on Misplaced Pages pages. There is not a shred of evidence that I did do that, but I could! So, the situation is pretty much the same as with GSoW. I clearly need to be restricted. | |||
| To all those who are suspicious of the "cabal" name: I think I know the reason why that name was chosen. It was to make fun of you. They did not know it would be you specifically, but anybody who finds that name ominous is fair game. There was a chair with a whoopie cushion on it, and you saw the chair and the cushion - which was clearly labeled "whoopie cushion" - you willingly sat on it, and made exactly the noise that was expected. And probably did not even notice it was funny. --] (]) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware that anyone has used the "cabal" name other than supporters of this group. I deliberately omitted it from my edit above in order not to get sidetracked into a straw man argument about this irrelevance. ] (]) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps you are unaware of page search function avail in browsers. User Apaugasma referenced cabal as ominous just above. ] (]) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::You may not yet be familiar with the ] ] ] ] on Misplaced Pages. {{smiley}} ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 21:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Hob Gadling}} as I pointed out , GSoW's labeling themselves a 'cabal' is a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on Misplaced Pages. Saying that you're a cabal, on Misplaced Pages, is practically equivalent to confirming you aren't. Except that this group is really being intransparent. I tend to understand it as ''doubly'' ironic, which like a double negation points to an affirmative. The fact that you're so quick to make fun of me in order to sidetrack any possible real issue also speak volumes. Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is dumb, because pro-fringe types are typically dumb, and because only pro-fringe types would disagree with you (right?), is unfortunately fairly typical of multiple fringe-busters around here. I would ask you to take it slower with such assumptions. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 22:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not "ominous", but it is certainly funny. I mean, it's obviously possible for anyone who works at a company to steal office supplies, and any person is as suspicious as any other if there are fewer cartons of printer paper and staples than we expected to have. Additionally, coming up short on printer paper and staples is a fairly normal thing that happens all the time: oftentimes they are just misplaced, or there was a big project that printed a lot of stuff, or management inaccurately estimated how much printer paper would be necessary in any given month. However, let's suppose the following situation: we find out a hundred employees working in that building had formed a ] team called the "Office Suppliers", refused to associate with any of the company's other disc golf teams, had monthly meetings and "training programs" for otherwise experienced disc golfers to learn "a different mind-set and focus than a normal disc golf team", and (unlike all the other disc golf teams), and conducted all their business on an external mailing list. If, in this situation, it turned out one of the team members' desks was right in the middle of an area where there was a perpetual inexplicable shortage of printer paper and staples, I think it would be reasonable to ''at least speculate'' that something might be going on with that team, or maybe ask for a list of its members. And if it turned out that the team had an extra-secret subgroup called "The Printer Paper Bandits", it would ''not'' make them seem ''less'' suspicious. ''']'''×''']''' 21:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any reason to try and tackle this at ANI instead of Arbcom? If we tried to do an examination of the diffs provided here and then worked our way to other interactions between those editors and possibly identified other editors along the way... well, that's a two-week evidence phase right there, before we can even come to any conclusion. And it's highly likely to include some off-wiki evidence anyway since we're talking about off-wiki coordination. So it seems like a job for arbcom to me. ] 21:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Levivich}} I'd be inclined to agree; the issue ought to be addressed by people capable of interpreting large volumes of evidence and rendering a neutral decision. I think the only possible outcomes from an ANI thread this large are "sounds confusing, no action taken" and "sounds bad, everyone involved with the group is dramatically defenestrated". Neither seem terribly good for anyone involved; this seems to be a group of otherwise productive editors who have some issues, not a group of aggressive malefactors who all need to be c-banned etc. ''']'''×''']''' 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Levivich}} I don't see any way this doesn't have to end up at ArbCom, although a lot more legwork is going to have to be done to demonstrate the problem in terms of diffs. Likewise given the whole "we 'train' people off-wiki" even if a bunch of people get sanctioned it's likely only going to be a temporary fix unless they are defanged via other means (like a proper appraisal of whether their favored sources are really RS for our purposes.) I didn't get much at the last RSN post I started. 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Literally the only thing that needs to change here is for them to create a WikiProject so that their discussions occur on-wiki. The absolutely ridiculous amounts of pushback on this, alongside the screed posted above, just make me even more skeptical that this group has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. | |||
| :I'm also pretty appalled at the course of the conversation above regarding ]. Editors kept ], but when someone tried actually collecting some evidence, those editors then attacked that user. I find it especially ironic that ] stated that {{tq|reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine}}, when that seems to be exactly what A. C. Santacruz was attempting to do. ] (]) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think there is something a little confusingly circular about the argument that "no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because the group's membership is unknown, because trying to find out who its members are is an act of bad faith, because no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because..." et cetera. ''']'''×''']''' 03:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's why standard procedure is to focus on problems regarding article content rather than hypotheticals (what if this group did something bad). I asked for examples of related bad content but haven't seen any. This entire discussion is pointless unless some examples can be produced. ] (]) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It remind me of those endless futile discussions on ] based on the misunderstanding that a COI is a problem. It isn't, but inappropriate editing rooted in a COI is. ] (]) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy-skirting inflammatory userbox == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = {{noping|Junglecat}} had the userbox removed and is warned not to add it back per ]. {{noping|Black Kite}} also removed the same or similar userbox from some other userpages. Editors who believe the userbox should be allowed are welcome to open a new discussion at ]. No point in rehashing the same talking points here. {{nac}} ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ] has an anti- same-sex marriage userbox on his userpage. It’s hand-coded (i.e. without a template) so I can’t exactly nominate it for deletion, but since there’s a clear precedent that such userboxes are considered homophobic, inflammatory, and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages (see: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination - Misplaced Pages) I think it should be removed as an attempt at gaming the system. ] (]) 09:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I've removed it and warned Junglecat that if they re-create it, I will block them. If any other admin thinks that Junglecat's actions actually deserve a block ''now'' (I was musing on it myself) then please go ahead and do so without informing me - I'll be AFK for a while shortly anyway. ] 09:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the warning is sufficient for now. If Junglecat reverts I will definitely block. If he gives a ham-fisted response, I might think about it. If he apologises or says nothing, I would take no action. ] ] ] 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Re|Black Kite|Ritchie333}} there are users who are currently displaying this userbox by substing it. ] (]) 18:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{u|ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ|ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ}} I'm going to guess that most of those were created before the userbox was, and haven't been edited since before the userbox was deleted... will have a look though. ] 00:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yeah, most haven't been edited (and the users have been dormant) for years. Obviously not ideal, but they're not being displayed in violation of the MFD. I've removed a few that are on the pages of currently-active editors. ] 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Editors shouldn't be so restricted, in what userboxes they can have on their userpages or user-talkpages. PS - Yes, I'm aware of the community-enforced restrictions, on certain userboxes. ] (]) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * So they should be allowed to display userboxes that were deleted by the community because they were divisive and non-collaborative? ] 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::We shouldn't twist ourselves in knots, over what somebody has on their 'own' userpage. But, that's what the community wants, so... ] (]) 00:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We're not "twisting ourselves in knots", we're removing material that doesn't contribute in any way whatsoever to writing an actual encyclopedia and may actively put off others from doing so. And why did you post on the original editor's page and basically repeat ''exactly what I said''? That was completely pointless. ] 00:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reading "Don't fight it", from an editor who doesn't support his userbox being eliminated, has more bite to it. ] (]) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::IMO, all that userbox does is tell me to question every edit they make to Misplaced Pages. Best not to have it. -- ]</b></sup></small></span>]] 02:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That may be a good argument for letting them keep it, rather than for deleting it. If we all publish our biases it allows us all to be held to account for inadvertently letting them affect our editing. ] (]) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've read this argument many times and it is poor logic that rests on three faulty assumptions: that people are aware of their biases to begin with, that people will disclose them fully and honestly, and that people will check other people's userboxes when reviewing their edits. ] 16:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| GoodDay the last time you tried to defend this type of userbox you were informed the correct venue is ]. Though I highly doubt that the community has changed its mind on the matter. <small>] <small><sup>Need help? ''']'''</sup></small></small> 14:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] is still Misplaced Pages policy, and GoodDay is going to first have to get that policy revised or overturned before anything else. --]] 16:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll consider (someday) going to WP:DRV & WP:POLEMIC. Just blew off steam here, that's all. The userbox-in-question has been ''deleted'', per ''current'' community consensus. PS - I appreciate the ''civility'' being shown me, here'. ] (]) 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks == | |||
| ==Rangeblock/abuse== | |||
| Hello. I ] about an abusive/socking IP a couple of weeks ago, which was unfortunately ignored. They are continuing to edit through a range of IPs, the latest being {{user|93.142.157.188}}, {{user|93.140.183.172}} and {{user|93.137.5.224}}. Is there any chance of some action? Cheers, ] ]] 12:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] can be useful when it's a clear cut case. Less likely to get lost in the noise here. ] (]) 13:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::They aren't a vandal though – just abusive (and effectively socking, as the original ANI discussion ended with apparent consensus for a ban). Since blocking one of the IPs above, they have left abusive messages on four of my talkpages on other wikis (e.g. ) so it probably needs to be a global rangeblock... ] ]] 13:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64}} I saw an IP making an ] on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and ]. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. ] (]) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Gihan Jayaweera and promotional work at Wiki == | |||
| :I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| ::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Articles ], ], ] were hardly secure place in Misplaced Pages. However, they looks like paid work or advertisement or POV, and many deleted articles (please see the log) were part of this work! You may notice how this user hardly talked keep the articles and invite other users to keep what he started. (Eg: ], ). I request wiki community to intervene and delete those POV articles which is promotion, not encylopedia. I have some photos which he poses with those figures. I am not going to publish since it is personal. --] (]) 13:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Extremely unethical comments about myself and my wiki edits. He is saying that theyare promotional. Definitely wrong. I am a Wikipedian for more than 8 years now. It is my love to contribute to Wiki and keep it flying high. Nothing promotional. This person is re-admitting my works to delete. May be a personal conflict or anger with myself and my work. Piumi, Chandimal and Cameralk works have been inspected by other proud Wikipedians and admins. That is why they are in the mainspace. This newly registered user has a personal rift I guess. Also, if you have any photos, post them. He is lying. Purely incorrect. I dont have any personal link with those persons. ]] 17:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're going to accuse a longstanding editor of promotional, paid, and POV editing, you're definitely going to have to provide diffs. The help diff you provided is certainly ], but this seems more like a matter for AfD to me. ] (]) 19:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility and edit-warring == | |||
| :: is one of ]s. There are more if you check during january 2021, you could see ''→Piumi Hansamali article'' requests. --] (]) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little ] is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is concerning user ] (] and ]). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at ] needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me): | |||
| Users involved: | |||
| ::: --] (]) 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really you have some kind of anger on me. Why I am saying like that, because that incident happened way back in January. Also, after that canvassing or whatever, those user told me not to do like that. So I accepted that and finally Piumi's article got deleted. But, the article was accepted again to mainspace by admins. Not by me. So why you are keep telling me that, I did many canvassing. It was over and dusted. You are uprooting previous faults against me. That means, you have something on me. I am not the one that included them again to mainspace. You better ask that one from those accepted ADMINs...This is clearly insulting me and my work. . One admin informed me about that canvassing. After that message from him, I did not made canvassing. If you say so, then tell me. ]] 13:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}} | |||
| * '''Comment.''' It does seem {{u|AntanO}} Gihan Jayaweera about Canvassing, and he stopped while letting the ]. I guess there was ] which got ] to draftspace and finally ] by {{u|Theroadislong}}.<br />While it <em>was</em> a year ago, I do think it is important to point out that Gihan Jayaweera ]. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|Wizmut}} | |||
| == Abusive & Offensive comments == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = Solved | |||
| | result = {{noping|PGillBallinamuck}} blocked as ] by {{noping|Bbb23}}; edition summaries rev-del'ed by {{noping|C.Fred}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Userlinks|MIHAIL}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|Magnolia677}} | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| I wish to report abusive comments made in comments in the View History and in the Talk section of the ] page in recent days which make unfounded allegations against my user profile, allegations relating to changes made on 2nd November which are not related to my user account and includes a personal attack on me and my character. The comments were added on 29th October and 2nd November and are deeply offensive and abusive. On 29th November, my user profile undone changes that had been made by another user on 22nd October, because the reason they had cited for that change was unsourced and unverified. The user then undone my action later on 29th October and inserted an abusive and offensive comment with their change. Other changes took place on 2nd November but not by my profile, and the response to that was abuse and allegations against my user profile when those changes were undone on 2nd November. This was then coupled with addition of new text in the 'Talk' section which continued this abusive theme. The user did not cite a source for their fundamental change to the records on on 22nd October, and the comments they have made in both the 'View History' and 'Talks' section are abusive, hurtful and completely unnecessary. Please remove these comments from those locations. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Do be careful here: when you lean so heavily on the language of "defamation," you risk running afoul of the policy against ]. Just a word to the wise. Cheers. ] (]) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do need to ask though, what is your connection to the club? ] ] 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you ] I appreciate that advice and have revised my input accordingly. ] I don't hold any position or role within the organisation which is subject of that page nor do I hold any position or role within any of the clubs which are referenced within that page. I am a team supporter originally from that county who voluntarily researched some of the stats which appeared on that page. | |||
| Dates: | |||
| Now that the user responsible for the comments has been blocked, can I please request revision deletion of the items which included abusive and offensive 'edit summary' comments, namely the following revisions... | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1052461395 | |||
| and | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1053268203 | |||
| ... so that those unsavory comments can be removed from the History tab completely and removal of the last entry in the 'Talk' tab by that same author on 2nd November, for the same reasons. Many thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Edit summaries were revdel'ed as purely disruptive material. —''']''' (]) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| 20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation. | |||
| == "Multiple Failed Login Attempts" == | |||
| 21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one. | |||
| I'm getting a flood of notifications about "Multiple Failed Login Attempts from a new device". Should I be worried? ] (]) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| 22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the ]. | |||
| :Does sound like a hacking attempt. Probably advisable to change your password just in case. — ''']''' 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :As long as you at least have a strong password that is not used anywhere else in your Internet activities, you're probably fine. I get those periodically and never do anything.--] (]) 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same. ] might be worth checking out, though. ] 15:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Well whaddya know, I've just gotten the exact same notification! — ''']''' 15:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heh, looks like we got some counter-] happening. Lock n' load. ] 15:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| 26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| 3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."'' | |||
| Something unusual going on with the articles ] and ] (both about the same person). Bringing here for attention and discussion. | |||
| 7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: ''"why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism"''. In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates. | |||
| Timeline: | |||
| * 21 October 2021 - ] is created by {{user|Amirbek77}}. It's moved to draftspace (]) a few hours later, and subsquently edited in draftspace by {{user|Muhammad Ali Iskandariy}}, {{user|Anvar Mirhodiyev}} and {{user|UzUmUz}} later that day and over the next few days. | |||
| 16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary ''"And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person."'' and also ''"Either stop or I'll keep making edits."'' This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by ]. | |||
| *17:37 on 2 November 2021 - {{user|Anvar Mirhodiyev}} moves ] to ], then ], and then back to article space at ]. {{user|Muhammad Ali Iskandariy}} and {{user|UzUmUz}} then edit it further. | |||
| ** Yes, I deny that Anvar Mirkhadiev and I were not very competent in editing the article ]. We made a mistake and renamed the article ] to ]. To be honest, I wanted to contribute to this article when I saw its creation on Misplaced Pages. As for Uzumuz, I have nothing to do with him. Please forgive and understand. Sincerely. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *17:50 on 2 November 2021 - {{user|UzUmUz}} ], which is now serving as a redirect to ], and content, part of which at least is from what has been developed at ]. | |||
| *3 November 2021 - ] is nominated for deletion: ]. | |||
| 17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he ''"could not reach out to you Magnolia677"'' (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page. | |||
| There's a complex mess at the moment of two duplicated articles, a tangled attribution, and several new editors working together on these articles. | |||
| * {{User|Muhammad Ali Iskandariy}} has the same name as the article subject, likely ] and perhaps ]. User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy "As the author of this article", though from the page history this was {{User|Anvar Mirhodiyev}}. This may however be due to a lack of understanding of English. | |||
| * User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy uses similar phrasing () as {{user|UzUmUz}} () - again I'm not sure if this is not just an issue with non-native English. | |||
| 22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: ''"I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."'' | |||
| Given the nature and the apparently dubious notability of the subject, I'm concerned this might be a concerted exercise in self promotion, either with sockpuppets or meatpuppets. A checkuser might be useful, especially as now User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy and User:UzUmUz are arguing for keep on the deletion page. Both are very new editors working in a narrow field of Uzbek cinema. User:UzUmUz's sixth mainspace edit was a very advanced one ], a film project of ]. User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy the article five minutes after its creation. In short: | |||
| *{{user|UzUmUz}} - first edits 24 October 2021, solely about ] and his projects. | |||
| *{{User|Muhammad Ali Iskandariy}} - first edits 21 October 2021, solely about ] and his projects. | |||
| *{{user|Amirbek77}} - edits infrequently since 13 June 2021, on Uzbek actors, films and singers. | |||
| *{{user|Anvar Mirhodiyev}} - first edits 21 October 2021, solely about ] and his projects. | |||
| ] (]) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I've redirected ] to ]. ], ], ] 18:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Dear ] It's not as complicated as you put it on this page. Firstly, I have nothing to do with ], but as for {{user | Anvar Mirhodiyev}} we are classmates, and I asked him for help, as it was difficult for me to understand Of English language. What's wrong with helping each other? (] (]) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)) | |||
| :::You say you have no connection to Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, but you have taken as a username Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (using his stage name), and you have been working with Anvar Mirhodiyev, whom you state you know, solely to create and edit articles related to Muhammad Ali Iskandarov. Can you also state your relationship with User:UzUmUz, who has the same editing patterns? It would seem you have a strong ] here, and working with other users raises questions of ] and ]. Can you explain how you became aware of the creation of the article ] by User:UzUmUz and were able to edit it five minutes after its creation? ] (]) 19:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] You are coming very closing to ] newcomers. Two people created accounts, both started editing an article, they know each other, even if they know this third person that is not in any way against any sort of Wiki policy (that you have mentioned) you're clutching at straws that two sentences are of anything like a similar construction; they've explained their position you don't have a right to continue interrogating them in this manner. ] (]) 09:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience. | |||
| ** It's very simple, via the link! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == An old account is no longer here to be constructive or has been hacked? == | |||
| :Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to ]-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. ] <sup>]]</sup> 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does seem like this could have gone to ]. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from ]. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello! '''Thelittlefaerie''' speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. ] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this. | |||
| ::::I think if you can apologise and agree to not make ] against other editors again, and refrain from ] (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek ]. | |||
| ::::Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M. | |||
| :::::Thank you, | |||
| :::::'''Thelittlefaerie''' ] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page ] (]) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) ] (]) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * '''Update''': Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Swagsgod == | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| {{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|Indefinitely blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can ] please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. ] (]) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been making weird edits since October. | |||
| #: random erasing | |||
| #: random erasing | |||
| #: "Wether we he or low lesbians. We are all curios to know in which way they are sexually attracted to males with effeminate qualities." | |||
| #: "Some classical Disney movies have also got reimagined versions." | |||
| #: Dehumanization is the result of ] and can be projected unto anyone regardless of social strata. People who live in big cities are less prone to humanization since they have experienced more people of different walk of life. Expats who have gotten to know the locals of their new country are even less prejudiced. | |||
| #: "Genocides are often accompanied with euphemistic language." | |||
| Something is wrong with this account. These are unconstructive, sometimes clearly deliberately. All of the new nonsense edits are from a mobile phone but the old ones are not.] (]) 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Can anybody help with this account? Should it be locked? ] (]) 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch. This definitely seems off. Only issue is that AN/I is rather backlogged at the moment so it might take a while for someone to get to this. ] (]) <small>(please use {{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming: | |||
| ::I blocked it as a possibly compromised account. ] (]) 20:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{tq| Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God}} | |||
| ::*{{tq|Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests}} | |||
| ::etc. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by {{ping|Fram}}). Let me know if I have missed anything. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Gone. —] (]) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as {{tq|Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis}} was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? ] (]) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? ] (]) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source == | |||
| == Continued issues with User:Corker1 == | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = {{noping|Corker1}} has been indefinitely blocked by ]; and his unblock request has been denied by ] for ]. <small>]</small> -- ]</b></sup></small></span>]] 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |status = Indefinite block, unblock request reviewed and denied}} | |||
| The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption. | |||
| ] This user was the subject of a previous ANI thread , due to their general disruptive and tendentious editing. The thread was eventually archived, after Corker1 was blocked for one week for edit warring. Corker1 has returned from their block, and proceeded to reintroduce all of the content that caused the original ANI thread, this time at a new article titled ]. Multiple editors weighed in supporting an indef block for Corker1 at the previous thread, and they have clearly failed to understand what is disruptive about their editing. I believe it is time they are indefinitely blocked until if and when they are willing to follow policies on external links and lists. | |||
| ], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Courtesy ping of ], who blocked Corker1 previously. ] (]) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :], Corker is definitely on a short ], but do you have specific diffs we can look at for those of us that are short on time? I'm guessing this new article is essentially a ] because they couldn't get traction at the main article? ] (]) 18:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, there's only the one diff of them creating the entire new article (+200,000 or so bytes), complete with massive piles of external links to sites like Facebook. Massive piles of clutter that they have repeatedly been told are unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the sake of those uninvolved or not overly familiar with the train edits (my knowledge of that side of the problem edits is only superficial), could you briefly show some examples of what didn't get consensus at the original article or talk page and how the current article is a POVFORK to avoid gaining consensus? ] (]) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In a nutshell, giant tables filled with links to external sites in the body of the article , a massive list of external links to maps and another to timetables . Corker1 has said they will continue to keep these in the article because "railfans use them" and has failed to get the point numerous other editors have been explaining to them . ] (]) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Corker1 has also asserted that "policies are optional" and they will ignore them at will (see the last two diffs). ] (]) 18:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == 142.190.62.131 == | |||
| *'''Indeffed''' with longer explanation TK on the user page. No objection to this subsequently being adjusted should he choose to communicate, which isn't optional. Thanks {{ping|Trainsandotherthings}} for flagging. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 19:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* And a wall-of-IDHT unblock request denied. ] 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. ] (]) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Andrew Davidson's conduct at VPR – topic ban?== | |||
| : IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ], then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is ]. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. ] (]) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = ] close. Clearly not going anywhere. <small>(])</small> ] ] ] 01:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |status = Closed}} | |||
| Following my close of the ] above, an editor raised concerns privately about Andrew's behaviour in other areas. In particular, that his contributions at ] are always to oppose whatever proposal he is commenting on, describing him as a 'professional contrarian' who always votes the same way depending which venue he is at (e.g. keep in AfDs and oppose at VPR), and that the consistency of the voting pattern means his contributions cannot be considered sincere, but are probably just disruptive. | |||
| == IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles == | |||
| I can't say I am familiar with his behaviour at VPR, but having had a quick look this his contributions there from 2021, I did only find oppose votes, | |||
| so agreed that I would raise the issue here for comment on whether his topic ban should be extended to VPR (and potentially any other areas where his contributions are deemed unhelpful – there was a similar pattern (opposes only) at other village pump pages, although with fewer contributions, so harder to judge a pattern with a quick check). Cheers, ] ]] | |||
| *'''Support''' CBan. Can't be trusted. Has and will push any envelopes left available. ]] 21:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanction. It's false to state a consistent voting pattern cannot be considered sincere. Several of our most widely respected editors have expressed support for maintaining the status quo. For example Irridescent, echoing the almost equally acclaimed editor George (admitedly back in 2009) : . This sort of wiki conservatism is arguably a big part of why we've endured much longer than the vast majority of other web projects. Also, there are against the status quo, showing discernment. ] (]) 21:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The previous trainwreck thread in which he was topic-banned is still open a few sections above. Is this really necessary? (It's also not clear to me that simply disliking a lot of proposals is inherently disruptive, unless he is doing it in a hostile way.) ''']'''×''']''' 21:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I happen to think the deletion topic-ban was a good thing. But this is kicking the guy when he's down, and could be a textbook example of how to get a longstanding and productive (outside of AfD/PROD) editor to quit. ''Even if'' there's something that needs addressing here -- and I seriously doubt it -- does this has to happen NOW? ]] 22:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' blocking someone because they only posted there recently when they something they opposed, even if they made a valid argument against it, is wrong. ] 22:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I read through some of the examples. They seemed pretty well reasoned and non-vitriolic. Unlike his participation in deletion discussions. In the meantime I don't necessarily think voting a certain way most of the time is problematic. A lot depends on how you go about and justify it. Personally, I vote delete more often then not in deletion discussions, but I often go out of my way to say I'll change my vote to keep if someone can find references or to state why I think someone could just as easily argue for the article being kept if there are some. So the approach matters. With Andrew in the case of deletion discussions his repeatedly confrontational approach was disruptive, here, it's not. ] (]) 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', at least for now. Like other editors here, I don't like the idea of kicking someone when he's already down. If I remember properly, however, there was a similar issue with him at ] some years ago, and there might have been a TBAN over that. --] (]) 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * You will not find many editors more convinced that AD is injurious to Misplaced Pages than I am. I am utterly unmoved by emotional appeals based around "kicking a man while he's down" on behalf of someone who's kicked as many editors in the teeth as AD. I am likewise unmoved by the prospect of him taking his metaphoric marbles and going home; I would've been the first to support a complete community ban. But Adamant1 called it: unlike his pattern in the deletion process, looking over those diffs, I see that AD explained his reasoning, did so without acronym bombing, hostility or insult, and without notable bad faith or deception. If he had acted half as well in deletion discussions, he never would've been at risk of a tban. I cannot, in good faith and with a clear conscience, do anything but '''Oppose''' this sanction. ] 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I voted to get AD away from the area where's he's ''genuinely'' causing disruption (i.e. deletion) but he isn't doing that here. Actually (and not that it's relevant) but looking at the diffs, I agree with him on most of them... ] 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': if the plan is to topic ban everyone who knee-jerk opposes every proposal to make an improvement to this website then we'll be topic banning the majority of the community. — ] (''']''') 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' and suggest a SNOW close. The proposer admits {{tq|I can't say I am familiar with his behaviour at VPR}}, in my experience there is no shortage of proposals at VPR that should be opposed. I also agree with the above comments that this comes off as mean-spirited. ] (powera, ], ]) 00:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', while this proposal was made in good faith, it comes across as gravedancing to me, and it does not seem remotely necessary at this time] (]) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Completely agree with suggesting a SNOW close here per {{no ping|力}}. If the editor raised concerns privately to the proposer and then the proposer admits not being familiar with the subject's behaviour it feels quite mean to propose a tban in such manner. If there is an actual case, they should wait a bit for things to quiet down and then submit a stronger case than just a "quick" look.<span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 00:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Marcorubiocali == | |||
| {{atop|result = blocked per ]. TPA revoked. --]] 16:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|Marcorubiocali}} seems to have a monomania for ] and has dedicated their entire Misplaced Pages career to seeing his article in mainspace, hideously poor sourcing be damned. His first attempt - which bypassed AfC due to him moving the article into mainspace from draft, against the advice of another editor - was ], with the sources specifically cited as a concern. Another attempt was made in draftspace, but the sourcing, again, is poor. When I explained to him, yet again, ], a bit of a back-and-forth ensued. Once I countered his last argument, he responded with . | |||
| Given the accusation of racism, his threat to ], and the ], I am seeking a ''indefinite block'' for Marcorubiocali as ]. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| An IP range user ({{vandal|2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321}}) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including ]s). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information . | |||
| :I noticed that the username closely resembles a ], but the user is clearly someone else. Might there be an issue here with ] (first bullet point)? --] (]) 23:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I imagine that's why "cali" is in the name, as the notable Marco Rubio is from Florida. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I understand. I'm really not sure how this applies to the username policy, but I figured I should point it out. I realize that it's not the issue that you raised. --] (]) 23:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{replyto|Jéské Couriano}} Their cross wiki contributions are pretty telling, especially this edit to the Spanish Misplaced Pages (written in English) ] (]) 23:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Interesting - ] is another article with a good selection of shoddy sourcing (she's marginally notable, but the article is terrible) that's been peacocked by a selection of SPAs over the years. Meanwhile, I would consider blocking Marcorubiocali purely for his accusation of racism - ] is an issue at Misplaced Pages, but it isn't here - the problem is terrible sourcing, as the excellent summary at the AfD showed. ] 00:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :In need of a ] block, indeed: the ] shows the basis the editor is here on, but they are unable to understand either that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia (not a collection of adverts) and that Misplaced Pages is a community (and not somewhere you can scream and shout your way into getting what you want). I have a longstanding disagreement about the seriousness with which we treat "accusations of racism" as if they're akin to being called Hitler. However, here the accusation ''is'' unfounded and a textbook case of an empty threat (I see people threaten to go to the press all the time, and let me tell you the press are not interested), and it's part of a pattern of very obviously unconstructive behaviour. (Comment edited a bit from its ].) — ] (''']''') 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *In my opinion, threats to go to the news media, although usually completely empty, should be treated as seriously as legal threats (which are often also empty), because both are intended to have a ]. It doesn't matter whether the block is for ], ], or ], but I agree that a block is needed. ] (]) 02:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| It doesn't matter if you block me or not. The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof. I stand behind the fact that I believe that the editor has racist intents. I will expose and if he had problems related to racism in the past, thne that will come out too. This isn't an attack or an empty treat. This is what I believe is going on. The fact that you want to block me instead of getting to the bottom of the issue speaks for itself and further strengthes my point that there is racism going on here. ] (]) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Treats to go to the media could be empty for regular people, but not for someome who works at a church organization where a lot of media people volunteer on Sundays. I will share my opinion with them and see what can be done. ] (]) 06:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist. Making belittle remarks is enough to be considered racism and he has been putting me down since day one. ] (]) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Blocking me instead of investigating the issue will be the cherry on top. ] (]) 06:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Indeffed'''. Well, at least that rant made the decision a lot easier. Also, since you refuse to stop casting aspersions, I am removing your talk page access. ] 07:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq|The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof.}} – Not so impressive on a website where every edit to every page is public by default... {{tq|You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist.}} – Literally a repetition of my point. — ] (''']''') 11:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| # | |||
| == User on successive Jakartan IPs engaging in year-long disruptive editing of the same articles == | |||
| # | |||
| Since at least March 2021, a supposedly single user on successive IPs out of ], ], ], has been engaging in edit warring and disruptive editing on articles mostly related to the politics of post-Soviet states, such as elections and presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Armenia. They are reverted, warned, contacted for resolution and even blocked, but they never respond and continue on their next IP. | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. ] (]) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Tried notifying them for what that's worth. ] (]) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See ]. | |||
| * '''Could I please get some help here?''' IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}} | |||
| Whilst it was an edit war on ] that started that noticeboard discussion, one persistent edit they have been making is Russifying non-Russian names of Tajik politicians, and I was going to start an ] discussion on this before I decided this issue was beyond a simple edit war. | |||
| ::I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is {{confirmed}} block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been for disruption.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks very much, ]. And as well? ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks {{U|Paul Erik}}, I got that /64 as well.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Abusive user == | |||
| This is one example of the user's edit warring on Tajik president ], repeatedly Russifying his name despite being reverted every time: | |||
| {{atop|1=Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Moved from the ]. Courtesy link: {{user|Opolito}}, filed by {{user|Shaggydan}}, moved by ] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? ] (]) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | |||
| !Edit-warring diffs on ] | |||
| |- | |||
| |'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Emomali Rahmon}} <br /> | |||
| :This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Previous version reverted to:''' ] | |||
| :@]. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. ] (]|]) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Shaggydan}} - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at , I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. ] ] 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Shaggydan}} Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. ] (]) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? ] (]) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with ''actual'' personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.}} You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? ] (]) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement. | |||
| :I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many ]s are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name. | |||
| :Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account. | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith. | |||
| :He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone. | |||
| :I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all." | |||
| :Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so." | |||
| :29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam. | |||
| :On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)" | |||
| :These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit. | |||
| :I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information == | |||
| '''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
| *{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}} | |||
| # ] | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}} | |||
| # ] | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06}} | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] (edit summary was copied from ]) | |||
| |} | |||
| Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on ] (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user . After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--] ] 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The following table contains a list of suspected IPs of the user (the IPs that made the above edits) followed by their ISP, location, mostly successive edit histories and block history. All of the IPs resolve to Jakarta, Indonesia, about half on the ] ISP, half on ] (presumably, according to the table, the user's proxy for block-evasion) and one on LinkNet: | |||
| :Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. ] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | |||
| !IP | |||
| !Location | |||
| !ISP | |||
| !Edit history | |||
| !Block history | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|139.193.13.63}} | |||
| |], ] | |||
| |] | |||
| |11:52, 31 March 2021 – <br />07:41, 9 May 2021 | |||
| |29 April 2021 – <br />31 April 2021,<br />1 May 2021 – <br />8 May 2021 | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|36.70.36.74}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |] | |||
| |03:42, 4 April 2021 – <br />00:26, 7 April 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|114.124.149.178}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |06:05, 5 May 2021 – <br />06:15, 5 May 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|180.251.239.213}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |08:31, 5 May 2021 – <br />08:16, 6 May 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|114.124.178.84}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |14:21, 6 May 2021 – <br />14:26, 6 May 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|182.2.171.86}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |13:14, 7 May 2021 – <br />13:17, 7 May 2021 | |||
| |{{IP|182.2.0.0/16}} rangeblocked:<br />11 January 2021 – <br />11 April 2021,<br />8 September 2021 – <br />8 December 2021 | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|139.192.136.166}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |First Media | |||
| |04:04, 10 May 2021 – <br />07:46, 27 June 2021 | |||
| |19 June 2021 – <br />26 June 2021,<br />27 June 2021 – <br />27 September 2021 | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|114.124.174.9}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |00:42, 29 June 2021 – <br />01:30, 29 June 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|180.251.220.0}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |Telkom Indonesia | |||
| |01:29, 9 July 2021 – <br />01:32, 9 July 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|139.192.226.208}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |First Media | |||
| |08:29, 10 July 2021 – <br />13:04, 5 August 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|149.110.68.62}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |LinkNet | |||
| |03:53, 7 August 2021 – <br />15:13, 17 September 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|111.95.5.207}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |First Media | |||
| |02:38, 20 September 2021 – <br />07:56, 5 October 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{userlinks|139.192.151.122}} | |||
| |Jakarta, Indonesia | |||
| |First Media | |||
| |08:17, 6 October 2021 – <br />00:43, 4 November 2021 | |||
| | | |||
| |} | |||
| == Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP == | |||
| I don't know how this is to be solved. <span style="background-color:#c4c4c4;border-radius:8px;padding:0px 2px;">]</span> <span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;font-size:.8em;">(])</span> 04:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Large unexplained addition and subsequent removal in article == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Both accounts indeffed after CU performed by Materialscientist {{nac}} <b>]</b><i>]</i><small><sub>]</sub></small> 15:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| Apologies if this is the incorrect location, ] is a BLP violation and may need redacting. ] (]) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ], you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. ] (]/]) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, I've made a note of that. ] (]) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == revoke TPA for ]? == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. ] ] 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Greek Americans}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Spahh00}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|스테}} | |||
| I really can't go through all of the edits' content because there's so much of it here. The first user edited the article 6 times, 3 of them added ~48 thousand bytes each, with the last edit a removal of ~16 thousand bytes. The second user shortly came in and removed content tens of times, many of them removing thousands of bytes. <span class="nowrap">'' —]<sup>(My ] and ])</sup>''</span> 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I attempted to revert, but there appears to be a technical issue...?-] (]) 04:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The second user has now blanked the article entirely. <span class="nowrap">'' —]<sup>(My ] and ])</sup>''</span> 04:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Tried the same thing as KH-1. No dice. ] (]) 04:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :There was a link on the blacklist that was preventing a restoration of the article text. I’ve reverted to of the article minus the blacklisted reference (). I don’t know what either user was trying to do, but if I wiped out any constructive changes, they can try adding them again, preferably without duplicating the entire article multiple times. ]<sub>(])</sub> 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those two editors are likely the same person. ] (]) 04:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Indefblocked both accounts. ] (]) 15:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| ==Philip Cross and his topic ban== | |||
| The editor Philip Cross is from post-1978 British politics, '''broadly construed'''. Yet he has admitted to making to the David Miller page, all of which appears to be after his ban was implemented. The article is strongly related to contemporary British Politics because of the following reasons: | |||
| Miller held the position of Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, and was recently dismissed from this post, and before that the Labour Party. This was due to pressure from UK parliamentarians and organisations with close ties to Israel for his work attempting to expose Zionist power structures (a political ideology). This is a major political event, widely covered by political journalists in mainstream political publications and media. It has significant consequences for freedom of speech, and is part of the sustained purge of anti-Zionists from positions of political influence in the UK. Zionism is a political ideology. | |||
| I have with Philip Cross on his user page and the , and asked him to refrain from editing the main article. However, he seems content to keep editing the page because in his own words, he hasn't had any warnings from administrators despite 184 edits. | |||
| However, ] states | |||
| 'If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction.' | |||
| Philip Cross is a highly experience editor who will be fully aware of these rules, but has continued to breach them even after my request to stop editing the David Miller page. | |||
| --] (]) 08:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh, even within "broadly construed" so far as I'm aware the Miller controversy was about academic freedom of expression and concerned such issues as global antisemitism and the role of the UN. As for "attempting to expose Zionist power structures" - such concepts speaks more of a problem with the poster here than with {{u|Philip Cross}}. (Full disclosure: I wouldn't normally comment on such a topic but notice this at ANI and am aware of the Miller controversy because my wife got listed in Miller's "Powerbase"). ] (]) 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * For reference, the diff for the currently applicable ARCA is . Reading the article, it mentions subjects like: Israel, Palestine, ], ], allegations of political censorship, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, et cetera. These seem to me like not only political subjects, but highly contentious ones. ''']'''×''']''' 09:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at the page, it is not obvious to me that this page falls into what is meant by broadly construed. This person was a philsophy professor, and while sometimes things they say are used in politics that doesn't mean that their page on a whole is covered by the topic ban. This doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the page that would be covered by the ban, but we need a dif of them editing that specific portion. --] (]) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, Miller was a Professor of Political Sociology and almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. This editing is a clear violation of the topic ban. ] ] 18:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::As an example, is about two UK NGOs being accused of Islamist connections. Hard to see how that’s not “post-1978 British politics”. ] (]) 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Miller is also caught up with the ongoing ], it's very difficult to see how any editing of his article isn't "politics broadly construed". <small>not quite being </small>] (]) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == JusticeForce101 == | |||
| {{User|JusticeForce101}} remove edits. See . I invite to talk, but he sensor my edits. --] (]) 09:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : I assume you mean another user, not ] (yourself), but please read ] if you make a change that multiple other editors disagree with; you should discuss it on the talk page. Rather than throwing around words like 'censorship', you should try to find a consensus with the other editors ] (]) 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' I'm actually going to throw around a boomerang here. JusticeForce101 can I ask under what accounts you've edited before as your editing patterns suggest some familiarity with Misplaced Pages procedures? I find it odd that they found ANI on their 9th edit. It seems to me like JusticeForce101 is an SPA who is acting in bad faith towards other users. They keep trying to add them same content in repeatedly, and appear to be ]. They have started two active sections on this board right now, and it all seems connected. ] ] 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Block review : Raquel Baranow == | |||
| {{user|Raquel Baranow}} was by {{u|Cullen328}} just over a year ago. A request to unblock has since been declined by {{u|Yamla}} and more recently by myself. As well as the justification given by Cullen328 and Yamla, I have seen evidence that Raquel is an of ], and I believe people with those beliefs cannot edit Misplaced Pages in a neutral and responsible manner, per the justification set out in ]. I am also unimpressed with the full-frontal nude self-portrait on her user page, and question what message that sends out to the general readership. | |||
| In response, Raquel Baranow has that I have posted on ] to canvass support for the ban and am engaging in ]. It is true that I wrote a procedural remark on Wikipediocracy's forums : "{{xt|Just declined another unblock request from Raquel.}}" and posted a follow-up comment to a user who thought I was being unnecessarily draconian : "{{xt|The diff (plus edit summary) says "My opinion, which led to this block, was not asked for". So she still thought the block was unfair. Plus "I stated my opinion on Jimbo’s talk page about the ] essay." - no, she peddled right-wing Holocaust denial conspiracy theory weirdness. Are we quite sure she's not a sock of ]?}}" | |||
| I admit that ranting about a particularly disruptive (and indefinitely blocked) user, particularly in an off-wiki forum, is not acceptable conduct for an administrator, and that I have a ''real'' problem with Holocaust deniers, and so I apologise for venting and sarcastically comparing her to a well-known conspiracy theory advocate. However, I take accusations of cyber-bullying seriously, as it is something I would never do. | |||
| So, I would like to ask the community at large to review Raquel's block, confirm that the block was justified, and address the accusations of canvassing and cyber-bullying in a non-partisan manner. ] ] ] 10:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I was actually considering moving for a ] on Raquel Baranow, given their behaviour. But, to the topic at hand. While I can't tell what is in people's minds, I do not believe Baranow would be unblocked without a topic ban, given their prior behaviour. With the additional information here, I think that's doubly true. I'll refrain for now from commenting on the nudity or the off-wiki comments on Wikipediocracy, but may post more once I've got my thoughts in order. --] (]) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Menacing intro: {{tq|I, Raquel Baranow am a Grad Student of Holocaust Denial}}. And then... {{tq|Hitler sought to remove irrational Jews from German living-space who did not want to assimilate much like Thomas Jefferson and many politicians today want to remove Negro's and Mexicans from America or Muslims (another irrational religion) from Europe.}} '''Yikes'''. BTW, I'm no fuckin' prude and I agree that nudity and sexual content ought not be censored ''in articles.'' That said, many of our editors are minors, so for them to interact with an adult woman who displays herself in full frontal nudity on her userpage... Some bad ] vibes from that scenario. I don't like it. ] 11:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The photo needs to be removed. While we aren't censored, there's not a place for that on a user's talk page. Also, that intro, nope. We are MUCH better off without her here. ] (]) 11:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Doug for removing it. ] (]) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *''']''' Raquel Baranow for the reasons expressed above, appealable no sooner than 1 year from the date the ban is enacted. Their behaviour, including but not certainly limited to antisemitism, is incompatible with Misplaced Pages. Let's make this official. --] (]) 13:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' fully. ] (]) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Ban-and-forget'''. ] 13:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support.''' There's no room here for that. ]] 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' - I fundamentally think that holocaust denialism is incompatible with collaborative editing. Ideologies and stances that dehumanize other editors make it impossible for the user to edit collaboratively. Nor can we trust them to edit neutrally on any topic related. Still, I don't think even a topic ban would be enough, as the fundamental issue stretches deeper then just the topic area. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::No commentary on the NSFW pictures by the way, the holocaust denialism on its own is plenty to convince me to vote to support a cban. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Ban''' Any user who introduces themselves with the quotes that El_C lists above has no place at Misplaced Pages. --]] 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' RB has long been a civil POV pusher, whose POV is completely at odds with Misplaced Pages's purpose, and they have removed all doubt about their intentions with the plain bigotry quoted above. Without going into a meta-discussion of gender in depictions of naked people, do we seriously think that a man who put such an image of themselves on their userpage would not be insta-blocked? '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Endorse block''' - its one thing to be a holocaust denier on your own spaces, its another thing to bring that nonsense onto WP, causing obvious disruption. Not to mention the appalling poor taste putting full frontal nudes of yourself on your user page with no encyclopedic value, the apparent unwillingness to listen to editors, and a mess of other disruptive activities. ](])<sup>(please reply with <nowiki>{{SUBST:</nowiki>re|BrxBrx<nowiki>}}</nowiki>)</sup> 16:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support''' I was in the midst of declining the appeal yesterday afternoon but was running short on time and didn't want to rush my decline rationale. I had intended to finalize the decline this morning if the appeal was still open; a formalized ban works just as well as far as I'm concerned.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *As the blocking administrator, I will refrain from supporting an additional sanction. I will express my opinion that Raquel Baranow seems to be a nice person who has beliefs and engages in behaviors that are incompatible with editing Misplaced Pages. ] ] 17:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I support the block, but for expressing views such as Holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories. I guess that there are national differences in the acceptability of nude images, but I see nothing at all objectionable about the image in question, in which she was not engaging in any sexual activity and just happened not to be wearing any clothes. I would have no problem with any child or grandchild of mine seeing that image, and the same would go if it was an image of a man who wasn't visibly sexually excited. ] (]) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::RE: the naked pic — what's objectionable here is context-dependent, ]. That image wouldn't be viewed in isolation on some article for educational purposes (which I support). And if someone wants to upload nude pics of themselves, I really could not care less. But to have such an image displayed at the top of their user page as, basically, its centre piece — that is not the same thing. Thus, as mentioned, to minors who might end up interacting with her in the course of normal editing, at the very least it'd be weird. I'm not so much interested in an ideal type as I am in the here and now. ] 19:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Pajfarmor makes poor edits and has never communicated with anyone == | |||
| {{Atop|result=IP blocked for one week as ].--] (]) 18:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] makes edits which are very often harmful to the articles concerned. They rarely leave an edit summary, and rarely provide a reliable source for their changes (eg: ). Often, they mark significant changes as minor (eg: ). When they do provide a source, I have observed that their edit is often actually contradicted by the source, or the source contains nothing of relevance (eg: ). Quite often, they add text that is convoluted, ungrammatical, and even nonsensical (eg: ) | |||
| The user has been editing Misplaced Pages for 15 years, but in that time has responded to a talk page message one single time only, 11 years ago (see ). When their edits are reverted, I have never seen any response or recognition of any issue. They just keep on making poor quality edits to other articles. It is thus impossible to understand what their motives are, and whether their contributions are really made in good faith or not. | |||
| ], but this user refuses to communicate. I see plenty of precedent for users being blocked until they acknowledge the need to communicate with other editors, so I wonder if this remedy is required here too. ] (]) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' A user ] was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Both ] ] and OP (]) ] made almost identical additions to ]'s talk page. ] (]) 12:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::So your only thought, on reading my report, was to assume bad faith and try to undermine it? ] (]) 16:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == WP:FOLLOWING by ] == | |||
| The editing record shows that the ip user is following my edits across multiple pages and systematically reverting them. Details in the edit summaries indicate that the user has intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia’s policies and is most likely operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range. Administrator intervention would be greatly welcomed.] (]) 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{an3|b|one week}} for harassment (]), though you are pretty new yourself, ] seeing as you joined on Sept 2. I didn't understand the basis for you claiming this person is {{tq|operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range.}} I also upgraded the protection (my own) from pc to one year semi for ], not because of this dispute so much, though. ] 13:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::] I made those comments on the basis of similar edits from other ip addresses on the relevant articles and also, as I pointed out, details in the user’s edit summaries which indicate he is most likely not a new user. (Like his citation of wp:blp in reverting my edits on the Meng Wenzhou page which is a policy that I did not even know even existed until now.) | |||
| ::on a separate note I am unsure how to proceed as this is my first time encountering this type of situation. Am I allowed to revert those hounding edits? I feel like I can and should but there might be a risk that I might unnecessarily escalate things especially if the user gets off the unblock list and decides to edit war on those pages. would it might be better if you reverted those edits? ] (]) 14:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::], what I'm saying is that if all the IPs are of that range, then that would not be a basis. Sorry, I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the material to do anything else right now. Unless there are pressing ] concerns, in which case, please spell those out. Even though these were hounding edits, please don't revert them for that reason alone (i.e. without citing an explanation tied to the contested content itself). About the future: just report any further hounding from that IP to admins again, which will carry more severe action. ] 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] as an aside, I noticed you do like to use reverts a lot, could you please bear in mind the suggestions in ] when you do in the future? I'm not saying any particular revert you have made was inappropriate, but reverting good-faith edits entirely is often not the right course of action, and may lead to more hostility, at the very least be gentle when doing so. ] (]) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] - Nazi imagery on User page == | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = {{noping|BattliBezBītiem}} blocked indefinitely as ] by {{noping|El_C}}. BattliBezBītiem's userpage and sandbox were also deleted for having Nazi imagery. <small>]</small> ] (]) 04:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |status = Indefinite block}} | |||
| So this edit, ], caught my attention and imagine my surprise when I saw their Nazi user page. ] (]) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{an3|b|indef}}. Again, I am immune to irony. ] 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I put it up for CSD (as well as the sandbox). –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oops, sorry, forgot. But I didn't notice the sandbox, so double thanks. ] 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == IP 76.69.87.247: Severe incivility == | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| {{Archive top | |||
| |result = {{noping|76.69.87.247}} blocked for 1 week for ] by {{noping|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}. <small>]</small> ] (]) 04:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |status = Temporary block}} | |||
| The IP ] is attacking other editors, mainly ], and calling them "Nazis," particularly at the page ]. I heard it was ANI tradition to provide "diffs" for proof,{{Humor note}} so here they are. | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AHarsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053477622&oldid=1032293624 <br> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053551358&oldid=1053518670 <br> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harsha_Walia&diff=next&oldid=1053551655 <br> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAhunt&type=revision&diff=1053550321&oldid=1053462760 | |||
| If I forgot any part of the ANI process, let me know! '''/gen''' ]<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked for a week. ] (]) 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! - ] (]) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == User Wtyuy WP:NOTHERE == | |||
| {{userlinks|Wtyuy}} | |||
| Account's edit history consists of politically motivated section blanking , unexplained content removal and the requisite nasty comment about CNN . They're only here to disrupt. –] ] 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == JesseRafe == | |||
| {{userlinks|JesseRafe}} | |||
| This editor has crossed the 3RR line . Don't they get blocked?--] (]) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Wikitikitengo2, JesseRafe seems to have asked you to discuss this on the article talk page. Why haven't you done this? And can you explain what you were trying to achieve with this edit? ] (]) 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Filer was blocked by {{noping|Bbb23}} as being a sock; unblock request pending. ] (]) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello, I’d like to make an article but it is black listed (notify me if this isn’t the correct noticeboard == | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| I’d like to make an article about the web series ‘Battle for Dream Island’ but it is blacklisted. | |||
| Thank you :) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| This article was deleted by the community due to not meeting our inclusion criteria.. See: ]. <small>] <small><sup>Need help? ''']'''</sup></small></small> 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know about the one that is blacklisted, but ] has been unfinished since January. The draft's creator {{u|ChannelSpider}} is currently an active editor. ] (]) 02:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive edits on ] == | |||
| <!-- Do not change anything above this line --> | |||
| This IP user ] (]) (]) has been seriously disruptive edit behavior at the page of ] with this contributions are all unsourced . I tried to warn this IP but it also get repeatedly adding an unsourced edits. I hope this IP user will ban for like 1 day and the ] will also be protected. Thank you! ] (]) 05:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 23 January 2025
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles
This section has been stale for a few days and was at the top of ANI (i.e. the oldest un-archived post) and about to be automatically archived without action. I find consensus for an indefinite (not infinite, you may appeal your restriction at WP:AN if you can create some articles through AfC that demonstrate a better understanding of the policies) ban from creating articles in main space against User:Jaozinhoanaozinho. They may only create articles using the AfC process. This editing restriction will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. MolecularPilot 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jaozinhoanaozinho has been creating articles on portuguese history for a while now. They seem to be a competent writer, but their understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH seems to be lacking substantially.
- Danish expedition to North America was deleted for WP:PROFRINGE
- Da Serra–American conflict on WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH grounds
- They've been warned about creating hoax articles and continued doing so.
- Warned for copyright issues which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in Potato Revolt)
- Plenty of articles containing only one source Siege of Campar, Battle of Cape Coast (1562), Battle of Lucanzo (1590), Portudal–Joal Massacre, Battle of the Gambia River (1570), Battle of Mugenga
Most recently there's Battle of Naband, which contains two sources and the only one easily accessible never mentions any Battle of Naband and indeed mentions the Naband itself only twice in the book. I've AFDd four of their last five or so articles in a row, with three now deleted.
Battle of Naband is my last article of theirs I'm AFDing. I tried bringing this up with them but it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere and I don't want to WP:WIKIHOUND someone for mass creating low-quality articles. They're a competent writer but I feel that a time out from article creation without oversight may be helpful for everyone here. With the inscrutible sourcing and the repeated defense of a WP:PROFRINGE article above it's pretty impossible for inexpert editors to know if what's being presented is legit or not without sources or verifiability. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly I have to support this. They simply don't have a grasp of our policies and guidelines despite all the AfDs where they've been discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked this Battle of Naband which is at Afd. It wasn't a battle and hasn't been named as such by any historian. A small engagement at best. The sources are problematic, very very slim. I could only find a couple of small paras in a single source that seems to come from a single verbal report. I think they should all be draftified to be checked and any future work sent to draft. I couldn't find Naband? scope_creep 12:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Late addendum, but it looks like the user in question was tagged by a research team on their talk page as possibly using AI to edit, which would track with the article writing vs content quality if it's the case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- AI detection methods are so faulty that I’m 100% willing to accept this as truth. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, but I didn't realize it was referring to AI since I didn’t know what "LLM" meant, so I didn't pay much attention to it. But just to clarify, I don't use AI for research when creating my articles or for improving my writing. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, here's my response regarding the issues raised:
- 1) While I understand that the Luso-Danish expedition theory is not widely accepted, similar fringe theories, such as the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia," are allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. I suggested adjustments to the article title and additional citations during our earlier discussion, but those suggestions were not incorporated.
- 2) I still believe the topic is notable, even though it isn't widely discussed. I maintain that there is no issue with synthesis as the article does not present conclusions that aren't directly supported by the sources.
- 3) I agree with the decision to delete the article in question, as I did not do my research properly, turns out it was not a colony or long standing controlled territory.
- 4) I have never created a hoax article (Correction: Besides "Portuguese Newfoundland). The warning I received 10 months ago was for an article I translated from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages.
- 5) I typically do this when the sources used do not provide page numbers, and it can be difficult for others to verify specific information.
- 6) Many of the articles in question were created when I was beginning to edit on Misplaced Pages. I don’t mind improving research quality.
- 7) The article now cites four sources, and there are additional mentions of the engagement in other books, I just didn’t cite all of them.
- Additionally, I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work. I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues. A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts". Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that you’ve consistently targeted my articles for deletion. While you have assured me that you're not trying to pressure me, it still feels as though there is a disproportionate focus on my work.
- I addressed this above, it's a tricky thing to strike a balance between WP:WIKIHOUNDING and "This editor constantly makes articles that need oversight", which is why I brought this to ANI and said it'd be the last article of yours I AFD. It wasn't my intent to make you feel surveilled, though, which is why I called attention to that pattern of mine in the ANI itself.
I also noticed that you often skip over maintenance templates and go straight to nomination for deletion, even when the articles do not seem to have significant issues.
- Considering that these articles have, for the most part, been deleted, I don't think it's fair to summarize them as needing maintainence templates. Something that fails WP:GNG doesn't need a maintanence template if it's never going to pass WP:GNG and believe me, I am actually looking for sources before I nominate. It's actually why, for example
A recent example would be the "Baloch-Portuguese conflicts".
- I didn't AFD this one, but instead raised it on your talk page. That seemed to have WP:SYNTH issues but was much less cut and dry, so I reached out directly instead of AFDing it. I'm not going to maintenance-tag a page that may simply never pass WP:GNG before establishing that, because it risks wasting editors time. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- The single-source articles probably need to go to AfD as well. There are literally no hits for a "Battle of Cape Coast", "Battle of Lucanzo", and a "Portudal–Joal Massacre" (and they are not referred to as such in the single source that is in the article). There is little doubt that these minor skirmishes occurred (so they're not hoaxes), but they don't appear to be notable either. They sound like information that should be included in a wider article about the topics involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based upon their comments here and at the various AfD's, I do not believe Jaozinhoanaozinho understands the problematic nature of their articles, nor do they apparently understand the original research policy. I propose and support a ban from article creation until, after gaining substantially more experience improving pre-existing articles without violating WP:OR, they gain that necessary understanding/competence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- SUPPORT ban from article creation. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban from article creation. I checked a couple more of them over the weekend. I'm not keen to see any more of these non-articles made in that manner. scope_creep 09:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support article creation ban. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I think the issue might have been with the article describing the events as "course of hostilities" which could make it seem like it was a continuous conflict. I've fixed that to make it clear now. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: While this grows stale, more possibly synth articles are being created. Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| WP:SOCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment I think my needle has moved a wee bit to left re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lucanzo (1590). There is genuine reason here and I don't think its gaming the system. In this case it was a battle, but again, the source are very very slim. scope_creep 08:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ignore (I didn't mean to reply to this specific comment) Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the editor is capable of evaluating sources correctly and he should still be banned. scope_creep 09:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This is editor is still creating dog poor articles Cult Member. This is the second in days thats been speedied. scope_creep 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't create the article you've referenced? Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that Sr. Blud is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Me (DragonofBatley)
It may seem odd but I'm going to appoint myself to here to save @KJP1: the trouble. It is suggested I be put under a restricted amount of editing for new articles and using Articles for Creation. I have agreed to do so but there is cause to refer it here. I have accepted the offers to fix my ways and work on it but it appears it needs an ANI report and involvement so I will do so now. The other editors can put their cases forward. I will only say to please look at the bad and the good edits I have made to the site and not just the negatives. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notifying other editors from the wider discussions @PamD:, @Noswall59:, @Rupples:, @Crouch, Swale:, @KeithD:, @SchroCat:, @Tryptofish:, @Cremastra: and @Voice of Clam:. If I missed anyone else sorry DragonofBatley (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Non-archived discussion in DoB's talk page history that appears relevant: Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and I made some questionable choices of responses for which I am taking back as both inappropriate and immature. I am on the spectrum and do sometimes have moments of taking things personally if i feel attacked or something similar. I regret those actions and offered a fresh start to wipe slate clean and better myself but it seems it was at least now pointless as KJP1 is insisting ANI get involved. I am actually a very professional person and willing to learn. I had a bad day and went to cool off. I came back after a short time and willing to work out my issues but again. It is not really worth trying to if ANI is the new way forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this discussion: Special:PermanentLink/1269282704#Dragon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before the other editors all pipe in. This is mostly in regards to my ability to edit an article, create notable places like in the cases of Lawley, Shropshire, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, Gonerby Hillfoot and now redirected Lawley Furnaces and Lawley Bank. I am actually trying to offer a solution to work with the editors by using Articles for Creation but to no avail. So ANI is now the new stop. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, my concern is not notability but verifiability. I'm glad to see that the user is accepting feedback and willing to move on.
- I do not think restricting DragonofBatley to AfC submissions is the best course of action here, since that places the burden on AfC reviewers. Rather, I think we should wait and see if problems persist. If DragonofBatley is willing to edit carefully and go with a fresh start, well and good. WP:JAN25 is how I first came into contact with this user: if new page reviewers flag problems, then we can be having this discussion again and consider sanctions or restrictions. As it stands, I'm willing to take the user's assurances that they'll be more careful, with the understanding that they have been warned and that further problems will be dealt with seriously without many further cautions.
- I'd also like to personally recommend to DragonofBatley to draft articles in userspace and then move them to mainspace him/herself. I find this approach helps me clear my head and write the article in stages, rather than write it all at once in one edit – when I do the latter, I tend to leave loose ends.
- Happy editing, Cremastra (u — c) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may use your talk page for whatever you like. You can also create a subpage, such as User:DragonofBatley/Interesting topics list. It seems like you have a large group of people who want to help you and who find value in your contributions here, and I'm sure some of them would be willing to continue to provide feedback to you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can agree to that. Is it possible to make a list on my talk page of interests. I work in the sandbox and ask for input from editors. Can anyone see the sandbox? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I appreciate that you are willing to work via drafts instead of publishing articles directly to mainspace. Would you be willing to agree to a voluntary editing restriction (which could be enforced by partial or site blocks) that requires you to submit all drafts to AfC for approval, up to a maximum of 5 drafts at a time? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the threads that Schazjmd and I shared. I think given Dragon's communication style, the block/ban thing was probably hyperbole. Regarding CCI, where were issues raised regarding copyright concerns in Dragon's edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no socking. The only time I may edit off my account is for minor corrections made to certain articles. I made one anon edit months ago to a page I believe it was Derbyshire or Yorkshire which mispelt I believe it was a church or a nearby settlement had a letter missing. But apart from that. This is my main account and I have no issues with editors making sure I am not causing a nuisance to articles not that I intend to do so. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG account is nearly 5 years old the statute of limitations might well apply so I don't see a need to look too much into that especially given that while there have clearly been problems with this account I'm not aware of any other socks created after this account, that is to say I'm not aware DragonofBatley has been socking since creating this account. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was and it was in bad taste. I changed my username and felt I had a new account forgetting it was a simple name change. I had an immature moment and I hope the administrative editors see I take it back and acknowledge it as inappropriate and childish on my part. I'm being an open book now. No gimmicks or pretend. I genuinely apologise. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tryptofish, I don't think we have engaged in a discussion but that name ban evasion was a bad joke. I'll be honest I got confused between a name change and role playing. It was in bad taste. I'm not evading any bans or topic bans. I made an ill informed sarcastic joke and role playing. I should not have and I have time and again apologised for that. It was a stupid thing to say and I being on the spectrum as I do not wish to disclose my condition even though I likely have. Do sometimes have silly moments. I have done my best to keep them.off Misplaced Pages. The repeat things will be no more. I'm willing to fully grasp my errors and be more efficient and open to discussion on articles for AfC and in my sandbox. I offered a clean slate to start again and I stepped off it. Then ANI could have been involved. But unfortunately it was insisted despite me offering to change. The joke was in bad taste and I'm not avoiding any bans. It was a bad joke I came up with while role playing. I hope we can put that to bed and start a new. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are good points.
- However, I don't think you meant CCI, since as far as I can tell, copyright has not been a problem. I think a CCI-like thing may be in order. WP:Failed verification cleanup project, anyone? Cremastra (u — c) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- When sourcing or quoting a source on an article I meant to add DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay thats fine. Is there any website Misplaced Pages approve to check for plagiarism? I want to make sure i do not break WP:Copyright and WP:Plagiarism. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT cannot help you check for plagiarism. Given the concerns raised in this discussion and others, I recommend staying far away from ChatGPT or other LLMs for editing Misplaced Pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely, I do try at times to source text but of course plagiarism is a big no no. So i am sometimes a bit concerned to quote full texts in fear of copyrighting or stealing a sentence/similar in writing. Would using ChatGPT be worth it to help avoid any similar problems in terms of copyright? Not for writing a paragraph or sourcing but to check for plagurising? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The reason I mentioned CCI is because multiple editors who have been closely involved in the edits said on KJP1's talk page (linked above) that some sort of CCI might be needed. I'm simply basing it on that. If they actually meant an informal CCI-like process for verifiability, then it's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay I will do my best. Ill try to write any notable text seperate from a source as best as I can. If the CCI issue is one of the ongoing problems. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's the latter. @DragonofBatley: Nobody is concerned about your violating copyright. Just don't copy things directly from sources or paraphrase things too closely and you'll be okay. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thanks for your input. Ive actually wanted to begin by personally thanking you and PamD for being patient with me. I really do. I want to work to improve and will do. Unfortunately, a few feel ANI is the solution so I will have to leave it for the administrative ones to suggest the next steps. I will use my sandbox for any new articles and then use AfC or ping relevant editors to maybe input on my work? Before publishing DragonofBatley (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to allow enough time for uninvolved editors to examine the issues and weigh in, before we rush to say let's step back and see if he continues to accept feedback. There are some strange issues around a comment about ban evasion – it's possible that there was simply a no-problem rename, followed by an ill-considered joke, but I think it requires some closer examination: . There's also a matter of whether a CCI needs to be initiated. Those are both potentially serious matters, that should not be dismissed out-of-hand. I take the point about not wanting to burden AfC reviewers, but that just shifts the burden to other editors, rather than making the problems go away, and I don't think we should have to be cleaning it up in mainspace. And there seem to be repeated, serious concerns about content that fails verification when sources are examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made a number of suggestions about page creation restrictions in the discussion thread but as noted in reply their problems aren't limited to article creation (and I'd expect to see a shift to other problems with editing existing articles) and as noted above the AFC suggestion might overburden AFC. Maybe keeping the suggestion about only creating articles on civil parishes would be a good idea in other words going along with what Cremastra has suggested namely using userspace drafts instead of AFC or creating straight away. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I will do. So far we have I believe Dawley Hamlets, Great Dawley, Lawley and Overdale, Ketley, Oakengates, Wrockwardine, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench, Donnington, Madeley, Ironbridge Gorge and Wellington (which a few more articles could be added or made like for its church, notable suburbs etc) of course if they pass the AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Telford and Wrekin is a district that contains many parishes which the category contains but its not its self a parish so shouldn't be in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire. If there are not enough notable topics within a parish to have say 5 or so articles then consider just putting the articles we do have on places in the parish in the district's category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to that. @Crouch, Swale if you'd be willing to. I could work with you on your civil parishes list directly. Not to WP:Canvassing but if you feel say an article is likely notable for a page before I submit it to AfC? I will also help clean up categories. Is there just out of interest a reason why Category:Telford and Wrekin is not used for the civil parishes in its district? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley, to me, the biggest concern is the repeated instances noted in those discussions where the text you added wasn't supported by the sources that you cited. That's a big deal. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't address my question at all. Editors pointed out multiple instances where you wrote something then cited a source that didn't support what you wrote. How do you plan to address that problem? Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Plagiarism is not the issue. Could you please explain where to find Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy and what it means to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, definitely don't use Domesday as your reference for anything on Misplaced Pages, that's quite solidly original research. Old poems etc are also not secondary research - that would still be primary research. Secondary research is stuff by academics and so on about the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing from books, journals, newspapers/news, websites, maps etc are normally considered primary research. Secondary research means textbooks, other encyclopedia and analysis carried out by other websites/authors. So if I made an article for let us use an example here. Ercall near Wellington, Telford. I would of course make sure Infobox settlement is used for the box. Short description and main title. When it comes to sourcing. We would want history so I could use the Domesday Book commonly accepted for older settlements or an old Ordnance Survey National Map. Then when quoting events we want books or websites that mention these events or buildings. Then for administrative purposes a government or parish council website. When it comes to secondary sourcing. News articles notable events or transport. As well as textbooks that mention it or old poems, children books, folklore, songs notable etc could be secondary research and cited if they are correctly used. Sorry my fingers are hurting 😆 now typing on mobile. But then last ones are photos 📸 and maybe notable people or landmarks like churches manor houses town halls museums National sites or historic England offer a wide array of listed buildings and some backstop which could be used to further expand the inclusion of the article. That is the best I can offer for verify information on Misplaced Pages. I hope I have proved my best understandings DragonofBatley (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit more about what it means to verify information on Misplaced Pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Notability, WP:Geoland, WP:Verifiability (Make sure it is.notable, not original research, if it can be included and it is.neutral/cited sources) to me means make sure it is inclusive and notable enough to be given an entry or seperate article. Like for example London and City of London. One is the capital and a county. The other is a county and old settlement. Both notable for their history, culture and landmarks. Not notable would be say an article for Oxford and the City of Oxford. Since neither are any different from one an other except suburbs. That's my best comparison for understanding the policy. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: while you're taking a breather as @Tryptofish suggested, could you please write a response to my question and then post it here? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned above I will cite sources and aim to write ✍️ them without plagiarism happening. I'll make sure to.let other editors input before anything further happens with them. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- DragonofBatley has agreed to a voluntary editing restriction to publish all drafts through AfC, up to five at a time, enforceable by partial or site blocks. Does that restriction resolve the concerns raised here and in other discussions? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It strikes me as low, given that the only other editor of whom I'm aware of with a similar restriction is capped at 20. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the concerns raised in the discussions seem to be related to articles created by Dragon, rather than additions to existing articles, but I think the editors familiar with Dragon will clarify if that's wrong. I'm open to lowering the number. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many of the editors who have been involved in the prior discussions have not yet had an opportunity to respond here. Let's give it sufficient time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there issues of failed verification in content added to existing pages? Might the AfC number of five be too high? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I did answer your question on the policy. I hope it gives some understanding of my knowledge. If i need more researching into it. I will DragonofBatley (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked a second question. Could you please answer that one as well? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The overburdening of AFC is why I added the five or less restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- As noted above there are concerns that AFC is overburdened and might not catch the problems mentioned and some of the problems with DragonofBatley's contributions are not article creation but I think it would be worth giving it a try and see how it works. If there are further problems we can consider a different restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my proposal. The restriction is that you cannot have more than five active submissions at AfC at any given point in time. Once you have five drafts pending review, you would not be allowed to submit a new one until one of the five is reviewed or withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with the agreement. I'll also list on my talk page or username page. Potential articles for future reference and to see about creating. One more thing, the five at anytime. Is that a week or every fortnight? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but honestly, it's exhausting just keeping up with the rapidity and edit conflicts in this ANI thread. I suggest leaving it open long enough for a thoughtful examination, and I also suggest that DragonofBatley stop posting so many replies here for a while. I know it's stressful to have a complaint against oneself (even if self-initiated), but there needs to be breathing space for other editors to opine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: Are you willing to accept the proposal that you only be allowed to publish articles through AFC and that you can only have five active AFC nominations at any given time, and that if you violate either of those two restrictions, you may be blocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree to this. I have already completed one article for AfC for All Saints Church, Wellington. Hopefully this proves I am willing to accept using AfC and submitted one at any given time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve looked at a number of articles created by Dragon and they fail even the most basic sourcing requirements or standards. Unreliable sources and fabricated information from sources are the main issue there, and I don’t want to see any new articles being created until the 400+ old ones have been cleaned up. I would like to see a complete ban on creating any new articles, whether in user space, main space or at drafts until it can be proven that Dragon has the basic competence required to source properly - and the best place for that is cleaning up some of the crap he’s already produced. We have a good pathway of restricting the activity of editors guilty of serial copyright infringements, and this is a very similar set of problems that should face the same pathway of editing restrictions and activity management before we put too much of a burden on AfC or have too much other dross added to main space. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) KJP1 has made an offer on the talk page about a way forward, but I’ll let them repeat and clarify here here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see any Serial Copyright Infringements on my articles nor do I practice such things. I will not bombard replies but all I will say is maybe check out my new article created through AfC and see that I actually rushed nothing and sourced properly. Here you All Saints Church, Wellington. I will go back to my as you call them "crap" articles and fix what I can fix in due time. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a great point, you're right, @SchroCat. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I responded to @Voorts earlier questions and was told to avoid replying too much to avoid encumbering replies. I got asked questions and made use of articles I am familiar with and explained to the best of my abilities. I have answered what I can and if I haven't done enough. I do not know what more I can answer. Not because of my lack of acknowledging of errors or sourcing but every word of the guidelines in one. I answered what I am aware and familiar with WP:Geoland WP:Notability and WP:Sourcing. Also conflict edit was not directed at @SchroCat, there was another editor somewhere bringing up an accusation i was causing CCI issues. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I would like to see them working on fixing a few of their articles: it will show whether they understand the requirements and that they have the ability/competence to fix it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I agree, I'm really concerned that not a single response by DragonofBatley indicates that they understand source/text integrity. Their answers to direct questions on this issue consistently deflect to other issues. If they don't understand the verifiability problems with their articles, they can't fix them. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that you abrogating your responsibility by saying that "If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help". you need to be much more proactive in the process both to save the work of others in clearing up problems you have created, and to prove that you do have the competence required to continue editing here. For a start I would want to see no new articles from you, nor any new content created until the 400+ articles you have created have all been vetted and fixed (fixed by you and confirmed as vetted by someone other than you). (This 400+ is not all the articles: it's just the ones you created from scratch and doesn't include those you turned from redirect to article: I will guarantee that almost all of those will have major sourcing concerns, based on the sample of ten articles of yours I've looked at recently). KJP1 provided a possible routemap for you to follow in clearing up your mess; the only change I would make from that is to remove the ability for you to work on any other articles except ones you have already created or expanded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed to a lot of other things haven't I?. If they want to (editors) bring to my talk page any articles needing possible addressing and offer to help. I am happy with that but I would still like to be able to create new articles with AfC while doing so. I made one as I already linked and it is well edited. A bit of additions and fixes but otherwise good. I can but if I could ask for a sub section for any articles needing immediate addressing as multiple headings each time make my talk page over encumbered to work down and with. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Do you actually properly read what people write, or do you only hit on specific words and base a response on that? If the latter, it would explain why much of your output is so wildly at odds with the source material. You need to re-read my comment again properly and look at where you think I have accused you of being a serial copyright infringer, because I haven’t. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I worry about AfC. Yes, Dragon's All Saints Church, Wellington was approved by an AfC reviewer ... who themself copied in, unacknowledged, text from Listed buildings in Wellington, Shropshire and failed to make the references work. They also removed the wrong one of two "References" sections, leaving Refs after Ext links, and put the church into the wrong category (Grade II listed churches.., instead of grade II* ...). Yes, I know those of us who don't offer to take on the work of AfC should be careful about criticising those who do, but this is a bit disappointing.
- And Dragon's version as submitted to AfC also includes linked centuries, an Easter Egg link in the "See also", and some pretty clunky prose, before we get on to any issues of verifiability. PamD 09:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon, SchroCat is saying that we should create a process for you to fix the verifiability issues in your articles with guidance from experienced editors before you continue to create new ones. Would you agree to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 05:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a much better solution than mine, if there are editors willing to guide Dragon through that process. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The issues are Verifiability and source integrity; Notability; and the suggestion of Sockpuppetry while under a block/ban. My apologies that my reference to "somewhere similar" to CCI muddied the waters. AGF'ing that the two instances where DragonofBatley said they were operating under a ban were "jokes/roleplaying", that leaves Notability and Verifiability. The first's more of a judgement call. Some editors, I'm one, may think that readers would be better served if the articles DragonofBatley has created on sub-parish units, wards/suburbs/business parks etc., were merged into "parent" articles but others may see value in them and they may pass GNG. Which leaves Verifiability.
Multiple editors have identified multiple instances where the sources DragonofBatley used did not/do not support the content they have written. I can provide diffs but I think everyone commenting has seen the examples given on DragonofBatley's Talkpage. Three more can be seen here, Talk:All Saints Church, Wellington, which they created via AfC this morning. What we haven't seen is an explanation from DragonofBatley as to how these errors occurred. Even if there was no intent to damage the 'pedia's credibility, such carelessness raises Competency issues. For me, it demonstrates they cannot create appropriate articles without support. I think that point is accepted by most/all commenting here, including DragonofBatley. I would therefore support a requirement that, for a period, all future articles they want to create must go through AfC. I'd also support a limitation on numbers, to assist colleagues reviewing at AfC.
That leaves the 400+ articles they have created to date. I am 100% certain some will contain sourcing errors. I have already found three that do in a spot check. My own view is that resolving these existing errors, for the benefit of readers and for our own credibility, should take precedence over DragonofBatley's desire to create new articles. I think this process should involve him - as a demonstration of commitment and as a learning opportunity. I am willing to help him in this and I'm confident we can work out a process. How all of that could be simply expressed in an ANI decision, I'm less sure. Sincere apologies for the length of this response. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- At this point in the discussion, I find myself sharing the concern already expressed by SchroCat above, that DragonofBatley is giving answers here that do not give confidence that he really understands the issues. This makes me very reluctant to agree to further article creation in mainspace, or to submission through the AfC process (because that would just transfer the burden to AfC reviewers). I like the idea of him having to, first, demonstrate that he can fix existing problems in content he already created. I'm leaning towards putting him under a complete ban against new page creation, until after he demonstrates competence in those fixes. I could also support having an experienced editor (not me!) act as a formal mentor, who would review and pre-approve his article creation, instead of AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This issue began with erroneous citations being used to support content in Dragon’s articles. Despite being asked here and elsewhere, I’m not seeing where Dragon has even acknowledged, yet alone explained this. Either Dragon doesn’t comprehend - a competence issue - or is being evasive. Dragon’s response appears to shift responsibility to other editors to find and fix existing problems and only once notified will Dragon get involved. Not good enough. Dragon should be proactive and help set a schedule to voluntarily self-review and fix. Sadly, Dragon’s replies don’t inspire confidence. Goodwill and trust needs to be rebuilt and demonstrated in a practical manner. I’d support a restriction on article creation for a minimum of three months, while problems with their existing articles are resolved. At the end of this period Dragon can appeal and hopefully resume article creation under supervision of an experienced editor, who would review before publication. If all goes well, Dragon can eventually regain the right to article creation without oversight, but at present this seems some way off. Don’t see the need for any restriction on Dragon’s general editing at this juncture. Rupples (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, I am just trying to understand not with yourself @Rupples or @Voorts. You two have been very patient and understanding. I was more trying to engage a reply with @Schazjmd and @SchroCat's earlier remarks above. But there seems to be an issue with building reply after reply so I am hoping now they can see the section around here and on my user page. I do not like to announce disabilites but I want to put them forward to hopefully engage some understanding that some of the edits or replies I have made are not out of spite or trolling. Just sometimes it can be hard and I try to open up where appropriate. Now is the best time as I am getting a lot of things to read and feel Voorts solution was enough to agree to. Also I am not looking to fall out with editors or make a war and peace. Just asking for some understanding aside from addressing other issues too. That is all. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dragon has created articles on notable topics that are valued and I'm not suggesting otherwise. Infact, the opposite. I welcome the opportunity to expand some of Dragon's creations and have done so, including a couple that have come up at AfD. Rereading my analogy, it comes across as not altogether appropriate, but Dragon replied to my previous comment with what I interpreted as an announcement of disability issues much more severe than I realised plus a "you don't understand or care or are listening", but maybe I've got that wrong. Anyway, I've put forward my view and will leave it there. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley, the editors responding here value your ability to find notable topics and start articles about them. We are tryig to find a way to accommodate your disabilities while making sure that other editors don't need to spend too much time fixing mistakes that you make. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley. Allow me to present and expand upon my previous comment with an analogy. Suppose someone with a disability volunteered and was accepted to work in a charity (thrift) shop. This person was interviewed and thought capable of operating the cash till and servicing customers. It transpired however that the volunteer was making mistakes by not giving the correct change and was upsetting customers due to their disability. The charity being a caring organisation didn’t want to dismiss the volunteer, but in the meantime had to take steps to protect its interests. An alternative position was found for the volunteer in the less customer facing role of receiving donations and organising stock. At the same time help and support was given to the volunteer, with a view of a possible return to their previous role, should capability problems be overcome. It may not come across to you this way, but all the editors here are of the caring sort and are taking into account your disability/limitations (if I can put it that way) but the immediate priority must be to protect the project from further harm and put right existing issues. Rupples (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- And without being a douche. Maybe some editors need to educate themselves in Austism, Aspergers and cognitive disability. These are what i suffer from and maybe some will see that I am actually not meaning to be an issue or a parasite. Im meaning to contribute but i feel these three articles best explain my maybe odd behaviours and slight issues with writing at times. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if i cannot inspire confidence. Im on spectrum quite severly so confidence is not something i can write up to inspire trust. I have apologised enough and it seems it is all falling on deaf ears. I have agreed to listen and work but is anyone actually noting that? Or is there some ignoring feelings from editors. Maybe burnout or tiredness? I cannot comprehend emotions or feelings of others on the otherside of a monitor. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been tagged above and intend to write a response. This thread was started at night where I live and I am travelling today and tomorrow for work, so have had very little time to consider a response. Do not feel obliged to keep this open for me - my thoughts are largely present at KPJ1's talkpage discussion; I will probably add concerns around understanding what a reliable source is in addition to the WP:V and WP:N concerns already raised. If this discussion is still open tomorrow evening, I will try to find the time to respond properly. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC).
- As stated above, my thoughts are present at KJP1’s talk page. In sum, I have seen three discernible issues: (1) content quality issues; (2) civility and general conduct; and (3) potential sock-puppetry. I will leave out (3) as others seem content to discount that and I note he has repeatedly denied evading a ban.
- There is emerging consensus here that there have been multiple and repeated issues with Dragon’s lack of adherence to core policies including verifiability. I would take this a step further. Misplaced Pages exists to be the sum of knowledge, by which we mean its sole purpose is to accurately summarise reliable (secondary) sources whatever and wherever they are about, dispassionately: we let the sources do the work for us. This protects us, it gives us integrity and it defines our purpose and scope. Policies like V, N, OR, SIGCOV and RS all stem from that basic maxim and implement it in practice: if there’s no good sources, we can’t write about it; if we don’t cite our sources, we’re useless; if the sources are not good then we can’t be trusted either; if we’re adding our research, we’re not summing knowledge, we’re making it. Dragon’s issues with verifiability are to me a symptom of a wider problem he has when it comes to understanding what this project is, what a reliable source is and how to use it to write an article. In my view, his articles exhibit issues with not just verifiability but all of those other policies I’ve mentioned. Not all the articles, to be clear - he’s added useful content too and I recognise that - but certainly even those good things can often be caveated by issues with prose, sourcing or verifiability. The answers he has given above suggest to me that he still has only a partial understanding of the core maxim and the policies mentioned above. I think this then combines with what Yngvadottir calls issues with reading comprehension, and the carelessness and hasty edits Pam and others have documented. It’s a bad mix replicated over many hundreds of articles. This is not just a few instances and nor is it new: these concerns have been raised on his talk page and elsewhere dozens and dozens of times, and I imagine more issues are out there. It won’t change unless Dragon can grasp what this project is and how editing should be done.
- Additionally, though of secondary importance, Dragon has often tended to respond badly to criticism or challenges. He has a sharp temper and has a tendency to take offence lightly and to perceive editors as ganging up on him, trying to silence him or persecute him. Some of his edits to his userpage have been particularly inappropriate, including one where he incited violence. I think his combative approach to challenge has not helped him to deal with the issues above.
- For all these reasons, I would have been minded to call for an indef block had Dragon not cooled down and shown what I believe is a genuine desire to improve. In recent days, he has taken a more measured tone, slowed down his edits and agreed to go through AfC. He has engaged mostly constructively here. I am mindful that he has created notable content, edits in good faith, and claims to have a number of cognitive disorders which may explain some of his behaviour. I am mindful that this has probably been a very draining and difficult period for him; we are all human. So my view is that he needs to work with others to clean up his existing contributions, understand what WP is and our core policies, slow down, check his work, use sandboxes, drafts and AfC for new content and only create new content that has been approved by others. There ought to be a time limit on this. I would suggest that breaching these requirements in the meantime be sanctionable by a block. At the end of this time, if Dragon can demonstrate competence, then that’s great. However, this needs to be a final warning in my view: further sustained and pervasive issues with core content policies or civility should result in either topic bans or, regrettably but I think most appropriately, an indef. I don’t want to see it get there - I know this is important to him. But we need to protect this project at the end of the day. Thanks, -Noswall59 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've added my thoughts below -- I'm broadly supportive of it. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- Do you have thoughts on the proposal below? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(I wasn't pinged here, but I had been at User talk:DragonofBatley.) DragonofBatley has been at this noticeboard before, in a section they started in May 2023, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked. PamD stated there that they became aware of DragonofBatley's edits in 2021 and had since been checking and fixing them and trying to advise DragonofBatley. It emerged that others had been trying to advise and assist them, in particular Crouch, Swale. There was further discussion at their talk page (including overly verbose advice from me, I was trying to be clear) and the editor mulling whether to leave. (their talk page in July 2023). I gather that they did not leave, but that their editing has continued to be poor and the number of editors noticing this, trying to help, and discussing the problem has increased further. It pains me to say so, but I think at this point WP:CIR has to be seriously considered. DragonofBatley's editing presents a number of problems that are taking up a lot of editorial time to fix resulting damage to the encyclopaedia. (Points that follow in descending order of importance to me.)
- Poor understanding of sources leading to inaccuracy. An example from PamD on their user talk recently: 'Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".' Their problem responding to the questions about sourcing earlier may be related; DragonofBatley appears to have problems with reading comprehension. That's a serious competency issue for what we do here.
- Poor understanding of what's significant. PamD notes ill-judged removal of referenced content here calling it "irrelevant". At User talk:KJP1, PamD also notes: 'A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article St Peter and St Paul Church, Caistor, as he left it, cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.' I disagree with PamD that that's a recent development, although they've got better at finding such sources. DragonofBatley writes about churches that are listed buildings without focussing on their architecture. In their most recent creation, All Saints Church, Wellington, the entire Architecture section was added by other(s). However, their church articles always contain something like
The church serves as a local landmark and place of worship and community gatherings.
sourced to achurchnearyou.com, often as a separate "Present day" section. DragonofBatley's version of All Saints' Church, Batley (which appears to be their first church article, from December 2020, after some 50 previous article creations mainly on stations) had this as its entire prose:All Saints Church is an active Parish Church in the town of Batley, Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Built in 1485 and been an active place of worship for Christians since before 1086. The church is located on Stocks Lane. Near to the town centre, the church is the main parish church of the town and local suburbs.
(And the infobox called this 15th-century church, restored in the 19th century, "Gothic revival"). (I spent quite a bit of time in 2023 fixing up some of these articles, including clearly distinguishing St Augustine of Canterbury, Rugeley and St Augustine's Church, Rugeley, both ineptly created by DragonofBatley.) - Very slow to learn. I don't know how many times editors, not just PamD, told DragonofBatley that just reversing the order of "km" and "mi" in the convert template, as here, was a fasification, not a correction, and drew their attention to the parameter for flipping the order. (That instance was linked at the earlier AN/I, by someone who was not PamD.)
- Tends to be careless: they have a history of unintentional red links and other errors that should have been caught on preview. I have the impression they are still overreliant on others fixing their articles.
There are also attitudinal problems; they react badly to criticism (I note Liz has given them a bit of advice on their talk page arising from this AN/I), and this preemptive self-report, and its wording, is not exemplary conduct. Being on the spectrum is something shared by many Misplaced Pages editors, and I've risen to the defence of several, but it's not a universal protective shield. I see improvement since 2023, and if it were just that they want to write articles about electoral wards and parish councils, a restriction to use AfC would deal with that poor judgement about notability. But the problems with DragonofBatley's edits go beyond notability and beyond their article creation and informal mentorship and personal commitments and promised self-restrictions have been tried before, to little or no avail. When all's said and done, I don't think someone who after 4 years misunderstands written sources as badly as in that Woods Bank instance (at the end of this edit, which was made as in November 2024) should be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Many editors have been understanding and constructive and helpful, but enough's enough, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree about the self-report; it shows at best strong integrity and honesty and at the unlikely very worst a self-interested desire to get the first word in. Cremastra (u — c) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of the editors who you've quoted in support of your argument for an indef have been actively supportive of giving DoB another chance in this very thread or in the recent threads that were linked to at the beginning of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to point to WP:Zeroth law of Misplaced Pages: "On Misplaced Pages, the zeroth law is that good editors are the most valuable resource. Some would say the articles – but it takes good editors to write articles." Even more valuable when the editor in question is prolific at creating content. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, prolific creation of content is valuable if, and only if, it is good content. It is not valuable if it is incorrect because the editor has misunderstood sources, and is less valuable if it is poorly sourced because the sources shown do not support the material in the article, or is so clumsily written so that other editors feel they need to spend time cleaning it up (eg a red link for a UK parliament constituency, because the disambiguator was typed wrongly).
- I've been slow to contribute to this debate, although I contributed at length in the recent discussions at User_talk:KJP1#Dragon and Special:Permalink/1268766779#Source/text_integrity, and have had a lot of previous interactions with Dragon which led to, I think, my only appearance at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.
- I find it difficult to see the way forward. Dragon enjoys editing. He edits prolifically, and with good intent. He likes creating new articles, although I disagree with him over the notability of some of his topics, where he wants to create articles on ill-defined "suburbs" or on local authority electoral wards, where there is very little which can be usefully and interestingly said and well sourced, or on the "built up areas" which are used for government purposes but are otherwise pretty meaningless. (Minor disused UK railway stations are a different issue: I think there's a consensus that adequate sources probably exist, but if he can't actually find good sources to cite he should perhaps hold off and leave them to someone who has a shelf-full of printed books to use to source the articles). I would not want us to deprive him unnecessarily of the joy of editing.
- Not all his controversial edits are in the creation of new articles: he has added multi-image "collages" in infoboxes of many articles where other editors have not always agreed with his choice, or number, of images; he removes "subjective" terms like "large" or "small" from leads (although the FA for Chew Stoke, which is also the example of a lead in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, starts "Chew Stoke is a small village ...": Dragon can't have spotted that one); he removes unsourced text which has been in place for many years, rather than tagging it as {{cn}} (I know, opinions on that one differ). And there has been a lot of carelessness, a lot of failure to heed advice.
- Perhaps the disabilities Dragon has recently mentioned contribute to a failure to learn or understand, in which case we sadly need to consider whether he is able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia. A couple of recent instances look as if he has read a few words and made assumptions - removing a church as "not relevant" to a village because it was built elsewhere before being rebuilt in the village, and taking an 87% increase in housing stock as making a place "one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands" rather than as an area of overcrowding and squalor.
- The idea of looking at his previous article creations and checking their sourcing and notability seems reasonable. Many of those articles will already have been cleaned up and further developed by other editors, to a greater or lesser extent. I and other editors spent time yesterday fixing and upgrading his latest creation, All Saints Church, Wellington (which had the added complication of a careless AfC reviewer who created broken refs while adding unacknowledged copied material).
- It's tempting to go for the simple option and say that Dragon has been given enough chances, has demonstrated ongoing failure to learn and take advice, and should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia. But I hope we can come up with a different outcome which will allow him to continue editing while learning how to do things better and, above all, to check and double-check all his work, as he has promised to do in the past. (Are all my references good and informative refs, with as specific a link as possible, to sources which actually support the text I have written? Do all the links go to articles not dab pages? Are there any unexpected red links which should be blue? Have I remembered not to link years or centuries? Have all my sentences got a verb? etc) I'm not sure that the standard AfC process is careful enough to catch all the problems which can occur in Dragon's article creations.
- Sorry for the wall of text. I'm not sure how we should go forward, but am glad to see a wider discussion of this editor's contributions. PamD 22:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that's a very thoughtful analysis. And I think we are approaching a consensus against a total ban/block. But I also think it helps move us to a good outcome for me to argue against placing so much emphasis on not "depriv him unnecessarily of the joy of editing", insofar as we need to consider the point at which he stops being "able to contribute as a net positive to the encyclopedia." So I think that if we firm up the details of the editing restriction proposal below, that will be the right way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft proposed editing restriction/cleanup work
I think there's some consensus here that some sort of editing restriction is needed. (I never logged the AFC editing restrictions that I proposed and I don't think that there's consensus that those are adequate anyways.) In particular, it seems that editors feel that DoB should be required to review his old contributions under the guidance of experienced editors and show a better grasp of WP:V and WP:RS before returning to article creation. If some of the editors who have worked with DoB are willing to structure such a cleanup project and work with DoB on it, I propose formalizing the editing restriction, appealable in six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got some experience of CCI investigations, so I'd suggest we treat it something like that - recognising that the focus isn't plagiarism, but sourcing. I can set up a table of the 400-odd articles that need reviewing in a sandbox , with some Decisions/Actions columns - OK / Revise and Keep / Merge / Second Opinion / AfD / etc. Then DragonofBatley and I can agree a process to work through them, hopefully with some help from other interested editors. Given the number, I think reviewing them all within six months is achievable. That would then give DragonofBatley demonstrable evidence of improvement on which they could base an appeal for a lifting of restrictions on new article creation. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 9 posts above this, in KJP1's post, there's a link to "400-odd articles". Is that what you're looking for? PamD 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, not here per say but on my talk page. Please because I don't know how to find it. Could I get a link to all my articles (Every single one of them I believe were in a big table listed), Then I can go through each one and work on the ones needing attention? I am not sure how to find them without going back through my contributions history which will take forever to do. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an option on the table for you to continue putting anything through AFC or creating any more articles at all (even changing from a redirect to a full article) without first spending time tidying up the mess of your earlier works. I think you need to understand that people are not sure whether you can be trusted to write anything within the confines of the requirements of sourcing. You need to be able to prove that on your earlier work before you work on anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not saying I'm quitting or going under the radar but the amount of disruption I'm causing and the amount of differing opinions proves I'm fairly unpopular amongst editors and if i am nuisance. Ill stick to downlow edits and articles still being passed as agreed. I wanted to contribute I really do but if my disabilites are an obstacle which should be worded carefully per the disability act. If a site ban is lingering over me. You got to understand it from my perspective and how i conceive it as a threat and a flatline of my entire editing time on here. Even with just cause reasons. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest. I'm gonna just maintain a small commitment now. I have made a subsection on my page which @PamD has pointed out a couple of not needing an article. I will consider them as not something to focus on and maybe revisit them at a later time to consider. If it's a last chance, it's something I'm gonna have to downgrade. I'll just stick to my own page and sandbox. If I remove redirects I'll see if theres enough for an article for AfC or I'll send it as seperate and if accepted on good grounds. The redirect can be then merged to that article. Of course I'll not remove it but please do note. I am going to be taking a long term occasional editing spree. I've made some to a few AfD and CN. But I have to be honest lost my motivation to continue editing. I appreciate the options and proposals offered but if I'm going to end up likely getting site banned. It's just not worth me being too involved if i am close to basically having my enjoyment halted with one misstep not intentionally caused but is and I'm then blocked because of it. I'm 😕 sorry but that is just how i feel. Ill just stay on a down low and sometime submit an article to AfC. Ill work on a new one and some old ones this week and then ill be downgrading completely my contributions going forward. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree with this: a structured clean-up approach which also supports Dragon and allows him to demonstrate an improved understanding of our core policies + the formal editing restrictions proposed. I do edit in these areas and would be happy to help from time to time, but I simply don't have the capacity due to IRL things for me to make a formal commitment to this cleanup work (as my slow response time here demonstrates). I agree with Tryptofish's last comment: this has to be a last chance now: failure to make progress should probably lead to a site ban. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
- In addition, there should probably be an element of last-chance/WP:ROPE in this, in that a failure to make progress would lead to consideration of a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. PamD 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing something very similar, and I'm glad that voorts thought of it before I got here. I'm the wrong person to be supervising the cleanup, but editors above would have my support. If we were to finalize a formal restriction, it should include a ban on new articles except in userspace or draft space, one or more supervising editors identified by name while cleanup of old contributions is ongoing, and no lifting of the ban without a consensus to do so at AN or ANI. I'd happily support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am an interested editor. Cremastra (u — c) 13:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
voorts - Is it possible to close this one up? There's been a full airing of views, there looks to be a discernible consensus, and there's a fair amount of remedial work needed. It would be good to wrap it up with a decision so that work could begin. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Me replying, even though you didn't ask me. I think we need to get this into the form of an actual proposal, with actual language, because it will have to be logged. I'll offer to write it, but I'd first like to get some clarity as to which editor(s) are offering to be responsible for the mentor/reviewer role. (Or maybe I'll just draft those editors who were the most reluctant to sanction. Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- How's this draft proposal: DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Needs to explicitly include creation of new articles which replace existing redirects.
- Having seen Dragon's work on Holme Lacy yesterday (removed the "See also" which was the only link to the nearby and eponymous grade I listed church; replaced sensible coords with overprecise ones; added a second "References" heading; left a category lacking a closing bracket) I'm pessimistic about his promises of future careful editing.
- And sorry, no, I'm not going to volunteer to have a named responsibility in sorting out the mess: I'll just chip in as and when. PamD 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cremastra - I've worked up a table as a basis for reviewing the articles, and Rupples and I have tried a few out. So as not to clutter up this discussion, I'll post details on your Talkpage. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hold on. This goes much further than @Voorts wording. Thought there was more or less consensus on restricting article creation, in whatever form. Why the (sudden?) widening of the proposed restriction to editing in mainspace? Rupples (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
- No creation of new articles or drafts, including overwriting redirects
- No expansion of articles (defined how? What if he adds 25 words and removes 20, or 30?)
- No editing in mainspace.
- PamD 16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to consider 3 options which have been suggested:
- In my case, it's because Dragon has been demonstrating today that he appears not to be able to edit without making substantial careless mistakes, as at Trafford. I've lost patience. PamD 16:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. @KJP1 what are we going for in the cleanup project? The CCI-thing suggested above with a list of articles created, or something different? Cremastra (u — c) 14:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that. And thanks to everyone here. I think we need to make these tweaks: "DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace and submitting drafts to AfC, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created or previously converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)." I've tried to close any loopholes there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- So perhaps: "Dragon is indefinitely restricted from editing in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he created or converted from a redirect. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, ... " PamD 09:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question PamD. To clarify, I meant any expansion, even a tiny one, and that’s for userspace or mainspace. To my mind—and others may well differ on this point—the only editing DoB should be doing anywhere on WP is either cleaning up his old articles (under supervision), or liaising with the relevant people about that clean-up. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked further at Dragon's edits of today, I'm moving towards supporting a ban on all edits beyond the cleanup operation. The collage he added to Trafford, never mind the (to my mind) questionable choice of images, had the captions in the wrong order, even after he had "corrected" the collage. I think we could at this point collectively lose our patience with his careless editing. PamD 09:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What constitues "expansion"? Does it include: Adding an infobox? Adding a few words about local authority area? Adding a "collage" which replaces one clear photo of the town hall with a trio of images dominated by a football crowd? A tight definition is needed to avoid any ambiguity. PamD 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, but I’d widen slightly to say no new articles in draft space or user space, nor any expansion of articles which he did not create from afresh or expand from a redirect. That will focus the activity on clean up, rather than it only being a smaller proportion of their activity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, it covers the issues editors have flagged and I’m fine with the reference to myself. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I only added KJP1 and Cremastra because they seem to have affirmatively volunteered, but of course they'd have to agree to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we can have !voters choose from amongst options. I'm not going to include the no expansion rule because I don't think that's really workable. If this is to everyone's satisfaction, I will start a survey where involved and uninvolved editors can weigh in.DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
- Option A: DragonofBatley may not publish new articles to mainspace, convert redirects to articles, or submit drafts to AfC.
- Option B: DragonofBatley may not edit in mainspace, except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded.
- Option C: DragonofBatley may not edit in any namespace except to make corrections and improvements to articles he previously created, previously converted from a redirect, or significantly expanded, or to liaise with editors assisting him in correcting or improving those articles.
- The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- p.s. Trafford this morning is a good example of this; I wanted him to be able to identify/correct the errors that had been introduced. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question: does option C prohibit DragonofBatley from commenting/!voting on articles they've created at AfD discussions? Rupples (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1 and @Rupples: option C amended below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good, and unthought-of, point. I think they should be able to do so, as the article’s author, and because there will be lots of learning. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I'd favour C, but B and C are really the same. Cremastra and I will need to talk with DragonofBatley, on his Talkpage, on ours, and on the Talkpages of articles we're jointly reviewing, for this to work and for it to achieve both objectives - address any issues in the articles and improve DragonofBatley's editing skills. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I made some changes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should option C also include a clause allowing Dragon to respond if he is mentioned in any discussion in WP space (thinking of ANI, AN, AIV, SPI, ... )? PamD 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that is probably a given and doesn't really need to be spelled out. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think those options nicely sum up the two approaches; the more-generous one which allows mainspace editing of existing articles; and the tighter one that restricts them to working only on those 400+ existing articles that they created (here, I think we'd need SchroCat's caveat about "liaising with the relevant people about the clean-up"). I will work with either approach, as consensus determines, but would personally favour Option B. I appreciate that this is the tougher option, but having seen the three, admittedly minor, errors that DragonofBatley introduced this morning into Trafford, a Featured article, I do not think they can currently edit appropriately without support. I am really hoping that their involvement in the clean-up work will give them the necessary competence to do so in the future. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: DragonofBatley editing restriction(s)
| Proposal jumped the gun, no consensus. |
|---|
|
DragonofBatley (talk · contribs) is subject to the following indefinite editing restriction(s):
The restriction(s) may be appealed in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Uninvolved editors
Involved editors
|
Discussion
- I think I would be happier if:
- there was a restriction on userspace editing too - limiting them only to work connected to the clean-up (allowing rewrites of sections, slowly building up sections and sources before rewriting something in the list of 400).
- I'd also be happier if the end sentence from above was used: "
This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley successfully participates in a clean-up project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs).
" This should both focus the activity solely onto the clean-up, and also make DoB prove to people that he is both willing and capable of writing decent content. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need to restrict userspace editing. This would allow them to create pages that would help show that they can create suitable articles. If there are later problems then it can be added but otherwise poor quality drafts in userspace are generally harmless. Is there evidence of problems here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because at the moment there are at least a couple of hundred articles that are sub-standard crap and getting him to focus on cleaning those up is important (rather than leave them for everyone else to tidy up while yet more rubbish is churned out in userspace). A temporary hold on article creation in userspace is no great loss to them and will save a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that the restriction needs to include Category space as well, to protect the encyclopedia from the creation of unnecessary categories, which could then be added to articles Dragon has himself created. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. If we expect Dragon to concentrate on the cleanup project, we need to curb his enthusiastic creation of categories (and perhaps template, navboxes, portals, anything else which no-one thought to include ...). PamD 11:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1 and Cremastra: Another element for the cleanup project: where an article has been created at a disambiguated title, it should be added to the relevant dab page (or a hatnote made from base title). Dragon hasn't been in the habit of doing so.| – Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be happier if everyone would wait to get all of these details worked out, before posting and !voting on new proposals. At this rate, we are chasing our tails, with new proposals coming out as soon as someone objects to something, and then there's an objection to the objection. This is frustrating, and not getting us anywhere. And instead of !voting on how stringent the restrictions need to be, let's try to get consensus on how stringent they need to be.
- Some editors are still saying that we can be fairly loose with how Dragon can edit in mainspace. Personally, I feel like all the evidence I've seen points against that, and I hope that those editors will come around to changing their minds. We have a ton of evidence of edits that cause harm in mainspace, in our reader-facing content, and it's more important, I think, to get that under control, than to hope for the best based on Dragon's enthusiasm for editing. Anyone who disagrees with that, please provide evidence to support your view.
- I also see some arguments that it is, supposedly, unfair to have too many AfDs going at one time. I'm not buying that. We cannot restrict other editors from filing more AfDs. If there's a community consensus to delete, then that should be that. Again, what stays in mainspace, or doesn't, matters more than giving some special consideration that would outweigh consensus.
- I think it's getting clear that we also need to restrict him from editing category space, and that the supervised cleanup needs to be deemed "successful". As for userspace, I agree with restricting against new content creation in userspace (essentially: no userspace drafts, as well as no AfC drafts), but I think other uses of userspace, including user talk, and using the space as a sort of scratchpad for the supervised cleanup, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The user demonstated enough maturity and will to take criticism and improve. Yes, him being neurodivergent makes that harder to accomplish, but he just wants to contribute; stop killing his enthusiasm and help him improve instead. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for those very constructive thoughts. I appreciate what you are saying. I know KJP1 very well, and I have high confidence in both him and Cremastra to provide exactly the kind of guidance you recommend. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Est. 2021 He's had quite a lot of both time and guidance already. PamD 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I totally get your good faith, but as a neurodivergent myself I can also assure you I got involved in many problems as well, back in the day, mostly related to the intermittent explosive disorder. We really struggle with that. I even got indef-blocked on it.wiki because I editwarred a biased admin about Crimea, lol (yeah, I would do that again). Yet I learned and improved, and many years later... here I am, a useful contributor of Misplaced Pages projects, with tens of thousands of contributions behind. He can get here as well, just give him time (and guidance). – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hear you, about the importance of being inclusive, I really do. And nobody here is trying to kill his enthusiasm: just look at how much discussion is going into crafting a fair decision that takes ample care of our reader-facing content without overly restricting this editor. But we have very many editors who are neurodivergent, and most of them do not cause as many problems. And our readers should not have to make allowances for the personal issues of any editor – WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY also apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd agree the debate is getting a bit lost in the weeds. Are there not basically two views? I think there is agreement that we don't currently want new articles being created, either directly or through AfC, until clear evidence of improvement, gained through engagement in reviewing the 400+ already created, is presented at appeal. Some think that is sufficient, and editing in mainspace should otherwise be permitted, while others favour limiting editing in mainspace to the 400+, and to any related discussions, with others editors involved in clean-up/at AfD/etc. If that is the main point of difference, my suggestion would be that we err on the side of leniency and allow other editing in mainspace. If that proves problematic, we can always come back here. I think there is great benefit in reaching agreement, and enabling Cremastra, myself and others to begin working with DragonofBatley on reviewing the 400+. That will enable them to demonstrate their commitment, give solid evidence as to their ability to learn and to improve their editing, and clean-up the articles for the benefit of readers. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That’s a good summary of how I see things too. If leniency is the path, I think we’ll be back here soon. Recent editing while this thread has been going on shows a lot of new problems being created but no progress on the clean up. I think we’re likely to see as many problems being created as are being sorted, but I’ll bow to the consensus if it goes that way. SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KJP1, I have started to engage with your sandbox you tagged me. I can see some already noted and some already seeing afd afm and redirect. I think you'd be better off tagging me more for articles needing a clean up desperately than ones being afd and confirmed as notable. Ill engage with that sandbox as its on my Watchlist and make necessary changes where needed. Not off a whim since your going back to the start of my time on this site. It'll offload my workload and help with afd and afm to discuss deletion or merging. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I, too, would like to move this towards a decision. It seems to me that the sticking point is over differing views about whether DoB should be placed under strict restrictions about editing, in order to control a history of negative effects upon our reader-facing content, or whether to allow DoB a greater amount of leeway in editing, based on his sincere desire to be a good contributor and consideration of his self-described status as neurodivergent. I think we need to go one way or the other on this, and once we do that, we can get to consensus. There's little point in editors repeating what we have already said, and going back and forth over that. I think we should look at the evidence we have, and seek a consensus – not unanimous consent, but WP:CONSENSUS. And nobody here is coming from a position of personal dislike of DoB, or wanting to get rid of DoB. We wouldn't be working so hard on crafting this, if that were the case.
- The editors, including me, who favor strict restrictions have provided a significant amount of evidence, based on edit history and continuing edits, to support that view. In my opinion, editors who oppose those restrictions are acting more out of a feeling, rather than based upon the actual characteristics of mainspace edits. At least, that's my opinion. I've been thinking hard about this, and it seems to me that stricter restrictions would provide DoB with structure while working to correct past mistakes and move forward into good editing status. And I believe structure to be A Good Thing. A lack of structure would actually make things more difficult. Structure (just until such time as the restrictions can be lifted) would be helpful. I really hope that we can agree on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm ND and lurking so I'm chime in.
- I was thinking of a short period of being restricted to fixing their articles (perhaps with a specific mentor) before being allowed more freedom to generally edit, then any other restrictions can be lifted over time?
- They've admitted that they have issues with sensory overload already, so having a tight focus on exact tasks with goals to aim for could be really helpful in this case. It will also ensure that the affected articles aren't left by the wayside, as there are so many of them.
- Having a visual list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed will also be a good motivator and incentive - another useful tool for ND editors.
- TLDR: I think we should aim for structure & focus on specific, clear tasks, with incentives for reaching certain goals. The best way to do this would be to restrict to fixing the articles then gradually expand the scope of editing over time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet
list of the articles, which is regularly updated to show which ones have been fixed
there's User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB. Cremastra (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- @Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not going to be a lot of fun and I'm sure that they are operating entirely out of good faith, but often ND brains don't care about our intent - when it's a problematic area or particularly complex, we have to be strict with ourselves to make sure we can actually get things done. If it won't cause problems I'd like to help if I can, I mainly gnome but I figure some help is better than none? I could also help with advice or support as a fellow ND editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cremastra Yes, exactly that, I noticed there was a list earlier! That'll be really useful for them going forwards, so I think that set goals based on that list will be really helpful & also help to rebuild trust and editing experience overall. Something like allowing typo correction on general articles after 25 have been fixed, citation checking at 50, AFC/AFD discussions at 50% complete? I've completely made those goals up but they're just an example of what I'm thinking of & they should be chosen by/discussed with @DragonofBatley - hopefully it's a feasible suggestion! Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Blue-Sonnet
- It would help if some uninvolved editors who are lurking can weigh in here. I am not currently seeing a consensus in this discussion. Just to note that I encouraged KJP1 to move forward with the clean-up project in the meantime. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Let's see this discussion closed with a decision, and then we can talk and agree an approach to review the articles together. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this should just be summarised to allowing me to edit my articles, work to fix, allow me to work on my sandbox and I'll edit within reason. This is getting a bit too Sensory overload for me and others now. Different proposals and stances. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles
Citation bot keeps adding incorrect dates to articles. I have counted that they have done it to 146 references across 8 articles. I posted a comment on User talk:Citation bot#Incorrect reference dates, however they readded the 26 dates I removed in addition to the another 120 incorrect dates after I posted the notice on the talk page. This behaviour is chronic and intractable. Another 34 were added by someone else, removed by me and but then Citation bot readded them.
Diffs:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11501903&diff=1269371926&oldid=1269300288
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&curid=78528489&diff=1269371606&oldid=1268421348 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=5th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=9911824&diff=1269374626&oldid=1268656609
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&curid=78284361&diff=1269377523&oldid=1269310383
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2nd_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=5152009&diff=1269388366&oldid=1268657559
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6th_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=11117778&diff=1269389565&oldid=1269066036
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&curid=1184147&diff=1269390737&oldid=1268415078 (These dates were originally added by someone else, removed by me, and readded by Citation bot)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=4th_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1269345172
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eves_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1258325773 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legend of 14 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair, I'm pointing that out because the report makes it come off as disruptive behavior from a user not heeding to talk page warnings. Either way I'll step back, as I was just noting that. EF 14:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that doesn't make it infallible. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is an automated process, and not a human. EF 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can add this to the page in question – {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} – or you can add this to a specific citation – {{cite web <!-- Citation bot bypass--> |last=Smith |first=John |year=2018 |...}} – to keep the bot away. See -- Stopping the bot from editing. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have gone through the 8 articles in question and added the suggested template. I also found out since posting the notice that Citation bot did the behaviour again with another 2 citations on Ludlow Massacre, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373. I also added the template to that article as well. But this is a problem, but it is very clear that articles aren't being proactively templated, nor should they have to be. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation Bot is an automated script that just does what people tell it to do. Who invoked the bot is in the edit summary. If someone repeatedly caused messes by invoking Citation Bot, explicitly refused to clean up those messes, and continued on over the objections of others, you'd have a case. But you'd have to show evidence of that in the form of a diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is not a user script, but rather an account. All users are accountable for the edits which they attach their names to, including bots. Here diffs showing certain dates added by citation bot were already added and removed:
- "All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account."
- -WP:Bot policy Legend of 14 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not relevant. You should be dealing with the person who is using the bot, not asking us just to sanction the bot itself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of these seem to have been invoked by Abductive, and involve misinterpreting the date when a politician was first elected as a citation date. Abductive, can you comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure you should be calling anyone a known alcoholic without a citation, but, anyway, thanks for your explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I can answer in the abstract. I ran the bot on Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. It appears that one of those unreliable primary sources was incorrectly set up by a Canadian government employee (Personal attack removed). Citation bot took the site at its word, and filled in the date as specified. Normally, Misplaced Pages editors file a bug report on Citation bot's talk page, and one of the maintainers will fix the problem (and usually make a special run of the bot to undo the damage). This takes something less than 100 hours, if I had to give an estimate. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have counted that Citation bot has added another 6 bad dates to 5 new articles:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaari_Zedek_Synagogue&oldid=1269639133
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=13th_Regiment_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=1269640054
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weeksville,_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=1269639369
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Prospect_Plaza_Houses&diff=prev&oldid=1269638875
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albert_Gurule&diff=prev&oldid=1269638493
- Current count: 14 articles, 154 bad dates.
- These edits were suggested by the following user:
- Legend of 14 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
- Total count: 15 articles, 155 bad dates. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yusuf_Zuayyin&diff=prev&oldid=1269657597 (Nothing to support January reference)
- Suggested by user:
- Counts: 16 articles, 156 bad dates Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is still about Citation bot. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because it is not necessarily an error. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Citation bot is litterally behind the diff in question. How can you say this has, "nothing to do with Citation bot". Legend of 14 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to recall that this issue has been brought up before--nothing to do with Citation bot, more of a general librarian thing, and January is given as the default. It is best to address these issues more generally rather than finding more examples which may not even be incorrect. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article. This one is really bad, since the right date was literally in the URL. I also have no idea how the bot got a date from a dead URL either. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Strange_Little_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=1269648525, suggested by User:Spinixster. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That source appears to be a dead website. There is no way to check the actual date in the metadata. (I am told that Citation bot checks the metadata of the source website.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found another bad date in another article:
You have given the operators less than one day to reply to you. This is insanely premature for an issue with one website (ola.org). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is also an issue with tps.cr.nps.gov. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludlow_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1269411373) 9 Articles, 148 errors after I posted on the talk page. If a user continues the same disruptive behaviour, especially to the extent Citation bot has, after a notice on their talk page, what else can I do? Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who active bots are expected to check the results to see if they are accurate, as they are often not. You can see here the first time the bot was run on the page, and the editor noticed the wrong dates and removed them, so it's unclear why Abductive thought it was a good idea to activate the bot on the same page and make the same mistakes, and then not check the bots edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot is not indispensable, neither are editors. Start checking your edits after using this bot, if that means you have to run smaller batches, then do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- "All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus."
- -WP:Bot policy
- WP:Citing sources is the relevant consensus in this case, and it wasn't followed. Don't use bots which you cannot or will not ensure they follow consensus. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you quote the part of WP:RS which you believe would justify the removal of the source in question in e.g. this diff? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find your attitude a little cavalier. You admit up above that your edits caused damage, bu then instead of volunteering to help clean up the mess you made, you think other editors should file reports, let the maintainers of the bot fix the issue, and then run the bot again and hope like hell it is accurate. How about just committing to cleaning up your mistakes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be best if the bad source was removed, per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. There is a very strong consensus that Citation bot is an important tool used to build the Encyclopedia, despite its occasional errors. Every now and then, users such as yourself get upset, but that is not constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: "editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports": No. YOU need to find and make the corrections rather than pushing the work off to other editors, because you are the one causing the work to need doing. When you make work for other editors, you are impeding the progress of the encyclopedia by taking away their time from other more useful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- While the original report was poorly aimed, this is ultimately a report about your use of the bot. Would be best to treat it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are the one who directed Citation bot to undertake the majority of the conduct described in the notice. You've been templated. Your conduct is being discussed here, as well as the conduct of Citation bot. The message for you is not to remove references from articles with onesource tags or sections of articles with onesource tags as is the case for the 8 articles you directed the bot to change, but rather to not direct bots to breach consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOTACC specifically says
The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator. To ensure compliance with WP:BOTCOMM, IP editors wishing to operate a bot must first register an account before operating a bot
. EF 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly.
I don't know about you but this sounds pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- 5th Parliament was NOT fixed before you got there. Someone added the deny template but did not undo the bot mistakes on the article. Abductive, as the editor responsible for those mistakes, please go through and undo them.
- As for "your general frustration with citation bot", please do not make ad hominem and incorrect assumptions about other editors' beliefs. In fact I think citation bot, when properly supervised, is very useful. 99% of the time it does the right thing, and many references in many of our articles are better because of it. But when it is doing the wrong thing 1% of the time, very many times per second, it can very quickly spread mistakes across the encyclopedia. That is why it needs to be properly supervised. If I am exhibiting any frustration here, it is not with the bot, but with the people who invoke it but do not properly supervise it and will not take responsibility for the problems they cause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- So fix them manually. You do know how to edit without using a bot, right?? Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what happened there. A user added the deny template but didn't undo the bot's edit. This makes it impossible for the bot to go back through after it has been updated and correct the errors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) moved down from the middle of the above comment (original diff). – 2804:F1...CF:5599 (::/32) (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5th Parliament of Ontario was fixed before I got there, by somebody adding the deny template. I suspect that you, due to your general frustrations with Citation bot, see a chance to effect change here. Best to work on those other concerns directly. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree with the issue being resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Legend_of_14-20250115180600-Legend_of_14-20250115175100. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks like a claim that you went back and fixed all the mess you made, but that was not the case. For instance, you had not fixed the first diff, on the 7th Parliament. I did it, after you added this comment. You still haven't fixed the one on the 5th Parliament. I haven't checked the others but I suspect more of your mess is still there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Check my most recent edits. It seems to me that this issue is now resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsupervised bot and script use has damaged thousands of articles. If anyone wants to pitch in and help fix 2022 deaths in the United States (July–December).... XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- We're into the second batch of ReferenceExpander edits to check and clean up. Yes, damage has persisted from 2022. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's what editors do. Again, I didn't say I wouldn't remove the bad source. But this ANI report was complaining about User:Citation bot, not User:Abductive. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I spot check sometimes. The work Citation bot does is indispensable, and more resources should be allocated to it. Until that happens, editors need to pitch in, remove faulty primary sources, make corrections, and file bug reports. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you check all 858 diffs personally, or even spot-check them? You are responsible for the bot edits you initiate and should not just run the bot blindly assuming it will be accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- With one request I ran the bot on all 858 pages in the Category:Articles lacking reliable references from January 2025. This is a maintenance category, and one should expect issues to arise sometimes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the problem of mass-bot usage without checking results is much bigger than just this user and bot. I filed a similar complaint to Whoop whoop pull up two weeks ago (read here) about mass-bot usage that was f***ing up, after which WWPU shirked their responsibility to check the results, pushed me to file a report about the bot, and said the bot owners would fix it (I don't believe that)—meanwhile they have continued to launch bot batches from top-level Categories affecting thousands of articles. Another user lodged a similar complaint to WWPU yesterday at User talk:Whoop whoop pull up § Checking IABot runs. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, what we seem to have here is that bot writers blame things on the people who invoke their bots, but that the person invoking it seems to pass the buck to the bot. Both should take reponsibility, not, as is the case here neither. Ever since the early days of Misplaced Pages we mere mortals seem to have had to worship at the altar of the infallible bot. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOTP is unclear about who counts as the "operator" of a bot available for use by any user through a public-facing interface; it appears to have been written with the assumption that the person who directs a bot to run will only ever be the same person who's developing and maintaining it.
- Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- WP:BOTACC says, in part, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, whose account must be prominently identifiable on its user page" (emphasis added), implying that who counts as the operator is the person(s) identified on its userpage (i.e., the user, or team thereof, who develop and maintain the bot).
- BOTACC also says "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator". If the bot's operator was the person directing it to run on one or more pages, then, for publicly-accessible bots, this would represent a shared account in violation of WP:ROLE. Now, ROLE does have a bot exception ("Role account exceptions can be made for approved bots with multiple managers", emphasis added), but the way that exception's worded seems to pretty-clearly imply that this's meant to apply to bots that're developed and maintained by a team of people (rather than ones that can be used by multiple people).
- Bots such as InternetArchiveBot and Citation bot were developed, and approved, with functionality allowing virtually any user to launch batch runs large enough (up to 5,000 pages at a time for IABot, with admins getting to run batches of up to 50,000 pages, and up to 3,850 pages at a time for Citation bot) to make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots (especially given that these bots run far faster than any human user). If one of these bots has a bug which causes it to make erroneous edits to a large number of pages, the only people with the capability to correct this are the bot's maintainers, who can do so by patching the bot's bug and rerunning it over the previous batches to clean up its own prior mess. Thus, if the bot's operator was intended to refer to any user who runs the bot, this would mean that these bots were approved despite having functionality that would, if used, make compliance with BOTACC's terms impossible; in contrast, if this was meant to refer to the users who develop and maintain the bot, then these bots' publicly-accessible large-batch functionality would be perfectly fine as far as BOTACC's concerned. If we operate (no pun intended) under the assumption that the people who approved these bots were not deliberately disregarding BOTACC, then the fact that they were, in fact, approved implies that this approval was given with the understanding that the people who would count as the bot's operator(s) would be its developers and maintainers, not the users running it via its public interface.
- WP:BOTCOMM seems to imply that inquiries and complaints should be handled on the bot's talk page (either locally or on another Wikimedia project accessible through unified login), which makes rather more sense if the person responsible for the bot is intended to be its developer/maintainer, rather than whatever user directs the bot to run on a particular page.
- WP:BOTREQUIRE says, in part, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ", again implying that the operator in question is meant to refer to the bot's developer (the one with the power to actually make the bot demonstrate those things), rather than its end user.
- WP:BOTCONFIG provides a list of features that bot operators may be encouraged to implement; these features are universally ones that only a bot's developers and maintainers have the ability to implement, implying that these people (rather than the end users who run these bots) are the operators referred to.
- Possibility 2: anyone who uses the bot's public interface to run the bot on one or more pages counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- WP:BOTMULTIOP says, in part, "Competence: All users directing a bot must have the required skill and knowledge to ensure their actions are within community consensus", seeming to place the onus for edits made using bots such as IABot and Citation bot on the users who direct the bots to make these edits (although this would then also seem to imply that the above-mentioned large-batch functionality of these bots was approved despite the fact that this would make compliance with this provision impossible, as the skill required for a human end user to be able to ensure that would include superhuman speed and endurance).
- Possibility 1: the bot's maintainer counts as the operator. Evidence in support:
- Whoop whoop pull up 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on what you provided, operators in Bot policy refers to maintainers, however the part about competence creates an obligation any user that directs a bot. I hope this clears up any uncertainty about the Bot policy.
- "Both should take reponsibility"
- -Phil Bridger at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Phil_Bridger-20250115200500-Grorp-20250115181700 Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was not involved in the approval process, so I can't say. This discussion is not about the bot approval process in general, please direct your inquiries elsewhere.
- Policy is very clear, don't direct bots in a way which you cannot ensure their actions are within community consensus. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WWPU: The 'operator' of a bot is the one who invokes it. That anyone, owner, or concensus has made it possible for a bot to be launched to run wild through thousands of Misplaced Pages article doesn't diminish or dilute the primary axiom of an editor being responsible for edits one makes or causes. These bots can only read from the underlying code of the webpages they are checking against. Picking up wrong dates, following hard-coded redirects to 404 error pages, and other oddities is par for the course... for which I don't blame the bot or the bot-maintainer. When I run such bots, I check every change the bot makes. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Running a bot on so many pages that it's virtually inevitable there will be a mistake doesn't absolve an editor of responsibility for that mistake. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or, as the same page quoted above puts it:
Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Citation bot has not been
approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking
. Its approved BRFAs are listed with summaries at User:Citation bot § Bot approval. None of these covers "batching Citation bot against multi-hundred-member maintenance categories", which is functionality added outside the official approval channel.But whether the functionality has consensus is not as relevant as operator diligence.If you can't review your runs, don't perform the runs. Folly Mox (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then why were the bots approved with functionality the use of which no human director of the bot would be capable of manually checking? Whoop whoop pull up 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are responsible for every edit you make, regardless of whether it is manually or by bot. If you don't want to check the results after using a bot, then stop using the bot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The easiest rate limit implementations I can imagine would be requiring some special permission for batching Citation bot over entire categories, or limiting non-privileged operators to some fixed number of Citation bot activations in some timeframe. Either would require some differentiation between user access levels, and a subroutine to identify the suggestor at runtime (which sometimes doesn't happen even by the edit summary).However, I'm not familiar with any of the codebase, so I'm not sure how much work anything like this would require, and I'm sure the script's maintainers would prefer to spend their time improving Citation bot's operation rather than securing it from irresponsible operators.Maybe we really should take a harder look at community sanctions for high-volume operators with a background of persistently leaving their edits unreviewed. While script misuse can easily cause widespread damage, and it's preferable to have some level of control within the software, at root the problem is the behaviour of those who misuse the script, publishing without review. The maintainers shouldn't necessarily be burdened with the work of protecting their tool from misuse.Still traumatised by (and lately working to clean up after) ReferenceExpander, Folly Mox (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second the above suggestions. I would like to see these bots limited to 1 article at a time (or a few hand-typed article titltes), and disallow running huge batches (especially by category) except with specific user permissions (given only to those with a history of running the bots and checking the results. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- ☝🏽It's unclear what value is added by blindly running an automated script against maintenance categories with multiple hundreds of members, and not checking the edits you've caused to see if you've introduced errors.I'm not sure exactly what the solution is here: repeatedly exhorting Citation bot's most QA-averse operators (two of whom are present in this thread) to review their edits doesn't seem to have had an effect.Citation bot – as I always hasten to mention – does a lot of good work. It also edits at such a high volume that it's impossible for non-operators to keep up with its non-negligible error rate. It also operates largely outside the BRFA structure, performing many tasks the maintainers have kindly added upon suggestion, which may or may not have community consensus.Rate-limiting Citation bot runs sounds like a great solution, but I'm not able to estimate the development costs of such a feature, and not sure if the maintainers would be willing to code it up. Implementing community-accessible per-task toggles to disable particular types of edits pending bugfixes— this may also be a possibility, but again dependent on maintainer interest.I'm not convinced this is necessarily the best venue for this discussion (unless a subsection arises proposing sanctions against Abductive or others for irresponsible bot operation, which I don't intend to initiate), but it's probably time for a centralised discussion somewhere specifically related to Citation bot, its remit, and its operation. Courtesy ping AManWithNoPlan, the script's most diligent maintainer, whom I don't see pinged here yet. Folly Mox (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
" make it completely impossible for a human user to manually check each individual edit made by one of these bots"
Going to chime in here as someone who went a bit IA bot crazy last month, in order to fix dead links within a certain neglected topic area. Generally speaking, AI bot doesn't run as crazy fast as you insinuate. Most edits on short articles are single dead link tags or archives added, which are very quick to check, in larger articles it naturally can be multiple citations tagged or changed, but this also takes more time to run (it's all proportionate). I'm also factoring in articles that are checked by the bot but remain unchanged, that is anywhere between 10-90% depending on when the bot last run, which usually gives you time to catch up reviewing. Case and point, if you are quick enough, you definitely can keep up with the bot, but you do have to do on the ball and very "tuned in" as I'd put it. Personally, after reviewing around a hundred or so edits, I realised it was pretty low-key problematic (occasionally reverting other users edits in error etc). Personally I found it easy to identify when AI bot was doing more bad than good, as the character count would be negative rather than positive, but this was generally running over stubs and starts than fully developed articles. I was otherwise spot checking the worst affected link rot articles, in order to retrospectively include archive to avoid further dead links, which I'd personally recommend as a great balance of keeping an eye on the automated edits and retrospectively adding archives where it'd clearly be useful as a preventative measure. Very occasionally did I find issues, much less than 1%, but this was also a different topic area than described above. Not sure if that's helpful comment, but I resent the idea that you can't keep up with a batch of 1,000+ articles (I find this personally insulting as someone who is more than capable, to be clear, even if it's unlikely I'd engage in that again). Personally, I also avoided going over this limit as it's a solid 4-6 hours stint of reviewing. Now to point out the obvious, if you are not capable of reviewing the bot in real-time due to competence issues or otherwise, than reduce your batch load. CNC (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The dates come from https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/#/Citation/getCitation I have added that website to the list of bogus Zotero dates. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything left here to discuss? Liz 03:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says
"datePublished":"2023-02-25T18:46:42+00:00",. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Not a news article.
- 2. Intention is irrelevant. These edits are disruptive regardless.
- 3. Maybe program it to not add dates to modified works. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a news article had a modified date, for example created on January 1 but maybe a correction was made on Jan 3, then you would want the date shown to be Jan 1 because that is how articles are cited (and later found). How is a bot supposed to know you might want the modified date instead of the creation date? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because the webpage made unknown modifications after that date. "<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2023-09-04T22:23:52+00:00" />" view-source:https://worldribus.org/east-antarctica-ranges/. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why is that example wrong? The source code of the webpage says
- The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools
- PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe this editor has a history of assuming bad faith towards other editors and has been misusing tools designed to revert vandalism; their judgement has repeatedly been clouded by personal vendettas and feelings, which in my opinion is not appropriate for an editor to have, especially one with rollback rights.
My history with this editor started on December 24 2024, when I left him (and another editor) a message for edit warring - he was getting close to three reverts, the other editor appeared to not be vandalizing the article (they were putting a formula in the lead, it was a chemistry article) so I simply encouraged them to talk it out - I did not know at that point that the other editor was a LTA. I did not intend this message to be bad faith either, shortly after I sent that message another person made a discussion on the talk page about the addition of the formula in the lead. Pepsi responded to and then removed the warning from his talk page, absolutely fine. Then, he leaves me this message, saying I did something to make him angry and that he expected an apology from me. I was really confused, it's bit weird and out of nowhere to demand an apology from someone, and I didn't understand what exactly was the issue, the warning of edit warring was not left in bad faith but an honest attempt to get two editors to discuss and reach a consensus. This was the first time I became aware of his assumption of bad faith and his problem with anger; nonetheless, I don't want drama so I wish him merry Christmas, he wishes me, everything is fine.
Since then however, he has had incidents where he reverts my edit reverting vandalism/disruptive editing with the edit summary "No", and then reverts that edit saying "Sorry". I get making a from mistake time to time, but doing so repeatedly? I also don't really understand how he makes such mistakes, unless he immediately goes to the edit history of the page and undos the latest edit without even looking, but I digress. Examples of it happening to me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, to name a few. It happens so frequently, I really believe this is just bad faith towards me and he is hounding my edits. It almost exclusively happens to me, which is why I doubt this is a mistake, but it has happened in few other instances; these are the other instances I could find, also happening to occur to just one editor (Augmented Seventh): 1, 2, 3. I have only looked at his past 1,500 edits, but I am sure there are many more examples; the most recent one is from today, January 15.
I decided to make this incident report following an incident that happened today. 10 minutes after I left a level 1 warning on a user's talk page, Pepsi replaced my warning with their level 2 warning. I did not understand this change, given it was a potential talk page guideline violation as refactoring other people's comments; additionally, you typically add a warning below others if a user makes a disruptive edit again. Given my history with Pepsi, I wondered if this was a deliberate bad faith edit, so I decided to seek clarification as to why they did this on their talk page. In their response to me, they admit they are stressed and angry a lot of the time. I understand, it's absolutely fine and I get people have hobbies like editing to escape these sorts of things, but it clearly is a problem when your personal feelings affect your judgement of things. Despite their message assuring they will think about their edits more carefully, soon after they leave me this message on my talk page, which absolutely baffled me (note: they added words to their main comment in subsequent edits, see this edit for the final one to that first comment). Now, I'm fine with receiving constructive criticism and I don't have a problem with him clarifying my use of tools; personally, I used the rollback feature as the edit appears to be vandalism (calling the subject a con artist) and a BLP violation due to adding defamatory content. However, the subsequent comments were, in my opinion, bad faith and a deliberate attack due to me initially leaving them a message. They once again demand an apology from me - a bit weird, but okay. Then they continue by saying that my rollback rights could be revoked and ask if I "want" that. Huh? This message seemed to have a threatening aura and definitely did not seem like it was made in good faith. I respond and explain my reasoning, and they leave me this message telling me to "stop getting more angry", despite me only trying to clarify the issue. This edit from him clarifies that he is specifically angry at me.
I truly have no clue why on Earth he has such bad faith towards me, and imo this is borderline harassment - consistently stalking my edits and leaving me such unfriendly messages. This user clearly has very poor judgement and can not be trusted with pending changes & rollback rights given how much they have elaborated on their anger issues and their judgement being clouded by these issues. There are several other examples of Pepsi misusing tools - here they admit to reverting 12 edits, simply because ONE was unsourced - then they just tell the user who added all of it to restore their edits manually because he doesn't know how to do it. It's pretty obvious to just edit the latest revision of the page and remove the unsourced edit. It's also ironic for him to leave me such a threatening message of me "abusing" my rollback status when he has gotten the same message twice for using rollback to revert good faith or non-vandalism edits. He has a history of reverting edits without carefully reading through. Thank you for your time for reading this and I hope this issue will be resolved. jolielover♥talk 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to note that PEPSI697 has added a notice of his ASD and sensitivity on 30 July 2024, perhaps we should be a bit more careful in examining his conduct and any potential remedy. I hope PEPSI697 can help us propose a solution. Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I took no action until today. I should note that I am bipolar and their harsher comments, like specifying they are angry at me, would have taken a toll on me had if I were not on medication; it costs very little to be nice and assume good faith, you truly never know what others are going through. Still, no excuse for harassment, hounding my edits, improperly reverting edits and much more. jolielover♥talk 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have also noticed problematic RC patrolling from PEPSI697. Their responses to complaints are especially concerning. Here, for example, they say:
Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please.
. You can see similar responses to queries if you scroll down their talk page. I honestly do not believe they have the competence required to patrol recent changes. C F A 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- If they have no time to check sources then they should not be reverting sourced changes. Source review is time consuming. It's something I do a lot - and it requires a lot of reading. I'd suggest if they both have neither the time to do the job properly nor the patience to deal with people who are frustrated over their mistakes they should probably find some other way to contribute to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they revert edits incredibly quickly without verifying if the edits are actually vandalism. They also leave wrong warning templates quite frequently. If you go to his contributions and ctrl + f "sorry" you'll find quite an alarming amount of apologies due to his hastiness. (1, 2, 3, 4 5, again just few examples from his 500 most recent edits). jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing
no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism
is not a good sign. That strikes me as assuming vandalism without evidence, which goes against AGF. Since their intention is to improve the project and the civility concerns mentioned here are not extreme, I don't think a block makes sense. Perhaps a formal warning reminding them to practice AGF and refrain from mass reversions is sufficient? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- I think that's a good baseline. Also don't think a block is going to be an appropriate remedy here though, depending on how they respond here, there may or may not be a basis for a formal restriction on recent change patrol for a limited duration. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing
- In response to this. I see this as very serious at this point myself (PEPSI697). I'll make a promise that today (16 January 2025) that I'll take a break from patrolling RC for the whole day and concentrate on railway station or train types article based in Australia (my country). I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good night! When you wake up, you should proceed on the second half of this sentence you wrote: "I'll have some time to think about the actions that I caused to damage the encyclopaedia then I'll apologise and address the actions." Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is, you haven't addressed any of the issues or apologized; why should the community believe your continuation on the recent changes patrol will be constructive? Do you understand that your edits are often far too hasty and there are too many mistakes made by you on the patrol? And that your personal feelings should not cloud your judgement and lead you to make comments demanding that I "stop getting more angry"? And why exactly have you been targeting my edits to revert and revert back? I'm still baffled by this. jolielover♥talk 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you seriously address the issues mentioned above, I think the next step would be a formal editing restriction on recent-changes patrolling. It's clearly disruptive and I don't see anything that leads me to believe it will stop. C F A 14:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
- @Jolielover: Once I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it and the questions related to Misplaced Pages at the Teahouse is successfully answered, I will most likely stop targeting your reverts and try to do my best to revert edits that are obvious vandalism.
- Don't you know that behind the keyboard that I'm actually only 16 years old and I'm not yet an adult and almost am in a couple of years? I simply sometimes don't understand what some words mean? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway,
You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents
- right, we don't know, and you "might" stop? No, you will stop, or you will be stopped by a formal editing restriction. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not decided yet, I think it depends on your response, because so far you've said you might stop what you're doing, which is not really conclusive and doesn't send a great message forward. I do want to say that I am personally disappointed that you were intentionally targeting me, quote "I will most likely stop targeting your reverts". I'd really hope you would stop targeting me, period. jolielover♥talk 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me whether this is an indefinite block on all of Misplaced Pages or part of Misplaced Pages or a temporary block? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @PEPSI697: A lot of what's been posted above has been brought to your attention before on the user talk page here, here and here. Nobody is expecting you to be perfect, and the community understands and is OK with mistakes being made; the community, however, starts to see mistakes as a problem when they start being repeated despite previous "warnings". When you were granted the right to use these tools, the implicit agreement made on your part was that you would use them responsibly and that you understood that you would be held accountable if you didn't. Nobody really cares how old you are (though you might want to take a look at WP:YOUNG and WP:REALWORLD because it's not necessarily a good thing to reveal such information, particular for younger editors), and your age will only become an issue if you try to make it one. Your edits are going to be assessed in the same way as the edits of any other editor are going to be assessed: their value to the encyclopedic in terms of relevant policies and guidelines.FWIW, it's very easy to get frustrated when editing Misplaced Pages regardless of how old you are, and I'd imagine everyone gets frustrated at some point. Controlling one's anger, however, isn't the responsibility of others, and it's not really appropriate at all to try to "blame" others for "making" you angry. If doing certain things on Misplaced Pages increases the chances of you becoming angry, then perhaps it would be a good idea for you to avoid doing them as much. You posted on your user talk page that you get
stressed or angry alot in IRL and don't think straight that's why I do it
when someone warned you about editing/removing other's posts, but this is something you've been previously been warned about. Patrolling for vandalism and recent changes are things that will leads to lots of interaction with other editors, and it might be better to avoid doing such things if you're having a bad day out in the real world because the others you're interacting with might not be too interested in what type of day you're having or could just also be having a bad day themselves. Furthermore, if yousometimes don't understand what some words mean
, politely ask for clarification or just let it go; responding to something without understanding what it means only increases the chances of you'll post something that makes things worse. Take a breather, try to figure out what was posted (use a dictionary or ask someone if needed), and consider whether a response is even needed or what to post if one is.Finally, if you're not sure whether an edit is vandalism or otherwise not policy/guideline compliant, then leave it as is, and find some who might be more experienced in dealing with such things to ask about it. Unless it's a really serious policy violation like a BLP or copyright matter, dealing with can probably wait a bit. Regardless of how many good edits you've made over the years, the community will step in and take some action if it starts to feel your negatives start to outweigh your positives, just like it does for any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Update from PEPSI697: I'll apologise and address the issues at 06:00 (UTC) (5:00pm Melbourne time). Stay tuned. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you should articulate, in your own words, what people have told you is wrong with your prior behavior. Because the answer is that you will get an editing restriction if you keep doing those things. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know that. But will I get a editing restriction for reverting vandalism? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rollback/undo the edits (check page history for constructive edits in between), warn the user, if the user has exceeded 4 warnings or if it's a persistent vandal/vandalism only account report to WP:AIV. jolielover♥talk 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I ask something? If I do spot obvious vandalism coincidentally when I'm in an article or any Misplaced Pages project pages, how can I report them? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the Internet, nobody knows if you're an eight-foot-tall hairless Wookie. Anyway,
- @CFA: wdym that I'm not allowed to patrol recent changes? I plan to apologise and address the actions in a few hours. You don't even know that I might stop with these incidents, we'll wait and see once I head over to the Teahouse and questions answered and I apologise and address the actions and the community accepts it.
- About 14 hours later after my response, no one else responded. I'll be offline for 10 hours from now because it's 10:00pm in Melbourne, Australia and it's almost my bedtime, if you would like to add any other topics between 11:30 (UTC) to 21:40 (UTC), anyone is welcome to do that but I won't be able to respond until 21:40 (UTC) 7:40am Melbourne time. Today (16 January 2025), I successfully took a break from patrolling RC if you have a look at my contributions and concentrated on contributing to railway station articles in Perth, Australia. My plans for contributing to Misplaced Pages tomorrow (17 January 2025) are continuing to improve the railway station, transport infrastructure or train types based in Australia and will follow up asking a few questions at the Teahouse (maybe before 00:00 (UTC) 17 January 2025). If the questions are answered at the Teahouse before 05:00 (UTC), I might patrol recent changes briefly for about 60 minutes (06:00 (UTC) to 06:59 (UTC)) I also plan to extend my break from recent changes this weekend (18 January 2025 and 19 January 2025). I'll be back full time patrolling RC if it goes successful tomorrow on Monday (20 January), if not, I'll extend it to even longer until 24 January 2025. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 11:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
PEPSI697's Questions about better improving experience for the future
- I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day.
- 1: When patrolling recent changes if you see that someone has removed content without explanation or added unsourced content, how can I revert it if I can't use Twinkle? I see other contributors with UltraViolet revert unexplained removal and unsourced content.
- 2: I see that other contributors on Misplaced Pages leave talk page topics or messages by using e.g. Twinkle or UltraViolet? How can I do that and where is the customisable Twinkle settings? That's the reason I make so many mistakes by placing the wrong warning, because I'm so use to placing the uw-vandalism2 one.
- 3: If I can't be too hasty in reverting, how come I see other contributors revert the revision by patrolling recent changes so quickly?
- Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1: Revert it manually with an edit summary. I use UltraViolet and there are edit summaries for such removals, imo a very useful tool.
- 2: For twinkle, just change which warning to use in the dropdown selection.
- 3: If it is obvious vandalism, that's probably why the revision is reverted so quickly. The issue is when it is not so obvious, and you might need to check some sources, which will take longer. jolielover♥talk 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept your apology. jolielover♥talk 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might consider switching to UltraViolet to only revert unsourced or unexplained removal once I return to patrolling RC one day. Thanks for the advice. Btw, do you accept my apology? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Response and apology from PEPSI697
The first thing I want to do is apologise and then address the actions. It was not my intention to make anyone feel victimised or attacked. I want a good relationship with all the contributors on Misplaced Pages and to learn from them if I can. I realise that I am a little out of my depth with RC patrolling and so I'm going to take a break to better educate myself on vandalism or policy violation. I wonder if the community has any suggestions on how I can contribute in another way to Misplaced Pages that will not cause me these kinds of problems. Misplaced Pages is a big thing in my life and gives me a sense of achievement and I really want this to continue. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I realize it's been nearly a year since you've joined; my intention is certainly not to come across as condescending (I haven't gone through your contributions), but have you tried doing some more basic editing and getting familiar with the newcomer resources? Such as by reading the WP:PRIMER or looking at the task center? Both of those places have suggestions on how to contribute in a simpler, perhaps easier to grasp way that would allow you to become more familiar with the policies and violations in a relaxed fashion.
- Again, I apologize if I'm offering unneeded advice to an experienced editor; this is just an idea, as someone who started editing a tad more regularly relatively recently and so is in a similar, albeit not identical, position. NewBorders (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is guidance on how to use the
{{Talk header}}found on its documentation page at Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page? and also at WP:TALKLEAD. FWIW, I've seen cases where a talk header has been removed by someone, particularly with respect an empty talk page; so, simply adding one for the sake of adding one might not be the most productive way to spend your time editing since there are probably plenty of more serious issues that need addressing than an article talk page not having a "talk header" template. There's lots of things to do on Misplaced Pages as explained in WP:CONTRIBUTE and pretty much anything mentioned on that page can be done without using bots, scripts or special tools. You could also take a look at pages like WP:GUILD, WP:DEORPHAN, WP:HELPWP, WP:URA, WP:RANPP for ideas. Since you're interested in articles about railways, you could also look for things to do at WP:RAILWAY or WP:STATIONS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- Fair enough, I knew that adding Talkheader might of not been the most productive thing to do. How about I might try to bring some Australian railway station articles to GA status? I did do it with Bell railway station, Melbourne, but is awaiting review. I might concentrate fixing a few things at the Bell railway station Melbourne article and I also plan to get Preston railway station, Melbourne article to good article status too. I'll concentrate on that instead. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is guidance on how to use the
- Thanks very much for the suggestion. I had a look at task center this morning, unfortunately, I didn't have any interest in any of those topics. But I do feel like adding the template "talkheader" into as many article talk pages as I can, May I ask if this is encouraged to do so? I did it with a few railway station articles in Melbourne and Victoria in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps an administrator could close this discussion and all its related sub-discussions now that the OP and PEPSI697 seem to have amicably resolved their issue. Maybe all that's needed here is a firm warning to PEPSI697 to try to be careful in the future, and perhaps some encouragement to try not to over use these tools if doing so risks placing them in high-stress situations where they might lose their cool, with a reminder that the community might be less understanding the next time around if they end up back at ANI for doing something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good idea there. I agree that me, Jolielover and the others involved resolved this issue. I absolutely agree with this idea to give a firm warning on my talk page. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you
absolutely agree with
isn't really all that relevant to what the community ultimately decides to do, and continuing to post here only runs the risk of you somehow making your situation worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, sorry. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: you might want to stop posting here except to respond to a direct question. What you
Non-neutral paid editor
@EMsmile is heavily editing Solar_radiation_modification in favour of her declared client, www.earthsystemgovernance.org. This has included placing undue weight material in the body and lead, and attacking rival organisations (ie the DEGREES initiative). Despite multiple appeals on the article talk page / her personal talk page, she's still at it - wasting everyone's time with long discussion posts arguing in favour of biasing the page. She just needs to be locked out of this article and related articles, and - if that's not possible - given a temporary or permanent ban. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits:
- Softening language surrounding the impact of COVID on sustainable development goals.
- Cutting information concerning the impact of climate change on water scarcity.
- - here it's more the slash-and-burn approach to the reliable sources that were deleted.
- Refers to an economics journal as poor sourcing for a statement about the economics of sustainable financing.
- An openly paid editor making promotional and other questionable edits is probably WP:NOTHERE. But I would caution you that you do need to inform EMsmile on their user talk page that this thread has been created - pinging them is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- done Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly WP:GF reasons for them.
- By "softening language", do you refer to the removal of phrases such as "has had a profound impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of communities around the world" and "The pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. It has "exacerbated existing fault lines of inequality" + "The brunt of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by poorer segments of the population"? Let's be frank: do you imagine a paper encyclopedia retaining these phrases? Do you think they would have made it through a FAN or even a GAN? The edit already keeps the phrase "It was "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." and I would argue that it already implies what the cut phrases said. An abundance of emotive language risks that some users tune out. You may disagree with this perspective, but it is a defensible one. Likewise, the paragraph she cut about "An independent group of scientists..." - do you still imagine this statement to be relevant in say 3-5 years' time? If not, it would likely violate WP:NOTNEWS and so should not belong there. Lastly she cut the claim that three of the SDGs "ignore the planetary limits and encourage consumption" - a very strong statement cited to...an obscure book, seemingly not even peer-reviewed.
- Misplaced Pages should not use language such as "recent report", and COP29 is already over. There is literally WP:RECENT, and cutting that paragraph seems justifiable under that metric. If that reference has some hard numbers on water scarcity that are not present elsewhere in the article, then it should be used to provide them. However, that paragraph was not it.
- Do you really think phrases like "China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations....Notably, China's 14th Five-Year Plan introduces a comprehensive sustainability approach that permeates various sectors, encompassing agriculture, mining, transportation, and more. China's active engagement in international collaborations is poised to influence global green finance standards, driving increased transparency and accountability in sustainable investments." are consistent with WP:NPOV? Really? Maybe cutting all of it went too far, but it certainly didn't belong in an article looking like that.
- That citation was linked as a mere PDF, with almost no work done to make it a properly formatted citation. When I did look up the title, I found that said "economics journal"...was apparently an internal publication of the Central Bank of Hungary. It's unclear if it had been peer-reviewed, and I strongly doubt it counts as a good source for any matters not specific to Hungary.
- In all, using these edits and an accusation of COI (by an OP who appears to have his own COI in this subject matter) to argue that a user with extensive topic experience "is probably WP:NOTHERE" seems downright Kafkaesque. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I have, I would have written exactly that. My response is only there to question how closely Simon looked at the edits brought to the discussion, and their relevance to the matter at hand. The idea that removing a paragraph cited to a single economist at a Hungarian Central Bank from a global-level article is somehow a ploy to indirectly promote an NGO employing her seems like an Olympic-level stretch to me, and the other claims are hardly more plausible. If you look at the edit history of something like Climate change, you'll see that editors often end up adding sentences or paragraphs backed up by sources that aren't bad by Misplaced Pages's general standards - but simply not good enough or relevant enough for a specific high-level article like that, so the veteran editors end up removing these contributions soon afterwards.
- Given this context, I don't see a major issue with any of those edits (other than that I personally would have attempted to rescue at least one of those references by citing it in a different manner - but lots and lots of editors do the same approach of cutting everything they consider irrelevant outright, and are not obligated to do it differently). If you or Simonm223 still think there's an issue which makes them relevant to this discussion, you would have to make a stronger case for it to convince me. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you accusing Simonm223, who raised the points you're responding to, of having a COI as well? Are you also accusing Thisredrock, who raised the concerns here? It is obvious looking over these in context that EMsmile has been editing in both a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:PROMOTIONAL manner with regards to their employer, in precisely the manner that WP:PAID is supposed to prevent. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been an interlocutor, perhaps the leading one, during @EMsmile's paid time heavily editing this page. As background, this is a very contentious topic. Her client is not precisely the one that @Andrewjlockley provided, but is this campaign to restrict this area of scientific research. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
- My experience with her is that she has, in each individual interaction, been collegial and reasonable. However, her work on a whole (more than 180 edits over the last few months) has significantly shifted the article's point of view, consistently in the direction of her client's perspective. I can provide specifics, if helpful. TERSEYES (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding: Another editor compiled some examples of her edits https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Solar_radiation_modification#c-Thisredrock-20250116135800-Andrewjlockley-20250115180000 TERSEYES (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An editor with a declared COI should never be making non-trivial article-space edits to article covered by the area of the COI; the
strongly discouraged
wording has always been interpreted as allowing only trivial edits that exhibit no hint of bias - the reason why it's strongly discouraged is because the moment they're editing with a clear bias towards their employer's perspective they're supposed to be gone. If they've continued to make such edits after being informed of this, they should be blocked. I'd also strongly suggest going over their edits and undoing them - it's important to deny any benefit from this sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Aquillion So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username, "Andrewjlockley", appears to match this (Redacted)?
- Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban.) Yet, it's fairly clear his incentives align with this article being positive towards geoengineering, and with editors who take the opposing position being marginalized. I would like to note that if Earth System Governance is EMsmile's primary employer, then opposition to geoengineering is not even seen anywhere on their front page - nor on any of their most visible pages, such as Research Framework. The contrast between this and that Google Scholar profile being primarily dedicated to geoengineering research is significant. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Now, I'll admit that he doesn't appear to have ever attempted to cite his own work in this or other articles on the subject (which, as far as my understanding of the rules go, would have been grounds for an instant topic ban)
- that would be wrong. See WP:SELFCITE; citing yourself is permissible within limits, provided you're doing so in appropriate contexts and not just spamming your work everywhere. This makes sense when you stop and think about it - people whose work on a subject is significant enough to be cited are the very people we want editing articles. But beyond that your accusation is off-base. Read WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS Having a perspective on a topic is not bias, and even a bias is not a COI, which is much more narrowly-defined. Academics who have written about a topic and who study it are obviously not just allowed but actually encouraged to edit in that topic area - it wouldn't make any sense to bar experts for being experts; and obviously an expert on a controversial subject is going to have a perspective. WP:PAID editing, on the other hand, is much more unambiguous; editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests, because they don't just have a bias but an overwhelming financial imperative that pushes them to edit tendentiously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Aquillion, if I recall correctly, the community explicitly rejected a prohibition - hence why the wording settled on “strongly discouraged”. If I’m wrong on this, please advise me, because I come across mentees in the mentorship program that have COI and if there is a consensus that paid/COI non-trivial edits are explicitly prohibited, then WP:COI needs updated as well as how we explain to new editors.
- It’s not fair to someone to say “we strongly discourage this” and then go tell them “what we meant by that was you aren’t allowed to do it at all”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change
strongly discouraged
toprohibited, except for obvious, minor changes that no reasonable editor would object to (such as fixing an obvious typo, or reverting vandalism)
. I stand by my comment that, as it stands, editors should not be punished for not knowing that "strongly discouraged" really means "virtually entirely prohibited". That's a discussion for another forum, though. - Note I'm not commenting on this user or the situation at all - but as I've had a couple mentors (through that mentor program/app/widget/whatever it is) recently who I've had to ask about COI/PAID, I want to make sure that, if I need to be manually saying it's virtually always prohibited to edit an article directly when I post templates/COI-welcome/etc, I want to ensure I'm doing that. Because I find it unfair if I (or anyone) only posts something saying "strongly discouraged" when in reality they should be told "unless it's an obvious typo or whatever, it's prohibited". What slightly concerned me/piqued my interest was your statement that
editors who are paid to edit Misplaced Pages are supposed to work through edit requests
- but I realize that was an oversimplification based on the facts of this case. To be clear, I don't think I need to be doing anything super special/additional - your reply has assuaged my concerns that the wording there was just applying the guideline to this case, rather than a general statement. - Thanks for the reply. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to admit that I can read the discussion in that way too, and I agree that "strongly discouraged" is the closest to "prohibited" without being prohibited. That being said, we both agree that it's not the same as prohibited. But in that case, it takes basically no time to update the way it's advertised to people - change
- If you read the discussion, the reason for the current wording was concerns like "what if someone just fixes a spelling error or an obvious glaring problem, they shouldn't get in trouble for that." It certainly wasn't "yeah WP:PAID editors should be able to just ignore this entirely whenever they feel like it." When someone takes an action that policy strongly discourages, the logical conclusion is that they're putting their ass on the line in terms of being absolutely correct in every other way (and should think long and hard that every edit they make that goes against that strong discouragement.) If they're not putting that thought in, or if they slip up and make a non-neutral edit? They need to stop, and if they refuse they need to be ejected from the topic area entirely. "Strongly discouraged", to me, is the strongest possible prohibition we can place on something without making it strictly barred - it is an absolutely huge deal. EMsmile's behavior shows absolutely no awareness of or respect for this - they've been constantly, and aggressively, behaving in ways that policy strongly discourages. Someone who does that is obviously going to end up blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So...how should we then interpret the fact that the OP's username...appears to match this
Uh, guys? Does WP:OUTING mean nothing to you? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that there are some policies which we must maintain an above-average level of diligence in, especially those which can have real life, in person consequences. And over the years the principles of privacy still remain one of those absolute things that have brought down trusted veteran administrators in a single violation. The policies and the very narrow exceptions are very clear, and this is one area where you most certainly want to error on the side of caution, even if it might otherwise seem obvious right now. Tomorrow they could change those things which you believe make the correlation "obvious", to make it far less so, but that DOXING would make it a forever permanent association unless revdel is performed. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could we get an edit to WP:OUTTING for this specific scenario? Did not know and would not have engaged with the info provided had I known. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a mere administrator, I am unable to see whatever sort of extremely dangerous content was redacted by Oversight here, but was the thing posted here the very obvious thing that any eight-year-old could have figured out how to do within ten seconds? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've posted a rather harrowing warning on their user talk page. I never had cause to use that template before. Liz 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've redacted the name and link and revdel'd the diffs between when it was posted and now. I'll leave it up to over admins if Oversight is necessary or if further sanctions are needed, but for now: @InformationToKnowledge:, do not attempt to link a Misplaced Pages user with anyone's real identity, no matter how obvious it might seem, if they have not done so themselves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger - I think that sanction should be swiftly applied. This is not something we take lightly. Even if they are one-in-the-same, this is still not one of the permitted exceptions to the policy for DOXING. Furthermore, this wouldn't be the first time when someone has presented themselves as an SME (by inference of their username) but is really impersonating that person either for nefarious or even just fame/fandom purposes, which might result in wholly inappropriate correspondence to the innocent real person. TiggerJay (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG back to Andrewjlockley
- I would be one of the first to admit that EMsmile has not been a perfect editor; i.e. frequently exhibiting (in my mind) undue focus on rewriting article leads to hit algorithmic benchmarks such as readability over updating article content. However, that does not change the fact she has been one of a literal handful of editors to have stayed consistently engaged in WikiProject: Climate change over the past few years. This is a topic which seems to wear out editors very quickly, as I can attest from my own experience. I would therefore strongly urge caution and ensure we avoid further editor attrition that did not need to happen.
- With that in mind, I would like to say I have great difficulty assuming WP:GF here - not when the OP editor (Redacted), which all appear to take a pro-solar geoengineering perspective and when said editor neglected to disclose this clearly highly relevant fact on his own in the process of making this report.
- I am not aware of the specifics of EMsmile's paid editing, but to my knowledge, opposition to solar geoengineering is at most just one of the many positions her employer had taken - and not a particularly controversial position, since there is currently no affirmative consensus in favour of this intervention. (i.e. the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the gold standard in climate science, is at best non-committal: see Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification on page 2473 of Chapter 16 of the 2nd installment of that report.) In my view, the OP has a much more direct conflict of interest with this topic than EMsmile does.
- P.S. This is really not how imagined exiting a 6-month hiatus. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:BOOMERANG... if you bring it up, you are open to questioning yourself.
- All of this is pertinent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think what we have here is a situation where there may, in fact, be two editors with a COI. We know, for a fact, that EMSmile has been paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. That is a contravention of WP policy. We have an allegation that Andrewjlockley is a researcher who has based much of his career on writing on the topic. WP:OUTING concerns aside this could, if AJL is getting paid for their work or if they are making edits that bring attention to their work, represent a COI too.
- The question of whether either editor has a conflict of interest is not affected by whether the other editor also has a conflict of interest. As such we should probably treat these separately. If InformationToKnowledge is entirely correct then this still isn't a matter of EMS is green and AJL should be sanctioned - it might be they both should be though.
- Basically the EMS question is easy: they were paid to edit and did so non-neutrally. If AJL is also disruptive or has a COI we can deal with that separately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thisredrock: there is no problem bringing up boomerang here, as it might be relevant. It doesn't need to take away from the discussion, and editors who bring things to ANI absolutely need to realize that the expose themselves also to the same or more scrutiny for their on-wiki activity. Of course those also calling for a boomerang are also opening up their edit histories as well. That being said, I would support that idea that we should not simply pivot the discussion to AJL and forget about EMS. Rather, there are two discussions about unpermissable COI editing behaviors and they both need to be followed through on. TiggerJay (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please reread WP:COI, and especially WP:COINOTBIAS. The suggestion that being a published academic on a subject constitutes a COI for the entire subject is nonsensical; and the suggestion that it could be in any way comparable to straightforward paid editing is absurd. This is not a complex point of policy - even a heartbeat's thought ought to make it obvious that we do not bar academics from editing Misplaced Pages in their area of expertise. See the final paragraph of WP:EXTERNALREL, which specifically encourages subject-matter experts to edit their area of expertise .--Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- as per (Redacted) is an independent researcher who left UCL and is working with European Astrotech.
- Don't think its a COI, but every participant in this thread seems worth double checking to see what is happening. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, based on Bluethricecreamman and Aquillion's comments and evidence I'd say it does look like there is not a COI for AJL. Of especial relevance is Aquillion's reference above to WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, earthsystemsgovernance appears to be a research group/advocacy group that does fellowships too, and not a company perse.
- If there is a COI for either EMS or AJL, its subtle enough it requires some more investigation.... What is the funding situation for European Astrotech/earthsystemsgovernance? Are there corporate interests behind any of this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! I don't know if it is better that I stay out of this discussion and let it play out or that I explain my position? OK, let me try to explain my position: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a long time on all sorts of topics; since several years mainly on climate change topics. I fully believe in the vision of Misplaced Pages and I believe that I have followed all the rules, even those around paid editing (I actually think more people should edit Misplaced Pages as part of their day jobs, not just as a hobby after hours...). I have disclosed that I am a paid editor for some of my editing (I also edit a lot in a volunteer capacity). I believe that I have explained on my profile page exactly how I manage any potential for WP:COI that arises as a result.
- With regards to SRM has anyone taken a look at how the article looked a year ago? It was a mess (see here the version of 15 May 2024). Has anyone looked at the discussions we've had on the talk page regarding WP:NPOV over the months? This is a controversial topic, and this controversy ought to be reflected in the article (which wasn't done well before, when it was rather one-sided). I believe my edits have in fact made the SRM article better overall, better structured, more clearly showing the pros and cons. We are not meant to take sides but to simply explain what is going on, who is discussing what. I think the discussions on the talk page went quite fine, very friendly and supportive, until all of a sudden just a few days ago when AJL appeared on the scene. All of a sudden he and a few other people popped up (who have not edited much on Misplaced Pages before and not on a range of topics either) and straight away I get attacked very aggressively on my talk page by AJL (with the threat of "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down."). Why? Can we not discuss this in a calm and civil manner?
- AJL and at least two of the other people who very recently showed up on the SRM page have a history of pushing for more SRM research in their day job (Redacted). Also, User:Thisredrock explains on their user profile that they are into SRM research. AJL then attacked me for having included a section on a non-use agreement (abbreviated as NUA on the talk page of SRM). This non-use agreement is about stopping all SRM research work altogether (although User:Thisredrock said "I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page). Understandably, these academics might object to the mention of such a non-use agreement in this Misplaced Pages article (given that it would be against doing any SRM research), right? It's easy to attack me now because of the paid editing aspect but shouldn't they disclose their professional stance (and potential COI or bias) as well?
- I have been editing Misplaced Pages for 10 years with over 50,000 thousand edits, quite peacefully. In my opinion, we could have had a calm, civil discussion on the talk page of the SRM article to see which sentences on the non-use agreement of SRM are justified and which are not, how criticism of Position A or Position B could be worded, rather than heading straight to the admin noticeboard, without even trying to reach a consensus in good faith. That's sad. (to clarify: I felt that the comments by User:Thisredrock on the talk page and in the edit summaries were not aggressive and we could have collaborated quite well on this even if we have different viewpoints. Consensus could have been reached by assuming good faith on both sides).
- Finally, as to the examples that User:Simonm22 of my editing in January 2025 in their post above, I don't see what these examples are trying to prove. If you disagree with any of those edits, why not bring it up on the talk pages of those articles? Those edits have nothing to do with SRM. I edit on a big range of topics, not just SRM. I've explained in my edit summaries why I made those particular edits, and I stand by them (thanks for User:InformationToKnowledge for taking the time to review those edits in their post above). EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an absolutely Shameless example of whataboutery orDARVO, but I'll respond anyway.
- I haven't been involved with UCL or with European Astro tech for years . I've never been paid for researching srm.
- Research is not advocacy . I don't run any advocacy service within srm . I run a neutral information service which promotes all sides of the Debate equally, and which I pay for out my own pocket . I don't care if people are editing for cash but I do care if they're doing it badly and in a biased way Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wish to clarify the relationship between the Earth System Governance project (ESG, and EMsmiles's client) and the the campaign for a 'Non-use Agreement' (NUA) on solar radiation modification (SRM). ESG is an academic network that host conferences, publishes a journal, has working groups -- all the usual stuff. The NUA is a political campaign that, despite its name, seeks to restrict SRM research. There is great overlap between the two endeavours, to the point that the NUA is de facto a project of ESG.
- Of the NUA's three leads, one (Biermann) was the founder of ESG and its first chair, for ten years, and is the editor in chief of its journall. ESG is administratively housed in his academic department. Another NUA lead (Gupta) is a member of ESG's 11-member leadership board , one of five authors of its current implementation plan , and -- for what it is worth -- married to Biermann. The two of them are among the three editors of ESG's series of short books. By quick count, of the other 14 authors on the NUA's founding paper, one other is on the governing board, at least eight are lead faculty, at least two are senior research fellows, and one is among the journal's six editors.
- In the other direction, of ESG's 11-member governing board, eight have signed the NUA sign-on statement.
- The only engagement with the issue of SRM by ESG's governing board, lead faculty, senior research fellows, and members of its journal's editorial board has been the NUA and its predecessor critical articles. TERSEYES (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TERSEYES, would you mind helping explain how you have, what appears to be firsthand knowledge of the "relationship" between ESG and another user on here? TiggerJay (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The NUA coordination group, seems to be entirely headed up by academics too. Again, bias isn't always COI. If a PhD also volunteers for a nuclear non-proliferation club, and also decides to edit wikipedia, as long as they aren't tendetious, its probably fine.
- For NUA/ESG, i think editors (myself included) are looking for evidence the groups aren't aligned with wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, that def sounds like COI... I've heard of Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Fellows before, but they are negotiated with WMF ahead of time, right? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issue with EMS is that they are, by their own account, a freelancer who was hired to help earthsystemsgovernance with their online profile including Misplaced Pages. EMS is, according to themself, not a researcher or anything else of the sort. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect @InformationToKnowledge, your posts here are a distraction. This discussion is not about @Andrewjlockley, or his views, or his work outside of Misplaced Pages. It is about whether EMsmile had a conflict of interest when they edited solar radiation modification, which is a very controversial topic. Given that EMSmile repeatedly boosted the "Non-Use Agreement" campaign, giving it much more coverage and visibility than other initiatives mentioned on the page, and they boosted the founder of the campaign, and the campaign and the founder both come from the organisation that pays EMSmile to edit wikipedia, there are important questions that are not answered by budget whataboutery. Thisredrock (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did we seriously get a redaction, and not just a revdel, but an oversight on like a hundred revisions of ANI for someone... as far as I can tell, mentioning the on-wiki username of the guy who opened the thread? Is it possible to get any clarity on this? jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- ... gonna ask in talk page of WP:OUTTING if we can have a list of these edge cases at this point Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Bushranger, I'd like to see a diff for that claim about EMsmile encouraging people to investigate other editors. That's a serious charge. Liz 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: the diff of them placing it is in the oversighted area, but the diff of my removing it is here - I didn't revdel it because it didn't name any names that weren't the user's username, but it was definitely a "look up this person". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if I am understanding this correctly -- is the idea here that if some editor on here is named User:Johnjacobjingleheimer, then it constitutes WP:OUTING (e.g. so egregious that it must not only be removed from the page, and also removed from the revision history, but also made invisible even to the few hundred administrators) if somebody refers to him as "John Jacob Jingleheimer"? Or merely if someone says "I googled John Jacob Jingleheimer and the top result is his personal website saying he's the CEO of Globodyne"? Both of these seem like the kind of thing that The Onion would make up in a joke about Misplaced Pages being a silly bureaucracy, rather than an actual thing. jp×g🗯️ 03:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- if there was a list of examples with this specific scenario at WP:OUTTING think it would be easier to avoid.
- opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss adding these edge cases.
- alternatively, maybe we need a new essay to point to? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, my real name is pretty easy to find if you put even minimal effort into it, and I have a LinkedIn account that shows up pretty prominently if you search my name. What do the functionaries want people to do if they notice that I am aggressively defending some company and then it turns out I work for it? Like, is the official recommendation that someone makes a Wikipediocracy/Sucks thread? jp×g🗯️ 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- They didn't just mention the "on-wiki username", they mentioned the person's (claimed to be) actual legal name, with links to articles about said person, when (as far as I can tell) aside from the username they had not connected themselves to the person off-wiki. Also it was called to my attention that EMsmile (talk · contribs) has also encouraged people to search certain user's names to connect them to off-wiki activities, which is also not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time, and sadly will not be the last time there is a large revdel, there was one that spanned over 16 hours worth within the last month. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have indeffed Andrewjlockley based on their admission of sending a letter to another user's employer, which is blatant WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely unacceptable, and for their generally aggressive behavior here. We have ways to deal with COI reports, such as the COI VRT queue, that exist exactly so we aren't WP:OUTING people or contacting their employers. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this is a nuanced situation and for clarity I brought up spamming as a hypothetical - I'm not saying ESG is a spammer. ESG is, however, an organization that has chosen to fund a Misplaced Pages editing project. When an organization makes this choice, I think our community regards the organization as being in some way accountable for what they are funding.
- Since you haven't seen the email in question, I assume you felt that sending an email was in and of itself a blockable offense. If that's the case, then we have a culture in which when there's a dispute over a funded project, we do not try to resolve it privately with the funder as would happen in a normal relationship between organizations. Instead, the dispute is supposed to take place on a public and permanently-archived page, and we are all forbidden from informing the funder that it is even happening. Is this what you want Andrew to say he understands before you'll unblock him? To be frank, this is the kind of convention that makes newcomers and outsiders think we are nuts.
- BTW do you think there any way to get the entire EMSmile COI question referred to AE instead of ANI (climate change is a CTOP)? The former has less of a tendency to turn into an indecisive sprawl. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- i was mildly curious when i saw this ani thread mentioned at FTN. at this point,
- the amount of energy and time its taken from community seems ridiculous.
- AE may better handle it and the nuance and figure out what should be done. if so, hope an admin closes soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also wanted to question this block. I'm not familiar with all the applicable[REDACTED] rules and conventions, but if I found out that eg the Heritage Foundation had been paying a contractor to edit the climate change page, I would hope that editors would 1) question the contractor and their edits, and 2) separately write to the Heritage Foundation to ask what they were up to. The latter wouldn't qualify as harassment in my book, just a sensible response to a legitimate concern about the integrity of wikipedia.
- Fwiw I also don't think that EMsmile should be blocked because ultimately we don't know whether they were paid by ESG to push the ideological line of the NUA campaign. Given their long history as an editor, and the fact they conduct themselves with courtesy and decency, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thisredrock (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a more nuanced situation than outright spam. EMS is an experienced contributor who seems to work with this client as more than just casual employment. This felt much more like Andrew attempting to circumvent a process he didn't like, and I think his statement evidenced his disdain. EMS believed she was acting in good faith. She may still get sanctioned here, but that's no excuse to just be emailing the clients of paid editors. Maybe I'm wrong, and the community is fine with random editors emailing article subjects to get them to fire their experienced paid editors. But I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not opposed to an unblock should Andrew show understanding, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing the email in question first. CaptainEek ⚓ 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek I respectfully question this block. When Misplaced Pages is being spammed by an organization, I believe it's OK for volunteers to contact the organization and ask them to stop spamming us, right? This is totally different from emailing the employer of a volunteer editor for purposes of harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Does Wikimedian in Residence apply?
EMS's situation being paid by a research org, (and ajl's claimed situation to run a research information service), to edit[REDACTED] seems analagous to | wikimedian in residence. See also WP:WIRCOI. In general, all editors are biased, but that's ok as long as there's no WP:TEND. In general, seems COI mostly is about bias towards the company or org you work for, or for a direct product your employer makes. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- what is the process of being a wikimedian in residence? if there is no process, is EMS technically a wikimedian in residence by default? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the way I work is quite similar to Wikimedians in Residence, so I would be happy to be characterised as such. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- My situation is totally different to @EMsmile. I just run a twitter and a substack etc. There's no overarching brand or organisation, and certainly not one I'm promoting here. I'm not even mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page on the subject AFAIK, nor are any services I run. Let's focus on what this is about. It's about @EMsmile adjusting the page to favour her client (if she was neutral it wouldn't matter). That's not the same as "this person may have some other involvement in the field", which would mean every doctor can't edit WP as they get paid for medicine. Also FWIW I'm pretty open about my ID and unless people are specifically compromising my personal security or encouraging troll swarms etc then I don't think there should be sanctions. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I wanted to point out earlier is that if I am accused of being biased (or that I am editing in a biased and non-professional way), then it's also possible that the person who makes that claim is biased as well. SRM is a controversial topic, there is no doubt around it. Millions of research money is being poured into it, from all sorts of sources (currently a lot from US tech milliardares). This is explained well in the SRM article here. I had in the past added more information on funding to that section. Then there are some groups (CSOs and NGOs but also academics) who have expressed concern about SRM. Some have even called for stopping all research. This kind of concern should be included in the SRM article. That's all. I am not saying it's right or wrong but it deserves to be mentioned as per WP:DUE.
- Would it be helpful, and allowed according to WP procedures, if I added a link to an article from 2023 which explain some activities on SRM outdoor experiments in the UK where AJL's name is mentioned (I don't want to make a mistake, or further mistakes, regarding WP:OUTTING- sorry if I got that wrong in the first place)? I don't really want to discuss AJL's work on SRM in depth. But it might shed line on the background to all this.
- Personally, I think this all should have stayed on the talk page of the SRM article and good compromises could have been found. I believe I have worked well on the talk page of the SRM article with other Misplaced Pages editors in the last six months; generally reaching consensus on the most suitable wording in a good faith manner. There really is no need to attack each other. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note also that AJL wrote on my talk page "I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client" on 15 January. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile
Let's cut to the chase before more oversighting is required here. EMsmile is a paid editor who violated WP:OUTING - encouraging other editors to look up off-wiki information on the person who raised concerns about their non-neutral paid editing. This has been disruptive - frankly edits that lead to mass requirements of oversight are highly disruptive - and that's notwithstanding the paid editing. Let's not bother beating around the bush anymore. EMsmile's contributions to the project are disruptive and should be curtailed. As they seem to think they did nothing wrong it will be up to Misplaced Pages to do the curtailing. Proposal withdrawn. I think I was a bit hasty. Now supporting topic ban below. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose block, support WP:TROUTing EMS for almost WP:OUTTING, WP:TROUTing AJL for aggressive interactions, warning ITK for WP:OUTTING.- informationToKnowledge did the problematic edits, not EMS. EMS encouraged looking up a username but apparently that wasnt revdeled, just editted out by an admin.also this whole thing has been edge case after edge case,to the point where even admins are learning more about the outtingbpolicy.- the wikimedian in residence description and more specifically WP:WIRCOI suggests that groups aligned to wikipedias vision of open knowledge (universities, research groups, museums) can be allowed to edit even when paid explicitly to edit wikipedia.would like more info about EMS employer or if they did anything else like add links from their employer’s research specifically or edit their employers article . their employer so far just seems like a research group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:WIRCOI
WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages
- this seems not to be the case here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- like aquillion says, bias isnt coi and coi isnt bias.
- want to see diffs where emsmile is citing their own research, editting their orgs article, or evidence their org is actually a front group or something else that isnt aligned with wikipedias values before im certain wp:coi appliesBluethricecreamman (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know the rules on punishing alleged transgressions on wikipedia, but personally I would want a lot more information - along the lines suggested by Bluethricecreamman - before anyone made a blocking decision that would affect someone's livelihood. Thisredrock (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the thing is that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be someone's livelihood. Bluethricecreamman has raised an exception allowed for employees of institutions like museums and libraries for edits that are aligned with both institutional and wp project goals but that exception explicitly disallows public relations activities. That forms something of the core to the main dispute - whether EMsmile was aligned with wp project goals or whether they were engaging in public relations for the org that employs them. I assert the latter while Bluethricecreamman asserts the former. Reasonable minds can disagree so additional editor feedback on that locus of dispute would be a good thing. But that doesn't change that people aren't generally supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages for pay. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Trout at this point. EMS accidentally almost outted someone, ITK did out someone by some edge case, AJL is excessively aggressive for a few edits and should be warned, not sure where COI is anymore and without some silverbullet evidence or argument, think we just move on and let the content dispute happen on talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose this seems a bit excessive. I would, however, like to see User:EMsmile apologize for the WP:OUTING that occurred. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already apologised on my talk page earlier today. I would be happy to write a more detailed apology: just tell me where to best put it? NB that I have never violated OUTING before so I am normally well aware of this and very careful. EMsmile (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose (uninvolved) there were actually two people who performed different outings that were redacted, both EMS and ITK. While I think both might have been done in simple ignorance (because who hasn't googled to check for bias before), it is entirely different to do it publically and publish said information. The sanctions for such are quite clear, so I think they should be performed, but only for long enough to satisfy the penalty for such actions (eg not WP:PUNISH).
- That being said, looking at EMS specifically, there is a lot to wade through that an uninvolved, unbiased SME would really aid this review. This is especially true because from a few hours of reviewing things, it fails a DUCK test, and looks more like what we would hope from a PAID editor. What I see is a properly disclosed WP:PAID editor, 99% live edits, 97% created pages still alive, steady-long-term edit history, 85%+ edit summaries in recent months, 20% of main space edits have been to the talk pages, their own talk page discussion remain civil (even when receiving borderline uncivil comments), regular use of PGs seemingly in appropriate (eg not wikilawyering) ways. These are all the opposite of what we see from typical COI/POVPUSH/PAID editors. Therefore, it does require a more nuanced look into their edits to ensure there isn't WP:CPUSH going on. This is going to require a lot more time to carefully go through their talk page discussions in full context, understanding the subject enough to weigh the merrits of their actual edits. But after an hour or two, I think there has been some cherry-picking of evidence. In think short of a thorough investigation, taking hours of an editors time, I think it will be quite difficult to call this actual disruption or rather it is more an edit war between involved editors. While this has been a very disruptive ANI, I'm not convinced its fault of the accused but perhaps still the accuser stirring the pot. :TiggerJay (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I do think we're beyond that for several reasons, as I've maintained outting is not something we should ever take lightly nor ever simply give it a pass. Beyond that AJL escalated this astonishingly fast (I would suggest in bad faith), from a (pharaphrased) "why did you do that" to "I'm reporting you to ANI and writing a letter to your employer" in the very next talk page edit, which is not only uncivil, but borderline NPA and off-wiki threats.
- However, to be abundantly clear I don't think EMS is in the clear either, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the edits for 'potential civil-POV which is also prohibited, but I just do not see the bright line, typical POVPUSH/COI edit behavior which is typical of such paid editors. I can understand how it might come off in a quick evaluation of blanking a section like this might come off is overly whitewashing, but
China's dedication to sustainable finance is extending to multiple fronts, demonstrating a holistic approach to green development. The ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a flagship project spanning numerous countries, is increasingly embracing green finance principles, prioritizing eco-friendly investments across its vast infrastructure and development endeavors. This shift aligns the BRI with sustainability goals, emphasizing clean energy, climate resilience, and biodiversity protection in partner nations.
but I think if you were being honest, that sounds wildly promotional to me and doesn't belong here. Can you even stuff more peacock terms in there?! Now a more appropriate thing would have been to edit it or tag it, but the removal wasn't the best choice available there. However, I would proffer that if any one of the experienced editors here removed that paragraph, nobody would bat an eye. But I think it does call into need for a closer look, instead of just a hasty "I didn't like they removed a paragraph" from an article they might have a COI with and thus indef! That is irresponsible. TiggerJay (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe everyone gets WP:TROUTs at this point and we move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, just to compare, AJL on the same metrics: ((I didn't even look at these until after the EMS post above) 93% live edits, 95% created pages still alive, otherwise dormant account becoming very active this month, 100% edit summaries recently, 44% of main space edits to talk page, no recent talk page interaction their talk page... So far nothing really wrong. However, then you discover that AJL account has made ONLY 16 edits in recent history before raising this ANI. They have been uncivil on EMS's talk page including very questionable off-wiki behavior, and never actually citing policy except once where WP:PAID was completely misrepresented. But as you look further in to the rather SHORT recent contribution history of this editor, it is ASTONISHING that their interaction on talk page with EMS was a grand total of 5 interactions before raising this at ANI (3 on article talk, and 2 on EMS talk). And in those talk messages it went from 0 to 100 between two posts. Again for someone who came out of seemingly nowhere (no more than a dozen edits in any given month for over 11 years)... And this ANI was raised after a total of 16 edits in a 24-hour period. This is quacking like a either WP:OWN or WP:SOCK. TiggerJay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- in hindsight might be open to restrictions on geoengineering and other related topics if ems is part of a pure advocacy group
- mostly a la liz aka only edit requests and talk page discuss for geoengineering. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:WIRCOI
- Strong support. They've consistently edited mainspace to push things in a direction clearly influenced by their employer. An editor whose entire post history consists of stuff strongly discouraged by policy should not continue to edit; the OUTing is just the cherry on top of unacceptable behavior. I'm also unimpressed by the way that both this editor and those defending them have constantly tried to sling aspersions at other people in order to defend them - even if true, WP:NOTTHEM applies; it does not excuse EMsmile's own behavior. The interpretation, above, that the fact that WP:PAID only strongly discourages paid editors from making mainspace edits does not allow editors to blithely ignore the entire thing without even the slightest token lip-service; the discretion it grants is for occasional limited uncontroversial edits, not for editors to take that one line to mean that the whole policy has no applicability to them at all. I'm baffled that this is even in question - EMsmile's editing is wildly beyond the line for what could ever be acceptable from a paid editor. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and IMO unthinkable They disclosed that they have a small consultancy project from Earth Systems Governance Foundation and made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit. From a glance at their user page it looks like their PE contributions are a tiny fraction of their >60k edits in wide-ranging areas. And IMO the reporter has been pretty nasty at best on this. I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
made 65 edits on the article in question some which may have gone into the gray area where they maybe should have done a requested edit
: shouldn't every edit they make to this article go through an edit request? It isn't just if the edit is obviously controversial, any edit to that article (or related ones) is at the very least in the "gray area" as you call it. Yes, they have behaved better than most paid editors by at least being transparent about their COI, but it doesn't give them a free pass to make 65 edits that should have gone through edit requests.
I'm not sold on an indefinite block right now, given their useful contributions beyond the topic, but I would support an "edit requests only" restriction on the topic of geoengineering broadly construed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- Personally, I am much more concerned about undeclared paid editing (which I feel is very prevalent and too prevalent) and feel that how rough we are on declared PE (doubly so for the approach by the op of this overall thread) to be a bad thing and a disincentive to declare. But if pinged and folks want, as I said before, I'd be willing to hang out at the article for a few months. And (even without any requirement for such from here) I'd strongly suggest that anything but gnome edits be submitted for someone else to put in. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd want to see a lot more evidences/diffs to support this proposal before supporting it. There might be evidence somewhere in this long, long discussion but it should have been presented again when this proposal was set forth, especially the evidence on any attempt at "outing". Along with copyright violations, that's one of the most damning accusations that can be made about an editor and yet, I haven't seen anything to support it. If it's part of an edit that has been revision deleted or oversighted, it should still be identified so those of us with the ability to examine it can verify it. Alluding to misconduct without supporting evidence is just casting aspersions. I'm not saying that everything here is proper (hence why I haven't supported or opposed this block) but you can't make charges without providing evidence to back them up and if it is buried somewhere else in this complaint, you have to add it to this proposal. But I think given the length of time this editor has contributed to the project and the fact that they have identified themselves as an editor who is getting compensated for their work (that is, following policy guidelines, so far), there should be due process before laying down the harshest sanction that we have. Liz 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant meat puppet. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I don't care about being outed because I'm using my own name. What I care about is the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I reported this behaviour on the talk page of both the article and the user and got nowhere - so I escalated it, as is the proper process. It doesn't require a long history of misconduct to justify this - because editing to promote your fee-paying client is egregious behavior, which is completely antithetical to the Spirit of Misplaced Pages. If someone doesn't stop after one warning and expresses absolutely no contrition, then escalation is the right thing to do. I was to-the-point but not personally abusive while doing so. I'm not obliged to soothe the tender feelings of those who are undermining the very essence of Misplaced Pages . I don't claim any ownership of the articles that I've created / worked on but I do care about the integrity of information on the subject - and when people are paid to bias Misplaced Pages they are acting as a sock puppet WP:SOCK . I called this out by means of letter to the employer - not because I wanted to get EMS into trouble with the employer, but because I wanted to get the employer to stop doing what they were paying EMS to do on their behalf . Let's stop getting bogged down in bureaucratic process and concentrate on the key point, which is whether we want Misplaced Pages to be edited by people who are trying to promote their employer's organization or point of view. All this talk of outing and "be kind" sea lion behaviour is a total distraction. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Tentative oppose - Hard to evaluate the OUTING claim given what's been redacted, so it's up to oversighters to decide if it was bad enough for a block. Not enough evidence has been presented that we need to block for COI/PAID activities yet, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Striking not because I'm convinced an indef is merited, but because the context relies on far more jargon and understanding of the subject than I have the capacity to dive into at the moment. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates with no opinion on indef block at this time.
From what I can see, Earth System Governance looks like a mission-aligned organization that could support a fruitful, policy-compliant Wikipedian in Residence position (FWIW I sometimes do paid projects as a WiR). There are a few potential hazards with any WiR role, however. One hazard is identified by the COI guideline: "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Misplaced Pages". More broadly, we have a movement-wide custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution" (emphasis in the original). Multiple editors have complained about EMsmile's edits that are in some way connected to her client. These edits merit examination:
- August 12 2024: EMsmile added a section on the NUA, which as TERSEYES points out above is closely connected to her client. All citations in the section were to primary sources affiliated with the NUA.
- Nov 18, 2024: EMsmile added the name of Frank Biermann, her client's founder, to the SRM article.. When you have a COI, this kind of edit is PR/marketing. Her edit summary was ""copy edits, added wikilink", i.e. there was no indication of substantial or COI editing in her edit summary.
- Jan 15 2024: When challenged about the NUA-related content, EMsmile responded with a ~600 word wall of text, followed by a ~400 word wall of text, followed by several shorter comments, all about advocating for more NUA content than other editors wanted. Tne persistence and sheer amount of text are not in line with WP:PAYTALK , which says that COI editors must be concise and mindful of not wasting volunteer editors' time. Several of her comments also cut up another editor's comment, in violation of WP:TPO.
When others complained about her edits and her COI, EMsmile accused them of making personal attacks." I did not see any personal attacks in the discussion to that point. The criticism had been very civil IMO. Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks turns up the heat and is uncivil.
EMsmile, I am concerned about the justifications you provide for editing about your client: "And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Misplaced Pages now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Misplaced Pages editing policies.
." There is no execmption in the COI guideline for experienced editors. All parts of the COI guideline apply to everyone, including you. Trying to be unbiased does not make you unbiased when you have a COI. You also justify your advocacy by pointing to your transparency. E.g. when called out on adding the founder's name to the SRM article, you wrote, "That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page.
" Transparency is good but it's only one part of the COI guideline. Transparency does not make it OK to use Misplaced Pages to advocate for your client.
It is obvious to me that EMsmile should immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I looked at Earth System Governance Project last night just to better understand the organization. It came across to me as promotional. I looked at the history and my heart sank. EMsmile has made 113 edits to the page, all within her time of being paid by ESG. She has according to the authorship statistics written 73% of the article, in violation of the COI guideline. This is absolutely not what Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to be doing.
I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below ESG, like many non-profits, probably wants to help Misplaced Pages but needs guidance on our rules. It is very common for non-profits to see Misplaced Pages as a form of social media presence and to want to leverage Misplaced Pages to build their brand. Brand-building is not where the opportunity is on Misplaced Pages. The opportunity is to improve Misplaced Pages articles in the organization's area of expertise using top-quality sources. A best outcome for all this would be for EMSmile to stop the COI edits and then work with ESG to pivot the project in a more productive direction.
Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello User:Clayoquot, we know each other well from working on the same articles as part of WikiProject Climate Change. My client for the project under discussion here is the "Earth System Governance Foundation" (not the project (Earth System Governance Project (which is an alliance), nor the concept earth system governance itself). So when you say that I should "immediately stop all forms of editing about her client and its founder", then who do you mean? Strictly speaking it would be the "Earth System Governance Foundation". They don't have a Misplaced Pages article about themselves, neither do they have a website.
- FWIW: If you look at the history of two articles that you mentioned: earth system governance and Earth System Governance Project, then I think you can see that I actually made them a lot better, not worse (compared with their versions from about early July last year). I added better sources and more nuanced content, including criticism and debates. If there are still unsourced, overly promotional statements in there, then this needs to be addressed (probably best on the talk pages or with direct edits of course).
- FYI: The Earth System Governance Project is “a global research network that aims to advance knowledge at the interface between global environmental change and governance. The network connects and mobilizes scholars from the social sciences and humanities researching at local and global scales.” It is not an advocacy group. It is not my client nor employer. There is also no official/legal/formal connection between the ESG Foundation and the ESG Project.
- If a topic ban was imposed, would such a topic ban for me for Earth System Governance Project apply only to the duration of this particular consultancy or for life? Also a topic ban from earth system governance? Would I still be allowed to propose changes on the talk pages? And would the ban stop when my consultancy stops (likely in a few months), or be there for life?
- Just to clarify for those following this ANI: the bulk of my 60 000 edits were done in a volunteer capacity; and a certain proportion (it would be hard to estimate exactly what proportion) was done for different clients (they are mentioned on my profile page). Those clients are all mission-aligned and are not for profits or even corporations. I have no "agenda" that I am pushing. All I want to do is improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles in the area of climate change and sustainable development. A lot of my work is actually just about readability improvements.
- Also just to clarify: when I mentioned "personal attacks" in that post that you, Clayoquot, linked to, I wasn't referring to attacks in this thread but I meant AJL's aggressive/confrontational comments on my talk page, and also on the talk page of SRM. It felt like a personal attack when someone writes on my talk page "If you continue to distort Misplaced Pages in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client." EMsmile (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that
he Earth System Governance Foundation also serves as legal representative of the Earth System Governance research community.
This is hardly what I would call "no official/legal/formal connection". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, the fact that you work for a non-profit does not mean that it isn't paid editing or that the guidelines do not apply to the same extent. Some of your edits are directly adding quotes from the project's mission statement, which is far from "readability improvements" and definitely should have gone through an edit request.Also, despite what you claim, the Earth System Governance Foundation appears to be directly linked to the Project. In fact they even use the same website, which states that
- yeah, thats clearly a COI vio. let's report to WP:COI/N, or something else. EMS, it does not matter you made an article better, or are unbiased... COI's destroy the appearance of neutrality. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- did report to WP:COI/N Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does matter (which doesn't mean I agree that they do make the article better -- that's outside my expertise). Just a point of order: we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive. I understand there are some editors who will say things like "editing with a COI is not allowed", but that's flatly incorrect in policy terms. It's not in the spirit of a Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but if EMsmile claims to be a WiR it's not on their user page or in this thread, as far as I can tell (and being a WiR isn't usually an effective shield anyway -- it's more a signal that someone is knowledgeable and following best practices such as, yes, not editing about the institution that hires you). We're talking about a standard paid editor, not a WiR. If the changes were constructive and transparent, there would be no reason for action. Evidence of editing with a COI isn't relevant to a sanction except where it's not transparent or not constructive, and my understanding of this section is that multiple people take issue with the quality of EMsmile's edits (i.e. edits that fail NPOV, not merely an editor that has a COI; the relevance of highlighting a COI is that we rightly provide little-to-no leeway to COI editors to make content mistakes relevant to their COI). FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:COI/N put this back into our court. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose indefinate block as seems excessive given her long history of useful edits. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile
I added this heading just now to break up a section that was getting long Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its
directaffiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project. This is the narrowest scope I can think of that would prevent the kind of disruption we have recently seen from you. I propose this topic ban be indefinite but appealable after 12 months. As you probably know, there's a good chance that you can avoid getting sanctioned if you commit to a voluntary restriction. I do not think at this time that you need to be banned from citing the scholarly works of ESG-affiliated people, however I strongly recommend you be very judicious and selective about the extent to which you do this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- Hi Clayoquot, I think your proposed topic ban is a good solution and way forward ("the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its affiliates, broadly construed. This obviously include the ESG Project and its founder. It also includes the Non-use Agreement as this is closely tied to the ESG Project."). I am happy to make a voluntary commitment to this restriction. I have no experience with such topic bans so I don't know the exact procedure. Do I put this on my profile page? Can you point me to an example where someone else has done this (maybe via my talk page)?
- By the way, the paragraph about the non-use agreement that is now (after some discussion) in the section on opposition to SRM research (second last paragraph) is pretty good in my opinion and does not need further changes at this stage (well, except the first sentence is a bit clunky, I already pointed that out on the talk page last week).
- SRM is part of the climate change topic complex and is thus, not surprisingly, a topic full of potential for debate and discussion (some people are strongly pushing for it, others are strongly warning about it), so I think further work is still needed and this article will evolve accordingly over time. Hopefully without any ANIs in the future. :-)
- I'll make sure I am more careful in future with respect to those grey areas while editing the solar radiation modification article as mentioned above by User:North8000. I could even commit that for the next few months, I don't make any edits to the solar radiation modification article directly but always go through the talk page (taking up the offer that North8000 suggested above: "I've done work with PE's before and would be happy to hang out at the subject article for a few months if pinged").
- Oh and should the section on my profile page where I explain how I manage any potential COIs that can arise from working for/with clients, need improvement and tightening? Happy to be given advice on this (maybe better on my talk page than here). EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being
a pioneer in opposing SRM research
is sourced... to ETC Group itself). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) - EMsmile, thank you for being flexible on this. Just to make sure you are aware, a topic ban means you may not make any edits related to the topic in question, and this includes edits to talk pages. There is a small set of exemptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, the talk pages as well? Fine by me for the talk pages of ESGP and its founder but not for the entirety of the SRM article, I am sorry. I think this would not be justified. It's also a bit impractical. With regards to Chaotic Enby's post above I could stress that there are also secondary sources for the non-use agreement, and that I could provide them on the talk page and then leave it up to others if they want to add them to the article or not.
- For background (if this helps, but it should rather be on the talk page of the SRM article, not here): The solar geoengineering non-use agreement is an academic initiative that simply believes SRM is a dangerous technology that should not be further developed, much like nuclear technology in the past and that powerful interests are funding it. That's it. That is why the topic is contentious. EMsmile (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I described above, I believe your edits regarding NUA at Talk:Solar radiation modification violated WP:PAYTALK quite egregiously. Do you disagree?
- Posting sources on a talk page is one of the milder forms of advocacy but it is still advocacy. Other editors are capable of finding the sources they want on SRM very quickly, and their searches for those sources will probably be less biased than your searches. I do not think the benefit of you sharing sources outweighs the risk of you using the talk page for COI advocacy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. I've used the talk page at SRM since middle of last year to reach consensus with other editors in a collaborative manner, like I always do. I tried to make my points in a concise manner, even if I sometimes failed (should make talk past posts shorter in future). Sometimes they might look like a "wall of text" because I copied a paragraph or even a whole section that is under discussion across. Of course there is always room for improvement but to be banned from writing on the talk page of SRM at all is in my opinion excessive.
- Please also note that the person who started this ANI originally said that I am doing "PR" for my client. This is not true. I can expand on this further but I think this is a content question, not one about procedures. Perhaps it's better to now let that his be handled in the COI noticeboard thread here?: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project. As was pointed out above by Rhododendrites: "we do allow COI edits and even PAID edits as long as they're (a) transparent and (b) constructive."
- I believe my edits for the solar radiation modification article have been transparent and constructive. The article is in fairly good shape now and does not include any "PR" for a certain "brand" or alike. EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the topic ban, you can add it to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Regarding the non-use agreement paragraph, I'm surprised to find it only citing primary sources (the agreement itself and its list of endorsements), making me wonder about WP:DUE. To be fair, that is a recurring concern throughout the section (with, for instance, the claim of ETC Group being
- The following comment was a reply to the comment by Rhododendrites dated 18:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) in the section above.True, editing with a COI is allowed if certain practices are followed. Indeed this is looking more like a standard situation in which 73% of a Misplaced Pages article was written by someone who was paid by the subject. Our community has a fair amount of practice with this stuff. To answer EMSmile's question, the topic ban I propose is for the ESG Foundation (your client) and its
Just to be clear, a topic ban from ESG and its affiliates would not stop you from editing the SRM talk page. It would only stop you from editing the SRM talk page on the topic of ESG and its affiliates. And regarding your history on the SRM talk page, I'm sorry I think you just don't get it. The length of your posts there is a symptom of the attitude that you expressed in other ways. You took the position that you, a paid COI editor, get an equal say in the editorial decision-making process. Instead of offering information and then deferring to the judgement of unconflicted editors, you repeatedly asked for the article to be made more favorable to your client. And unless you are topic banned I see no reason to think you will not do it again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to know what other editors think of edits like this at SRM and this at Frank Biermann (an article written almost entirely by EMsmile while being paid by ESG). Do the uninvolved people here see these as PR or not PR? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMO if it were not for the PE aspect they look like pretty routine factual edits and I wouldn't use the term PR (by it's common meaning) for them. With the declared PE aspect I'd call it where it would be better to discuss and let them be put in by somebody else if they agree. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- (involved, as I've had disagreements with EMSmile before). To me, some of this doesn't quite look routine. For instance, using Biermann's website to say he's graduated with distinction (we rarely mention this), or his own website to state he's often used by the press, and namedropping in a highly-viewed article. It's not egregious, but it would raise eyebrows even without the PE aspect. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Femke, I've modified the Frank Biermann article accordingly now (I agree with you; this needed improvement - my bad). And just to explain: I had mentioned Frank Biermann in the SRM article because he played an important role in developing the non-use agreement in the first place, and not because I wanted to "name drop" him (137 pageviews per day for the SRM article in the last year is not exactly "a highly-viewed article"). But I do understand that this could be "eyebrow raising" in the overall context of this COI discussion.
- I would be happy to improve the Frank Biermann article further if there are still problematic aspects (or "PR"?) that I have overlooked so far. However, I think it's probably better if I give myself a voluntary restriction for this article and also for the Earth System Governance Project article, as well as the non-use agreement component of the solar radiation modification article. I have just now written about this voluntary restriction on my profile page here. I feel bad for the page watchers and admins that this ANI has gone on for such a long time now. Maybe we could draw it to a close now with this conclusion and voluntary topic ban? (if needed this could be fine-tuned through my talk page rather than through this ANI thread?) EMsmile (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are making some progress. Your voluntary restriction, as currently worded, is quite far off from a topic ban or even a mainspace topic ban. A topic ban on the ESGF would stop you from, for example, adding a mention of Biermann or the ESGP to articles like Solar radiation management. You have written about your client in multiple articles that are not in your voluntary restriction.
- At the very least - whether or not you have a voluntary restriction - you need to follow the COI guideline. Your comment above suggests that you don't recognize that you should have used a edit request to add Biermann's name to the SRM article. Are you willing to commit to following the entirety of the COI guideline, including the use of edit requests for any non-trivial edits that involve your clients? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I find the voluntary restriction too little too late. I don't think it should be narrowly construed or time-constrained, as some COI remains after a paid position. Some of EMS' additions are egregiously non-neutral, such as adding the following to an infobox "focus=Stimulate a vibrant, pluralistic, and relevant research community for earth system governance" . You still claim on your user page that there is no organisational connection between the ESG Foundation and Project, despite their website stating the opposite, as pointed out 3 days ago. Working with a COI requires community trust, which I don't think exist anymore. I do wonder if this topic ban should be extended to future employers too? I can't find it back, but we have had discussions 3/4 years back already about more subtle COI editing on your part, where you promoted papers from individual scientists unduly, in exchange for them volunteering time to improve Misplaced Pages. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke. jp×g🗯️ 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support and will withdraw my proposal above. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose involuntary, as long as the details on the voluntary get confirmed North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke. also this discussion has gone too long and is nearly 0.5 WP:TOMATs long. We should end it somehow, and some kinda editting restriction is warranted at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Femke, while a block is far too much, a topic ban (with or without edit requests) seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer and I think extending it to future employers/clients makes sense. Once someone has started work on a project, it can be difficult or impossible to change the client's expectations. It is emotionally hard for the community to contemplate sanctions that affect an individual's current employment, so preventing that kind of situation is best for everyone. EMsmile does relatively well when working for clients who do not expect COI editing. I hope the guidance she is getting here will encourage her to seek those types of projects. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Voluntary restrictions
@EMsmile: Just clarifying
- When the Earth System Governance Project and Frank Biermann "zero editing" restrictions expire a year from now, of course if you were under any relevant PE arrangement all of the rules related to that would be in force.
- Did you say that you were under a relevant PE arrangement on the Solar radiation modification article? If not, please ignore the rest of this. If so, while still under it (until you explicitly say it is over), for the areas not covered by your "zero edit" self-restriction, would you agree to operate in a "doubly safe" mode in the other areas of the article? Until then, ask someone else to put in any edits that are not clearly merely-gnome edits?
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza
- Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Religião, Política e Futebol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Religião, Política e Futebol and ZanderAlbatraz1145 have both been edit warring at Aubrey Plaza over different pieces of information that they wish to add. This complaint is not about the content directly, but there are BIO concerns mixed in, as well as of course collaboration.
Through edit reasons (Zander) and both edit reasons and a user warning (Religião), it was made clear to the users by others and myself that their content additions at least required discussion. Zander has continued warring without so much as supplying an edit summary. Religião continued doing so with summaries that lacked reason, explanation or understanding of their edits and behaviour, including after a formal warning that they ignored. I elevate this to ANI due to the evidence that neither user will be collaborative in their editing; both edit war until they get their way; and due to the article in question being one of the most-viewed on Misplaced Pages this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am currently in a place that’s so IP Proxy blocked I can’t edit over WiFi even when logged in, it’s a one-section-at-a-time deal over cell data at the moment. That being said, the edit history is simple enough to follow IMO, and the article has had a BLP-contentious tag for weeks. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem to me like way too much info on non-notable family members is being added e.g. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like edit-warring involves more than these two editors. I think the page history is more complicated than you make it out to be. And diffs would help editors evaluate the situation. You probably should have waited to post this until you could have provided them in your complaint. Liz 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says,
This complaint is not about the content directly
. We are not discussing the content you're disputing, but it would be great if you did try to gain some consensus at the article talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sundayclose: Look, I didn't originally bring your edits up because they appeared to be an attempt to prevent the edit-warring. But your comment here makes it seem like you don't recognise the problem with the edit warring? As my opener says,
- Though I honestly thought I'd waited too long to take further steps to protect a highly-viewed article, fair enough. PP has helped over the weekend: while IMO the history is easy enough to follow in terms of seeing what would have been needed for immediate preventative/protective measures, yes it is a bit more complicated. Full post to follow. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I understand differences of opinion on this issue, I think we should try to put it in perspective. If her husband had been murdered, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it is very relevant to Plaza's life. In my opinion, the same is true of his suicide. I think we can safely say that this is not an unimportant detail that has little relevance to her life. In any event, such discussion belongs at Talk:Aubrey Plaza, not here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- There have been numerous edits to the Aubrey Plaza article since 4 January, when it was announced her husband had died, later declared a suicide. Most of the edits revolve around adding this information and how to describe her husband in the rest of the article. Most seem to be well-intentioned, don't all meet best practice for BLP editing, but generally can be resolved with corrective edits.
- Separately, since 29 December, some users have been attempting to add a lot of information about the BLP subject's ethnic background and non-notable extended family.
- The first edit to add this information was on 29 December by IP 94.63.205.236. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs:
- @Sundayclose: Then reverted the edit later that day, again with sourcing concerns. Diff: Sundayclose also warned the IP about BLP, and the IP went dormant.
- During all the editing on 4 January, another IP, 74.12.250.57, changed some of this info (describing Ashkenazi Jewish as Native American) for probably malicious reasons: - while another, 2600:1000:b107:a865:e028:5f95:de45:c803, removed some of the ethnic background info with a strange edit reason ("Updated"):
- The article was then confirmed-protected for two days.
- On 10 January, @Religião, Política e Futebol: made two edits (that for content purposes we will consider as one) to reinstate, and further expand upon, the information on family and ethnic background. Edits:
- Another IP, 2a00:23c6:ed85:7d01:3d25:a335:96f5:4b40, undid the edits on 10 January, again with sourcing and BLP concerns. Diff:
- On 14 January, Religião reinstates their version without explanation. Diff:
- On 15 January, I (Kingsif), undid this with the same source/BLP concerns. I also mention more specifically what could be BLP issues, and recommend using the talkpage to discuss the edit. Diff:
- Also on 15 January, Religião adds the information back. In their edit reason, they seem to acknowledge the BLP specifics I mentioned but then claim that their content is not an issue. They also say that they don't need to discuss. Diff:
- On 16 January, I (Kingsif), again remove the information. I address the content and sourcing concerns more forcefully, and the need for discussion. I warn Religião that their behaviour in the circumstances constitutes edit warring. Diff:
- Also on 16 January, Religião once again added back the content. Their edit reason asked why they can't add personal information on non-notable people: a lack of knowledge of BIO policy, but unwillingness to do anything about that instead of edit-war. Diff:
- I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
- In regards to the mention of Baena's suicide, this was first added shortly after it was first reported on 4 January.
- @DiaMali: did much of the immediate updating, including adding and removing this before it was confirmed. Diff:
- Over the next two days, the mention was removed and reinstated by various other users based on industry sources/lack of confirmation. E.g.: , ,
- The edit-warring really began on 6 January, when @Ibeaa: removed the mention. At this point, the suicide had been confirmed, and Ibeaa did not provide a reason. Possibly worth noting is that Ibeaa's edit was made the exact minute the article's protection was removed. Diff:
- On 7 January, IP 2804:d41:cb23:cc00:f4ae:3bc:747e:e196 adds it back. Diff: Also on 7 January, Ibeaa removed it and the reference without explanation. Diff:
- The next user to re-add the info was @ZanderAlbatraz1145:, who also did not use an edit reason, on 9 January. Diff:
- The IP 2800:355:9:f9f3:3059:222e:2783:93b8 removed it, without an edit reason, on 11 January. Diff:
- @Sundayclose: reverted the IP on the same day. Diff:
- Ibeaa then removed the mention again, also on 11 January. Diff:
- Zander then adds it back on 13 January, still without a reason. Not massively relevant, but Zander used the deprecated phrasing
committed suicide
for the first time in this edit, which IP 50.71.82.63 fixed. Diff: - Between 13 and the morning (GMT) of 15 January, Zander added and Ibeaa removed the information five times each, no edit reasons in sight.
- I (Kingsif) removed it on 15 January, tucked into the BLP edit, to try and stop the pair from edit warring by saying it should also be discussed. I should have probably done them as separate edits. Diff:
- Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 15 January. Diff:
- On 16 January, I again removed it as part of the larger edit. I made a clearer separation in this edit reason, to explain that because inclusion is (clearly) contentious, it should be discussed. Diff:
- Zander added it back, without a reason, again on 16 January. Diff:
- Ibeaa removes it, without a reason, also on 16 January. Diff:
- Sundayclose added it back on 16 January, with the explanation that it is
accurate and properly sourced
. FWIW, while accurate, it was sourced to People magazine, which ten days earlier was not accepted as a suitable source for the same information at the Jeff Baena article. Recently-deceased needs more than a celebrity magazine that actually says "unconfirmed but believed". More pressing, I would expect Sundayclose to have pushed for discussion as the inclusion was clearly contentious. Diff: - Ibeaa then removed again on 16 January, with the reason that they didn't know why they were still pursuing the edit war. I would have honestly interpreted that to mean they weren't going to continue, but anyway. Diff:
- Ibeaa's conduct was already reported here at ANI by Sundayclose, on 17 January, and they were blocked quickly. Archive.
- I don't know and won't speculate as to why Sundayclose did not also report Zander at this time.
- After Ibeaa is blocked, Zander continues their side of the edit war on 17 January, still without providing an edit reason. Diff:
- I then made this report, and tried to revert to a different, stable, version, before asking for an increase in page protection.
- Zander then adds the information back, without starting a discussion, before page protection is applied. They appear to have seen this ANI report, as they included an edit reason. Included in the edit reason is that it didn't seem
vital enough
to explain themselves, which I can't accept in good faith given they were going back-and-forth directly with Ibeaa and had been told to discuss since the inclusion had proven contentious. Diff:
- This is a lot of data. But it seems like if edit-warring is the problem, a complaint filed at WP:ANEW or a request for page protection at WP:RFP would be more suitable than ANI. Liz 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You know I'm not a massive fan of ANI and would really prefer to dump data and let y'all assess it yourselves, but if this is to be pursued beyond the immediate article protection (as you can see, it seems to be a magnet), then as I see it what we have is: one case of not-too-bad edit warring from Religião, but with quite BIO/BLP sensitive information and a user who has indicated they will not abide if they disagree, and then one case of probably fine content from Zander, but with truly chronic edit warring and the attitude that since the other guy was blocked they're righteous. Both users have been informed of BLP-contentious but the intersection of the actual edit warring with their flippant-at-best attitudes and the particular sensitive area, makes me think that some further addressing (at least asking them to acknowledge the issues) is needed to make sure it doesn't recur. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Death threats by 2.98.176.93
BLOCKED Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. (non-admin closure) Heart 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2.98.176.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Left a death threat here - diff
Adakiko (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: 30 day block by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Death threat left after block. Talk page access? Adakiko (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- TPA removed. Liz 03:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't find the right User talk template here. Any patrolling admin that can provide a link? Thanks. Liz 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:1036:B7B1:4292:C997 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you use Twinkle, you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't believe that. I use Twinkle all day long and I never saw that option. There are always things to learn here. Liz 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you use Twinkle, you can select 'block with talk page access revoked' and it'll select the proper template. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly, The Bushranger, thank you very much. I have the hardest time locating the right template regarding admin work. Liz 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Templates are a convenience but not at all necessary. It does not take long to type "Your talk page access has been revoked. See WP:UTRS for your options." Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! I've had to dig to find the right template a few times myself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be nice if they had a cheat sheet for the templates admins need to post when blocking somewhere. I suppose it’s something the foundation could look into, but I don’t trust them. 2600:1011:B331:28FE:1036:B7B1:4292:C997 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} is the one you want? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated copyvios by Manannan67
- Manannan67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Manannan67 has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (2020, 2020, a "final warning" in 2021 from Moneytrees, 2023, 2023), most recently from me, when I discovered a copyright violation they placed on Mariana de Jesús Torres. The message does not appear to be getting through, although the user did remove one early warning from the talk page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first instance cited (Fritz Mayer) was not removed, but archived. The second instance listed is either redundant or a reference to Anglo-Saxon mission which as the discussion indicates was not copyvio but PD. As to 2023, I used three separate sources still cited in the references. As it happened they were each discussing information in a primary source, consequently it reflected the primary source. I am not familiar with the "Portraits of the Saints" website you mentioned and don't know from where they derived their information, but I believe the two sentences with which you took issue are from the entry at Spanish Misplaced Pages. Admittedly, I should have cited ES, but was intending to translate the rest before I rapidly lost interest in loony apocalyptic predictions. Manannan67 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I have no idea to what you are referring. As I said, I am not familiar with "Portraits of the Saints", nor do I know from where they got their info. Manannan67 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the sentence you added in the revision I noted. That revision has been deleted due to the infringing text added by you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does not show up. This fr ES "During his first term as an abbess, she suffered persecution from a group of rebel nuns who wanted to relax the Rule within the convent. The rebellion grew and the sisters who were considered unobservants put them in the prison of the Convent, along with the other Spanish Founder Mothers." Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See the diff linked above; you rather unambiguously added infringing text to Mariana de Jesús Torres. This instance does not involve es-wiki that I can see. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Naniwoofg
Naniwoofg (talk · contribs) has been the subject of a complaint at Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines#User:Naniwoofg for issues involving images and WP:IDNHT. Finally posting this here so some sort of action could be taken per the comments at the aforementioned section. Note that said complaint includes refusal to respond to warnings and related stuff. Borgenland (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we get a follow-up on this? @Naniwoofg has failed to respond to all inquiries on affected article talk pages, their user talk page, and the Tambayan PH talk page. We have been reverting their unexplained and unusual edits to the infoboxes of several Philippine road and building articles back and forth for the past few days. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support sanctioning this user. One latest questionable edit is on Pulilan article, which I partially fixed. Naniwoofg claimed to had updated the infobox images, but the user used an image of the Pulilan Church before the 2019 renovation. I replaced Naniwoofg's choice of the church image with the one image taken after the renovation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewMisplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion, maybe more)
- Cherkash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The aforementioned user produces, edits and intefreres with multiple pages spreading anti-Ukrainian content, inapprpriate and hateful content towards the territorial integrity of Ukraine in favour of the aggressor (see Russo-Ukrainian_War#Background, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4).
The most notable is the mass-spread of the maps that contain Crimean peninsula painted as a part of Russian Federation, which I have noticed a long time ago on the Formula_one pages and even had raised the issue here (old link), with no visible actions following.
Two most notable maps are as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2025.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg
They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints.
Other examples can be seen from commons:Special:Contributions/Cherkash, such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: example 1, example 2
The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, United Nations General Assembly resolution A/73/L.47, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4.
I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. Unas964 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that this is hateful rather than, say, accidental or ignorant? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not accidental, it's purely deliberate. For instance, you can look through the User talk page, e.g. about normalising separatist states, and refer to the prior talks about other people struggling to correct the issue Crimea in the corresponding topic.
- I see as well multiple tries to justify the depiction of Crimea as non-Ukrainian via de facto statuses by merging the topic with Taiwan, often replicated by other contributors, which I cannot even comment on. Unas964 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the last time this was raised here.
- The short form: there appears to be a dispute between use of de-facto or de-jure borders. That is why Taiwan comes up. Some editors appear to believe that it is more neutral to either use de facto borders (Taiwan independent, Crimea not part of Ukraine) rather than de jure borders (Taiwan = China, Crimea = Ukraine).
- I would suggest, whether de facto or de jurw borders are used the map should be consistent in that usage. I would also suggest that Unas964 (talk · contribs) should adhere to WP:AGF while Cherkash (talk · contribs) needs to start communicating with other editors at least minimally, which will likely ease such assumptions regarding their editing.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- In any case, what's the alleged misbehaviour here? We can't stop an editor uploading images on commons, nor can we do anything about what is in their categories. We can prevent these images being used in our articles but is the editor actually the one putting them in our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am the editor in question. I am Ukrainian. This is not anti Ukrainian, it’s anti nazi. Everything is true and properly sourced. Problems don’t get fixed unless you recognize them. I’ve given specific criticisms about the encyclopedia that are all true and added known contributors. This is not a anti Ukrainian effort and I’m very taken back by this accusation. Clearly nobody here is assuming good faith 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I believe the IP editor above mistakenly posted in this section instead of at the section raised concerning their edits.-- Ponyo 00:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Occupation of Crimea is anti nazi? What proper source can prove that? Only Russian propagandists exploit such a narrative. Unas964 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
UN Resolutions are not Misplaced Pages guidelines. They're not even binding for the countries involved, let alone Misplaced Pages. UN Resolutions do not recognize Taiwan nor Israeli current borders, yet we recognize their independence and their de facto territories in out articles. De jure, there's no Taiwan, and Israel is still at war with Iraq since 1947. De jure, the Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union. Do we care? Misplaced Pages focuses on facts, the de facto state of the world, not bound by temporary laws made by temporary entities which often don't even recognize each other: according to Bhutan, de jure there's no Croatia; according to Greece, there's no Northern Cyprus; according to Serbia, there's no Kosovo; according to the UN, there's no Taiwan... should we follow them? Of course not. You're free to be pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, as long as you stick to facts. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- My only horse in this race is that Misplaced Pages should be consistent, at least at the level of any given artifact (such as a map), of showing either de jure borders, de facto borders or no borders at all. It is non-neutral to pick and choose de facto for thee, de jure for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Taiwan is de facto independent and de jure non-independent so I think you may have the terms backward there. However this speaks to my point - the important thing, from a neutrality position, is to stick to a consistent method of parsing these factual questions. Because, in a lot of these cases, it's not a matter of "facts over anything" but is rather making a positive decision which set of facts to prefer. It is a fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine. It is also a fact that Crimea is not presently being administered by Ukraine and is thus de facto not part of that country. If we have a map that chooses to prefer the de jure condition of Crimea as part of Ukraine and then to use the de facto boundary between China and Taiwan this is now non-neutral. It's Misplaced Pages failing to set a consistent standard and instead going based on vibes.
- Standards must be consistent. Ideally these standards should be consistent across the project and documented in an MOS. Failing that these standards should be consistent within any given article. Failing that these standards absolutely must be consistent in an indivisible artifact such as a map.
- As a corollary it is in favour of Misplaced Pages's neutrality goals to prefer a consistent representation of borders, whether that is de facto, de jure or to not show national borders at all (which remains an option). Now I will note that I didn't see much in the way of talk page discussion or of edit summaries from @Cherkash - which I pointed out as somewhere they could improve in my original comment - but if Cherkash is, in fact, motivated by wanting a consistent standard for depicting national boundaries on a map then @Unas964 has seriously failed to assume good faith by depicting said forwarding of neutrality goals as if it were a hate-motivated attack on Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I don't
have the terms backward there
. I literally stated thatDe jure, there's no Taiwan
, and also what I meant forfacts, the de facto state of the world
. Please, work on your reading and comprehension skills before making such accusations. Misplaced Pages requires competence. // and no, it is nota fact that Crimea is de jure part of Ukraine
, as de jurethe Transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated the Constitution of the Soviet Union
, as I had already wrote, because de jure the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet didn't have the authority to mandate land exchanges among constituent states, power which they only had de facto. Do better. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) - Taiwan is not de jure non-independent, de jure inherently requires picking a jure so to speak. It's a ruling from within a legal system, not a natural fact. That said, I agree picking maps with particular borders is not hateful conduct. If there's diffs of something else, it would be helpful to see them. CMD (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to that logic, any war crime or mass genocide could be justified by neutrality and Misplaced Pages:AGF. In theory, that does not align with Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT, since neutrality cannot allow for extremist views. Yet considering the replies here, I conclude that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that in the Russo-Ukrainian_War the positions of the victim and the aggressor are treated as equal or in favour of the former. Unas964 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We also have WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is fast reaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ukraine did not bomb Donbass and no reliable source would prove that, on the contrary -- such claims are pure pro-Russian propaganda narrative which indicates your biased position that thus cannot be taken into consideration Unas964 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess the Donbass families Ukraine bombed from 2014 to 2022 would have a different POV. You're free to keep yours, we don't blame you at all, but stop claiming to be a victim and don't try to dictate your POV onto other editors and encyclopedic articles. We do not support Ukraine nor Russia, we're here to write unbiased facts. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I don't
- @Simonm223: Facts over anything. Both as a contributor and as a reader, I don't want my maps to hide Taiwan, Kosovo, Croatia, Palestine or Crimea just because someone somewhere doesn't agree with their de facto state. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is no point in speculating what was legal or not in a totalitarian state, where laws are primarily instruments for maintaining control and suppressing opposition rather than upholding justice (see e.h. here). The soviet/Russian viewpoint on Crimea has the same zero value as the position of Third Reich on the state of Israel. It cannot be attributed to the same weight as of the democratic countries as Ukraine, Israel, the US etc. In the same way, you could justify the Khmer Rouge terror, Tiananmen Square massacre, Holocaust and 9/11 attacks by some de facto laws. Soviet regime murdered tens of millions of people, and the current Russian legal system justifies that: not only Holodomor, the genocide of Crimean Tatars and the other indigenous minorities in Crimea, but in oher regions, as well (as e.g. Asharshylyk). That renders de facto maps a propaganda instrument of a malevolent state, which could not be accepted on any basis of neutrality.
- Yet you equalise the positions of tyranical dictatorships and democratic countries while rejecting the UN resolutions. I see this as a violation of Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT and consider not to be taken into discussion at all. Unas964 (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that the editor this complaint is concerned with, Cherkash, hasn't responded and hasn't edited on the project since January 12th and has barely edited in 2025 at all. What was the urgency in posting this complaint right now, Unas964? Liz 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is urgent as long as there is the ongoing war undermining the Ukrainian territorial integrity. If Misplaced Pages policies (WP:RUSUKR,Misplaced Pages:DUE_WEIGHT etc) allow for undermining the legacy of Ukrainian state in favour of the aggressor, which such maps do under some consensus or de facto bodrers pretexts, then indeed it has no sense.
- If not, I shall propose to remove all of those maps in all relevant articles, treating them as tools to normalise the occupation of Crimea. Unas964 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a bit concerned that Unas964 has committed to continuing to edit in the Russia-Ukraine war CTOP after being informed of the ECR restriction. This includes continuing to argue about the map, calling a warning from another editor regarding WP:CANVAS "pro-Russian attacks." this whole thing at this thread among other diffs that I will leave off as being, you know, quite visible already in this conversation. I am concerned that they have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since their edit summary on my attempt to point them to WP:RGW was reverted with an edit summary of pro-Russian spam deleted - very similar to the previous pro-Russian attacks" comment. People are free to clerk their own talk pages as they see fit but to characterize "The encyclopedia, in fact, tries to be neutral regarding global conflicts, cleaving to what reliable sources say about those conflicts but generally making sure to attribute any notable opinions on the conflict to the opinion-holder," as pro-Putin is a bit of an alarming response as is responding to concerns regarding canvassing by accusing the editor of pro-Russian attacks. I am worried that Unas964, as in their interaction with Cherkash that led to this thread, is incapable of assuming good faith and also seems unwilling to comply with ECR restrictions surrounding the war in question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can confirm that - yes - I consider multiplying warnings and threats to me without any try to search an alternative or copromise a pro-Russian stand. I see no support either, only bullying to preserve the status quo of the pro-Russian view on the matter. Unas964 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal - short duration block for Unas964
I am not going to ask for an indef here as I don't really want to bite the newbie but this has gone on for long enough. Unas964 is very aware that extended confirmed status is required to edit on the Russia / Ukraine conflict and yet continues not only to do so, but to do so in a way that is highly confrontational, completely fails to WP:AGF and that is replete with WP:NPA violations. They have a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and hasten to accuse anyone who attempts to help them understand concepts such as WP:RGW of being Putinists. I think it's high time that they are demonstrated that such behaviour will have a consequence. A tban is inappropriate because this editor already should not be editing in this CTOP. So that really only leaves us with a block to get their attention and to hopefully stem this disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I completely agree with everything Simonm223 mentions. I also want to add that Unas964 doesn't seem to be taking others' rebuttals into account. Instead, he just either brushes them off or completely disregards them, as can be seen in basically this whole thread. Just scroll down and you'll see what I mean. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Edward Myer
- Edward Myer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edward Myer was recently blocked for two weeks, for creating a sock account to retaliate against myself and another AfC reviewer whose reviews they didn't like. (The socking was just the tip of the iceberg, there's much more to this as their talk page shows.) That block expired a few days ago, and since then they're back on the war footing, complaining and insinuating here, there and everywhere; as well as posting similar stuff on the talk pages of UtherSRG, 28bytes and AmandaNP. I think this needs to stop; for one thing it's a time sink, and I for one really don't care for the belligerence. I don't think I should be the one to indef them, as I'm involved, but I'd be grateful if someone did. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not involved except insofar as I have declined Draft:Bruse Wane, but I saw their behaviour towards others and it made me consider whether I would make a review, especially to decline. A less resilient reviewer might well have avoided it.
- I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support DoubleGrazing's well measured request on that basis.
- My view is for one final attempt in case they are educable. If they are not then 'final' should mean 'indefinite editing restrictions' 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have been WP:FORUMSHOPPING, . it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. (talk) TiggerJay (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, the sandbox may have a better shot at acceptance! I aways believe in extending my good faith as far as possible. I have seen some remarkable turnarounds by doing so. Obviously there comes a point, but I am not wholly sure we are there yet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 19:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have been WP:FORUMSHOPPING, . it seems like they simply dislike what many editors are saying. Previously blocked for sock activity. They also are also now actively editing a fork of the draft article over at User:Edward Myer/sandbox. Seems like they have been given plenty of changes to do the right thing. (talk) TiggerJay (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative in filing this ANI, DG; I was || this close to filing it myself. This user just doesn't get it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above post is a duplicate of that posted at Help Desk. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and just wanting to push an article to mainspace and WP:IAR without even citing such. Sounds like a longer block may be necessary. TiggerJay (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edward Myer, this is serious. Have you read over this complaint? Can you let this grudge go and go on to do some productive editing and let the past be the past? If you continue on this path, I don't see you editing on Misplaced Pages for the long term. This is a moment where you can choose to change your approach and turn around you time here as an editor. But it is up to your willingness to do so. Does that sound like something you can and want to do? Liz 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- My field of expertise is Hip Hop. I do intend to do other articles on other subjects, and add relevant updates to current live articles. I'm here to be apart of the community and contribute to[REDACTED] in a specific field that I'm passionate about. I hold no grudge or ill will for no one. As I said to LiZ I had to get adjusted to how communication on[REDACTED] works. Edward Myer (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before any action is taken, I have made a substantial offer of assistance to Edward Myer on their user talk page. I am no-one special to make the offer, and I would like us to take a little time to see if it can be effective before reaching any conclusion. I have had some success before with helping editors who are in pain here. The offer is in the spirit of my early post in this thread. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 07:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. Edward Myer (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have started to work together. May I suggest respectfully that any other matters be set aside for the duration? They can always be returned to if deemed necessary. My hope is that editors will not feel it to be necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. Edward Myer (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I
Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- _Valentinianus I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Valentinianus I is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to WP:RUSUKR topics.
- As background, this editor was notified repeatedly by User:Mellk in August , and clarified . Melik again notified Valentinianus a month later in response to more edits that were not exempt , .
- Valentinianus was blocked for a few weeks in October until User:Rosguill unblocked them after giving benefit of the doubt. I'm only bringing this up because Rosguill, during the unblock reference notified Valentinianus that they would "like you to confirm that you've read and understand Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#Remedies by identifying edits that you have made in violation of it, and how you will observe it going forward."
- User:Isabelle Belato notified Valentinianus on 1/18 that they were making inappropriate edits in violation of RUSUKR and was violating WP:BATTLEGROUND as well . Valentinianus replied that asking for a rename and calling for a subsequent rename vote were edit requests .
After that reply to Isabelle Belato (so that there is no question Valentinianus is aware of the latest warning), Valentinianus made five additional edits to Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. None were remotely along the line of constructive edit requests, the problematic ones being to argue that a source is a "Ukrainian shill site" , a project complaint about the infobox , and WP:ASPERSIONS about the bad faith of the other editors on the talk page .
While in isolation, no individual edit is egregious, this editor has been warned several times about the limits of RUSUKR, and adding WP:BATTLEGROUNDS, WP:AGF , and WP:ASPERSIONS violations in this area to the number of WP:ECP violations, I believe an indefinite topic ban from WP:RUSUKR topics, broadly construed, is appropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just blocked them for a week instead. If they're ignoring the ECR restrictions, they'll just ignore a topic ban; that's because the reason they're ignoring the ECR restrictions is either WP:CIR or the fact that they don't care, and either would apply to a topic ban as well. Perhaps they'll get the message after this block, or perhaps they won't at which point we can look at further sanctions (which, let's face it, is likely to be an indef). Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that the prior block before this was a sockpuppetry block, which I lifted as I found their explanation of how they came to make their edits plausible. The further editing since the unblock as outlined in the block actioned by Black Kite seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same editor, CoffeeCrumbs? Rosguill never unblocked this editor but Beeblebrox did back in December. Liz 01:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a few comments here that seem muldly disconnected from exactly what happened previous to this, but probably not to the point whee it changes the math on this latest block. Beeblebrox 02:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It appears I was unclear. I was quoting Rosguill's reminder about RUSUKR in the conversation about a possible unblock . My point wasn't about the block itself, but that the editor received an additional warning about their edits in that area. I missed including that specific diff. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk page access, Wiseguy012
I'm just going to close this. If Wiseguy012 returns and continues to rant or issues personal attacks, please return to ANI. Liz 04:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blocked user WiseGuy012 is using their talk page only for the purpose of continuing the rant that they got blocked for at Talk:Tagine and that they continued there as a sock account, Friend0113, which is also now blocked. See . Revoke user talk page access? Largoplazo (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Largoplazo,
- There is no User:WiseGuy012 account. Did you mean someone else? Liz 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wiseguy012, lower g. CMD (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks CMD. They are just ranting to themselves, not attacking anyone. An admin might come by, review this complaint and remove TPA but I don't find it egregious enough to act. Typically blocked editors can act like this right after they discover they've been blocked but then they move on and leave Misplaced Pages or they start creating sockpuppets and that's a bigger problem than a talk page rant. Too soon to tell right now. But it doesn't seem ANI-worthy to me. Liz 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The things some people decide to get mad about.... What they posted on the talk page was a copyright violation in its entirety, so that's gone, and I've warned them for that and let them know further disruption of any kind will cause them to lose talk page access. Beeblebrox 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. Largoplazo (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Still misuse of talk page for spamming. -Lemonaka 07:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That content was posted hours ago and was similar to what was reported here in the complaint. Liz 08:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Caste-based disruption
HistorianAlferedo has engaged in contentious WP:BATTLEGROUND style editing in the WP:CASTE related sanctioned topic area for quite sometime now. The user being repeatedly warned and clearly aware of these sanctions (evident from the removal of warning notices on their talk page) shows no signs of desisting. The editing pattern follows a faux concern of caste promotion by removing genuine well-sourced and known information all the while engaging in Rajput POV in multiple articles. That the editor isn't new is also evident from the fact that they can handedly cite obscure policies such as WP:RAJ (of course incorrectly and disingenously). Lisiting some particuarly egregious edits:
- , , , : deliberate insertion of incorrect wikilinks and false removals to obscure that the empresses were Rajput princesses
- : clearly falsifying an acronym (note the insertion of a dubious reference which nonetheless has nothing to do with the article subject)
- , , , , : POV caste-based insertions
- , : POV caste-based removals
This only a fraction of the tendentious edits in the user's topic warrior style editing related to Indian history and social groups. Not to mention the insertion of multiple non-RS refs when it suits the preferred POV while claiming to remove them in other articles. Considering the history, ediitng restrictions should follow in the form of a WP:CASTE t-ban or a general one till the user can show that they are not going to be in violation of enwiki policies anymore (all the more necessary considering the IP socking , ). Bringing this to ANI on advice of the editor themselves: . Gotitbro (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gotitbro, you MUST notify the editor that you have posted this complaint. Please do so. Liz 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually i was only editing and adding new information along with genuine citations. I had no motive for any sort of vandalism or anything else. Based on the knowledge about various topics of Indian history i was just trying to contribute in a positive way. Moreover some of the allegations by user Gotitbro are totally irrelevant, i’m not an indian but interested in the topics related to Indian history. New editors should be supported by the old ones and not demotivated with false allegations. Alright, if the old editors don’t want the new ones to contribute to[REDACTED] even in a good way then i’ll definitely even delete my account from wikipedia. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay @Liz. Please have a look at pages: Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq and Firuz Shah Tughlaq, I added relevant information along with scholarly work sources but user:@Gotitbro just reverted all the changes without even looking at the correct citations. That’s why i thought now i won’t edit and visit[REDACTED] as few users here just try to show off their ranks, there are good wikipedians and administrators too but a few of them are doing this with the new contributors. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- HistorianAlferedo, I haven't looked into the edits here to issue an opinion on whether there is any validity to these accusations but disagreements are very common on a collaborative editing project like Misplaced Pages. I dare say there are no editors here who haven't gotten into their share of disputes. You can't let your experience with one editor color your opinion of the entire community. And, believe me, we have some "old editors" who can act like newbies at times. Consider each editor as an individual, not by any kind of rank. Liz 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
On-wiki hounding, off-wiki soliciting, and severe stalking by User:SerChevalerie
I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with SerChevalerie, I had to take this to ANI.
To give a little background of the editing behavioural problems with the above mentioned editor, it started around late June 2024 when I made this edit . This was followed by his immediate reverts and significant edits . I had no problem with this, as this article was something wherein a third party editor had requested to expand it in a local Misplaced Pages WhatsApp group we were part of.
Both me and SerChevalerie were part of this WhatsApp group of Wikipedians from Goa. Having known each other online for over two years, and we shared the same native state. The problems arrived when he got back active on Misplaced Pages after a break of roughly 4 years and went on serious stalking my edits, the page I contributed, but mainly the pages that I created. As am In WP:Inclusionist and I love creating articles, but this was something he went overly critical on.
From June to August 2024, most of the edits SerChevalerie made were pertaining to the articles that I significantly worked on or created. During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS. It was until I finally took the decision to take it to WP:3O we reached a consensus after several days of discussion.
Over the course of some 30 articles that I created from June to August 2024, SerChevalerie has made edits which often times were seen as annoying and major stalking behaviour. He also likes to stay at the "top of the order" constantly as you can on articles such as Julião Menezes as per his latest "copyedit". During this period of two months almost entirely of his edits he has made were only pertaining to my articles.
When I had nominated his article Goa Revolution Day for SD, he then tried to solicit and I felt harrassed after he took his arguments to WhatsApp. Even after saying I don't want to discus this off-wiki he forced it upon me by confronting me in a group of 200-250 Wikipedians and having his arguments posted there. This is the same whatsapp group we were part of. And I have the relevant evidence with me.
SerChevalerie also has undisclosed COI with articles such creating and editing his grandfather's article significantly Gerald Pereira and a suspected COI paid editing on article like Subodh Kerkar. I have relevant evidence to support this claim. You can also check the latter's talk page where he claims that he "recreated" entirely on the article after it had some issues when it was created, see
He also seems to want a Misplaced Pages article on himself by using his connections and other Wikipedians to help him feature on the news (or possibly paid news) see here (Redacted). I find this featured article on him rather suspicious as it was published when SerChevalerie barely returned back to editing after 4 years.
When I had to quit Misplaced Pages for over 4 months due to my poor mental health because of him, he too wasn't very active on Misplaced Pages as he noticed I wasn't active anymore. You can check his edit history around the months of October and November this made me realise that SerChevalerie might have WP:OCD relating to my presence on Misplaced Pages itself. When I returned back to editing in early January this year, I made my first edit on the article J. C. Almeida. The next day he tries to repeat the same behaviour of stalking me and "staying on top" of the page. See . Please note that he didn't have any editing history on this page untill I edited it.
I still feel constantly watched by this editor everytime I am on Misplaced Pages. I want to propose to the community for a block on SerChevalerie or having placed WP:Sanctions on articles that I create so that he stops this behaviour. He also knows my real name and I don't want to get WP:Outed or doxxed by him as we both are from Goa, India. I'm afraid he might just get my residence address and does any harm. I just want to get rid of this issue and move on. Rejoy(talk) 11:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at everything, and especially not the off-wiki claims, but I get the impression the behavior issues may not be as one-sided as presented.
"During this, I was much subject to WP:HOUNDING on major of the articles I created such as Tsumyoki, you can check the lengthy talk page discussion we had as SerChevalerie would just WP:BLUDGEON, arguing by citing essays like WP: 10YEARTEST instead of finding a resolution or just WP:DTS."
- In this talk page you're both volleying policy pages, essays, and vague accusations at each other, but the concerns SerChevalerie raised about this article were not unfounded. It starts from something reasonable, and you both escalate at lightning speed.
- If I look at your interactions, I'm not sure I see the story of one-sided WP:HOUNDING. You both edit similar pages and regularly get into arguments.
- I don't see you trying to disengage with this user either, you've served him three different level 1 warning templates, now you're escalating to ANI with more inflammatory statements. If you're seriously worried about physical harm, please disregard this and rush to Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, but at least in the diffs you've linked, I don't see much credible threat of physical harm. Mlkj (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- On-wiki evidence here, off-wiki evidence arbcom. Too long to read and wall of text. -Lemonaka 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits
Indeffed by Canterbury Tail EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)I just wanted to add that TTYDDoopliss was found to be the sockpuppet of an editor many of us became familiar with last spring on ANI and the Teahouse. Liz 04:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- TTYDDoopliss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Summary: Is there a non-male administrator willing to provide some guidance to this editor, particularly in edits related to gender?
The user in question is relatively new. (Yes, an early edit stated she had a previous account, but she used it for roughly one day in December 2024 before losing her password, and she had no warnings at all on the account, so abuse of multiple accounts does not apply here.
With her new account, she quickly received a message alerting her that gender is a contentious topic, so she is CTOPS/aware of gender issues. After which, she has made edits including:
- This sequence of edits to List of media notable for being in development hell:
- Edit summary: men don’t be utterly deprived and ruin women’s lives by being a sex pest challenge (don’t revert if you’re a man, you’re disgusting and I want nothing to do with you guys)
- Edit summary: Undid revision 1270571008 by C.Fred (talk) how many more women are going to be hurt by continuing to let men like this in the game industry
- To Dawn M. Bennett, removing an image with the edit summary she has cleavage, which means men will want to screw her if they see the image
- To her own user talk, removing a thread that included warnings with the edit summary please leave me alone, im trying to lessen my suffering as a woman in a male-dominated world
I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I concede her point that, generally speaking, men in the world have done and continue to do pretty crappy things to women. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs, and IMO, some of her edits are even going counter to the viewpoint she holds. I also know that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social platform, and I worry that her behaviour, unchecked, will result in her crossing a line that gets her blocked, where an admin, regardless of gender, has to stop the disruption.
I'd like somebody to reach out to her to give her some advice before it gets to that point, and—while I generally think that any editor can do any job on Misplaced Pages regardless of gender—I think this a situation where a non-male or cisfemale administrator should be the one to make the contact. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest that if there's any founded concerns a trans woman would get bitten in this hypothetical interaction then we should probably just WP:NOTHERE right now. However then I went and looked at the diffs in question and the discussion that was on the user's talk page and I have to ask: has anyone considered this might all be a troll? Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- perhaps my useful non-gender related edits might tip you off to the fact that im not a troll? here’s something non-gender related articles i fixed up: Monster-taming game, Cookie Run: Kingdom, Acer Aspire One Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a straightforward WP:RGW or WP:NOTTHERAPY block. Misplaced Pages quite a number of women editors and they seem to be fine and don't seem to experience overt persecution. I just don't see how this user can reasonably be expected to collaborate with others, a core requirement of Misplaced Pages editing, if they're just going to accuse everyone else of being misogynists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them removing mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, Poe's law in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TTYDDoopliss Hrm. So is the inference that you willingly and knowingly made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't think you're in any sort of distress at all. As I think, rather, that you are trolling Misplaced Pages and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- again, I would take the topic ban over an indef any day. I have worth to bring here, and good intentions. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TTYDDoopliss Hrm. So is the inference that you willingly and knowingly made those uncivil edits, so you should be at the least topic banned from gender issues, broadly construed, if not blocked indefinitely? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- just because i don’t want women to be treated like sh*t doesn’t mean i deserve to be thrown in a psych ward, or that im in any sort of “distress”. does it look like im in distress right now? no, and I haven’t been. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, Poe's law in action. I think it's best to assume good faith that that this is a real person in serious mental distress rather than a troll though, though they should be blocked either way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's the edits themselves not really matching up to the complaints in the edit summary that jumps out at me. Like two of the diffs are them removing mention to a man who was accused of sexual assault complaining that men must not revert the deletion because of misogyny. Another was removing a picture of an, honestly, modestly dressed woman in game development with a claim that it would make men horny. The discrepancy between what is being deleted and the justifications being given is rather striking. However whether this is a sincerely unwell person or a troll feigning distress, either way, I don't think this editor is here to write an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
benefit of the doubt
– Pardon me, but what doubt could there possibly be? EEng 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Surprised they weren't blocked after calling the vast majority of en.wiki contributors "nerdy men". EF 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- that’s… not an insult? just an observation Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. EF 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- “Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. EF 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I go to the talk pages of articles, no one ever responds. I just operate over WP:BRD, it’s easier and takes less time. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- “Collaborate” being on talk pages, of course. EF 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but we aren’t all “nerdy men”, albeit maybe a bit nerdy. Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point is I haven’t seem them collaborate constructively yet. EF 17:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean the shoe fits here. Any time I mention that I have editing[REDACTED] as a hobby I get called a nerd. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- that’s… not an insult? just an observation Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- i mean you requested “guidance”, everyone else is suggesting indef which is not what i had in mind when you left this here. id gladly take a gensex topic ban over never being able to edit ever again. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm suspecting trolling, here. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for WP:CIVIL violations. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information about the exploitation caused by the games industry - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make women working in the games industry literally less visible, seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body
Be that as it may, leave that attitude at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- clearly you’ve never had a phobia, or OCD. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. Tarlby 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've already been told by Liz, so it's up to you now. Either acknowledge and take on the board the advice you have been given, or yes, you will likely be blocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Acknowledge that your past actions were wrong and disruptive, you promise to never do them again, and from here on contribute constructively. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- what can I do to make sure I don’t get indeffed? anything? because I want to edit here again in my lifetime Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- We're sorry for what you have to deal with, but that doesn't excuse disruption. It's unfortunate, but you need to find a way to adapt, or a block may come your way. Tarlby 19:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- clearly you’ve never had a phobia, or OCD. It’s not something you just… leave. But I won’t get into detail. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so leave that fear at the door when you edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other editors. Okay. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s not an “attitude” it’s a fear. There’s a difference. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- so you think I’m just making fun of feminists or something? do you think im pretending to be a woman and I’m actually an incel or some crap? what if I told you I have an extreme fear of men and being harmed by men, I’ve been plagued by this fear for months, and I socially isolate myself and don’t talk to men to gain control over my own body? But of course you won’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- See my concern, and why I and others are doubting Doopliss' sincerity, is edits like this - the edit summary may claim they're trying to protect women or correct misogyny but the end result is to remove information about the exploitation caused by the games industry - which, of course, has quite a lot of misogyny within it. These sorts of counter-productive edits make Doopliss' actions questionable. A combination of strident edit summaries regarding the dangers of misogyny with edits that make misogyny less visible in articles, that make women working in the games industry literally less visible, seem less like somebody feeling upset over misogyny and more like someone using tropes about feminism to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you may be a net positive to the site, but you should be wary that any of your actions can get you blocked regardless. There have been plenty of cases where a user has done so much for Misplaced Pages, but their actions got them indef'ed, usually for WP:CIVIL violations. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 18:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve made a lot of non-gender edits. I’m not here solely to make those kind of edits. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 17:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- TTYDDoopliss, I'll cut to the chase rather than participating in a debate over what your motivation is for some of your editing. I'm a female administrator and you've been brought to ANI. While this is sometimes done for frivolous reasons, for the most part, unless vandalism is occurring, complaints are brought here to resolve in order that harsher sanctions won't be necessary. It's an attempt to address problems before a block becomes necessary. There is a view that your glib messages asserting a POV regarding sexism or editors on this project are inappropriate and borderline unacceptable. Can you cease with the personal commentary here? Because if you can not, there will not be a third chance, my Misplaced Pages experience tells me that a block from editing of some duration will be coming your way. So, the choice is up to you at this point. Act professionally and not like Misplaced Pages is some kind of discussion forum, or have your editing privileges removed.
- And to reinforce this in case it needs to be emphasized, this is not about sexism or gender really, it's about NPOV and disruptive editing. You'd be getting a similar message if you were making side comments about politics, ethnicity, race or any other subjects that cross over into contentious subject areas. These are designated areas where sloppy editing and off-the-cuff comments are sanctioned if the editor can't control her/himself. From a nerdy female editor, Liz 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- is there any other way I can make Misplaced Pages a better place for women? How about a policy like WP:CHILDPROTECT but for women? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm looking at this edit. A perfectly normal picture of a woman was removed with a weird and offensively sexualised edit summary. I can't begin to stress how perfectly normal that picture is. There are two possibilities here. One is that this is anti-feminist trolling under a false flag but the other is that TTYDDoopliss is exactly what she claims to be and was genuinely triggered by a perfectly ordinary picture of a woman at an awards ceremony. If the later then she is clearly in no state to be able to edit Misplaced Pages at this time. Pictures like that turn up all over Misplaced Pages. If we have stronger evidence of deliberate trolling elsewhere then obviously that's an indef (of both the old and new accounts) but if that edit was made in good faith then I think a temporary block would be best for all concerned. It would give TTYDDoopliss an opportunity to come back later if she is well enough, and if she wants to, of course. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's this which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we would expect is to find WP:MEDRS compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in WP:OR in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- And, exacerbating this, you were already engaged here with people raising concerns about your widespread disruptive editing, which had been explained to you, before you made this edit. Which makes it quite deliberated disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we would expect is to find WP:MEDRS compliant sources to demonstrate that rather than a person engaging in WP:OR in a way that leads to a statement contradicted by its own reliable citation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- because there’s no such thing as “women/men are affected more often” it’s 100% gender bias.male researchers assign depression, anxiety, ocd, and BPD to women because they are seen as neurotic and hysterical. they assign adhd, autism and npd to men because it fits them being nerdy, socially awkward and perverted. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Now I'm looking at this edit and that does seem a lot more like trolling. The edit summary sounds like an anti-feminist parody of a feminist and the actual edit is to remove coverage of an alleged sex offender. Given that sexual misconduct is a serious issue in the video games industry it seems implausible that even the most misguided feminist would try to cover it up. I know that mental illness can express itself in many ways but... I just don't buy it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I removed it because it made me upset.
What? Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just WP:TROLLING, a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- fine ill shut up now Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weren't you the one who wanted to NOT get indeffed 10 minutes ago? Whether you have legitimate feelings about this or you are just WP:TROLLING, a block is coming soon if you continue with this behavior. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Having intense coverage of SA accusations will only fuel men more to hurt us and use us. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This edit also looks like parody. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the male protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one said or implied any such thing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Women don't exist to fulfill men's needs. That is very true. However desire for a partner can certainly be part of a character's motivation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- No one said or implied any such thing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This edit actually takes a WP:MEDRS cited statement and rewrites it to say something that the RS did not say not once but twice. In addition, there is the claim that erasing sexual orientation as a possible subject of obsessive and compulsive ideation is somehow reducing heteronormative bias. Which is somewhat contrary to what I would expect from a sincere feminist editor. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This edit is somewhat better than average. At least the source says, "Insofar as they affect women, bromances, when taken in conjunction with monogamous heterosexual relationships, decrease the burden on women to provide all the care work for their partners."
- However "all the care work" is paraphrased by Doopliss to "The increasing tolerance of bromances relives pressure on women to be emotionally intimate with men," which is... not... the same thing. But at least I can look at the source, look at the statement and draw a line between them, however tenuous. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, this too supports my "troll" hypothesis since the very next paragraph of the Chen source begins "Bromances reinforce gender hierarchy, bolster marriage as the goveming, archetypal intimate relationship, and normalize homophobia." So we have an article crtical of bromance being used to praise it for getting men out of womens' hair. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Women don’t exist to fulfill men’s needs. I’m sorry. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also led to a bit of revert action with the claim that noting the character's motivation included desire for a girlfriend was "dehumanizing". Hilariously this is about a comic in which the male protagonist is resurrected as a non-gendered non-human. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I removed it because it made me upset. I KNOW it is a huge problem. I don’t even feel safe being in the public eye of any man. I don’t feel safe having ANY job knowing that im just gonna get assaulted by a man and HR won’t do anything and I will be traumatized for the rest of my life. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's this which was made long after people started warning her that such edits were disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's clear some form of block is necessary now. Tarlby 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because you have disrupted multiple topics. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- And that's it. That's the proof that we are being played. An inexperienced user would not be advocating for a topic ban. An inexperienced user would not even know what a topic ban was. This is probably a Gamergate dead-ender yanking our chains. DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a checkuser but what's the point? They are going to get blocked anyway. DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what a topic ban is because I’ve lurked on pages like AN/I before. I’ve been browsing back-end Misplaced Pages pages for years. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- what can I do to make you guys believe me? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That ship has sailed. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- what can I do to make you guys believe me? Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. We don't believe you AT ALL. Why, you ask? This whole ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I don’t even know what a “dead-ender” is. You guys think im an incel in disguise when i hate incels with a burning passion. But of course, you guys don’t believe me. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- why? how? why not a topic ban or something? PLEASE don’t kick me out. Doopliss (she) 👻 | Creepy Steeple 🏚️ 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked them. It's clear we're being trolled. They're not only offensively characterising men, they're offensively characterising women and people with mental illnesses. Thay also can't keep their own lies and beliefs straight. We're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Indefinite block
For disruptive editing and failure to get the point. I propose that TTYDDoopliss be indefintely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Even if they are what they claim to be there is nothing for them here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. In addition, WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support For the reasons and multitudinous diffs cited above I believe this whole dog and pony show is a troll. WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, and some of us are bound to be male. If you can't work collaboratively, you can't work at all. EF 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support because as I said before, whether this user has legitimate intentions behind these edits or is just WP:TROLLING, their disruptive editing and refusal to acknowledge their actions shows me that they are WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom Tarlby 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per Nom. The way she characterizes certain mental illnesses is untrue and frankly beyond offensive. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - I believe we're being trolled. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nomination - I had initial sympathy but it's just trolling. qcne (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Good block by CT. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: TTYDDoopliss asked, several times over, what she could do to avoid a general block. Over and over again, she refused to respond in the one way that would have helped her: by saying that she'd clean up her act and stop dumping her own issues onto this site. Even if we weren't being trolled, any time an IDHT person gets cbanned, an angel gets its wings. Ravenswing 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Toa_Nidhiki05: WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.
Toa Nidhiki05 has been guarding the hell out of the Republican Party (United States). They instantly revert any change against the status quo that they don't like, citing a need for consensus, then don't actually engage with discussions around those edits except to call for moratoriums on even talking about them while spewing bad faith assumptions, or trying to wikilawyer away disagreements. I'm not a long term editor at Republican Party (United States) and, frankly, don't want to be, but in the limited number of days I've been editing on this it's clearly an issue.
(The main thing I'm trying to draw attention to in those diffs is the declaration that an edit "will not be made'. Please see below before taking claims of local consensus at face value)
Most recently he decided to just blanket slander multiple editors who disagree with him while again calling for a moratorium on changes he doesn't like. diff
More specifically this line:
Rather than persuade editors, it seems editors are attempting to force these changes through.
(right below an entire thread that was made before a controversial change specifically to discuss said change)
I feel this last one is the most important, because it highlights a pattern of what's been going on here: Toa telling editors a local consensus has been reached, and that they're free to read back, and then citing their own requests obliquely as if they're others ("or called for a moratorium on changes
") and, most importantly, creating an in-group of who is allowed to weigh in on article content (Only one active discussion-engaged user
). Other editors, like @Cortador, have been calling them out for this as well.
Note, actually doing what Toa asks and looking back through old talk page discussions on this largely results in finding Toa telling people the same thing then, too.
There's a content dispute under-riding most of this, which frankly is probably best adjudicated at this point by literally anyone other than Toa or myself. The meat of this ANI is wholly independent of the content dispute, except insofar as Toa's apparently not been engaging in the most NPOV way with editors when it comes to sourcing requirements. I want to point out that despite Toa's reality-bending insistence I've been pretty open to admitting a different proposal for a change from others was better than my own idea. In an attempt to placate his revert-happy self on what I was sure would be controversial (removing 'conservative' from the dominant ideology of the party) I started by making a discussion thread highlighting that the sources that were being used didn't make that claim, including direct quotes from the papers. Except for admonishing editors for wanting change, he's mostly elected to just straight up ignore any substantive discussion over the exact thing he's reverting. This is clearly OWN and POV editing, and it looks like previous attempts to caution him for edit warring were met with 'Are you fucking kidding me.'. I'd honestly like to bow out of editing that page entirely for a while for so many reasons, but I don't want to leave it in a state where one editor has declared an article theirs.
Addendum: this TBAN for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The page-in-question should be stable & at status quo. Best to work out content disputes on the page-in-questions' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that the content dispute should be decided here. To be clear, 99% of the content dispute is moving one sentence earlier in the article and removing a source that failed verification. We're not talking about seeing how fast we can invoke Godwin's Law in a page about the GOP (though admittedly some editors are). I genuinely don't think the content in question actually substantial at all, which is why one editor increasingly spiralling into mudslinging over it while refusing to discuss changes beyond categorical rejection or highly mobile goalposts for inclusion is a problem. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am out of town, and don't have time to reply fully to all of this. But the general dispute ongoing at the page is twofold: Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right", and they want "conservatism" to be removed as a majority faction. There doesn't appear to be support for either of these things (an ongoing RfC on the "far-right" designation is trending a pretty strong consensus in opposition, and removing conservatism appears to be equally unlikely to reach consensus). This is a content dispute involving, at this point, probably at least a dozen editors, and should be resolved on the page.
- What Warrenmck does not seem to understand is that changing political positions on pages is something that comes up all the time. None of the arguments presented have been new, and a local consensus has been developed with the collaboration of many editors. This took a lot of hard work and compromise to reach.
- For editors like myself - who worked on the present consensus versions - this is not a fresh, new discussion. It's more or less an endless string of discussions that have been ongoing for years. This is why several other editors - not just myself (and I'm not even the one who came up with the idea - that was Czello. I was actually the third to support one) have supported a moratorium on said discussions. There is nothing wrong with discussing a moratorium on repetitive topics that repeatedly emerge on talk pages.
- I will also note that, I have not, in fact, blindly opposed any changes to the article. I did not object when “right-wing populism” was added as a majority faction; I didn’t even participate in the discussion, iirc, because it was such an obvious changed. And in this discussion I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes. It goes without saying that the article is not mine, I have never claimed it is mine, and I have no interest in subverting or going against whatever consensus is reached through talk page discussions, rather than brute force. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, what I was calling for was including "far right" as a minor faction, per the an absolute ocean of reliable sources. Even you explicitly stated in the RfC it's a minor ideology. You've accused me of wanting to make the page about the republicans being far right multiple times now, and the only time you've responded to me saying that 's not what I'm doing here was to say that having it on the page at all slanders the party as that
Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge?
- and you responded
Which is labeling the party as it.
- Which isn't how NPOV editing works.
- Beyond that I simply don't believe that Toa is accurately representing the discussions that are there now or the historical discussions around local consensus.
I will also note that, I have not, in fact, opposed any changes. In fact, I've added additional citations to address Warrenmck's concerns. However, what they want does not appear to be more sources, but instead their preferred changes
- Please, any admin reading this exact quoted line, immediately go look at Toa's engagement on this exact point here. Toa added a source paper, I read the source paper, removed it because it simply didn't make the claim it was being used to make, and instantly started a discussion thread asking for sources and explicitly explaining my removal. I did not make the change I knew would be controversial, that was a different editor later. I also quoted the specific line in the paper which discussed why it wasn't an approprioate source for the claim it was being used for in my removal (diff) Which Toa almost completely ignored. This is simply not an accurate recounting of events.
- This is why I think this is an ANI issue. Toa routinely misrepresents or overstates consensus and historical discussions, while running off editors who don't agree, then claiming that only the long term editors should have a meaningful say. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please find a time where I said you “want to make the page about the Republicans being far right”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that. I have said you clearly have strong views about the subject, though.
- What you are referencing was a typo. Notice that it’s not even a complete sentence? Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Literally in this ANI:
Warrenmck wants the page to define the party in the inbox as "far-right"
- That is not the same thing as defining far-right as a minor ideology of the party. Also from the talk page:
Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- You are making a distinction without a difference. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Involved: These are content disputes and should be dealt with at that level. Springee (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Toa_Nidhiki05 appears to have been exceedingly cordial and professional in the differences you provided above. I see no wrongdoing on their part. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks WP:OWN:
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
- The other problem is that the consensus they're pointing to doesn't seem to substantially exist. There's an abundance of "go see the old discussions" which themselves say "go see the old discussions" and so on. It's artificial, and it's being used to prevent edits that users don't like, as opposed to edits they can substantively object to. Seriously, just look at his presentation of these previous discussions here and go back in the archives. While I'm sure there were discussions at some (possibly many) points, there's a hell of a lot of reliable sources being objected to there on a house of cards.
- Additionally, I think that's masking the fact that they're simply refusing to engage editors while reverting the article to the status quo. They're basically holding the article hostage by pointing people to an ongoing discussion they're not engaging in (diff, or on the talk pages with "see previous discussion" as a threadkiller). So the choice editors are left with is to edit war over an inclusion, or give up. The issue isn't that there's a content dispute here, it's that someone has WP:WIKILAWYERed their way into objecting to a specific edit on an ongoing basis, always maintaining a layer of "content dispute". As Cortador said,
"Do you have a content-based case to make here or do you just declare editor's contributions to be "low quality" if you disagree with them?"
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee appears to be actively involved in this, and there's comments on their guarding against "far right" in the article going back at least two years of the same argumentation pattern and misrepresenting sourcing requirements and consensus. diff diff diff and diff. I agree this seems more like a CPUSH. For example, this was directed at Springee from the last diff:
The same failed arguments have been made in several similar discussions of late
- Basically, the patten we're seeing at Republican Party (United States) appears to be ongoing with several of the key users objecting to changes on identical grounds year after year without ever really explaining why these aren't open for discussion in light of sourcing standards. @The Four Deuces appears to be engaging in an identical pattern in many of the same articles. TFD, Toa, and Springee show up all over[REDACTED] making the same tortured arguments around academic sourcing and consensus when someone mentions "far-right" in an article. Every single time it's a complete slamming of the door of the possibility that RS could ever be met for the inclusion of information they deem controversial. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, being vague wasn't my intention. I think you're engaging in the same CPUSH behaviour as Toa, just maintaining civility much better. It's possible to find years worth of identical argumentation from you on this across many articles, always with the same anything-other-than-excluding-content-is-unacceptable, and above you're continuing the relatively nonsensical arguments from Toa with Simonm223 in asking for unique sourcing standards for a claim you really don't like. You pick this fight very consistently on Misplaced Pages, usually with the same arguments.
- If I'm way out of line here I'm fine accepting a boomerang, but I see several editors going way off the deep end in trying to prevent a very specific change to articles on Misplaced Pages that seems to be coming from a place of stonewalling diff diff Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope my arguments have been consistent because I try to pay strict adherence to content policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply to a vague accusation. Springee (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I recently provided academic sources I was informed that A) Anything associating the Republicans with the alt-right should be automatically treated as unreliable and B) that far-right should not be added unless it could be demonstrated that there is a clear consensus of all RS regarding it. I should mention that this requirement was put in place after I disclosed that Google Scholar has 53,000 entries for the search string "republican party far-right". IE: the idea of cross-referencing everything is patently absurd. So, yes, there aer WP:CPUSH problems at that page. That said I think they're significantly more complicated than a single editor acting with an WP:OWN mentality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s worth pointing out that Toa repeated an argument that the “far-right” claim hadn’t been made by academic sources as the core of the prior consensus while ardently refusing to respond to several editors providing academic sources. Civility can mask sealioning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of making "low quality" edits instead of making an argument isn't helpful or professional, and neither is demanding a unique standard for edits one is opposed to. Cortador (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article. This discussion should be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully WP:CPUSH and WP:SEALION are behavioural problems. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a comment, Toa’s response to multiple users adding failed verification tag was to go tag all the sources making a political claim they don’t like as failing verification en masse (diff).
- while these all on their own may be legitimate tags (though other editors have been removing some tags as apparently they did pass verification) I think taking this in the context of them actually refusing to discuss the failed verification tag that lead to this spree at all makes this pretty WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour to me. If Toa wants to discuss bad edits, that’s good and fine. But they can’t have a policy of using bad edits from other people to deflect from any discussion around edits they themselves feel are valid. Apparently he doesn't have enough time to fully engage with this ANI or any of the discussions around his own edits, but does have enough time to read dozens of articles and point by point articulate his issue with each over at the talk page for Republican Party (United States). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Toa was TBANed for this exact behaviour in 2022. The reason given at the time was
Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it.
- This is the same pattern of behaviour he's accused of here, for the same thing, and that resulted in an indefinite TBAN. Springee and TFD are again involved there, as well. This should make it pretty clear that, civility aside, this is a problem. A long, ongoing one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly I agree having seen more of this being a systematic issue since making this ANI. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps the issue is that good faith editor don't agree. A failure to get consensus to add a controversial claim is hardly proof of CPUSH. Additionally as the number of accused editors goes up it looks more like a true content dispute vs a single editor problem. I will also note that Toa has done quite a bit to review some of the references used to support the disputed changes and makes a good case that they don't support the claims within the edits being pushed into the article. Springee (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy.
- And very clearly retaliatory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". If the source does not back up the cited claim, it shouldn't be used. This is... pretty ordinary stuff, actually.
- You'll notice I did not remove the broader claims, or change the in-article text. All I have done is trim sources that do not back up the claim given, which is something Misplaced Pages citations are required to do. If you reaction to a source review that results in no changes to prose is to file a report rather than discuss, challenge, or revert, you might have a hard time being successful with that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
- Would you please provide the diff where you substantively responded to a thread made directly about a source you added not passing verification, which you were pinged in and did actually participate without addressing the substance of? Because that would go a long way towards convincing me this isn't a smokescreen of policy to mask more sealioning in a thin veneer of civility and plausible deniability. How about addressing any of the comments providing the exact types of sources you were asked for? When I did provide a reason and eventually reverted your addition, you just reverted with "nah it didn't fail verification" ignoring both the edit summary prior and the entire talk page discussion about the entire situation. As I said there, neither I nor any other editor personally needs to run improvements on the article through you, personally. If you object without engaging or explaining, it's perfectly reasonable for editors to simply ignore your perspectives. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No. The content dispute isn't the problem. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I don't agree with Springee about some of their interpretations of appropriate content but I don't think their comportment is problematic except in as far as it gives cover to yours. Rather it's two things: how you insist sources should be interpreted and how you engage with other editors that has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The diff I asked for had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with you attempting to paint other editors as sidestepping a process you yourself have refused to engage in as a matter of policy, apparently going back far enough for you to have already received an indef TBAN for the exact same behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As multiple other users have said above: this is a content dispute. I'll be more than happy to talk on the talk page, but I'm not going to be litigating a content dispute here at AN/I any further. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a perfect example, in this diff they claim that the New York Times piece does not support referring to the Republican party as right-wing populist.
This is because it says that the party isn't just a touch more populist. It then compares the Republican party under Trump to the racist populist George Wallace and the fascist propagandist Father Coughlin. This, to me, is more than sufficient to support "right-wing populism" but, because the article uses simile, Toa Nidhiki05 calls it a "Gish Gallop".Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok here's the correct quote now:
The overarching pattern is clear. In election after election, Democrats underperformed among traditional Democratic constituencies during the Trump era. Sometimes, it was merely a failure to capitalize on his unpopularity. Other times, it was a staggering decline in support. Together, it has shattered Democratic dreams of building a new majority with the rise of a new generation of young and nonwhite voters.
This overarching pattern requires an overarching explanation: Mr. Trump’s populist conservatism corroded the foundations of the Democratic Party’s appeal. It tapped into many of the issues and themes that once made these voters Democrats.
While the damage was mostly concealed by Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, the backlash to his norm-shattering presidency drew the Democratic Party even further from its traditional roots. The extent of that damage is now clear. - Now this article does compare the Democratic party as a whole to Trump on a purely linguistic level. However context matters here. The first line of the article is
It has long been clear that the rise of Donald J. Trump meant the end of the Republican Party as we once knew it.
The NYT has as table-stakes that the Republicans were transformed by Trump. In this context I think it's a reasonable argument that "Trump" here is a stand-in for the party of Trump. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Also, the New York Times introduces the article by saying, "Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data." Editorial and opinion commentary says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Therefore this is not an acceptable source.
- It disruptive that so many unreliable sources have been presented in the discussion pages. It wastes edtiors' time as they discuss sources that cannot be used.
- My suggestion is that going forward, unreliable sources that are presented should be struck out and editors who persist in presenting them should face sanctions. That will allow editors to focus on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- In this case the author is a journalist with a BA in politics IOW he has the same background one would expect for the writer of an analysis in a newspaper. Furthermore, when policy says that this type of source is "rarely reliable," the onus is on the person presenting it to explain why it should be deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's an inappropriate request for this venue. I would suggest such a significant punitive action would require the full weight of an arbitration case to be enacted. Furthermore an statistical analyst working for a reliable publication, interpreting statistics, is rather different from a straightforward op-ed. Remember what WP:RSEDITORIAL says
- Ok here's the correct quote now:
- Their source review is, if I assume good faith, rushed and sloppy. They have been reverting material that is reliably sourced and then calling said sources a "Gish Gallop." Furthermore they have ignored the multitudinous reliable sources I've mentioned at article talk and, frankly, seem reticent to actually have a discussion rather than simply making pronouncements at article talk. A complaint, I will note, I do not have with your comportment despite my characterization of this problem as broader than just one editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was kind of hinting above with my "there is a problem but it's more complicated than just Toa Nidhiki05" that I thought this whole situation might be relevant to WP:AE more than WP:AN/I. Oh well, it's here now, but I would suggest that if we aren't able to resolve the issues going on at that page here then it will likely end up at AE in short order. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page. Maybe it would be best if editors heavily involved there, would avoid each other & allow newcomers room to give their input. Might lower the heat. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Presuming this is related to an ongoing RfC at the Republican Party page.
- It isn't, for what it's worth. It's about a consistent pattern of behaviours going back years that came out, mostly, in the thread after the RfC, though partially there as well. Beyond that, good call. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at WP:AE? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be better suited to AE except that it's here now and AE tends not to like having an issue open at two venues. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why you consider this a behavioral issue rather than a content dispute. I follow a lot of articles that attract editors with fringe views: fascism is left-wing, cultural marxism and Jewish bolshevism are not just conspiracy theories, aspartame is dangerous, climate science is unsettled, etc. Some editors explain why these views are wrong, while others point to previous discussions.
- If anyone should be banned, it isn't editors who insist that articles reflect reliable sources, but editors who try to inject fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources.
- On your user page, you mention that you have written peer-reviewed articles in geophysics and vulcanology. Certainly you would not rely on an analysis by a journalist as reliable in those papers. For example, you would not use it for explaining why a particular volcano erupted. TFD (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- See Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
- Can you explain why in determining how to desribe a political group you prefer an article by a journalist rather than a political scientist writing in a peer-reviewed publication? Do you think it is prudent to substitute a consensus academic opinion with that of a journalist?
- If I want to know how to categorize a poltical group or know why volcanoes erupt, my go to source isnt't a newspaper. Instead, I would look for an article by an expert. TFD (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever standards volcanologists demand from academic papers isn't relevant here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliable sourcing. You can, of course, challenge those, but the place for that is the sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If I am following this properly, via the thread on the linked talk page:
- The OP made a thread on Talk:Republican Party (United States) saying that we should change the article to say that it was "anti-intellectual" and "far-right".
- Toa_Nidhiki05 said that this was a bad idea, and some stuff about previous consensus against doing this.
- ???
- AN/I thread
Is there anything I'm missing here? jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sealioning, a previous TBAN for identical behaviour, and multiple editors weighing in saying this is a CPUSH issue? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've said I'm guilty of sealioning three times in this thread, but as far as I can tell you haven't actually defined what you think that means, or what I've done. It's a pretty specific set of behavior - can you explain what I've done that qualifies as sealioning?
- But to answer JPxG: yeah, that's essentially it. Like I said above, it doesn't look like either of Warrenmck's proposed changes will make it into the article, and I'm surprised this content dispute hasn't been closed yet. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN:
There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any basis in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines
. You’re engaging in vindictive editing patterns, which evidence has also been provided for. You have refused to articulate the actual substance of prior consensus other than pointing at it and saying “consensus, consensus, consensus” and when the exact arguments that lead to said consensus (apparently, you’ve still never linked a prior discussion) are being addressed and met you ignore the editor, as multiple people here have pointed out.
- You have refused to engage editors in the exact process you demand they engage in, you put forward sourcing standards which, when met, you completely dodge. On one hand you ask editors to discuss and respect consensus, on the other you wield prior consensus as a cudgel to prevent a change you don’t like and have made it abundantly clear that the sourcing standards you demand are not actually sourcing standards you’ll accept, rather, to quote an admin in your last TBAN:
- You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s also worth pointing out that their reply to @JPxG engages in some of the direct behaviour they’re being called out for here: seemingly reasonably asking for a discussion while ignoring that what they’re asking for was already provided without them participating
You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings
- In a vacuum, this looks like a completely reasonable editor engaged in a very civil discussion around edits. In practice this was already done before this comment, and Toa refused to engage in the discussion except one about the retaliatory edits, i.e. only edits they personally felt failed verification were up for discussion, not those they felt didn’t. Here they tell me I’m free to undo the source review, but apparently only on the sources they tagged as unreliable because the ones I tagged, evidenced, and started a discussion thread about were unilaterally removed, twice, with a simple claim that it didn’t fail verification diff diff with no attempt at engaging in the discussion thread about this exact thing except to tell me I’m “very passionate about this” and I shouuld stop editing diff diff.
- A content dispute isn’t possible to properly adjudicate if one party is refusing to engage, then pointing to prior consensus. Toa has created a situation where they and their ephemeral prior consensus have right of review on an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I expected, @Warrenmck: - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them.
- First off, let's talk about my topic ban. No, I did not get topic banned for sealioning. It was for disruptive behavior at the Stacey Abrams page - frankly, it was embarrassing, and the sanction was warranted. The fact you're having to resort to a years-old incident instead of right now, though, is pretty telling in terms of the merit of this report.
- Your claims of sealioning ring hollow because you still cannot define what POV I am pushing - I'm still not even convinced you know what sealioning is. Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors. See the problem here? I've behaved civilly, while your general response to... any sort of disagreement is make frivolous claims against me. If anyone's behavior should be on watch here, it is yours, because it's been utterly ridiculous.
- You seem extremely caught up on what I told you during your initial proposal here - how I told you your edit would not be accepted, and that while this is a topic you're clearly passionate about, it might be best for you to step away from it if you're unable to distance your personal feelings. I think everything I said is correct. Your proposal was bad. It didn't add any new information to the table, it isn't backed up by high-quality academic sources, and effectively all it's done is waste time. Like I said: your proposal may have been made in good faith, but it is not going to be accepted. And I was right! The RfC you started (after an initial discussion where nobody agreed with you, and an earlier attempt you made at an RfC that was malformed) has opposes ahead of supports by over a 2:1 margin. Your proposal to remove conservatism has been received as equally poorly.
- Similarly, your response to my source review wasn't to contest changes on the talk page or revert them - but instead, to accuse me here of "retaliation"; as far as I can tell, the only one you directly commented on at the talk page is to agree with me.
- Instead of looking inward and reconsidering your contributions, you instead started a frivolous, retaliatory AN/I board discussion that pretty much every uninvolved editor has reacted with bewilderment over.
- I am going to be blunt here: you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time, and you're wasting everyone's time here. Frankly, I think you should strongly consider limiting or ending your involvement in AP2 if your response to a basic content dispute and not getting your way is to post frivolous reports to AN/I. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TN, you have been very selective in what you see at article talk. In one instance you say, regarding the Republican Party's center-right designation, that there should be a moratorium on such discussions because "nothing new" has been presented. That is despite the fact that there are several new peer reviewed sources that contradict center-right and support far-right that have been presented and ignored by you. But the one time I agreed with you regarding a low-quality source you were very fast to point out my agreement in discussion. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that is leading to the complaints of sealioning. Regarding your POV it is that you want to retain the status quo at the page. You don't want to see revision, especially, to any high-level indicators of overall ideology such as infoboxes. That's fine we all have POVs. Mine is that the page is non-neutral calling the Republicans a center-right party. The problem comes when you ignore all evidence that contradicts your POV over the objection of multiple other editors and insist that no sources have been provided despite an abundance of high-quality sources being provided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing you said there replies to the post you responded to. This feels like a gish gallop. One with a reasonable number of falsehoods, at that. For example:
Meanwhile, the moment you hopped onto the Republican Party page you demanded it be changed to list anti-intellectualism and far-right as ideologies, and then threaten to add said content unilaterally despite uniform opposition from other editors.
- Why not, for the folks at ANI reading along, explain the context in which I said I was going to unilaterally add far-right in? Hmm? Here's a diff.
- 1. You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to.
- 2. Neither you nor Springee, who you've been tag-teaming with on this exact edit for years, once articulated why it "wasn't going to be included" other than to state tautologically that it was not
- 3. In the absence of any substantive objection, WP:RS material should be added in.
- WP:ONUS doesn't assume a stonewalled refusal to engage, and if the only substance to the objection I'm getting is a vague statement about an unreferenced consensus and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then yeah, I'm going to edit it in. I'm very used to editing in contentious article spaces and this isn't the first time I've seen this approach used to keep out changes. You can point to your civility until the cows come home but if it's masking POV editing that needs to be addressed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As per link Liz provided above, your topic ban wasn't for disruptive behaviour on the Stacey Abrams page. That page isn't mentioned in the AIN discussion closure comments. The Republican Party article is, and the outcome was a a ban from that page and a topic ban, with the reasons cited being, among others, retaliatory posting, evidence of personal attacks, bludgeoning, and edit-warring. Cortador (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're going to accuse @Springee: of something, you could at least do them the decency of tagging them. That being said - the idea I've been tag-teaming with them for years on this is silly, because the page didn't have a political position listed until late last year (something you'd know if you... read the talk page archives, like you claim you have), so I'm not exactly sure what you think has been going on here.
- Moreover: there is, in fact, a consensus. I'm fairly confident I've pointed it out to you, but it was developed in the talk page in archives 32-34; there's not a single thread to pinpoint because it took place over numerous threads. Given what you've said above, however, I don't think you actually did ever read those discussions. The fact you're simply unable to accept that a local consensus exists (or, evidently, the fact that editors do not agree with your proposed changes by a 2:1 margin) is on you.
- With that, I'm done. If you want to waste your time litigating a content dispute at AN/I, go ahead. I'm no longer engaging with this. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think I am, being honest, especially since you and I agree on source quality and I've taken great care to base my arguments on a large number of reliable peer reviewed academic sources rather than news media. But there are multiple editors involved in this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm generally following this discussion. I think it would be helpful if we all try to assume good faith. It's clear there is a disagreement here. If editors feel they have successfully made a case against the status quo and feel the objectors are wrong I would suggest starting a RfC to confirm the answer. That's the best process for establishing that a consensus exists. I would also note that, right or wrong, rather than pushing edits into the article when consensus etc isn't clear, those wanting change should start a RfC so we can at least finish with a declared consensus on the question. We all ready have a "far-right" RfC open so half of this fight should be addressed when that one closes. Springee (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you presenting arguments that can be refuted? TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Others should note that this is the exact same pattern of behaviour that Warrenmck and I both highlighted previously: selectively responding to arguments that they can refute while ignoring those they cannot, pointing to a vaguely defined local consensus without pointing to a specific decision, and a fair bit of diversion with the whole complaint of not tagging @Springee, who is already quite thoroughly engaged in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat this link which is referred to above but kind of hidden, here is the discussion that lead to the 2022 topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, just in case anyone wants to review it. Liz 06:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You’ve been doing this for years and were TBANed for it in 2022. Your attempt at denying it here rings hollow when multiple editors have been very explicit and provided diffs for sealioning behaviour. Im frankly a bit surprised at @JPxG’s rapid read of the situation considering the evidence of a TBAN for the exact behaviour raised here and multiple editors chiming in saying they see a WP:CPUSH. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warrenmck, you've replied to this discussion 20 times you started it. I advise you to reign it in a bit, as this has been treading towards WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't need to reply to every single comment in this discussion. Just mentioning this because the constant replies actually dissuaded me from reading through it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can back away Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeated WP:GS/AA violations
On 26 October 2024, I informed User:Scherbatsky12 about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.
Scherbatsky12 still created several articles or made expansions in areas covered by WP:GS/AA such as the following: Ibrahim Rahimov, Hokuma Aliyeva, Khalil Rza Uluturk, and made poorly sourced POV additions such as:
Not only Scherbatsky12 was aware about, and even deleted the GS/AA notice , they still made several articles in its violation regardless and made GS/AA breaching additions that also include POV poorly sourced edits. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consider revoking EC status on Scherbatsky when he reaches 501 total edits. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger after violating the restriction while this report is ongoing , and your final warning, they've done it again in the same article: "On the day of the performance, there was a large audience, most of whom were Armenians". It's evident the user isn't competent enough to follow rules in contentious topics such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger thank you, but aren't we over a warning here? I've already left a notice on their talk back in October and explained what it meant. They still violated the restriction numerous times and even violated again just hours ago after this report. The WP:AA3 topic area has stricter rules enforcement than most other topics, and the behavior of Scherbatsky12 isn't encouraging. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given them a final warning on the matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I do not understand is whether the occupation of Kalbajar by Armenian armed forces (1993) is considered controversial or problematic (). I have merely noted that Hokuma Aliyeva relocated due to the occupation of Kalbajar (). The rest resulted from careless translation and will not be repeated again.
- This isn't about if Scherbatsky12 thinks their one edit is right or wrong: the point is they shouldn't have been editing info covered by the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction at all until reaching extended confirmed rank. The fact they still don't understand this is a clear indication of incompetence in a highly contentious topic area at that. Not only this, they continued violating the restriction while being reported here. And additionally, they're now attributing "the rest" of their POV edits to "careless translation", which is bizarre: how one doesn't even check what articles/edits they're making before publishing "translations" especially in a topic area that they were alerted is contentious and while violating a restriction they were aware about too? After their comment here, it's not reassuring that this wouldn't happen again and is further clear to me that Scherbatsky12 isn't competent enough to edit in a contentious topic area such as the AA3. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Caribbean Hindustani
This is probably not the appropriate page, but I couldn't find a better one. If an admin may have a look at the version history of the Caribbean Hindustani article - there's two quite new editors battling out a dispute since December. Maybe some administrative guidance would help them. Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the notice at the top of this page, you were supposed to alert both editors of this thread. I've done so for you. Tarlby 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This: , may or may not be helpful. I'd also add that I can't force someone to discuss something on the talkpage: Hermes Express (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would make sense if you'd tried discussing on the talk page, but you didn't head there until Tarbly asked you to. You can't force someone to discuss something but you can try discussing which you haven't done until now. Expecting the other party to start a discussion is rarely good editor behaviour especially when you are edit warring. Instead it's like a lame kids 'they started it' defence. The only way you can prove an editor refuses to discuss on the talk page is by trying otherwise you can both be counted as refusing to discuss. To be clear except the first sentence, this applies to both of you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added several sources and journel and official government and NGO sites that work on it to prove what I am writing. But that user dont have source to prove it and its just his opinion which he had written.
- He also wrote his opinion on Hindustani page which got removed by the admin as it was false information but the same thing when I added on caribbean Hindustani page, he reverted my changes. If writing opinion as a fact and that too without any source and also the source provided dont match with the information.
- I had talk with the user and explained several times in the edit and on talk page as well. I have explained everything which I added with source unlike him. Adrikshit (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8)
Blocks guaranteed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP 58.235.154.8 was banned on December 29, 2024 (6 month block duration) for disruptive editing. To be specific, they would write in a delay of a Starship launch by exactly one month, without any citations.
They had been banned before (two month ban) for the same behaviour.
A few examples that I sourced in my report of 58.235.154.8:
IP 211.184.93.253 is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion.
Out of the five edits made by this IP:
Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source.
Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added.
Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added.
Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added.
This is either a similarly disruptive editor, or more likely, a ban evader continuing their vandalism. Either way, they are not here to improve Misplaced Pages. Redacted II (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban.
- Geolocate 1
- Geolocate 2 Redacted II (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. Liz 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. Redacted II (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:RPP Rusalkii (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Redacted II (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close)
- WP:RPP Rusalkii (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. Redacted II (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting together such an easy to follow report. I've blocked them for the same length of time as their original IP account. If this becomes a habit, it might be easier to semi-protect certain articles temporarily. You probably know where to go to request that action to be taken. Liz 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Danny5784
Danny5784 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to have the maturity and judgement to be a productive editor. Despite a litany of talk page warnings and efforts by multiple editors to explain things to them, they are continuing to create unneeded pages. Of the 18 articles they've created, 9 have been redirected (mostly at AfD), 2 deleted, and 4 currently have unanimous delete/redirect consensus at AfD. Three of their most recent creations are particularly noteworthy:
- After Draft:New Jersey Transit 6539-6549 was declined by Stuartyeates, and I warned them that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 created it anyway.
- Danny5784 created NJ Transit bus garages with poor sourcing, much of it from a user-generated wiki. After Djflem wrangled it into a useful list, Danny5784 created both New Jersey Transit bus garages and NJ Transit Bus Garage Fleet/Routes apparently as content forks.
Danny5784 also has issues with copyright: they uploaded a large number of now-deleted files on Commons and seem unwilling to actually obtain verifiable permission, then did the exact same thing here, plus using blatantly false non-free content criteria.
With 460 edits over 15 months, Danny5784 is past the point where these can just be dismissed as newbie mistakes. They are a rather young editor who is unwilling or unable to follow basic norms such as notability, reliable sourcing, and copyright. Until they demonstrate more maturity, I believe a prohibition from page creation (article, template, and file upload) is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect and no. No prohibition is necessary. You would need to teach and show him how it is done.
- Don't even try to prohibit him. Over 15 months of editing, you still don't even accept it?! What is wrong with you? Your more stricter than high school so, knock it off and NO PROBITION! And also, he's trying his best to do it right. Toyota683 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear
Confirmed result.-- Ponyo 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just try to help run a clean ship. And no worries! As far as I can tell the template's working, but will leave this unhatted given that. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, ever, with unarchiving, The Bushranger. Lately, you've been the most frequent archiver on this noticeboard so I bow to your expertise. I did see a "Show" link but I clicked and clicked and the content didn't open up. Maybe my laptop is low on memory and if it's my issue then I apologize. I thought there was a problem with the "hat" template. Liz 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I've unarchived this, as the original report wasn't resolved - the socking was an entirely seperate surprise. As for the hatting (per your edit summary) - you don't see a "show" button on the far right side of the hatted content box? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was in the process of making a report via twinkle, no need to do so now, lol. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looked so obvious I thought it could be a joe job, but it's a clear
- I've already blocked the sock and Danny for 1 week for socking. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like there is obvious socking going on. Toyota has since account creation only been used to support Danny. Creating SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- As the editor who declined the article above at AfC, I'd encourage admins to shepherd young newbies towards AfC and similar venues. It's what we're hear for (if anything I should have given better comments in my decline). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clerical note that this user is not the similarly named DannyS712. jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User LivinAWestLife vandalizing Republican Party article
LivinAWestLife made a large change to the Republican Party article which changed the ideology of the party from the consensus Center-right to fascist. They quickly then changed the text to "far-right" . Any seasoned editor should know such behavior is beyond reckless and clearly disruptive. Springee (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are several people who feel the current discussion of political ideology of the Republican party is non-neutral. Disruptive drive-by edits actually make correcting such problems harder rather than easier. So please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that there are jokes, and then there are "oh hell no" situations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was over half an hour in which the edits in question were live before they were reverted by a third party so "minutes at most" doesn't seem very applicable. If you really have a primal urge to vandalize an article, there is a correct way to do so without disrupting the wiki - see WP:HTVC. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Extremely unbecoming to do something like this during a major political transition. This causes thousands of people to further distrust Misplaced Pages. It could even be outright dangerous. Even more ridiculous to hide behind humor. I'm not anyone important but I want to convey to you directly how outrageous I find this to be. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't you have just used inspect element? Doombruddah (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If there's no further disruption and they've recognized what they did was wrong and committed to not do it again then a trout is likely sufficient. Of course if there's further disruption that would be a different matter entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They've gotten a level four vandalism warning and are now put at the end of their rope. In my opinion, everything is in order here. Per above, disruption either won't continue, and if it does, further sanctions will follow. Departure– (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the idea that blocks etc should be preventative not punitive, I agree that no further action seems like the correct option. Certainly LivinAWestLife is/should be clearly aware that their actions were not acceptable and I agree that they slid to the end of the rope. However, absent additional actions like this we are probably done. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So editor LivinAWestLife admits to «Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back» and there are no consequences? XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you may have responded to the wrong person, sir. Doombruddah (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're taking a very long walk off of a short pier if you insist on defending the indefensible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism is vandalism and is not funny, no matter how short a time it's "up there". We have a very low tolerance for trolls, especially in contentious topics. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly reverting edits
Cambial_Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor is starting editwar again, just reverted my edit, and has done this before with these edits A and B, repeatedly.! I tried to communicate on talk page but editor just went away! For such behavior the editor has been blocked before
This editor last time also pushed me to violate WP:3RR , While i was trying to improve the SIF article by moving criticism out of the theology section to separate criticism section, as per WP:CRITS where it is clearly mentioned
"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."
Because, before this, i was reading similar article, Minjung theology and the criticism section make it easy to understand.
I don't know why the editor doesn't understand Theology and criticism are not the same thing, which is common sense, but I was punished for using my common sense before, and now this again! Sokoreq (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Sokoreq,
- First WP:ANEW is the noticeboard to report edit-warring, secondly, you haven't provided any diffs of edit warring and, first and foremost, no one can "push" you to violate our guidelines on edit-warring, take responsibility for your own mistakes. Liz 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, ANI should be where you come when other methods of communication have failed. Have you started a discussion on the article talk page or posted to their user talk page about your differences? Give it a shot before coming to ANI. Liz 02:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry@Liz actually before this, i went on your talk page to discuss and waited for days, and about previous revertes i have provided edit warnings. Sokoreq (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's good you have accepted that mistake, but you need to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen again, no matter what another editor "starts". WP:3RR is a bright line. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the one who started removing/reverting edits repeatedly without discussing the matter with me. While I initiated discussion on talk page to understand there disagreement. and I accepted that mistake, but here I am discussing new editwar which they are doing again. Plese see SIF edit history. Sokoreq (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Er, yeah. If you violated 3RR, that's your action, not theirs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Sokoreq, that was my fault, I'm behind responding to talk page messages, I apologize for that. But I didn't mean that you should post a template on Cambial Yellowing's user talk page that was more suitable for a new editor (and they have been editing for over 5 years), I meant actually talking through a discussion. I can see that another editor already posted on their User talk page about the article talk page, you could have joined that discussion or posted on the article talk page. Again, my apologies about my lack of responsiveness. Liz 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They edit in group, while i started a discussion first but then first editor didn't explanation much and went for a week, again today I tried on talk page but didn't receive any reply, I apologize for any inconvenience but this is very new for me. Sokoreq (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I respect they are senior editors, but I don't understand what they are upto and there is some discussion on the associated talk page for months is hard to understand. The talk page is messy; it's difficult to understand who is who and what is what? Sokoreq (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Science_of_Identity_Foundation is related to this. Sokoreq's response to being reverted was to baselessly accuse an editor of COI and harassment . When someone else reverted them they too were accused of harassment . After the COIN discussion didn't go their way, they continued to double down on COI accusations: . This latest report is more of the same. Despite being directed there numerous times by several editors, they still have not posted on the article's associated talk page - ever. I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG sanction is appropriate here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are we sure they understand? Moxy🍁 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie Yeh, I went to the COI noticeboard a week ago. It's closed now, because I didn't have evidence to prove. and the editor was also repeatedly reverting without explanation and suddenly went for a week. I have discussed the matter with that editor on my talk page. What do you want to prove through this? Sokoreq (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sokoreq, that article talk page is quite an immense discussion on one specific aspect of the article that has nothing to do with your interests so I'd just start a new discussion there. I also see that you just removed a discussion on your user talk page with User:Hipal from your own talk page and asked them not to post on it any longer. You will not get very far on a collaborative editing project if you refust to actually communicate with editors you have disagreements with. Actual discussion, with opinions, arguments, diffs and sources with other editors is how consensus is formed on this project. But you can't seek to eliminate every editor you disagree with or you will not be editing here for a long time. It can be challenging but every editor on this project has to find a way to work with editors who have differences with and that is usually accomplished, not through coming to a noticeboard but by presenting a solid argument on an article talk page and convincing other editors that your position is stronger. But ANI doesn't exist to get rid of other editors who revert you. If edit-warring is an actual problem, which doesn't seem to be the case here, then post a formal case at WP:ANEW. Liz 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read over Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation discussion and I haven't said anything to you that you weren't already told at COIN. What is your resistance to having a discussion on the article talk page? That should be your first destination when you have a disagreement, not ANI. Now, I'm going to stop because I'm just repeating advice that you've already been given. Liz 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, this is really helpful. I hope they will communicate.! Thank you for creating space on the discussion page. I will keep this in mind for next time. And for formal cases, I will post on WP:ANEW. Thanks again Sokoreq (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, I didn't mean to imply that editors who have been active here longer than you have any more "rights" than you have as they don't. Just that the template you posted wasn't appropriate for an experienced editor as it talked about referring to a Welcome message. Liz 04:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Usually, when an editor returns to their edit war after being blocked, without once contributing to the article talk page discussions, they are blocked.
I think a good case can be made for Sokoreq is WP:NOTHERE , those diffs () show an inability to work with others and take accountability for their own actions. The subsequent canvassing, here and here and the behavior that led to this discussion show that it's unlikely to end without further intervention. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're up to, but from the beginning, I was just trying to understand your disagreements. But, you went away for days. I don’t have anything personal against you now, and I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above. I will discuss any future disagreements on the article's talk page. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have already apologized and admitted my mistakes above
That's not what you did, and that's disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any olive branch being offered. The comments from Sokoreq, here and elsewhere, have me wondering if they are using an AI or auto-translator to communicate with us. I see very little understand of what's being written, less still of actual policy, all while downplaying or ignoring, often misrepresenting, their own behavior. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hipal, can you accept this olive branch and try to move forward here on this article? Liz 02:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Trolling at Talk:Denali
Done (for now). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
WP:RBI please. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AIV? Tarlby 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have requested protection for the talk page. I'll see how it goes. I have suspicion of meatpuppetry/canvassing from 4chan. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected now, thanks User:Isabelle Belato Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP blocked and page protected for a short period. I'm guessing this first month we will see a lot of these types of editors. Isabelle Belato 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato and Acroterion: Needs talk page access yanked too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn
Resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EWN report stalled, so bringing this here. User:GiggaHigga127 and I engaged in an edit war at Conor Benn, which began as a content dispute but is now more of conduct issue. Less than 12 hours after he was blocked (for good reason), User:Dennis Definition shows up as a brand new single-purpose account to make the exact same edit for the "win", whilst predictably denying any connection. How is this not gaming?
I'd be happy to hash out the original content dispute at WikiProject Boxing and see if anything needs tweaking at our style guide, but not when there's obvious bad faith tag teaming going on. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an LTA trying to cause trouble. Blocked now.-- Ponyo 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Appreciated. Discussion at the Project forthcoming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've restored it to the pre-socking version and Daniel Case has semi-protected the article.-- Ponyo 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Due to CTOPS, the article is now stuck on the edits they were introducing—the extra weight classes besides welterweight remain unverifiable. Going forward I will make it a point to bring up the original content dispute at the Project—which I would've done anyway were it not for the PAs and tag teaming—but if further new accounts pop up to continue edit warring at Conor Benn, what steps must I take so that I don't fall foul of 3RR and the like? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Potential Block Evasion by IP 47.67.231.5 (Original IP range 47.69.0.0, first sock IP 80.187.75.118)
An IP is behaving similary to an IP range blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to block evasion.
The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below.
Suspect Second blocked IP Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- EDIT: The IP is now
bannedblocked, with the original IP'sbanblock extended by another three months. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the correction on my wording. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLOCKNOTBAN - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Harassment and personal attacks
Riventree called another editor and myself a moron, said to track down the editor who approved the DYK, and called me an idiot. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It did. And 'indefinite' is not 'infinite'; once they acknowledge their error, the block can be lifted, but not before. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would further posit that a user who has been around for fifteen years really ought to know not go on the attack like this. There are ways to discuss content you don't agree with, there was no need for the blown gasket here. I edit conflicted with the above I also was going to add that Indefinite does not mean infinite, they can request an unblock as soon as right now. Beeblebrox 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this:
'twas a crime of passion (politics got the better of me)- I really would hate for Misplaced Pages to get drawn into the petty politics of the USA)
. Since when was a DYK about feminism about petty American politics? I don't usually deal with unblock requests so I'll leave this for another admin, but I don't think they entirely understand why their behaviour is considered problematic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried to see if I could convince them to understand and apologize for it, and I'm confused about why a long-time editor would go off the rails about feminism or politics. It wasn't fruitful. I wish you admins good luck. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per our own internal classification (e.g. WP:GGTF/WP:GENSEX) it is formally a "contentious topic", and the article feminism is in the {{political ideologies}} navbox. While it might initially seem confusing that a thing called "feminism" could be a political subject, it has been one for about the last century (e.g. suffrage is a central aspect of politics, and civil rights for women in the United States were often pursued through legislation and jurisprudence). Moreover, many issues that do not directly involve the apparatus of government are often referred to as "political" if they are the center of substantial cultural discourse or disagreement. jp×g🗯️ 11:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like they understand what they did was wrong, but aren't quite grokking the why (what with further comments about the DYK being somehow political). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have heard people use the phrase "track down" in colloquial speech for decades, and in the overwhelming majority of cases (when applied to a person) it means to get in contact with, or locate:
- "The machine in booth 7 is shorting out again, I'm going to see if I can track down the repairman."
- "Someone track down the QC inspector and tell her these parts are out of spec."
- "When we get into town, we should track down a food truck."
- I am not really sure why these sentences would, prima facie, constitute a violent threat. Perhaps if the speaker was loading a shotgun and wearing a blood-spattered "I HATE FOOD TRUCKS!" t-shirt -- but absent that, I would assume they just wanted a sandwich. In this case, I would assume the obvious straightforward meaning of the person's sentence -- that the person responsible should be admonished, or complained to, or sanctioned. jp×g🗯️ 11:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that the editor has already requested an unblock. Part of their reasoning is this:
- I endorse this block. The insults were bad enough, but the "track down" comment was utterly unacceptable and quite shocking from an editor with extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agreed, as I wrote on their talk page, but indef for a user who has, generally, been making productive contributions for over 15 years without being blocked once? Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So okay, I looked up the hook. Apparently, it was this:
- From time to time we do have some DYK hooks that are controversial or edgy, so I was expecting something like that, but this is not that.
- I must confess that not only does this DYK hook not offend me, I am not even sure what part of it (the DYK hook) someone else might find offensive (the DYK hook). The best I can come up with is that bro was having a really bad day and decided to randomly flip out at the first thing that he found mildly politically annoying. This is really not great behavior, and probably it warrants some warning or admonishment or block. However, if someone has been editing for sixteen years with no problem, I feel like this is not a sign of utter incompatibility with a collaborative editing project, and I am inclined to grant the unblock request, as they have explained pretty succinctly what the problem is and I am fairly convinced they will not do it again. On this same page, a few sections up (Special:Permalink/1271035842#User:TTYDDoopliss_and_gender-related_edits), it seems like we have something of a recent precedent when someone is engaging in blatant personal attacks with regard to the topic of feminism: they are handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology, refuse to do so multiple times, and are only blocked when they go too far
and it is unrelatedly discovered that they are a sockpuppet. Moreover, we can easily find many other instances of people doing and saying far worse stuff than this, dozens of times, and then all their buddies show up to glaze them at the ANI thread and they get a strong admonishment. I do think it's bad to flip out and call people idiots, but I don't think they need to be forever removed from the project. jp×g🗯️ 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG He very clearly did not explain or show why what he did was wrong, nor did he give an apology (which was halfhearted ay best) until prompted three times. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- TTYDDoopliss was blocked indefinitely for trolling by Canterbury Tail before being found put as a sock by spicy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amended, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JPxG: Did you discuss this with the original blocking admin beforehand? And I agree with voorts that they do not completely understand what they did was wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to change the blocking time without a consensus at this point. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also RE the TTYD block JPxG should know that "what about X" isn't really a good argument on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think I am lying (?) about this phrase being used in normal contexts, I will look it up in the dictionary. Here is what Cambridge's definition says:
to search for someone or something, often when it is difficult to find that person or thing:
I’m trying to track down one of my old classmates from college.
- Dictionary.com says:
Follow successfully, locate, as in I've been trying to track down that book but haven't had any luck. This term alludes to the literal use of track , “follow the footsteps of.”
- Collins says:
If you track down someone or something, you find them, or find information about them, after a difficult or long search.
She had spent years trying to track down her parents.
I'll go and have a quick word, then we'll track down Mr Derringer.
The last time I had flown with him into the Sahara to track down hijacked weapons.
There had been some spectacular busts in recent history, but even the FBI could not work fast enough to track down these people.
- Do you think that "trying to track down her parents" implies that the person in the example sentence is a "sociopath" who is "trying to hurt them"? I agree that this was a very dumb choice of words, due to the potential for being misinterpreted, as can be seen above. Indeed, one of the examples (the last given) does imply hostility. I would not say this. I do not think that all of these dictionaries are engaged in a "frankly bizarre attempt to downplay" the phrase, nor do I think that is a fair summary of what I did. jp×g🗯️ 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said
Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page
andAnd: You're an idiot for approving political flamebait for the front page.
Their unblock rationale is not good enough, in my opinion. Just because incivility isn't enforced enough as it should be isn't a reason to just not apply it all. Indefinite does mean infinite, but the editor in question should come up with a better unblock request instead of simply waiting out the two weeks and going back to editing like nothing happened. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I suppose you may be correct. Well, I am going to bed; if a bunch of people come up and say the guy is really that much of a menace that the block needs to be lengthened, I will not be around to do so. I will abide my general practice on administrative actions, which is that if someone is so convinced of my idiocy they feel the need to undo it, then sure, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 15:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you're lying, just a bit naïve. If someone says
"Get this politically divisive Dog Whistle off the damned front page! And then track down the editor who put it there."
on the internet to a stranger, the common sense interpretation is that it is a threat of violence. Your examples of other uses of the wording are all well and good when discussing in-person, normal interactions. But the pseudonymity of social media emboldens the craven. Threats of violence come easier to the keyboard fingers when the perpetrator is safely out of reach. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person:
I mentioned no one by name,and suggested no action. Therefore neither puposefully OR blantantly nor would that constitute harrassment.
This seems pretty straightforward to me, although I get that people want the guy gone, so do what you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, when confronted, he said that it was not meant to suggest anything be done to the person:
- I'm saying that I agree that there are other ways to read tracking someone down but it still wasn't appropriate to adjust blocking time without consensus. This was more than simply calling a person an idiot. They said
- No, he did not, and I agree that this unblock should not have happened. This attempt to downplay "editor X should be tracked down" by comparing it to tracking down spare parts is frankly bizarre. You shouldn't be unblocking people if you don't understand why saying that (even if not serious) can be extremely scary to that editor, who now might need to worry about a sociopath from the internet trying to hurt them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a compromise between zero and infinity, reduced to two weeks. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: commute block to topic ban
Self-explanatory, I think. Riventree's outburst, and the follow up discussion on their talk page, show that they hold views incompatible with neutral editing about this topic. Furthermore there clearly was not consensus to unblock (the blocking administrator explicitly said no) and JPxG's cowboy admin action should not stand, but a wheel war isn't going to help anyone. A topic ban from AP2, gender-related controversies, and/or feminism as a broad topic, would serve to prevent future disruption in these sensitive topics; meanwhile Riventree can appeal the sanction later once they've taken time to reflect on their behaviour here.
- Support as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lengthen the block if you want. jp×g🗯️ 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- They've made a total of 135 edits since the beginning of 2022, 17 of which have been in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure how much a topic ban really matters. Never the less, I'd support a topic ban as a bare minimum, especially considering their follow up edits to Retelling (1, 2. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
- : unsourced switching of the language from "break free" to "resisted arrest" in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. (Followup conversation at Eeng's talkage, wher they justified the change as original research ; note that at the time, the BLP policy still applied to Brooks so accusing him of a crime without a source is a major no-no)
- Removed the fact that the counterfeit bill Floyd was accused of having was a $20 bill with the edit summary "Exclude trivia" in Murder of George Floyd.
- : Changed "it is widely believed that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" "it feared that U.S. President Trump will lose the election in November" with the edit summary "Forgive me, I abhor emotion-laden politics, but this is actually relevant here" - note how it is very similar to the language and tone they used at DYK yesterday
- User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2020#Do you even READ my comments anymore, or do you just click "revert" out of habit? shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later.
- Talk:Holocene extinction/Archive 3#Softening of exceedingly authoritative language and some attempting to desribe the Holocene Extinction as "theoretical", something something "the knee-jerk alarmists who were happy to simply assert human causation as the cause of an eco-disaster".
- Tried to make the article Millennium Challenge 2002 more neutral by adding an unsourced paragraph called "The Argument Over 'Scripting'". When questioned on the taklk, they justified this by saying
UM, no. It's just deduction. It's certainly not 'military propaganda', because the neutrality flag pointed out that the military perspective (not side, not propaganda) wasn't included at all.
1.
- Additionally, and I find this especially relevant given @JPxG's concerns about a double standard because they weren't "handheld through the process of giving a perfunctory apology", they were given a final warning for harrassment and personal attacks by Yunshui in 2020.. Follow up here:, though I obvious do not know the severity of what Riventree did, given that it apparently needed revdel. Can any admin give insight? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Problematic edits in the AMPOL area and with other users aren't recent. Never say never, but judging from some of their older edits:
- Considering this is such an old account and the bad edits are all recent, is it possible we're dealing with a compromised account situation? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a topic ban is needed. This editor has never edited in that area before and I presume will not after this debacle. I would like the indef to be reimposed until we actually get a sufficient unblock request. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Whether the account is compromised or not I don't think we want to have an editor who responds this way to something as bromine as the idea of the feminist retelling editing in the various contentious topics that this overlaps. I'd want to see such a TBan encompassing at least WP:GENSEX broadly construed. As for AP2 I'm a bit worried of the tendency of Americans to turn every social issue into a domestic political issue, especially immediately following a governmental transition but AP2 needs fewer hot-heads, not more, so I'd be weakly supportive of that one too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think that a topic ban is the solution to this problem. The colloquial phrase "track down" can certainly be used benignly as the various quotes above show, but context is all-important. In this case, as it was actually used in the context of the rage filled rant, I read it as either a threat of outing (most likely) or a threat of violence (distinctly possible). In my opinion, this editor needs to show a deeper understanding of why what they said was intimidating and totally wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Reinstate indef
A discussion is needed on this to prevent WP:WHEEL from applying. Proposal is pretty much the title, reinstate indef until a more convincing unblock rationale is made.
- Support as proposer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with the conditional modifier that I would like to see the tban discussed in the proposal above remain in effect should they subsequently become unblocked. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose reinstating indef, support gensex/ap2 topic ban. If they can't handle that, then indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support It shouldn't have been lifted in the first place. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Voorts and the long pattern of sub-optimal behavior and previous warnings as documented by GreenLipstickLesbian. GLL, as for the revision deleted content, in the process of mocking an editor they disagreed with, this editor linked to another website that criticized the mocked editor and outed a third editor. It was ugly in general but linking to the outing was what led to the revdel. Cullen328 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support given the history—particularly the outing, which correlates with the “track down” comment in the current case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Anonymous8206
Editor using Misplaced Pages as a social network blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Anonymous8206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Disruptive (soapbox, forum) and personal attacks at Donald Trump for over a year. Examples: .
They have been warned on their talk page multiple times for this, e.g.: Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLP policy applies to every living person, even Donald Trump. I think a topic ban from all things Trump, broadly construed, is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another example of using talk pages as a forum on an unrelated topic: Special:PermanentLink/1268615581#Liddle Hart.
I think a final warning rather than a TBAN would be appropriate.voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) - I've indef'd this user as not here. Per X-tools, 152/182 edits (83.5%) are in talkspace, 105 are to Talk:Donald Trump in particular, and 3 are to mainspace. Apart from the problematic Trump edits, most of this user's other edits appear to be similar forumy posts or musings on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual
(non-admin closure) Both editors indeffed for edit warring and violating WP:HID. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 23:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As the title suggests, this includes:
- SuvGh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Camarada internacionalista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Has tried to remove the reliably sourced content 3 times, and used rude editor summaries like "disgusting argument". Has no activity on talk page or anywhere else to address his edits. See WP:COMMUNICATE.
Both of them were sufficiently warned. Capitals00 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked SuvGh for 24 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries and violating 3RR in spirit if not in letter (slightly over 24 hours for four reverts but blatant edit-warring). Camarada internatcionalista hasn't breached 3RR but is edit-warring, I'll let another admin decide if they need a block as they aren't currently editing it appears. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That talk page section they made should have been removed for being a WP:FORUM attempt to disparage sources on grounds of national origin. Borgenland (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Camarada internacionalista has made 2 more reverts now. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked both editors indefinitely. Hate is disruptive. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks
2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) I saw an IP making an unmistakable personal attack on one user (telling them to resign for being "worthless"), and all of their edits are like this, it seems. I think that the /64 edits from a few days ago on the Denali situation are enough to say that they're the same user on the IP, given the political nature. I'm almost certain they're abusing a larger range than this, as zooming out to the /42 shows more political badgering. A previous /64 in that range was blocked as well for similar reasons. Departure– (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I blocked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) EF 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility and edit-warring
After being explained by Wiznut at 1.00am UTC today about how even discussing through edit summaries while reverting in good faith is edit warring, Thelittlefaerie has opened a discussion on the article talk and stopped edit warring. Additionally, they are now aware that making personal attacks is prohibited and have issued an apology to editors they attacked while in a heated argument. As a talk discussion is now open for content issues, and this user now seems aware about how we resolve disputes here on Misplaced Pages, I am closing this section with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur. I think a little WP:ROPE is justified here as they are a new editor, who now knows about the dispute resolution processes and is now engaging collaboratively. MolecularPilot 06:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is concerning user User:Thelittlefaerie (talk and contributions). A new user, who initially made several good faith mistakes related to providing sources and not using original research. However, he also decided that the Afghanistan population at List of countries and dependencies by population needed to be correct. A history of the edit war, which involved Thelittlefaerie vs three other editors (including me):
Users involved:
Thelittlefaerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wizmut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MIHAIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dates:
20 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie changes the figure without a source, which is reverted by me. For this article, unsourced changes happen regularly, so I did not take the effort to give Thelittlefaire much explanation.
21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one.
22 Dec 2024 : I revert, mentioning the selection criteria for this article's sources. Thelittlefaerie reverts, and also reverts an unrelated change. I leave it, and instead start a topic on the talk page.
26 Dec 2024 : User User:MIHAIL (talk and contributions) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links)
3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase "This is your final straw."
7 Jan 2025 : MIHAIL changes it back. His edit summary in full: "why insist with UN or copies of UN when you have official data ?... i've seen Thelittlefaerie vandalize certain pages... the official matters, not fanaticism". In a vain attempt to help matters, I add a footnote to the Afghanistan entry detailing three different estimates.
16 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie again, this time including in his edit summary "And now you are acting like a complete fool. I am DONE WITH THIS. You are just a terrible person." and also "Either stop or I'll keep making edits." This edit was particularly troublesome, not only for the incivility, but because he reverted over a dozen unrelated edits. This was reverted by User:Magnolia677.
17 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie says he "could not reach out to you Magnolia677" (I can see no such attempt) and reverts again. This again reverts over a dozen unrelated changes, so I do the revert this time, and also try to warn Thelittlefaerie on the talk page and on his user page.
22 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie comes back and reverts, without affecting other entries and without incivility. After this, he finally posts on the talk page, with the argument: "I am putting the right source and this is the right version. Please do not change."
I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience.
Wizmut (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Magnolia's user talk page is extended confirmed protected, due to WP:LTA-related issues, so their story of trying to reach out to her but failing does check out. Both their behaviour and edit summaries are completely unacceptable, however. MolecularPilot 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Thelittlefaerie! Thank you for raising these points. ANI is, however, for conduct issues, not content issues - we don't assess whether what you were trying to do is valid but analyse your behaviour including comments like "terrible person" and "complete fool". It is good to see that your more recent commons are becoming more civil and engaging with other editors in a collaborative manner, like and which afterwards you started a discussion on the article talk after an editor, Wiznut, informed you of how to do this.
- I think if you can apologise and agree to not make personal attacks against other editors again, and refrain from edit warring (which it seems you have now learned about and stopped, by starting a Talk section and not continuing to discuss in edit summaries of subsequent reverts) and engage on the talk page section you started we should all be able to move forward civilly and collaboratively here. If this doesn't reach a consensus, you can seek dispute resolution.
- Thank you for your contributions trying to improve the article, I understand how frustrating some things can be as a newcomer and thank you for learning from your mistakes and working with us here! MolecularPilot 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response, I apologize and agree to not make personal attacks on other people. I was frustrated, but that is not an excuse for me. Thank you for your cooperation. Also, we should update the page on Afghanistan too as that says it has 35M.
- Thank you,
- Thelittlefaerie Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- (I mean the Afghanistan page updating.) Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please ignore my latest message, I meant to send this to another talk page Thelittlefaerie (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Thelittlefaerie speaking. My final message be put in simple words, I necessarily don't think that the population of Afghanistan would be 35M which the google drive link states. There are many reasons supporting this. First of all, if you look at a number of sources showing the population of Afghanistan in 2006, it shows it as 31-32M. It has been 19 years since that official estimate (I believe) and I really don't think that the population of Afghanistan in the year of 2023-2025 would be 35M. Second of all, Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates in the world right now, which in response to the following reverts, do not relate or make sense. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited Afghanistan myself and is a full blooded Afghan and I can assure you there are way more than 35M people This leads me to believe that the USCB or UN estimates are more thoughtful. Thank you. Thelittlefaerie (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does seem like this could have gone to WP:ANEW. But since it is here now, I'd like to hear from User:Thelittlefaerie. They don't edit every day so I'm not sure when they might show up. I think discussion would be more effective than a block as they could end up being blocked over days when they aren't even on Misplaced Pages. Liz 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Since the closure of this thread and after TFL found the talk page section and the two-way discussion began, MIHAL (already notified of this discussion above), using an edit summary containing personal attacks (they have been advised to apologise for these) reverted the changes by thelittlefaerie (made prior to joining the talk), which thelittlefaerie then reverted. Both users have now been informed by me that there is no "right version" for the article to be on while the talk page discussion occurs and so I think everyone is ready to collaborate and come up with a compromise, now understanding how talk discussions work, so this doesn't need to be reopened. Hopefully we can all find a solution together! :) MolecularPilot 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Swagsgod
(non-admin closure) Swagsgod blocked and TPA revoked. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can User:Swagsgod please be swiftly blocked? They are constantly creating inappropriate pages. They are listed at AIV, but the stream of new pages continues quite rapidly. Fram (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into it. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
Multimedia Group is the largest independent commercial media and entertainment company in Ghana. Founded in 1995 by a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Mr. Kwame Appiah, the company has grown from humble beginnings with 12 employees to directly employing some 700 people across its 6 radio brands, 3 online assets and Ghana's first free multi channel television brand in over 25 years of operation. The Multimedia Group has been a major spur for the growth in the advertising, creative arts and entertainment industries, particularly the gospel music industry. The Multimedia Group Go For God
Certify your English anytime, anywhere Test online, no appointment needed Get results in 2 days A fraction of the cost of other tests
- etc. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as
Ordinary BBC at a temperature of unknown figures higher than the melting point of gallium, and 29" as you see Visualize Sunday,29Th October, 2025 Alarm 4:48pm UTC... from a Primark Bank Account which values an unregistered license sports cars in different variables used in Analysis
was qualified to "Certify your English anytime"? Meters (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- They keep going on their talk page now, maybe yank TPA? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? You didn't believe that the user behind gibberish such as
- Gone. —Kusma (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Their user page is extremely bizarre, but somehow gives the impression that they want to accuse the former president of Ghana of some "high criminal offense"? I guess deleting that one would be advisable (it certainly wouldn't lose anything of value). Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went through their contribs and deleted the spam pages (most of which had already been tagged properly by @Fram:). Let me know if I have missed anything. jp×g🗯️ 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming:
IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source
The following IP Editor(s) have been making continuous changes to the flags on the Islamic State of Iraq page without any sources to backup their claims, when the changes are reverted, they just go back and revert the revert and still provide no source, thus causing what I believe to be an unnecessary disruption.
2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:d12c:6979:d06c:9d74, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:ec:5fe:fa19:caa0, 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:7c47:7be6:c3c9:7078 and 2a01:e0a:b3f:b4a0:6d71:4017:3ed8:b70d Catalyst GP real (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
142.190.62.131
Long-term abuse possible proxy vandal operating out of Alabama, vandalism-only account. Almost all edits to their talk page before the three-year-block are warnings or include Huggle tags(see tak page hist). The reason I'm reporting this user on ANI instead of AVI, is because of the user continuing to vandalize Misplaced Pages after blocks that sometimes took years to expire, one time even two years, which might fall under chronic intractable behavioral problems. This user is currently blocked for 3 years after I already reported them at AVI, but will likely continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages again after the block. This user has been vandalizing Misplaced Pages since 2020. The IP is from Alabama and belongs to a company named "Southern Light, LLC". I don't know if the user is actually operating out of Alabama, or if they are using a proxy. I've seen multiple IPs from the "142" range that are vandalizing Misplaced Pages or contributing unconstructively, although I don't think they have much to do with this user. Their edits to the page "Athenian democracy" didn't get reverted for over two years. Three of their edits got deleted, including their first edit. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP addresses generally do not correlate to a person. In most cases, they are randomly assigned to a customer on that ISP, then cycle around to another random customer. If there's a long history of petty vandalism, it could potentially be a school, library, public transportation, or some other shared IP with lots of users. Every so often, I think, "I should write an intro to IP addresses", but the best I've come up with yet is User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. And while there are peer-to-peer proxies and VPNs all over the place, there's generally little reason for normal users get worried about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles
An IP range user (2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B41C:DB9F:DF8D:6321 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) has been adding contentious or poorly sourced material to a variety of articles related to Canadian politics (including BLPs). I haven't been able to warn them as the IP changes frequently but did let them know here why I reverted their additions. They've also been causing problems in other articles with unreliable sources or poor information eg 1 eg 2.
The user does not appear to be interested in building an encyclopedia productively. Citing (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Tried notifying them here for what that's worth. Citing (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could I please get some help here? IP has continued warring and reverting other users all day and spamming talk pages with irrelevant URLs. Edit warring examples: . Throwing a bunch of irrelevant URLs at talk pages: . Also appears that they're using 2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is Confirmed block evasion. The individual behind the IP has at least one account that is indef blocked, and the range itself has been blocked twice previously for disruption.-- Ponyo 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Citing (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul Erik, I got that /64 as well.-- Ponyo 22:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, User:Ponyo. And this IP as well? Paul Erik 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've checkuser blocked the /64 range as this is
Abusive user
Valid vandalism revert of an edit that clearly looked like vandalism. That Shaggydan did not mean to vandalize is good, but it does not change the fact that any reasonable editor would have taken the edit as vandalism; editors are not expected to read minds. Shaggydan is advised that they have full responsibility for all edits made by their account, including those made by code they choose to run on their machine. I suggest they find something better to do than argue about this. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved from the help desk. Courtesy link: Opolito (talk · contribs), filed by Shaggydan (talk · contribs), moved by Departure– (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User Opolito is flagging users, including me, for vandalism when there is no vandalism. Who is able to restrict his account and remove his warnings and how do I bring this to their attention? Shaggydan (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan. User:Opolito has flagged you for vandalism for this edit of yours. After he flagged you for vandalism on your talk page, you called him a swear word and then he flagged you for personal attack. And, it seems like the warnings he gives to other Users seem genuine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: - Let me caution you before bringing it to the notice board, your uncivil behavior such as this will very likely also be scrutinized. Furthermore by looking at this edit, I would suggest that it is very possible you will be the one facing sanctions. TiggerJay (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You caused damage to the encyclopedia with that dumb browser extension, then blew up with actual personal attacks when someone came to the obvious conclusion that this constituted intentional vandalism. Get rid of the extension and stop trying to get others sanctioned for a situation of your making. Manufactured outrage is not a valid currency here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism.
You seriously don't understand how someone could reasonably see changing Trump's name to Drumpf could look like vandalism? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PrimeHunter Thank you for being the first person to review my concern. As I mention on my Talk page, you are correct. As I mention there, I removed an extraneous word from early in the article. The only use of the word "Trump" occurs in a few titles in the reference section. I would have thought Misplaced Pages would not allow extensions to make edits. I was mistaken in my understanding of the security of the site's code. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. Opolito has acted in bad faith in this case and multiple others. Do you know how to invoke some supervision on his account? Shaggydan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shaggydan: Do you have a browser extension which automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf"? It may not have been your intention to make this change in edits but it looks like vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- User Departure- moved this topic to this page and it appears to be the appropriate forum for my concern. I will add further detail to support my initial statement.
- I recently made a minor edit to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1270798753&markasread=333745816&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Character.ai. A sentence early in the article read, "Many characters are be based on fictional media sources". I deleted the word "be" and explained my edit in the comments. There were 3 uses of the word "Trump" in titles in the reference section. Nine years ago TV show Last Week Tonight put out a Chrome extension that changes that surname to its original European spelling of "Drumpf". Unbeknownst to me the extension changed the three instances of "Trump" to "Drumpf" in citations of a page about a website that had nothing to do with politics or individuals with that name.
- Despite not changing any names in the article (only the reference titles) and making a constructive change to the article which was explained, Opolito assumed bad faith and slapped a vandalism warning on me. There was no discussion with me. A user of 1 year failed to follow the rules on reporting vandalism. It is my understanding this subjects me to a possible ban should he do this again. I am requesting any notation of vandalism be removed from my account.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Following the rules laid out on that page I cannot understand how someone would flag the edit for vandalism. I brought this up in the talk section of my page. He responded it was my responsibility to make perfect edits and claimed I was complaining "the dog ate my homework". He write on my Talk page, "Your edit does not fall under "good faith" and was clearly vandalism. Your very poor excuses aren't convincing anyone." His response illustrates his obliviousness to what constitutes bad faith.
- He then left a warning about attacking other editors claiming I may be blocked from editing because he did not like my response to his false claim of vandalism in my own talk page. I have been a small editor for decades. I don't know how to make claims against others to manage their accounts, but he seems to have done that twice to my account. I am requesting any damage he did to my account be undone.
- I am not the only user to have this problem. User NoahBWill, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:NoahBWill2002, who 12 days ago started on his talk page, "Opolito, my friend, this is Noah B. Will; Why do you have to accuse me of vandalism? I've only been just trying to help out, that's all."
- Twenty two days ago a user wrote on his Talk page, "Ciarán Hinds is a Northern Irish actor. The infobox clearly states that he was born in Northern Ireland. Do not accuse people making factual changes to a dictionary of being 'not constructive' again." Opolito's response shows he neither understands that Northern Ireland, where Hinds was born, is not part of Ireland AND he continues to falsely charge users with malpractice even when he himself is wrong saying, "being born in Northern Ireland is not the same thing as being Northern Irish. The sources that describe his nationality at all describe him as "Irish". Misplaced Pages article reflect what the sources say. Changing an article to reflect your opinion instead of what the sources say is not allowed. Please do not continue to do so."
- 29 days ago user Wilvis1 added an appropriate fact to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Crisfield,_Maryland. He supported the fact with a link to a local business making the claim. Opolito accused Wilvis1 of posting spam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Crisfield,_Maryland&action=history. It clearly was not spam.
- On December 5, Opolito threatened another user. That user responded, "You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)"
- These examples are just from users who have mentioned recent issues on his Talk page. His edit history confirms a pattern of abuse. A quick look shows on January 20 on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/David_Lynch he threatened user Vinnylospo with bring blocked from editing for adding "unsourced or poorly sources material" calling it a "final warning". Vinnylospo had added the page to the Category for January 2025 California Wildfires. The Hollywood Reporter, as referenced in the article, has reported Lynch's condition severely worsened upon being forced to evacuate due to the fires just before his death. Despite this, Opolito took offense at the inclusion of the category and again threatened a user who had made a good faith edit.
- I find this behavior deeply concerning and contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission. I just try to make the site a little better where I see errors or things that need cleaning up from time to time. I do not pretend to be versed in all the mechanisms in place for one user to harm another. I know enough that vandalism procedures were not correctly followed by Opolito in my case and others and that takes away from the site's mission. I hope this is in the right place and that something can be done to prevent this from continuing to occur. Shaggydan (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User using multiple non-account IPs to mass-remove information
- 93.204.189.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Those three accounts all appear to be the same person, who is doing mass removal of information with minimal to no notes. I have reverted some of their edits on Gerald Butler (writer) (because they removed information that I added and sourced myself), but user continuously reverts. After quickly going through their other edits, it doesn't appear they are making any constructive edits. I'd love some help dealing with this issue.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their edits at Gerard Butler don't look unreasonable to me, trimming information that, while sourced, is tangential at best to the subject of the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP
Edit summary revdel'd and GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs) blocked for one week for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if this is the incorrect location, is a BLP violation and may need redacting. Flat Out (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:REVDELREQUEST, you should privately contact an admin for revision deletion (or OSers for oversightable material). I've deleted the edit summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've made a note of that. Flat Out (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
revoke TPA for User:Xpander1?
Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I guess I shouldn't since it is me that they are deliberately pestering with nuisance pings after being asked repeatedly to stop. I know I could have muted them, and I now have, but I shouldn't have had to, they should just stop acting so obnoxious. Beeblebrox 23:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: