| Revision as of 15:13, 2 August 2020 view sourceGirth Summit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators98,926 edits →WP:BATTLEGROUND: Replying to Lilipo25 (using reply-link)← 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|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(72h) | |algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| |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 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | ||
| == ] and persistant ], ], and ]-failing articles == | |||
| == Long-term disruption at ] by ] (involves the deprecated '']'', ], and various other closely related entities) == | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| * was deleted for ] | |||
| ''Bear with me here: Anyone encountering this ANI stands to benefit from reading this ''NBC News'' article from August 2019 (), this ''New Yorker'' article from March 2019 (), and this 2019 article from ''Radio France Internationale'' ().'' | |||
| * on ] and ] grounds | |||
| ''Other useful coverage can be found in a September 2019 article from ''The New Republic'' (), a July 2020 ''ABC News'' (Australia) article (), and a June 2020 ''Axios'' roundup of recent coverage of Falun Gong attempts to influence US government policy via the Trump administration ().'' | |||
| * on ] and ] | |||
| So, while visiting a city in the US earlier this year (back when we could still do this), I found myself bombarded with ads from ], a performance arts group who claim to have revived ancient tradition. As editors who have worked with me here know, I write quite a lot about folklore studies topics on Misplaced Pages. So I decided to dig a little deeper into the group's background and claims. After reading some of the above pieces, I was shocked to see that Misplaced Pages had no coverage of what reliable media sources have been reporting about Falun Gong and its extensions like Shen Yun since around 2016. Upon turning to English Misplaced Pages's article on ], the new religious movement behind Shen Yun, I was particularly surprised by how much it read as a promotional piece, totally ignoring any of the increasing media coverage surrounding the topic around the group's far-right pivot and accompanying political involvement. As a regular over at Misplaced Pages's fringe noticeboard, and since I found that Falun Gong leader and founder ] has made all sorts of deeply fringe statements about aliens, homosexuality, and any other number of topics, I decided to go ahead and begin looking for and adding missing coverage. Surely an oversight, I thought. | |||
| *They've been warned about ] and . | |||
| Well, soon I learned that the absence of this coverage was quite intentional: Single-purpose account editors camped out at the page would quickly revert any mention of these topics. In the article body in particular there appears to have been a general attempt to obfuscate or downplay the central, hierarchal role of leader Li Hongzhi. The article didn't even mention ], a large Falun Gong compound—its ''de facto'' headquarters—in Deerpark, New York, or the two Falun Gong schools. There was certainly no discussion about any of the topics raised by the above media sources. | |||
| *] which also still persist in articles (see now removed references in ) | |||
| For example, while ''The Epoch Times'' and Shen Yun claim otherwise, media sources make it clear that these groups and numerous others operate as Falun Gong ''extensions'', or, as reliable news sources put it: As ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]), ("The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong") or, more straightforwardly, ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), just as a few examples. (And, of course, as of fairly recently, ''The Epoch Times'' has been altogether deprecated as a source here on English Misplaced Pages: ]). | |||
| *Plenty of articles containing only one source ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| Instead, English Misplaced Pages's Falun Gong article portrayed Falun Gong as something of an ancient, decentralized tradition persecuted by the Chinese government—just as Falun Gong presents itself—and little else. Not a word about supporting far-right movements over here in Germany, nothing whatsoever about Dragon Springs and Falun Gong schools, and not a whisper about massive monetary support for the Trump campaign in 2016 and since (). While it is no doubt true that adherents in China are persecuted there (the Chinese government is, of course, well known for persecution), the religious group is indeed quite ''new'', as a large amount of academic sources have made perfectly clear: Like Scientology, it's a ], and scholars don't mince words about this: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). ''Controversial New Religions'', p. 241. Oxford University Press.) | |||
| 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. | |||
| And like when Scientology was revealed to have meddled with Misplaced Pages's coverage (]), the article swarms with single-purpose accounts ready to lawyer, scrub, and revert away that which does not echo Falun Gong's claims. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Perhaps the most visible editor camped out at the article is ]. Consider this timeline of diffs, wherein myself and others add to the article, and TheBlueCanoe repeatedly removes all 'negative' media coverage of Falun Gong, only giving an inch here or there when a position no longer appears sustainable. Diffs: | |||
| :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) | |||
| * | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * | |||
| ::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) | |||
| * (Involves {{ping|PaleoNeonate}}) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| * (Involves {{ping|Mojoworker}}) | |||
| :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. | |||
| * (Involves {{ping|Doug Weller}}) | |||
| :*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. | |||
| This would have undoubtedly continued indefinitely until either myself or other editors just gave up on adding to the article or an administrator intervened. Fortunately, an adminstrator did step in, {{ping|Guerillero}}, and indefinitely locked the article to non-administrators on July 27, 2020. () Unfortunately, no further action has been taken about the repeated scrubbing, so it's hard to expect much else when the protection is eventually lifted. | |||
| :*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) | |||
| It's very difficult to view the above diffs as anything more than ''scrubbing''. It's obvous that the ''NBC News'' sources above are quality reliable sources. These events and connections are important and require coverage. However, it's easy to picture that, sooner or later, maybe even as soon as the article is no longer protected, TheBlueCanoe will simply swoop in again and strip the media sources out once more. | |||
| * 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 later learned that TheBlueCanoe had aggressively removed similar material from the article before I came along. , wherein TheBlueCanoe stripped the ''NBC News'' piece from the article before the above diffs, and ) ({{ping|Nathan868}}. This approach has been the case since at least 2013, over time the user snowballed to remove all 'negative' coverage of Falun Gong (, — there are plenty more). Sure, these old edits have their issues, but while we're not likely to refer to Falun Gong as a "cult" in Wikivoice (and shouldn't)—''cult'' is a term scholars generally don't use in that colloquial context—we do need coverage of why and how this appelation is so commonly applied to the new religious movement, and by who, for example. | |||
| :*: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) | |||
| {{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) == | |||
| Anyway, taken as a whole, it seems to me that there's a clear, long-term pattern here for what is essentially a single purpose account. TheBlueCanoe has been a long-term disruptive presence on Misplaced Pages's Falun Gong page, yet while I have edited, the account contributes next to nothing to the article itself. There's not a lot of contribution happening here, but a lot of disruption. | |||
| 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) | |||
| TheBlueCanoe is not alone. Notably, in the background are the other entrenched editors who step in to echo TheBlueCanoe. When I came around on May 19 to introduce the media sources, {{ping|Cleopatran Apocalypse}} unsuccessfully sought to have me topic banned (). This yielded various admin comments noting that there appeared to be some level of off-wiki collusion occuring to shape the Falun Gong article. This editor also has a history of, for example, defending ''The Epoch Times''. () Other editors have also mysteriously appeared out of the woodwork to either revert to TheBlueCanoe's preferred version or to echo him on the talk page: Take {{ping|Bstephens393}} as an example. This account's first edit since 2013 was on May 19, 2020—as you'll note, the very day I added the media sources—at which time he popped in to agree with TheBlueCanoe () and weigh in Cleopatran's attempt to have yours truly topic banned (). There's no shortage of stuff like this around this and related articles. | |||
| :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. | |||
| I think it's important to emphasize that, despite the drive-by media source stripping and wall-of-text attempts at somehow lawyering away or hiding the above media sources, myself and others have continued building the article out with quality sources. Some of the editors who have endured the onslaught of revisions—and involved in some of the diffs above—include {{ping|Horse Eye Jack}} and {{ping|Binksternet}}, both of whom built English Misplaced Pages's new ] from material introduced in the Falun Gong article. | |||
| 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) | |||
| In short, ] and related articles would greatly benefit from administrators willing to step in and take action when an account comes along and attempts to scrub the article of media sources or anything else that might seem 'critical' or 'unfair' to the article's subjects: After all, Misplaced Pages isn't censored. ] (]) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be quite possible — even fairly straightforward — to present a diametrically opposite story of events over the last couple of months. Indeed, my complaint about User:Bloodofox's abusive tone, personal attacks, aggressive style, and bullying did so, to a certain degree. | |||
| :It would also be fairly straightforward to present a completely different narrative of the topic in question. In general, I think that Misplaced Pages should favor high quality scholarship over media reporting, and WP:RECENT is to be avoided. High quality scholarship is distinguished from media reporting because (in this case) it is typically ethnographic work, or detailed textual analysis, by scholars with relevant, established expertise, including linguistic expertise and cultural knowledge. Such scholars have often spent years embedded in Falun Gong communities, or have a background in Chinese religions, and they portray a rather different state of affairs to that Bloodofox depicts. No one has said that media sources should not be used. These are disputes about emphasis and due weight. For example, is it appropriate to have several longish blockquotes from media reports on some recondite question of FLG practice...? That sort of thing. | |||
| :The main problem with this complaint, if that is what it is, is that it seeks to preempt a resolution on the question of how Falun Gong should be handled on Misplaced Pages by biasing readers with Bloodofox's preferred emphases and interests in the topic. Imagine the opposite complaint that started with how a poor innocent faith community that only believes in truth and tolerance is being persecuted by a big bad communist state who harvest their organs, and there are some editors here who are trying to persecute them even more by perpetuating that propaganda. I would hope such an effort would be looked upon rather dimly. | |||
| :As for the edits Bloodofox highlights: each was preceded and followed by extensive debate on the talk page. Some editors engaged in that debate by focusing on the content, issues of due weight, and sourcing; others called names, made personal attacks, and went into long FORUMing about how their views on the article subject are the only legitimate views to have. | |||
| :As for my "history" of "defending the Epoch Times," people can read my comment for themselves (I had forgotten about it and don't think I contributed much after that). I have become quite familiar with the literature on this topic since getting into these disputes, but I kind of hate touching the pages because of how nasty and personal it gets. If you do not subscribe to a certain narrative, you get called an apologist. I so strongly object to this. The bullying, name-calling, aggressive edit warring are the actual major problems here. It's natural that people are going to have divergent views on a phenomenon like this. The whole point is to hash out such differences in good faith. Bloodofox seems to think that is becoming increasingly difficult, and I would fully agree. | |||
| :In fact, the incident that apparently triggered this complaint perfectly illustrates why. The other day, user:Binksternet removed from the article the three main beliefs of Falun Gong, and inserted a conference paper by a scholar who argues that those beliefs are in fact a "tactic for evading deeper inquiry" and that members of Falun Gong are instructed to lie about their practice. This was a dubious representation of the original source anyway, it turned out. | |||
| :Note that the central beliefs of Falun Gong being "truth, benevolence, tolerance" appears in almost every scholarly work on that group. This is not some fringe fact. Note also that there are a number of major academic books and papers by established scholars about the beliefs of Falun Gong, which convey opposite ideas to those of this scholar, in her conference paper (i.e. not a peer reviewed document, but something ''presented'' to other scholars for comment prior to publication). Note also that there are certain disputes in the study of Falun Gong, where people with area expertise (Chinese language, background in Chinese religion etc.) look somewhat askance at folks like Heather Kavan, who does not speak Chinese, has no relevant background, and teaches speechwriting. She also gives interviews to Chinese agencies connected with the anti-Falun Gong security campaign in China, etc. I am not saying here that she can't be used, but I'm trying to convey some of the context at play. I wrote on the talk that I believe having some discussion of how FLG seeks to represent its beliefs would also be valid. I was reading through Noah Porter's celebrated ethnography the other day and he has a whole section on FLG discursive strategies. They have a whole lot of weird beliefs, but say that they are not central, and try to represent them in a manner that makes them most understandable to outsiders. All that, including the evasions, is worth being represented somewhere. But to use one dubious source in order to remove info about the central beliefs, reported in all the major scholarship, and instead say that they're just evasive tactics and members are taught to lie... well. That is the dispute about these pages in a nutshell. | |||
| :It's indeed very difficult to have productive discussions when editors have such vastly different understandings of our shared enterprise here. ] (]) 06:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *For newbies like me, there were two arbitration cases: ] (2007) + ] (2012). The log of 2020 discretionary sanctions is ] where {{u|JzG}} and {{u|Guerillero}} have recorded sanctions. I see that I commented at ] regarding a very bad aspersions issue where Bloodofox was said to have "repeatedly misrepresented sources". I guess we need to draw up a list of editors to topic ban and articles to watch. ] (]) 07:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Johnuniq}}, Cleopatran Apocalypse has , so is not wise in our ways despite xyr long history here. As admins I think we being by setting expectations about neutrality and brevity of reports, and correct use of ], de-escalation, consensus-forming and dispute resolution. This seems to me to be escalating beyond the objective merits of the complaints. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:26, 29 July 2020 (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) | |||
| *With regard to "scrubbing", I found it important that the contentious reverts dealt with the and a . While policy does not say in which order the sections should be, I think it's odd that the first section of the article would be about political involvement and include long quotes from the LA Times and NBC News. Are the political positions of the ''The Epoch Times'' newspaper and the ''Shen Yun'' dance company such an important aspect of the FLG that they warrant a full 2nd paragraph in the lead? While this content should be in the article in some form, the diffs cited here mostly detail a disagreement about ]. --] (]) 13:11, 29 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Were placement the issue here, moving the material around would be no problem—that'd be a typical response on Misplaced Pages, of course. However, as the diffs display, what I and others experienced above was repeated, wholesale removal of any and all 'critical' media sources. Editors before me also experienced this in the sample diffs above (but simply moved on, rather than contest the matter further). ] (]) 13:49, 29 July 2020 (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) | |||
| *I am willing to answer questions from the community about my interactions within the topic area and attempts to control the disruption through sanctions. Please ping me if you require me. <p>I think my actions speak for just how contentious this topic area is. Placing most everyone involved in the article under a 0RR sanction and indef full protecting the article was not something I did lightly. As you can see at ] various attempts have been made to keep the article from becoming a mud fight. --] | ] 15:42, 29 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::@]. 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) | |||
| ::::::@], 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) | |||
| :::::::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 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) | |||
| 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). | |||
| :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. | |||
| *This subject is frustrating as Hell. I think it needs a full ArbCom to sift and sort, and decide who needs TBANS and who needs CBANS. --<b>] ]</b> 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers. They are ] anyway. --<b>] ]</b> 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Frankly, I agree with bloodofox, that this is going to require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement to get an actual, factual set of articles established. I've been wary of even dipping my toes into this area because I've seen how fervent believers descend on any attempt to provide factual information they deem critical of the group. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''I agree''' with ] and ]. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers, and it will require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement. I tried for years to improve these articles, but it was impossible in the crossfire between a large number of Falun Gong devotees and a less conspicuous group of pro-Party propagandists. It is high time to do something about this. ] (]) 09:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *The Falun Gong topic area has seen major content battles over the years. The three major groups of involved editors are 1) pro-Falun Gong activists, 2) anti-Falun Gong activists, and 3) veteran editors who happen upon the conflict and try to sort out the problems. Bloodofox and myself are in the latter category, while BlueCanoe and Cleopatran Apocalypse are in group 1. Group 2 would have included {{u|PatCheng}} until he was recently blocked for socking. {{u|STSC}} would also have been counted in the group 3, having started the username 14 years ago, and getting extensively involved in other articles before making Falun Gong edits, but they were hounded off the Falun Gong topic by users from group 1 including Blue Canoe and Marvin 2009 (who is now topic banned for pro-Falun Gong activism.) If group 1 and group 2 were allowed to edit freely, the article would be a constant war of reversions and non-neutral additions. What is needed is for the article to be developed by veteran editors from group 3, who are impartial and will attempt to frame the topic neutrally. Bloodofox should develop a version of the article in userspace, and we can have a Request for Comment to see whether that version should replace the current contentious one. And all editors in the groups 1 and 2 should have 0RR restrictions placed as soon as they are identified by their behavior. ] (]) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Hum, by STSC was quite chilling and I'm not surprised he was topic-banned. --] (]) 18:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***Oh, my. Yes, that is egregious, and it would put STSC into the second group, if not banned or blocked. ] (]) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I think those three groups just about sum it up. ] (]) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Since this has gathered some admin attention and results in admin action by Guerillero already, I just wanted to mention that I did plan to eventually file AE reports and ask a topic ban for some editors who appear to have a conflict of interest about the topic. —]] – 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: Please do. --<b>] ]</b> 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::I would also be interested in an AE report --] | ] 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I made the mistake of getting involved in the FG space within the last year, I say mistake because its by far the most acrimonious space I’ve ever come across and I’m familiar with the Taiwan-China and Israeli-Arab conflict spaces so I thought I had seen acrimony, disruption, IPs, and SPAs but it was nothing like the FG space. There is a clique of long term editors/gatekeepers who appear to have COI issues with FG, as far as I can tell they’ve never been successfully challenged and most editors will simply leave the FG space after encountering them rather than endure their assault. This discussion is a step in the right direction but dealing solely with TheBlueCanoe won’t solve the problem. ] (]) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd have to agree that TheBlueCanoe is disruptive. ] mentioned by the OP merely expanded a ref with a cite template and Google books URL, and removed content from the lead that was already mentioned further up in the lead. Yet it was reverted by TheBlueCanoe. This editor is seemingly the poster child for ] – ticking most of the boxes there and exhibiting apparent civility in conversations on the talk page while editing tendentiously. As mentioned, TBC is not the only problem, as there are many SPAs that appear out of nowhere when there's contention at the articles involved. I agree with Binksternet about the three major groups of involved editors, and echoing what Horse Eye Jack says just above, as a member of group 3, I'm disinclined to make the same mistake and wade into the morass of Falun Gong related articles – at least pending the conclusion of the promised AE (or Arbcom case). ] (]) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It appears that User:Bloodofox is (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting my diffs above, so I want to clarify: I never supported any motion to get him topic banned. This is proven by the same diff that he provided. It was a brief statement that I gave after a) encountering the extraordinary hubbub on this page after my long PhD hiatus, b) intended as a neutral, uninvolved observation, where I both sided with Bloodofox's suggestion to include the NRM label and expressed my concerns as follows: "''Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history.''" It should also be self-evident that just because all editors have not spent tens of thousands of hours on Misplaced Pages, that doesn't mean they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, anyone who has devoted a considerable part of their life to editing cannot be automatically considered neutral just because of their accrued social capital. Ostensibly some people are on Misplaced Pages to wield definitional power, and while many of their contributions can be laudable, their edit patterns may reveal occasional elements of struggling for/against pseudoscience, secular materialism, militant atheism, conservatism, liberalism, or wherever their first principles are anchored. I shouldn't even need to state this explicitly, since in their heart of hearts everyone who's followed Misplaced Pages over the years knows this to be true. | |||
| :I've also acquainted myself (cursorily) with the previous ArbCom cases related to this topic, and I've noticed that merits and accomplishments in other areas have never been understood as a free pass to cast aspersions and engage in ideological battles, irrespective of Misplaced Pages "seniority." Overall, the only way around confirmation biases and echo chambers is open discussion about things like structure, due weight, NPOV, and other Misplaced Pages policies -- even if these have recently been framed as irrelevant nitpicking or hindrances to ''getting things done''. Furthermore, if Wikipedians want to assess any transcendentalist religion primarily from its most recent critics' perspective (and rewrite the lede based on that) all the while showing contempt for peer-reviewed academic research if it doesn't fit the narrative, we've already turned into RationalWiki and should openly admit that. | |||
| :I happen to be specialized in related topics as an academic professional, and the only reason I got engaged after my hiatus was to ensure that the various perspectives of Religious Studies, Sociology, and East Asian studies would not be scrubbed now that China is clearly on the offensive on various fronts. We also need to acknowledge the elements of culture war here; doing otherwise is just intellectually dishonest. That said, rational debate is what I have always stood for. It all boils down to this one thing that I've repeated over and over: we're here to ''fairly describe the (sometimes competing and diverse) narratives prominently present in reliable sources'' and not to establish a ''single hegemonic master narrative''. I have nothing against anyone's POV; the root cause of what we're currently seeing is the broken process of good-faith discussion, including the aforementioned push toward a cohesive, unambiguous, straightforward master narrative, which I see as blatantly reductive corner-cutting. From an uninvolved, objective standpoint, I believe it would be apparent that this process has been equally undermined by those involved "veterans" who're now strutting as purveyors of discernment and truth. ] (]) 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The above editor, Bstephens393, would be in Group 1 of Blinksternet’s three group breakdown of the involved editors. They are highly involved so take their statement that they are capable of seeing this from an "uninvolved, objective standpoint” with a grain of salt. ] (]) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's all you have to respond? Personal attack, no diffs to back up your ''ad hoc'' categorization, and zero contribution to the substance of the discussion? How persuasive. ] (]) 20:05, 1 August 2020 (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. | |||
| ===Statement by TheBlueCanoe === | |||
| . | |||
| :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. | |||
| TL;DR: I believe this should go to ArbCom. | |||
| :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've been editing this topic for several years. I'm very familiar with the scholarly literature, and my interest has been in trying to ensure that the page is not overtaken by ideological agendas, and that the content conforms to Misplaced Pages's content policies. | |||
| ::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.) | |||
| * Bloodofox, Horse Eye Jack, Binksternet, and others began editing this article since April or May of this year. Since then, the Falun Gong pages have been the site of endless and apparently intractable edit wars involving at least a dozen editors. | |||
| * 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) | |||
| * These users do not appear to have even an elementary level of understanding of Falun Gong. In the case of Bloodofox, his view of this topic seems to be based almost entirely on relatively news coverage in left-liberal news publications (since the Trump election, really). While the perspective offered in these news stories is important, it is also just one perspective within an expansive and varied body of academic literature. | |||
| :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 === | |||
| *These editors treat the page as an ideological battleground. Binksternet, for instance, removes references to Falun Gong's core moral teachings, making some remarkable claims and misrepresenting sources along the way. Bloodofox and others have inserting lengthy block quotes from recent news articles haphazardly on the page, with no regard for coherent narrative structure, due weight, or balance, and a tendency to stretch the sources to support claims that are not directly made. They have edited the lede to highlight apparent controversies that would appear extremely marginal in relation to the broader topic Falun Gong. For instance, the lede section they prefer does not include any mention of Falun Gong's core religious tenets, but it does tell us what a Falun Gong-affiliated dance troupe thinks about the theory of evolution. Etc. | |||
| 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) | |||
| * In other words, there are legitimate questions of Neutrality and Due Weight in how these news sources are presented on the page, as ] noted. My edits, cited above by Bloodofox, were never aimed at "scrubbing" or "censoring" the article, but about ensuring a neutral and proportional representation, particularly in the lede section. I always explained my rationale on the talk page. However.... | |||
| * The conflict is intractable because talk page discussions are impossible: every attempt to discuss content questions is quickly derailed by personal attacks, soapboxing, strawmaning opponents' arguments, and demands to stop discussing content (e.g. | |||
| :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) | |||
| *Bloodofox is not the only offender, but certainly the worst: he personalizes every content dispute with accusations of "scrubbing" or "censorship," and insinuations that anyone who disagrees with them is an SPA, is acting in bad faith, or is an agent of Falun Gong. Discourse is impossible in this environment. (e.g. Bloodofox: Horse Eye Jack: | |||
| ::I am an interested editor. <span style="font:14px Gill Sans;">'']'' (] — ])</span> 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. --] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suggest that any restriction on creating new articles should also include converting redirects to articles. ]] 21:09, 15 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::::::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). | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Yeah thats the one ill have a look up there ] (]) 19:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| {{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) === | |||
| * For an example of how this dynamic plays out, read this recent talk page discussion, which is sadly typical. I describe in detail why I edited the lede section as I did, and invite other editors to discuss the content. Both Binksternet and Bloodofox state their intention not to discuss the issues, personalize the dispute, and edit war back to their preferred version. | |||
| {{cot|Proposal jumped the gun, 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. | |||
| * Some of the editors here have, in addition to the foregoing, also engaged in conduct that might reasonably be interpreted as harassment and hounding. This seems like an attempt to drive their perceived ideological opponents off the page. But I will save my evidence of that for ArbCom or AE. | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| So, again, the issues here are significant and intractable. It's a massive pain, but I believe this needs to go to ArbCom. When this case was filed I was preparing a request for Arbitration, but a recommendation from uninvolved editors here might make the case stronger. ] 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Uninvolved editors ==== | |||
| ::You're aware, I'm sure, regarding your comment about "left-liberal news publications", that "]". It's almost as if the liberal media wish to reveal the truth. ] (]) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''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 liked the way a documentary called this: "the gospel of the liberal media".<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> —]] – 23:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can’t believe I just clicked through all of those diffs (you’re attributing some of Fox’s work to me BTW, might want to check those diffs again), not one was problematic or supported your arguments about harassment, hounding, etc. The only mildly questionable thing is a lack of understanding on my part about how to use SPA tags back in the day which was quickly addressed, that not one of your complaints here though its just something I noticed about my old work. BTW you’re multiple days into not providing diffs per ] on your talk page so its interesting that you have the time to compile diffs for this page. ] (]) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| === Possible sockpuppeting? === | |||
| Some of TBC's edits are worth examining, he shares a similar editing pattern to the editor ] who is was topic banned back in 2012: | |||
| ==== Involved editors ==== | |||
| 1) TBC first created his account in Oct 2012, while Homunculus was topic banned in July 2012 per ]. | |||
| :{{ping|KJP1|Cremastra|Rupples|PamD|DragonofBatley|Crouch, Swale|SchroCat|Tryptofish|Noswall59|p=.}} (Apologies if I missed anyone.) ] (]/]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (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 == | |||
| 2) Both TBC and Homuculous has an affinity for the expression "Yea", which is quite a coincidence between two people with similar POVs editing the same FLG articles: | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| 3) Both editors shared a similar style front page, scenery + poetry , . | |||
| Diffs: | |||
| 4) Both editors try to promote David Ownby, a scholar on Chinese religions, as some sort of authority on FLG, and use the same excuse to dismiss certain claims ie Ownby doesn't mention them in his book | |||
| * 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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Citation '''bot''' is an automated process, and not a human. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:45, 14 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ::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: | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hepburn_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1268421348 | |||
| ::* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1st_Parliament_of_Ontario&diff=prev&oldid=1268415078 | |||
| ::"All ] apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account." | |||
| ::-] ] (]) 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. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:39, 14 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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 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: | |||
| :*] | |||
| :] (]) 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) | |||
| 5) This edit is rather suspicious . Homuculous quickly reverted an edit by Quigley to a previous version by TBC, before quickly reverting himself due to realizing that he violated his topic ban. | |||
| ::Thank you for your attention in this matter 🙏🏽 ] (]) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *:The behaviour continues https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1270982591. ] (]) 03:57, 22 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| *:::: 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) | |||
| *:::::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. ] (]) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools == | |||
| 6) Both editors argued for the exclusion of certain sources critical of FLG, using the excuse "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of sources. | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| 7) Both editors argued that Chinese state media can be used to a limited extent: | |||
| 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. | |||
| 8) Both editors use the term "illuminating" as a describing term: | |||
| 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. | |||
| 9) Several deletions using copyright violation argument: | |||
| 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. | |||
| 10) In the article ], compare Homunculus's last edits (inserting Tong and Jamestown), with TBC's first edits in reverting to the old version inserting the same sources: | |||
| 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) | |||
| 11) The way both editors conversed here indicate some form of familiarity, perhaps in real life: | |||
| :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) | |||
| 12) Both editors nominated pet articles for Do You Know | |||
| ::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 === | |||
| 13) Both editors signed up for Wikiproject Free Speech | |||
| :I have a few questions I want to ask so I can better improve my experience recent changes once I return one day. | |||
| 14) Both editors requested semi-page protection at the FLG main article, citing IP vandalism. . Both editors also requested anti-vandalism functions from admins: | |||
| :: | |||
| :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 === | |||
| 15) Both editors are involved with BLP dispute discussions in the ] article, curiously involving the subject's US citizenship status. --] (]) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (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) | |||
| == 197.83.246.23 trying to impose poorly sourced fan theory (i.e. fringe) and making disruptive edits questioning widely held views from reliable sources == | |||
| :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. | |||
| 197.83.246.23 (or 197.86.143.179, 197.86.143.126, 197.86.143.140, etc.) has been trying to impose a fan theory at ] and ] plus some other articles ( and ). When the differences between primary sources and secondary sources as well as the idea of due weight in regards to neutral point of view are explained, they respond with indifference or point-y edits . Also, unwilling to understand due weight and fringe. ] (]) 13:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :That's not it at all, and DonQuixote knows that. Actually, there are multiple issues here. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::Ok, sorry. <b>]</b> ] | ] 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-neutral paid editor == | |||
| :First, the "fan theory" is '''reliably sourced'''. It was inserted to try and give some ] to the articles. | |||
| @] 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) | |||
| :More importantly, the ] article is a complete mess. The problem with this particular article is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character. And each one has some sort of RS to back it up. DonQuixote(and another editor who appears as if on demand) are trying to forcibly push ONE of these latter-day interpretations as the "one correct version". The irony is that DonQuixote has repeatedly stated that "all viewpoints must be shown", and accusing me of being the one trying to push one POV version. DonQuixote is now upset because I moved a sourced sentence written in an unofficial guidebook approximately thirty years after the character appeared on tv from out of the introductory paragraph to further down the page. | |||
| :That's not the only page where I'm seeing some questionable edits: | |||
| :In short, I had thought that everyone involved had agreed that only the information relating to the actual character, the creation of said character, and the relevant reliable sources relating to the television appearances should be in the introduction. And then all other information from subsequent dates be placed on the article, but not in the introduction. And none of these subsequent, contradictory, accounts should be given precedence over any of the others. Yet DonQuixote is pushing for ONE account to be made out to be "correct", even blanking valid sourced information. I did not remove anything. In fact, I added information, and clarified certain things to try and attempt to keep the ] status of the article intact. | |||
| :* 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 ]. 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) | |||
| ::done ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I looked at all four edits you listed, and I think there are perfectly ] 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 ] 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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::#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. | |||
| ::# 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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :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/ | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::''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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| *:] 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''' 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) | |||
| :Yet DonQuixote seems to be heavily invested in pushing ONE latter-day version of the character as the "correct" one, to the detriment of ALL other interpretations, all of which are reliably sourced, even attempting to make deceptive edits to the article. ] (]) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] - 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) | |||
| ::Don't want to start a discussion here, as it's not going to be constructive, but two points | |||
| *::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) | |||
| :::{{tq|It was inserted to try and give some ] to the articles.}} | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| :::see ] | |||
| *::::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|there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character.}} | |||
| *:::::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) | |||
| :::The character has appeared in multiple media written by multiple authors--so that explains that. | |||
| *:::::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) | |||
| ::] (]) 20:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why don't you want to start a discussion? After all, you were the one who reported another editor for 'disruptive behaviour'. yet, when the other editor tries to explain the situation, you now have no interest in commenting on the "incident" that you yourself reported? | |||
| :::In a nutshell, there is a fictitious character who appeared in Doctor Who on television in the 1960's. And, ever since different people in different media, over more than 40 years, have defined and written about that character in a variety of different ways. To the point where there are now multiple contradictory, and utterly irreconcilable, versions of the character in different narratives. And, each mutually distinct version has reliable sources stating that that version is the "one real version". What DonQuixote wants is for '''his preferred version''' to be the focus of the article, even ONLY using one type of "reliable source" in the introduction. And then for EVERYTHING ELSE to be buried in the article, sometimes being no more than a link here or there. He has also blanked reliably sourced information from the article if it contradicts with his preferred interpretation. And, he has phrased certain sections in an unsourced, deceptive manner, which would make a reader of said article get a very different understanding of issues from what the reality is. | |||
| :::All I have attempted to do is make the article neutral, and not to give preference to one conflicting version of said fictitious character of another. And that is the issue. To be blunt, DonQuixote has stated his preference for ] and their ONE adaptation over all else. And DonQuixote wishes to make the "Big Finish version" the "one true version" to the exclusion of all else. Well, he has no problem with everything else being there, just not in the lead the way the Big Finish information is. And maybe a sentence or two, as opposed to the rambling summaries of in-universe Big Finish storylines. If my objecting to that is a mistake, then I apologise. If note, then I suggest other editors look at this article, and try to clean it up, and remove some of the fanboy nonsense from it. ] (]) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The IP has now to reinsert a copyrighted image into one of the articles. ] (]) 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I should have mentioned this at the beginning, but the IP also dismisses sources (secondary sources and adaptations in other media) that don't support or contradict his POV, as can be seen in ], amongst many. The IP thinks that I'm biased towards Big Finish because I ''dare'' to defend something that he dislikes . ] (]) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === ] back to Andrewjlockley === | |||
| :Chaps, take a step back. You're going back-and-forth over a fictional character's article on Misplaced Pages. Is this the best use of your time? Is this the best use of your effort and determination? As stated above, correctly, the Monk exists amongst scores of different books, comics, and other sources; there is no one true fixed version. The article here should reflect that. Misplaced Pages can't host one article for each and every different version of the character, so one article covering everything will have to do. But remember not to spend so much time, and so much effort, desperate to have the final say. Editors will follow you. The article will change by hands other than yours. That's how it works around here. Do your best, do what you can, but also remember to take a step back if it's getting too much. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::Thanks for the comment, but my main concern at this point is that the IP is flagging sources as unreliable (nine specific ones) simply because they displease him (a few of those sources are cited in other completely unrelated articles) and it seems that he'll make the same point-y edits because he's not getting his way in other areas. ] (]) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (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 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) | |||
| == User Reinthal: 3RR breach and persistent harassment == | |||
| *: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) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| *::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) | |||
| | status = ] Blocked | |||
| *:::... 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) | |||
| *:@] 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) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *:::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. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 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. ] (]) 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? === | |||
| 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) | |||
| Sadly I have to report the unacceptable editing of ] today. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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 ]. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| === Proposal: Indefinite block for EMsmile === | |||
| S/he has a view that a citation published in the Mail on Sunday and mailonline, concerning the TV series ] is acceptable, whereas I do not, the Daily Mail and Mailonline both having been identified as unreliable sources by multiple RFCs. | |||
| <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) | |||
| S/he is in breach of WP:3RR by having reverted this edit to the article four times within seven hours | |||
| :'''<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. | |||
| I reverted three times, on the basis that WP policy on the reliability of the Mail and mailonline is perfectly clear, but stopped after three in line with 3RR. Such that his version of the article is currently live. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Given the similarity of the previous edit, it is possible that ] is a sock puppet of this user. | |||
| *:{{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). | |||
| Despite having ended the edit war myself, he (or she) posted warnings on my talk page both about warring and that I was in breach of 3RR. I have pointed out that 3RR prohibits more than three reversions and also that s/he shouldn’t be trying to force edits as to what appears on my own talk page but he has now SEVEN TIMES tried to bully me by reposting his/her factually inaccurate warnings onto my talk page, in clear breach of policy that gives users the right to decide the content of their own talk pages. Here are the seven edits Edit warring another user’s talk page so persistently is clear bullying and harassment, contrary to WP policy. (Update, now TEN identical edits to my talk page warning me of a policy I haven’t broken in the first place) | |||
| 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. | |||
| It isn’t acceptable that another editor should try to force content onto my own talk page, but I have given up removing his inaccurate statements as he is clearly trying to intimidate me my immediately restoring his warnings each time I try to remove them from my page. I would ask for intervention to bring his unnecessarily aggressive and false accusations to an end. ] (]) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :(Non-admin comment) ] provides up-to-date links to discussions and conclusions as to the usability of ''The Daily Mail'' and related sites as sources. ] (]) 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw Ponyo has blocked them for 72 hours for the repeated posting on your talk page (including after I explained to them that ] allows you to remove the warning). ] (]) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, that needed to stop.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you kindly. Why he didn’t go check 3RR and see that I only reverted him the three times and then left his edit live, I don’t know. ] (]) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = CU Blocked | |||
| | result = {{np|82.132.244.0/22}} and {{np|81.101.15.25}} for '''1 months''' by {{np|Berean Hunter}} {{nac}}] ] 14:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| 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. | |||
| <small>I added the paragraph below to my comment at around the same time as EMSmile's response below</small> | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This user has only just come off a two-week block and has already resumed disruptive editing – mainly going from one BLP to the next changing "English" to "British" (). Please could someone uninvolved re-block? ] (]) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Without wishing to defend the editing behaviour, having taken a look at this page and seeing that the infobox describes him as a British citizen, isn’t the underlying edit actually reasonable? ] (]) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Question, since he wasn't born in England, how is he English? And British is a nationality technically, not English. ] ] 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which was also my thought. British citizenship is a verifiable fact. Englishness is rather more tricky - whilst most people born in England might be considered English, there is cross-border traffic (easy for someone living in North Wales to be born in Chester, for example), and of course plenty of Brits have parents from different of the constituent nations. I have no problem with someone of obviously Scottish heritage being described as Scottish rather than British, but as a general rule British is the nationality, not English. ] (]) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (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. | |||
| :Sorry, I meant to link to (I got the two "R. Grants" mixed up ...), which I think provides a clearer example. On their talk page, the user was pointed to ] but doesn't seem to have taken it on board, and rapid-fire editing to enforce a particular label is disruptive. ] (]) 20:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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 === | |||
| *Had he halted to discuss instead of insisting that he was going to continue, he would not be currently blocked but he has not participated in any consensus building and has the net yield as a POV warrior. The lack of a block appeal but the return to the same behavior is not a good sign. Blocked one month.<br /> — ] ] 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <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> | |||
| **{{u|Berean Hunter}} Looks like they are back - see ].-- ] (]) 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Not specific to this IP, but a general comment. ] is worthwhile reading on this question. I don't agree that British is the default - we should look for what the sources say, and what the subject says about themselves. Changing an existing article to reflect one's own personal preference, without reference to sources or discussion, strikes me as inherently disruptive. ]] 07:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Anon blocked 31 hours. If someone who can see would like to rangeblock. --<b>] ]</b> 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*The vast majority of edits to politicians and to user talk pages concerning politicians in ] are confirmed from a long term sockmaster and I have cu blocked that range for a month, {{u|Deepfriedokra}}. I'm not sure whether 81.101.15.25 is the same editor though.<br /> — ] ] 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::<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) | |||
| ==Proposal to topic ban Bastun== | |||
| ::::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)? | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bastun}} | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::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). | |||
| ::::] 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 ] 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"). | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::::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. ] (]) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| Bastun needs to be ] from ] and from other BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. This is because of a persistent, ongoing issue involving ] violations because of Bastun's extremely negative feelings about Rowling, and their ] on the subject of transgender resulting in ], which involves rejection of ], ] (IDHT) behavior, and ]. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Note that on 4 July 2019, they were given a DS (discretionary sanctions) alert for BLP: | |||
| :<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=== | |||
| * they added material claiming {{tq|some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it}}. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I it. Bastun it with that does not verify it. I took it to the (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). '''Five''' editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's {{tq|referenced material}} and {{tq|No consensus on removal}} - clear IDHT. They then the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were {{tq|Restoring per several editors including myself.}} This is false. No other editors supported their material. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| *The addition about Rowling's signing of the ] was proposed by someone else at ] on the talk page. Bastun responds, {{tq|Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her?}} {{u|Czello}} rightly points out, {{tq|Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH.}} Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, {{tq|Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE?}} {{u|Guy Macon}} replies, {{tq|Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR...}} We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV. | |||
| == Edit warring at Aubrey Plaza == | |||
| *I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Misplaced Pages article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, {{tq|Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc.}} This is a case of ]iness. I discussed it on and again, consensus was to include. | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| *Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per ], Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: {{tq|Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm:}} {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not censored. The Guardian source even cites '''Reuters!!!'''}} {{tq|it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine!}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| *Making the same attack on me on two different pages. They say, {{tq|you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news.}} That goes to show they never actually read ] despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, {{tq|WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues.}} I , warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that. | |||
| :Do you have diffs to serve as evidence? - ] <sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 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. | |||
| *Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: {{tq|It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.)}} {{tq|Yes. She's a .}} (She did not say that, and the label ] is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. ) | |||
| *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 {{u|94.63.205.236}}. This was bot-reverted for the bad source. The same IP reinstated the edit moments later. Diffs: | |||
| **{{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. | |||
| **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"): | |||
| **The article was then confirmed-protected for two days. | |||
| **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: | |||
| **Another IP, {{u|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. | |||
| **{{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) | |||
| *{{u|Autumnking2012}} on the talk page, {{tq|I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible}}. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason. | |||
| :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) | |||
| *At ], regarding another BLP in June, {{u|Girth Summit}} had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called {{u|Lilipo25}} a ], as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == Death threats by 2.98.176.93 == | |||
| *They claimed that voting in ] was scandalous: {{tq|where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated...}} They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a ] {{tq|some editors have expressed concern}} that the RfC was non-neutral. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = BLOCKED | |||
| | result = Blocked and TPA revoked, nothing further. {{nac}} ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a '''topic ban''' from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :That sounds a bit hard to enforce, perhaps broaden the scope to BLPs in general? ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|2.98.176.93}} Left a death threat {{diff||1270338492|1270334632|here - diff}}<br /> | |||
| *{{A note}} DS alerts are only good for a year. I've notified them of the gender-related and BLP sanctions. ---22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 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 == | |||
| *'''Comment:''' I '''support''' this proposal. Bastun has a long history of posting negatively-biased material on BLP pages about those who have expressed gender critical views and reverting all attempts to make the pages ]. Attempts to discuss edits on the Talk page are futile; even when an RFC has just begun, Bastun will simply refuse to wait for discussion and continue reverting to the biased changes they want in the article and declare it consensus. In addition, they routinely revert edits that remove unsourced, defamatory claims in BLP articles of subjects who have criticised transgender activism, often with sarcastic edit notes . | |||
| *{{userlinks|Manannan67}} | |||
| ] has several copyright violation warnings on their talk page (, , from ], , ), | |||
| 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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| :An example of Bastun reverting attempts to remove negatively-biased content is on the ] page. The RFC that can be found on the Linehan Talk Page followed numerous attempts by other editors to change Bastun's biased section heading "Antitransgender activism", only to be immediately reverted by Bastun. Some of the times this occurred include (but are not limited to): | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::: 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 == | |||
| :# April 2019, changed to "Transgender Issues" by {{u|Onetwothreeip}}, reverted by Bastun | |||
| :# April 2019, {{u|Bring back Daz Sampson}} removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun | |||
| :# August 2019, changed to "Pro-feminist ally activism by Planted Kiss, reverted by Bastun | |||
| :# August 2019, changed to "Activism" by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun | |||
| :# October 2019 changed to "Gender critical activism" by an IP, reverted by Bastun | |||
| :# April 2020 changed to "Transgender Controversy" by me, reverted by Bastun | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :While the RFC on the subject heading was still underway in June 2020, Bastun once again reverted it to "Antitransgender activism" and although no consensus approving that was reached, it remains in the article as everyone eventually just gave up trying to improve it. ] (]) 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': I '''support''' the proposal. I noted before (in a recent BLP noticeboard discussion about Rowling) that I have purposely been keeping out of the Rowling stuff. But having taken the time to look over all of this (that's a lot of diffs to analyze), I must agree that Bastun is a serious problem in this area. A topic ban appears to be needed. If not that, then some sort of other sanction. This can't be allowed to continue. ] (]) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) <small> Tweaked post. ] (]) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :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) | |||
| *'''Support.''' After viewing the diffs provided by Crossroads and User:Lilipo25, it would be in the best interest of the Misplaced Pages community and its readers if User:Bastun was topic banned. Some people don't pay attention to ''']''', and other Misplaced Pages policies, until their arrogance pushes the envelope off a cliff. ] ]. ''L not Q''. 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| == User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content (related to ]], maybe more) == | |||
| {{collapse top|title=I am withdrawing my analysis. It was intended for respondents to say things like "edit N was out of line." Instead it has become one more battleground. --] (]) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Cherkash}} | |||
| I just put together a couple of timelines. Sorry for this being long. | |||
| 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> | |||
| 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. | |||
| The only substantive change between the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision and the latest revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2020 is the addition of a "Open letter on justice and open debate" section. | |||
| 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 | |||
| During this period there was a lot of talk page discussion here: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| They are extensively used on many pages, thus warping both the neutrality and the internetionally appropriate viewpoints. | |||
| I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise: | |||
| Other examples can be seen from ], such as spreading maps that violate the Ukrainian integrity under new category and removing the old one: , | |||
| # 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section. | |||
| # 17:34, 24 July 2020 Bastun reverts. | |||
| # 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version. ("Re-add Harper's Letter, with adjustments, per agreement on talk page.") | |||
| # 11:32, 26 July 2020 Bastun adds to the section. | |||
| # 18:39, 26 July: Crossroads removes a smaller portion. | |||
| # 05:32, 28 July 2020 Crossroads removes a section ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") | |||
| # 08:51, 28 July 2020 Bastun reverts ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") | |||
| The actions of the user go against the decisions of the UN ], ], ], ]. | |||
| Bastun's talk page comment as of 08:50, 28 July included these words: | |||
| I shall propose to intervene from the administration level to resolve the issue and remove the hateful content. | |||
| :"And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning. | |||
| ] (]) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| (By my count it was 10 hours) | |||
| ::{{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=== | |||
| Looks like I need to create another timeline: | |||
| 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) | |||
| #13:30, 26 July: IP 2a02...6582 opens section "Bias in section 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' " | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| # 14:23, 26 July: Bilorv says keep. | |||
| # 14:25, 26 July: Bastun says keep. | |||
| # 15:00, 26 July: 2a02...6582 says remove. | |||
| # 17:21 26 July: Ward20 says modify and expand. | |||
| # 18:37, 26 July: Bastun agrees with expansion. | |||
| # 18:53, 26 July 2020: Crossroads mentions his 18:39, 26 July edit that removed a smaller portion, then writes "Lastly, as a reminder to all, ] editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated ] violations on any Misplaced Pages page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI." | |||
| #20:20, 26 July: <small>(I am going to disregard this one. Nothing that is in ''The Daily Mail'' can be trusted for any purpose. The poster later retracted the comment for the same reason.)</small> | |||
| # 21:23, 26 July: Ward20 comments. Can't tell it it supports keeping or removing. | |||
| # 09:59, 27 July: Bastun continues arguing his position. | |||
| # 17:34, 27 July: Crossroads continues arguing his position, pings Bilorv, Czello. Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, and Ward20. | |||
| # 17:44, 27 July: Guy Macon says remove any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name. | |||
| # 17:49, 27 July: Crossroads agrees. | |||
| # 18:44, 27 July: Czello agrees. | |||
| # 18:56, 27 July: Ward20 agrees. | |||
| # 19:33, 27 July: Autumnking2012 agrees. | |||
| # 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes. See timeline above. | |||
| # 08:50, 28 July: Bastun posts his "I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning." comment, says he is "Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal ''is'' directly related to Rowling." | |||
| # 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts. See timeline above. | |||
| # 08:58, 28 July: Ward20 makes thoughtful comments too hard to summarize. Please read the diff. | |||
| # 09:14, 28 July: Bastun agrees with Ward20. | |||
| # 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes a section ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") | |||
| # 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") | |||
| == User:Edward Myer == | |||
| Questions: | |||
| * Is the claim "some of the removal ''is'' directly related to Rowling" true of edit ? | |||
| * Was ten hours after several editors agreed too soon to make the edit? | |||
| *{{userlinks|Edward Myer}} | |||
| <s>My conclusions:</s> | |||
| {{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) | |||
| * <s>No evidence of wrongdoing that would justify a topic ban for Bastun alone.</s> | |||
| * <s>A one month topic ban for Bastun and Crossroads might be worth considering.</s> | |||
| * <s>Restoring the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision, rolling back in the 50,000 to 60,000 correction, and fully protecting the article for a month is also worth considering.</s> | |||
| <s>--] (]) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :Struck out last paragraph. Best to let the reader look at the timeline and come to their own conclusion. --] (]) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)> | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *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. | |||
| :Seriously? Acting like I am equally at fault? As for "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring", that was right after an/maybe more than one (I don't remember) SPA had turned up, added a bunch of stuff, edit warred, and (one of them) got blocked. I never thought that strict formality we had been doing was meant to be permanent (indeed, it really isn't standard Misplaced Pages procedure) and I thought maybe you had stopped watching. And you ignored all the problems I pointed to above in favor of focusing on the "when" of edits. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I confess that I am waiting for the invective, and I support {{u|DoubleGrazing}}'s well measured request on that basis. | |||
| :And your first timeline is extremely misleading. You begin, {{tq|I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise}}, and then state, {{tq|16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section.}} But '''I did not do that out of the blue'''; it was based on the 2 comments that already existed in support of doing so (and no comments rejecting it) in this section of the talk page: ]. Further down that timeline, you say, {{tq|00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version.}} But this again was '''after''' further discussion on Talk in that section I just linked to. I was making every effort to engage on Talk and follow ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::I apologize if I implied that you were equally at fault. I thought that the timeline spoke for itself. I think it is fair to say that | |||
| *: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) | |||
| :: the first edit I put in the timeline was the first edit in the dispute (which in itself says nothing about whether it was good or bad, for or against consensus), Being first is simply a fact. It doesn't imply anything. There is no implication that the first edit in the dispute was in any way wrong. Many times it is the second edit where you start to see a problem. occasionally it is the seventh. | |||
| :: When I say "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise", I am saying the you made an edit when you knew that someone would disagree and most likely revert. No matter how tendentious the revert, that's how edit wars start. What you ''should'' have done is post something like this on the talk page: "Bastun, by my count X number of editors agree with A, and Y number of editors agree with B. Can we agree to change it to A without edit warring?" Just going ahead and making what looks like a good edit to you is ''usually'' fine, but when a topic is generating a lot of strong feelings and the page has recently been protected because of edit warring, you really need to at least try to get everyone to agree before making the edit. --] (]) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::You implied I was equally at fault by proposing equal sanctions for me and for Bastun. And I didn't think that Bastun or anyone would necessarily be tendentious enough to revert. The order people normally follow is ]. Discussion does not have to come first, although there had been discussion. And there is no need to go to extreme lengths on Talk to try to get unanimity of some kind first. ] is not unanimity. And lone editors do not have infinite veto power over the larger group. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:49, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :'''Comment''': I've thoroughly analyzed the matter, and that includes Lilipo25's analysis above, and I really can't see that Crossroads has done anything wrong here. He's an editor who staunchly follows the rules, including in this case. I see that he's had to put up with a lot regarding Bastun, who has been significantly disruptive in this area. Crossroads has been one of the voices of reason at these difficult articles. ] (]) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate your diplomacy and faith in me. ] (]) 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. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My concern is the sock. Edward Myer, do you promise never to sock again? ] (]) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Continual ECP-Violating Posts in WP:RUSUKR area by User_talk:Valentinianus_I == | |||
| ::Did I say that Crossroads did anything wrong here? Did I say that Bastun did anything wrong here? Or did I just post a timeline? I have my opinions about who is mostly at fault here, but I was careful not to express those opinions. As for my advice, Misplaced Pages administrators only have a few options t deal with a page where edit wars keep breaking out. They can stop one or more editors from editing Misplaced Pages (blocking). They can stop one or mare editors from editing a certain page or on a certain topic (topic ban) or they can stop ''everybody'' from editing the age (full protection). They can identify when a policy or guideline is being violated and use warnings and blocks to stop that behavior. What Adminisrators are '''not''' allowed to do is to decide who is right and who is wrong. --] (]) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked for a week. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat with you. You implied that Crossroads did wrong, which is why Crossroads took offense. I'm sure he can clarify his feelings on that. And, yes, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time. ] (]) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|_Valentinianus I}} | |||
| :::My report has little to do with edit warring. The issue is POV-motivated ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] is an editor with 80 edits as of the moment I'm writing this, the majority of edits made to ] topics. | |||
| ::::Administrators decide that editors are ''in'' the wrong all the time. As in "the editors conduct was wrong." They are not allowed to decide that editors ''are'' wrong. As in "issuing decisions on content disputes". --] (]) 07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Semantics. I can ping multiple admins right now who would state, "Yep, Flyer is correct. As seen on ANI and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time." But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to move on. ] (]) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One can only hope that in moving on you will eventually learn that the difference between "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" is a matter of ] and not ]. --] (]) 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm humored by this. Our past interactions have shown times over that I am one editor you cannot school, and yet you pull this. I don't even think you've read the articles you linked to. No matter what you want to call it, the fact remains that admins have stated "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" times over. And will continue to do so. And they are not wrong for using either wording. They, like me, would see you distinguishing the two as some silly word game. But I suppose you have to seek your ] where you can, even when you fail to win anything. ] (]) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. I really regret to say that I'd support the topic ban as OP suggested. I wish it wouldn't have come to this but I fear bias has crept through to the point of tendentious editing. — ''''']''''' 08:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * 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 , . | |||
| *'''Comment''' I've been pinged above, so just wanted to make a quick comment to say that I've seen this thread, but will be on mobile until tomorrow at the earliest - I would need to be at a computer to read through these diffs properly. I have been aware of some issues in this subject area in recent months, but will reserve judgment on this particular report until I've had chance to investigate properly. ]] 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * 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." | |||
| *'''Comment re Crossroads'''. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. Editor Bastun has been brought to ANI after the whack-a-moling of their edits have exhausted those who are here for the promotion of encyclopedic values, and not for the manipulation of information, censorship of information, and POV belligerence. Crossroads' history as an editor is a completely different universe than that of this problematic editor. There is no comparison. To conclude that topic-banning him should also be considered is to say that Crossroads is on the same level as Bastun. That is utter rubbish ... and a back-handed intimidation tactic. An attempt to punish Crossroads for possessing the boldness and fearlessness to tackle a problematic editor and to call them out, is simply an attack against any editor who has the brass to do what is best for Misplaced Pages and the general public that it serves. ] ]. ''L not Q''. 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Bastun T-ban'''. As for Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary immediately above me says all I would have, more concisely; Crossroads is {{em|clearly}} not the problem here or part of the problem. The amount of "this person is transphobic no matter what!" PoV pushing at articles like this is just running off the rails, and it needs to stop. When numerous {{abbr|TG/NB|transgender/nonbinary}} people (note the difference between that and "cis-gender, hetereo, privileged 'allies' speaking {{lang|la|in loco parentis}} on behalf of TG/NB people, who are telling them to STFU because they're being terrible allies") very publicly leap to the defense of Rowling (as not transphobic for simply observing that her biological womanhood has played a formative role in her life and is a different experience from that of transwomen) – yet our "encyclopedic" coverage is very ] dwelling on labeling her transphobic, with cherry-picked sources that support that extreme, echo-chamber, activist viewpoint, and suppressioin of material that does not support that narrative – then we clearly have a problem and need to act to resolve it. If this were confined to a single page, that might be a momentary blip, but Bastun's PoV-pushing crosses multiple related articles, and can be found in others like the Linehan one. As someone below put it, "BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics" seem to be the flashpoint for Bastun, among others who'll likely end up here eventually. (About two weeks ago, I felt compelled to leave four {{tlx|Ds/alert|gg}} templates the same day, due to the frequency with which I was running into highly personalized attacky behavior surrounding TG/NB topics and the sourcing for them. And all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle). I take the same position about this as I do about everything: ] for your activism, on anything. If you can't act as a neutral-minded encyclopedist in a topic area, only a biased advocate, then you simply have to be removed from that topic area, no matter the subjective nobility of your intentions, or your ability to be constructive in other topics. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: With all due respect, SMcCandlish, the claim that {{tq|all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle}} seems EXTRAORDINARY, or at least hyperbolic. For your intervention to be relevant, I think the expectation at ANI is to provide diffs. ] (]) 15:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|SMcCandlish}} - I echo Newimpartial that you need to provide diffs here, I think. (Or better, strike comments that are not related to this editor) <span style="background-color: white">] ]</span> 16:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's a silly trap. You're declaring my concerns about Bastun's behavior being part of a broader activism/PoV problem to be supposedly off-topic, then asking me to add actually off-topic diffs regarding other editors exhibiting related patterns, to an ANI that isn't about them. I decline that bait. If the other editors cross the lines again, it'll be a ] or ]/] matter, since they have received Ds/alerts; ANI is not the appropriate venue for them any longer. Whether they have individually done anything ANI would take action about is not pertinent. My very point was that the overall pattern of TG/NB-related PoV pushing against various BLP subjects is being generated by more than one editor; one of them is before ANI right now, while the others (if they keep it up) are destined for another venue's examination. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: Um, yeah - most of what you've written about there? To quote Shaggy: {{tq|"It wasn't me."}} ]<sup>]</sup> 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::FWIW, I am agreed with {{u|SMcCandlish}} that articles related to this topic suffer from a lot of POV pushing, especially from the ] side. Opposite-side POV pushing happens occasionally too, but is quickly shut down. This ANI report was meant to focus on a particular case that became so severe I considered it reportable. But it isn't the only activism that occurs. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::: From an empirical standpoint, I question your assertion that the POV pushing happens {{tq|especially from the ] side}}, and that {{tq|Opposite-side POV pushing happens}} but {{tq|is quickly shut down.}} For example, on ] you made one particular POV assertion that you subsequently repeated precisely the same assertion , , , and with no more support than an illicit appeal to the colour of the sky, in spite of polite requests for some kind of justification in policy or precedent from several editors. If that is what your POV-pushing is like when it is "quickly shut down", Crossroads, I would hate to see it fully unleashed. ] (]) 03:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm glad you posted those because they show me rebutting ''your'' implausible POV assertion that "anti-transgender" is not value-laden such that ] does not apply, you pushing to apply that label to a ], and you baselessly equating me to white supremacists and the alt-right. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: No, they show you repeatedly asserting, without evidence or the agreement of most participants in the discussion, that "anti-transgender" is value-laden such that ] applies. A previous RfC had affirmed that the section using "anti-transgender" in both the title and the body was appropriate for the article, and no noticeboard discussion has ever applied LABEL to "anti-transgender" or any other "anti-" label as far as I know. However, you did not even deign to rebut the previous discussion or address your novel interpretation of LABEL, but only made a BLUESKY argument while most participants in the discussion were not in agreement with you about the colour of the sky. I did not "equate you to white supremacists and the alt-right", I addressed the form of evidence-free argumentation you were using in that discussion and continue to use. Which rather illustrates my point that here at ANI you are engaged in continuing a content dispute by other means, although you do not see it this way because the arguments of those who disagree with you, no matter how well-sourced and policy-compliant they may be, simply do not fit your worldview so you dismiss them out of hand. ] (]) 03:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Nobody needs your characterization of the . And anyway, my comments were at a new and much bigger RfC at which ]. As for your last sentence, back at ya. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{em|Of course}} ] applies. The entire purpose of the guideline is addressing such labels. Newimpartial appears to be engaging in the fallacy that the example terms listed there are an exhaustive list of those that qualify. It simply is not true, as even a few minutes on the guideline's talk page will show you. Proposals to add additional terms are almost always rejected, specifically because the examples are not an exhaustive list (which would just grow indefinitely), and the extant samples are already broad enough to get the point across (to everyone except Newimpartial and a few others, I guess). However, if someone wants to propose adding an example like "anti-transgender" (since the list doesn't include any "anti-{{var|foo}}" illustrations), I would support adding a new example for the first time in a long time. If a misinterpretation of guideline wording becomes recurrent, the solution is to write around the misinterpretation so that it stops recurring. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::: SMcCandlish, this isn't the place to re-litigate the RfC, either, but I never made the straw man argument you just attributed to me, that the list in LABEL is somehow exhaustive. The argument I actually made is that "anti-x" labels are used in Wikivoice all the time, and that I didn't see any policy-relevant difference between "anti-transgender activism" and say "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish rhetoric". That was the argument made by myself and others at the RfC. Now it is fine for you to disagree, but it is not fine IMO for you to strawman the actual argument and then insist that there is some "silent majority" consensus about "anti-transgender activism" without providing evidence. | |||
| *::::::: But really, my point here is that SMcCandlish has not shown good judgement in this subject area since ''The Signpost'' fiasco, and that in spite of their superficially measured words, their perception of the actions of other editors in this subject area is deeply affected by what seems obvious to them based on their POV, a POV previously expressed in the current Graham Linehan RFC, as I recall. ] (]) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * ] 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 . | |||
| *{{ec}} Please do not ping me about this comment. '''Strong oppose''': "BLPs who have commented on transgender topics" is not clear enough to enforce (does Bastun have to research whether a BLP has ever spoken publicly about transness every time they edit a BLP on any topic?) and "all BLPs" is certainly unwarranted. Rather than suggesting a topic that would fit better, I will say that I do not see evidence that Bastun has behaved in a consistently reckless manner worthy of a topic ban. I do seem some protracted disputes, in which Bastun does engage in discussion. A number of the users participating in this discussion have engaged in similar ways but with opposite points of view, so it is not the conduct they are objecting to but the beliefs. Lilipo25 presents the situation of ] incorrectly in that the section heading was not "Bastun's biased section heading" but a long-standing heading which has received support from many users. — ] (''']''') 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The section heading was originally "Controversies". It was created by OCuin on January 20, 2019 . <s>You changed it to "Transgender Issues" two days later .</s> It then went through a series of different headings ("Transgender Rights", "Transphobia", etc.) before Peter the Fourth first inserted the "Anti-Transgender Activism" heading . It was changed again numerous times after that by different editors ("Gender critical activism", "Anti-transgender activity", "POV", etc.) and on April 19, 2019, the heading was <s>back to the one you put in:</s> Transgender Issues. At that point, Bastun changed it back to "Anti-transgender activism" with an edit note declaring that to be "accurate and neutral" . Since then, as demonstrated above, Bastun has held control over the heading and reverted every change. While there are certainly those who support their wording, there are many who have not, and the RFC was unable to come to any kind of consensus. ] (]) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::So your contention is that Bastun should be banned from an area because their contribution is the one that, after much discussion and debate, remains? The way you discuss this makes it clear you view the situation as a game of ]. Unfortunately, ]. Additionally, you have the facts wrong. I did not change the subject header. What I did was to ''insert a full stop'' in prose. Please do not say untruths about me again. I suggest you check your other comments for factual accuracy because the diff about me was literally the only one I opened and it does not say what you claim it does. — ] (''']''') 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is most definitely not my contention; I was trying to demonstrate that Bastun's edits on the example I used are not to an agreed-upon heading. But you are correct that I misread your edit and for that I apologise and will strike it through once I look up how to do that again, as I've forgotten. ] (]) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} '''Oppose t-ban''': Bastun's edits and interactions with other editors on the ] page specifically appear to have been part of a completely ordinary content dispute. Crossroads' characterization of that dispute as sanctionable seems pretty dubious based on the timeline provided by ] above. However, it does seem, at least based on the evidence provided above, that Bastun has been ] on other pages. For this reason I'd support a warning and maybe an interaction ban, but a topic ban seems very poorly tailored to what actual misbehavior there is. ] (]) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} '''Support''' - I was mentioned above and I well remember the dumpster fire that Bastun (and some others, to be fair) presided over at ]. I haven't been active at JK Rowling although I'm sure it's more of the same ], ] carry on. SMcCandlish summarises this unfortunate situation better than I can. I'd only add that I think part of the problem is that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us - they respond with incredulity and disproportionate hostility at those of us who are only looking to try and keep things encyclopedic. Unchecked it sometimes boils over into edit-warring, POV-pushing, coat-racking and so on, like it sadly has in Bastun's case. In fact unless Bastun can point to some sort of worthwhile contribution in other areas I wouldn't be averse to supporting a block rather than a topic ban. ] (]) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: With regard to the preceding intervention, please see . Based on their own experience on this same issue at ANI, this looks to me like a pot::kettle situation, and the allegation that the allegation that {{tq|these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us}} must be regarded as unproven (without evidence) and set aside. ] (]) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Ah, I see. Cancel culture is when you express your opinion on a topic, whereas opposition to cancel culture is when you forcibly prevent someone from expressing their opinion on a particular platform. Given your self-admission of not having done due diligence in research before making this comment, I trust the closer will give this as little weight as it warrants. — ] (''']''') 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': topic ban from ]. I'm discussing that article because I am familiar with the TG topic editing there. J. K. Rowling has increasingly made politically controversial comments about TG topics. It has now branched out into "cancel culture" vs. the rights of disenfranchised or oppressed groups to exercise their political power. Her fame has brought widespread coverage of the issues, and cherrypicking sources can badly distort the neutral view. It's a difficult topic. Editors bring opposing views, but when the editors have worked together there the article benefited. There are so many sources to sort through, the more editors doing good research the better. I would rather see a sanction on the article using zero reverts for a period, cautioning editors to achive consensus and ] rather than banning editors from the article. ] (]) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''', '''support a 1RR restriction for all editors''' on Rowling-related and Linehan-related articles {{Non-admin comment|admin}} <small>(At least not yet 😛)</small> This discussion seems to be a proxy fight about how Misplaced Pages should cover JK Rowling. That fight is best conducted on article talk pages. ] (]) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', based on the totality of diffs provided in the thread above <small>(which took half an hour to read through; I would like my time back >.> )</small>, I don't think a topic ban would be appropriate at this time, though I do think the editor in question (and editors in general) should be reminded to avoid being confrontational or becoming heated in discussions of these topics. (I am troubled by the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics, and in general, as another commenter touched on, by the amount of battleground-ing that goes on in multiple directions in this topic area.) ] (]) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose''': As per ], ], ] and others. This is rushed as I am packing and travelling the next few days. Everyone knows that JK Rowling has made a number of highly controversial political statements about Trans People. All Misplaced Pages Editors including Crossroads and Bastun have a political view points: when the are strong opposing views, things can get a little heated, both sides have been equally combative. I have not seen any clear evidence of consistent poor behaviour by Bastun towards other editors, Bastun has simply engaged in the discussion from a different political standpoint from Crossroads. As a trans person myself I am very grateful that I see at least one other editor is standing up for a minority group and against discrimination both intentional and unintentional, and the overal systemic bias that naturally exist in Misplaced Pages. Bastun's interactions with other editors in the protracted disputes on the JK Rowling articles has been part of a completely normal content dispute in a contenious area. The is no solid evidence that Bastun has espicially behaved in a Un-Wikipedian like manner to warrant any topic ban whatsoever. I agree also with ] that this appears to be a proxy fight about how Misplaced Pages should cover JK Rowling. That fight is indeed best conducted on article talk pages.]<sup>]</sup> 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': We need more uninvolved, unbiased commenters. So far '''all''' of the support and oppose !votes are from people who are in some way involved, either editing the Rowling articles directly, or else heavily involved in transgender related articles. As -sche stated, there is {{tq|the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Who is going to get involved, if they are not already, in such a bitter, vitriolic, hate filled topic area? I only notice it when it appears on one of these boards, I am staying far away. Admins really need to take some action to make the topic area one uninvolved editors feel comfortable participating in. ] (]) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This, I think, is really the important question. 1RR limits seem to help (q.v. ] and what might help even more would be an approach to relevant, reliable sources (or even basic evidential standards) more in line with the rest of the project (the constant re-hashing of issues on ] is exemplary here). | |||
| ::: And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary, Bastun and myself - have a tendency to become dismissive or waspish in these discussions. Additional efforts at civility (and avoidance of microagressions) might go a long way. ] (]) 22:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be clear, the editors "re-hashing" issues at ] are '''not''' the editors here. It's not those of us interested in neutrality repeatedly complaining there. It's new users. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: While that is true, I would venture that a respect for evidence and process over self-certainty and personal conviction would make an improvement to the discussion at ] just as much as it would at ]. ] (]) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (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 . | |||
| ::::"{{tq|And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably ... Pyxis Solitary ....}}" If there's one thing I've stayed away from for a long time, is being involved in the editing of trans-related matters. Editing trans-related subjects is a snake pit. As for becoming involved in a discussion such as this one, well ... that's one of the privileges granted to all Misplaced Pages editors. Now, I know from experience that you're into baiting and turning discussions into arguments. But I just want to assure you that whatever cork you blow after this, I have more productive things to do than to respond to anything you have to say to me. Don't spit in the wind. ] ]. ''L not Q''. 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And there it is. ] (]) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| *'''Comment''': First... Regarding votes aligning with editors' POVs. My "support" vote is not about any personal POV I have on trans issues. I only saw this thread because I looked at Crossroads's contributions. And editors have noted that I do look to follow Misplaced Pages's WP:Neutral policy and other rules on these (and other) topics. Second, except for one or two others who may have followed Crossroads, it appears to me that ] has taken place. I could understand if certain editors voting "oppose" frequented ANI, or this thread about Bastun was posted at ], ], or ] (although it shouldn't be). But for a number of editors involved with trans topics to show up here out of the blue, and when a couple of them haven't been editing frequently lately (such as being absent from Misplaced Pages for two days)? No. ] (]) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest anything like "both sides are POV and equally bad". It's not like that. The evidence - actual evidence - speaks for itself as to what is neutrality and what is activism, and it is also clear what is supported by evidence and what is based on ignoring evidence. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: That CANVASSING accusation is so oblique that I can't really tell who is being accused of canvassing or being canvassed, but I will volunteer that I followed Crossroads's contribution history here, like a normal person. I have studiously stayed away from ], but when I saw what was going on here I had a feeling there was a desire to re-litigate the ] RfC, which is not even closed - and I certainly do not seem to have been mistaken in that apprehension. If editors are going to use one-sided behavioural accusations (accusations not accompanied by a degree of self-awareness) to gain an advantage in content disputes - which certainly seems to be the case with Crossroads here - it should not be surprising that the potential targets of such strategies become wise to them. ] (]) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: I do not normally watch this noticeboard, who does? Like other editors on both sides of this current dispute i was simply mentioned on this very page, so I came, nothing more. I am extremely saddened to find that some very experienced editors seem to be playing Misplaced Pages politics here, to shut down (or to induce doubt about) fair and reasonable contributions of opposing editors and viewpoints. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly Oppose''': per User:Bodney. Bastun is simply an avid editor, a trait encouraged by ]. It's normal to have disagreements followed by some reversions on controversial topics. At least from that editor's part, the confrontation of different points of view is being maintained healthy, productive, and is helping to improve the articles mentioned here. There's nothing out of ordinary on your accusatory diffs. We can see that Bastun is very active on talk pages; edit history of articles show that that editor frequently avoids escalating unproductive edit-wars, turning those into talk page discussions and subsequently abiding by established consensuses. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">]</span> ] 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Another highly involved editor whose defense is founded upon denial. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***To be fair, I also think that your contributions have a positive side to them and that they are helping to improve those articles (in a way). But those "evidences" you are bringing here simply aren't grievous enough in order to justify banning someone. They look like just any other editorial dispute (honestly). Suppressing disagreeing voices isn't the way to go. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">]</span> ] 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Mostly per what the other opposers said. ] (]) 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===Question of Scope=== | |||
| The evidence-based discussion here has been largely confined to the (highly sensitive) J.K. Rowling article, but those seeking sanctions have suggested a much broader scope for a topic-ban. Is there evidence from any other page suggesting that problems extend beyond the single page? ] (]) 10:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. A great deal of my evidence has to do with the ] article. But Rowling isn't the only BLP either. My 8th bullet point (second to last) clearly stated, {{tq|regarding another BLP}}. That is the ] BLP. Lilipo25's comment also specifically referred to that page. Clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I had wondered if there were a desire here to re-litigate the ] article text; if so, I would direct interested admins to ], particularly the ongoing (?) RfC at that location. I have seen some dubious accusations there, but no actual problems with Bastun's editing on that page. But I would encourage everyone to review the evidence for themselves. | |||
| :: As far as "clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics", that is the question I was asking in opening this section: is it? So far I have seen mention of one other page, and a rather minute examination of its edit history hasn't shown me any inappropriate editing on the part of Bastun. But I would be happy to look at anything I missed. ] (]) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| '''Newimpartial should not be at this discussion'''. They were by El C: {{tq|{{u|Newimpartial}}, you should not have responded to {{u|Lilipo25}}, ''anywhere'', for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an ]. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a ''final'' warning).}} Above you can see clearly they are effectively responding to/addressing Lilipo25. It is a case of {{tq|mak reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages...indirectly}}. They obviously saw where Lilipo25 talked about the Graham Linehan page - there was no need to ask about evidence beyond the Rowling page. Newimpartial's {{tq|I have seen some dubious accusations there}} is also a backhanded reference. Sure seems like a violation of El C's clear direction to me. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC) <small>expanded <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *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) | |||
| : Crossroads, I have not addressed Lilipo in any way in this discussion, upon due consideration of El C's comment. I have been very careful to do so. I have responded to comments by three highly INVOLVED editors in this ANI report: yourself, SMcCandlish, and Daz. I am not under any form of topic ban or Iban, and as El C said above, {{tq|Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an ]}}, even if there were one. So it seems to me that a BOOMERANG sanction for Wikilawyering may be appropriate here; it reminds me of the time Crossroads in reprisal after I '''''refrained''''' from reporting them for a clear 1RR vio, opting instead to . GAMING the system really ought to be taken seriously at ANI, IMO. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| : And the policy-relevant consideration I raised was whether there was a basis to extend the proposed sanction to Bilorv beyond the J.K. Rowling articles. '''''You''''' mentioned the ] page, and so I asked whether there was an intention to re-litigate the current RfC at ], without naming names or casting aspersions. It seems pretty clear that there you do intend to re-litigate, in which case I would point to , the one that brought Daz to his aforementioned "up before the beaks" and which you, Crossroads, have introduced POV edits to overturn (q.v. slow motion edit war) without any Talk page resolution, almost as of you did not accept the result of the 2019 RfC. ] (]) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | |||
| ::If you are not technically under an IBAN then I am in the wrong about that, but El C's language is clear regardless. But anyone inclined to believe Newimpartial's version of events should check their links. Yes, I did report you for a 1RR violation within 26 instead of 24 hours, as ], and for which '''you were warned''' by El C who considered it a violation. My supposed violation of 1RR, as I said there, involved two completely separate edits involving content by different people. As for the 2019 RfC about Graham Linehan, I don't remember ever hearing about it before, although maybe I forgot, and was not aware of it for those edits. In any case, it does not appear to be about the heading itself. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::As for "INVOLVED", readers should know that Newimpartial is in no way an uninvolved, unbiased observer. We have debated each other for ages. And despite their nom-de-plume they are in no way impartial on LGBT matters. Check their contribs and the above discussions. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :::Just to clarify that I was up before the beaks on a completely unrelated matter (for which I was exonerated). During that kerfuffle I had to apologise and redact an instance where I'd mistakenly used the word 'transvestite' and inadvertently caused some offence. It was totally unintentional but unfortunately was portrayed as evidence of my bad character, which I obviously regretted. ] (]) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] (]) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In the aforementioned ], ] repeatedly used the word '']'' even though so many trans people object to it. So you're forgiven. ] (]) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I normally see myself as me, sometimes as a woman, sometimes third gender, an individual, but also as a transsexual woman who was bullied out of job and became homeless I was rescued by a women only charity and given shelter for two years in a shared single sex female only accommodation, four years of single sex group counselling and support. After my sheltered housing, they rehoused me permanently. That is why I was interested in that BLP RfC because Rowling is tying to bring to an end the very same safety net that came to my own rescue. I am not sure what is your objection to me using the term '']''? ]<sup>]</sup> 06:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], I did not state that I object to you using the term ''transsexual.'' I stated that "many trans people object to ." This is made clear in both the ] and Transsexual articles. It's made clear by IPs and registered editors (especially newbies) removing the term ''transsexual'' as offensive (or, as some of them say, "outdated") and replacing it with ''transgender'', including in cases involving people who identify as transsexual...such as ]. It's made clear by various other cases. It's often that when people use the term ''transsexual'', they are accused of bigotry and/or ignorance. Never mind the fact that the person using it may be transgender. So I do avoid that term unless the text on Misplaced Pages calls for it, such as a person who identifies that way or researchers using that term to specify a type of transgender person. ] (]) 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s>Oh Wow apologises I must be an ignorant self hating bigot. Thank you. Point scored.</s> It is a long time since I was actively and productively involved in trans politics or civil rights campaigns, so please hang me for not using the terminology that some of my fellow trans folks prefer. I humbly suggest even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. <s>But for the point of this thread I am happy to bow down to your obvious greater knowledge in this matter. Gosh you are sooo right. You got me. Everything I have written must be wrong. I shall now disappear in a puff of trans terminology smoke.</s> ]<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::::::{{u|Bodney}}, serious question - do you think that was a helpful interjection to this discussion? Flyer did not criticise you anywhere in her post - she expressly said that she doesn't object to you using that word, and then explained why she doesn't use it. Why did you feel the need to be sarcastic? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about below - discussions about this subject rapidly descend into the gutter, and it's very hard to drag them out again. ]] 16:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ec}} I don't see at all that Flyer22 Frozen meant to 'score points' or lord over greater knowledge. Rather, she is making the same point which you now made: {{tq|even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority.}} '''This is the same point that me and numerous other editors are making.''' What happens at these articles is that a few editors tend to want to present only or nearly-only one POV (e.g. one set of sources that present that POV) because that POV is treated by ''some'' people (most of whom are cisgender) as though it were ''the'' one and only trans POV, and hence the only right one, morally and in terms of ]. All other sources presenting another POV, even though such a POV is held by trans people like ], ], and so on, are minimized or rejected. This is the activist approach to editing that, ultimately, leads to disruption, and thus led us here to ANI. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Reply to {{u|Girth Summit}},{{u|Crossroads}} and apologises to ]. Happy to strike through the offending parts of my reply, even though I was not sure of the tone being directed towards me, I was thinking myself that my reply was a bit rushed, flippant and not productive. I was hoping to delete/modify my reply, but its been exceptionally busy half a home moving day. I would suggest that views held by individuals like ] & ] are simply minority points of view, compared to all the trans organisations that have responded to Rowling's tweets and Essay. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{u|Bodney}}, thanks for this gracious apology. I genuinely feel that if everyone editing in this topic area were to follow this example of self-reflection and moderate how they interact with other editors, people from different viewpoints would be able to work together in a more collegiate manner. Sincerely, thank you. ]] 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I appreciate the apology too. Regarding the views expressed by Buck Angel and Dana International, ] {{tq|means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}} We do give ] to advocacy organizations, but we also are to give due weight to other views represented or described in the reliable sources. ]: {{tq|Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.}} <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As seen , Crossroads is correct that I was noting that not all trans people think alike. I've noted this more than once. As for the trans people who partly or fully agree with Rowling being in the minority, I don't consider voices that are louder necessarily the majority. As various people have noted, a lot of trans people on social media have agreed with Rowling...at least in part. They just don't get any, or hardly any, media attention because certain viewpoints have managed to get deemed transphobic so often by the newer generation. I have often seen that younger trans people's views conflict with older trans people's views, and older trans people like Buck Angel have talked about this. But there are enough young trans people who share Angel's views on trans matters. ] (]) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Od}}Just to say that whoever Crossroads is talking about, who {{tq|present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were ''the'' one and only trans POV}}, that isn't a thing I do, and I don't think it is a thing Bastun does either (though I havent reviewed their entire edit history). Without diffs being provided, I wonder whether this is idle speculation on Crossroads's part or more some deep intuition. ] (]) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :"Without diffs being provided". The diffs I already presented show it. The diffs ''you'' already presented show it. The diffs and discussions presented by others show it. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Once again, Crossroads, you say a thing, and you handwave (this time to {{tq|already presented}} diffs), and you have exactly no evidence for the thing you claimed. This time the thing is that Bastun, or I {{tq|present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were ''the'' one and only trans POV}}. I know my own diffs, and I just wasted my time going through all the Bastun diffs from your original filing and found '''''nothing at all''''' that meets that description. The closest thing to it that I found - and I looked at every last one - is Bastun's use of the impersonal "some signatories" rather than naming Gabrielle Bellot and/or Jennifer Boylan. And whatever error that might have been, it did not take the form of presenting {{tq|''the'' one and only trans POV}}. His edits on the letter don't direct the reader to any Trans POV at all, as far as I can see. | |||
| :: Perhaps readers here will come to recognize that the imprecision and merely assertions nature of your blanket accusations here is entirely of a piece with your behaviour at the and the , in neither of which do you seem to ]. ] (]) 02:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nope. I already explained above that the issue is maximization of coverage of the activist POV and minimization of coverage of any other, in violation of NPOV. People can judge for themselves if my presentation is accurate. Certainly no one needs your heavily involved and biased characterization of me at other discussions in which I, for my part, would say you engaged in the same ] and ] behavior as you have here. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::: Crossroads, how can you still insist even now that you were in the right about the matter discussed ? ] reads {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—'''within a 24-hour period}} (emphasis added). Nobody should let their battleground tendencies overcome their respect for process and consensus, and consensus about process. ] (]) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Show me the diffs. Were they even reverts? Even if it were a violation, I made a mistake in good faith and had said I would have self-reverted. You, on the other hand, have twice gamed the system by reverting twice within 26 hours on a 1RR page (1st time: 2nd time: ), been warned by an administrator as a result, been ''blocked'' for edit warring, and just earned a one-way IBAN. "Battleground tendencies". You are not in a position to condescend to me about anything. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: and were made 12 minutes apart, in a 1RR page, and are both labelled as reverts. Are you questioning your own edit summaries? And you know why I was so well aware that 3RR/1RR can be violated without reverting the same material? Because that's what I was blocked for. I learned my lesson from that, thanks. How does your "mistake in good faith" argument now fit with your "supposed violation" comment two hours earlier? Either you have learned from your mistake or you haven't, and honesty and directness are better approaches than defensiveness and deflection, IMO. ] (]) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As far as the edit war warning and the (very recent) 1-way IBAN are concerned, they are both cases that you filed/instigated and were both placed by the same admin. And since you want to talk about GAMING, is clearly GAMING, as well as a misreading of the Talk page discussion that it repeatedly distorts through selective quotation. ] (]) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk page access, Wiseguy012 == | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| :I was pinged by Crossroads in the above comment. I didn't even bother reporting this, even though I can see it is meant as a reply to me, because the user was careful to avoid addressing me directly. But they also went through my User Talk page to find comments to use against {{u|Bring back Daz Sampson}}, below, so I did report that to {{u|El C}}. Thanks. ] (]) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| :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) | |||
| :{{noping|Wiseguy012}}, lower g. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 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. ] ] 01:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry about the G, and thanks for the guidance about the talk page access. ] (]) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Caste-based disruption == | |||
| * '''Comment''' So I'm in work today, then travelling with just my phone until Tuesday (it's a bank holiday in Ireland), and likely patchy coverage. I will be responding, but not substantively until next week. What I would say in the meantime is: | |||
| {{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: | |||
| a) Anyone commenting here needs to have read the ] in full (yeah, sorry), and in particular , which addressed most of Lilipo's points from above, almost a month ago. | |||
| *, , , : 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) | |||
| b) Yes, ] is a thing. I had been wondering about the merits of from the Rowling articles, as they seemed determined to remove or minimise anything that could be deemed negative, citing ] and ], and to include or highlight anything that could be deemed positive, for quite some time. I hadn't gotten around to anything like recording diffs or quotes, but a scan of the talk pages ] and ] will show what I mean. E.g., I include coverage of two of the largest HP fansites, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, jointly announcing that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her HP fiction; this gets reverted as ]. Similarly, of The Trevor Project from the Politics of... article; removal of mention of a U.S. Senator prior to a vote (NOTNEWS, apparently, and a strawman about inferences); arguing against inclusion of mention of the , because NOTNEWS. Yet, at an RfC at the BLP noticeboard, the same user proposes including mention of support from ] (suddenly NOTNEWS doesn't apply?); and, at the Politcs article again, adds a new section on the fact that Rowling was one of 150 signatories of an open letter - while debate was ongoing. Again, NOTNEWS and UNDUE stopped applying? | |||
| :], 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 ] == | |||
| So there's that, and that too needs to be considered by the community. I would point out the absolute irony of championing that particular open letter, on the one hand, and attempted cancel culture of someone whose views you don't agree with, on the other. | |||
| I wanted to let go this and move on, but considering my uncertain future with {{u|SerChevalerie}}, I had to take this to ANI. | |||
| c) Crossroads mentioned quite a few editors. I'd be interested in hearing from some, too, involved in the Rowling and Linehan pages, who may or may not be aware of this particular AN/I, and may or may not wish to comment on my and/or Crossroads' editing: {{u|YuvalNehemia}}; {{u|Licks-rocks}}; {{u|-sche}}; {{u|Bodney}}; {{u|Ward20}}; {{u| Bilorv}}; {{u|Wikiditm}}; {{u|JzG}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>(Thanks for the ping; ironically, I posted above in the exact same minute as you, requesting no further pings to this discussion. No harm done but pretty amusing timing.) — ] (''']''') 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :And all of those things ended up in the article anyway. I followed ] and accepted when consensus was against me. And many other things, especially lately, I have not reverted, even though it's a continual pile-on of negative material. ] is a valid argument and ] does favor discussion before inclusion. And those discussions show '''I was not alone in my views'''. For example, regarding the US Senator, inclusion was opposed by {{u|Zedembee}}, Autumnking2012, and others. Much the same views were expressed by many at ], including by SMcCandlish, {{u|CactusJack}}, and {{u|Zaereth}}, about limiting excessive ephemeral Twitter drama. I mean, nobody's perfect, but we're not going to have a false balance between me and you. I made every effort to follow policy. '''Trying to prevent POV pushing is not the same as actual POV pushing and ].''' I am all for ] and substantive criticism of Rowling. My comments and discussion behavior shows that. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : Crossroads, I don't mean to intrude, but your claim that you make {{tq|every effort to follow policy}} is somewhat undermined when you have engaged in a slow ] to reverse the outcome of a without any kind of mandate to do so from a new RfC. ] (]) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|I don't mean to intrude}} - you clearly do. Where does that previous RfC discuss the heading '''itself'''? Where was I made aware of it before I made those edits? I did not willfully reverse any RfC. False accusations don't reflect well at ANI. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{Tq|The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form}} was the . That is quite clearly includes the section title, including the term "anti-transgender" that was discussed in the RfC. As far as your {{tq|not being made aware of it}}, <s>Bastun</s>Autumn King referred to the - which was on the Talk page before your edit warring and is still on the Talk page now - explicitly acknowledged that the editor in question {{tq|changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise.}} No, the word RfC wasn't used in that case, and I didn't use it when I , but it isn't my referring to a previous discussion as "an RfC" that makes it one, or that makes Edit Warring against it against policy. ] (]) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Obvious ]ing. The RfC never discussed the heading itself, nor did the closure specifically mention it. When it was referred to (actually by Autumnking2012), on 6 June, I never read that discussion; I didn't join the talk page until 2 weeks later, , at a ''higher'' discussion that had picked up again. And as for , you never even linked it. So, no, I am not at fault for going against an RfC I did not know about and that did not address the heading. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Sorry; I have now corrected the name of the actual author of the diff, above. | |||
| ::::: It seems obvious to me that the close, {{tq|The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form}}, includes the section heading itself; the RfC did explicitly discuss the appropriateness of the term "anti-transgender" in the text, which was the object of your edit warring on the article (as well as your BLUDGEON and IDONTHEARTHAT in the current RfC). So I'm not sure that "I was unaware that the previous discussion people keep referring to was actually an RfC" provided a valid justification for the slow ]. ] (]) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Discretionary sanctions?=== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| 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. | |||
| Let me start for apologising for what will be a lengthy post - I feel it is necessarily so. I also want to stress that in writing it, I am accusing nobody of acting in bad faith, but I do think that there is some seriously problematic editing going on in this topic area. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I have been taken part in a number of discussions involving some of the editors mentioned and commenting in this thread. Some of them are noted above, but there have probably been others that don't jump so readily to mind. I've come to the conclusion that there are some issues that seem to make editing in this area particularly contentious, and make it difficult for some editors to truly follow the old ] maxim; discussions often become uncivil rapidly, quickly descending into sarcasm, personal commentary and accusations of improper conduct. There are numerous examples in the threads I've posted above, and many more can be found by checking the contributions histories of some of those commenting here. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I don't pretend to be in a position to comment on why some people find it so hard to collaborate constructively in this area with people who they disagree with. I think that {{u|Bodney}}'s above about how they came to edit ] is interesting though. I don't intend to single Bodney out for criticism here, but if an editor is coming to a BLP because the subject has spoken out on an issue that is so close to the editor's heart, I think that it would inevitably be exceedingly difficult to avoid editing, unconsciously perhaps, with a ] attitude, and it would perhaps be unusually difficult to <s>see</s> avoid seeing editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being 'enemies', rather than collaborators. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I'm not sure that a topic ban for Bastun would do anything to solve the over-arching problems here; I wonder whether a more widespread approach is needed. BLPs are already covered by discretionary sanctions, which might need to be enforced more actively in this area, but I'm not sure whether that is in itself sufficient. is an example of {{u|Newimpartial}} telling an editor with whom they disagree that they are talking out of their arse. That sort of confrontational approach is not civil, it is a barrier to effective collaboration, but it is not on a BLP talk page. I'm starting to wonder whether 'Transgender issues' needs to be covered by its own discretionary sanctions, targeted at enforcing civility and cooperation. I'd welcome others' views on that. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::{{u|Girth Summit}} it is OK I have no personal WP:RGW issues :) (I expect that will now be held against me for ever), prior to the current Rowling disputes i have done comparatively minor and infrequent amount of editing on trans issues (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Bodney/1 ) I am in fact passionate about all civil liberties and Human Rights, and I simply support the standing up against inequality & discrimination everywhere. Should anyone of any 'minority' be banned from taking part in articles that affect them, should Jewish or Muslim editors be banned from topics to do with their faiths or the Middle East, black editors from black lives matter etc , female editors from feminism etc, differently abled people be banned from issues relating to their impairment, .... etc etc I really do not think so. Its also one sided, every single editor who contributes to[REDACTED] everyone has their own political bias, both sides (and more sides) all have biases, but we all try to be neutral. If we removed everyone who spoke in support of a minority just because they might be linked to that minority, Misplaced Pages would be left with an enormous ]. What matters is how we act. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Bodney}}, I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I was saying that trans people shouldn't edit trans articles - that is very far from my position. I was speculating on why it is such a contentious area, and I thought your comments might shed some light on that. Having said that, I would observe that the distinction between 'speaking in support of a minority', and 'righting great wrongs', is subtle. We're not here to advocate for any position, we aim to be genuinely neutral. If one has strong feelings about something, one might be well advised to avoid it as an editing interest. I do not direct this at you, and I have not looked into your contribs in detail - it's a general observation, not a criticism. ]] 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Discretionary sanctions are desirable, although as you said, BLP sanctions are already available. The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Misplaced Pages in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed, as seen above. I '''support''' community general sanctions for transgender topics per Girth Summit. ] (]) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I strongly agree that topic-specific DS are desirable. I have definitely had my lapses, which usually come late in a long interaction with editors who violate editing and/or talk page norms, as illustrated by the diff provided by Girth Summit above (the editor I addressed was banned for ] before the comment was made, as it turns out, but I shouldn't have let them get to me). | |||
| * So I do think that more active enforcement of ] in this area would help, but this should also address the persistent tendency for editors in this area to engage in ], complete with moving goalposts and Lucy's football, and also the remarkably consistent ] behavior whereby editors refuse to condescend to provide evidence (whether diffs or sources or whatever) because {{tq|of course}} their position is self-evidently correct. Strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies thrive in this environment and make policy-based consensus almost impossible to achieve. ] (]) 11:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Oh, and I also wanted to sincerely thank Girth Summit and anyone else who reads these difficult talk pages in order to comment on this ANI filing. It can't be easy to go through ], ], or for that matter the ongoing , and I salute anyone with the stomach for it. I mean, I can't take more than a peek at ] discussions (or even edit summaries) before scurrying away like a timorous beastie, so I wish well to all who manage to bring fresh eyes to bear. ] (]) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''support''' discretionary sanctions for all articles that deal with transgender issues.], ] and ] violations are out of control and have been for some time. The most aggressive editors work as a bloc to overwhelm any others who attempt to make pages adhere to ]. I have confidence that the admins will recognize any offenders who might attempt to manipulate them and will deal with rule violations consistently. ] (]) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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 | |||
| :{{u|Girth Summit}}, it is already covered by ], so you are already authorized to apply the ] as you see fit. ] 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|El C}}, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that gamergate discretionary sanctions were interpreted that broadly, but looking at it again I see that it covers {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}}. If you are confident that it would be uncontroversial to apply GG in content disputes over transgender issues, I will bear that in mind for the future. | |||
| :: | |||
| ::{{u|Newimpartial}}, {{u|Lilipo25}} your comments directly above kind of underline the point that I was making. I am certain that stuff like what you describe does happen - but too many people in these debates lose their trust in other people far too quickly, and start seeing everyone who disagrees with them as part of an opposing side, and seem to end up assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is guilty of things like civil POV pushing, failure to hear whatever, hounding when they turn up at related articles, etc. ] really is worth reading, and trying to abide by - ''especially'' when interacting with people you disagree with. ]] 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Girth Summit}}, I'm confident. In fact, I have just invoked ARBGG to ] Newimpartial yesterday with a one-way interaction ban with Lilipo. ] 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am still not entirely clear how merits outcome, but I suppose discretionary sanctions means not having to say you're sorry. ] (]) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think this sort of innuendo is to your credit, {{u|Newimpartial}}. I recognize venting, but you are not doing yourself any favours by engaging the imposition of your sanction in this manner. ] 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The I-BAN has has been ruled upon by an experienced admin. Misplaced Pages has legitimate avenues for appeals if that's what is desired. I would love some peace on that front. ] (]) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' (as original filer) I think that in any case, the BLP discretionary sanctions need to be enforced more actively in this area. It would help a great deal. The POV pushers in this area often fall into BLP violations. But the issues go beyond BLPs, and yes, there is already the GG/gender DS too. Yes, there is much incivility. Yes, the problems seem to come from ] behavior. As Johnuniq said, "The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Misplaced Pages in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed". And there is so much ]ing, but not by the group Newimpartial thinks. It is hard to even try to get these issues handled, because ] editing is {{tq|partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view...}}, and this is hard to prove with diffs. And then when a report is made, one can see above the denial, closing of ranks, whataboutism, and by one editor in particular, use of the ] against the filer (me). <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) <small>clarified <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *: From over here, the problem looks different. There are RfCs held, to establish the consensus or policy-compliant version, and then people with a strong sense of subjective certainty (SMcCandlish is paradigmatic in this regard) arrive, completely prepared to ignore consensus, RGW as they perceive them {{tq|conforming to NPOV}} according to themselves, without the modest accessories of sources or evidence. The arrivals then ], or ], or FORUMSHOP or just engage in skewed editing from their own POV. I am (have been, in fact) the first to admit that there are civility violations on all sides, but as long as "one side" is convinced that the "other" is engaged in RGW and they alone are the guardians of NPOV (a kind of NPOV so deeply understood that it doesn't need sources or evidence), it is difficult and frustrating to move forward with these articles. ] (]) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::But those of us trying to hold the centre ground are not the obverse of the POV-pushers. We have an influx of editors simply looking to bash Graham Linehan or J.K. Rowling etc. because they have an axe to grind with them and think they are "TERFs". Then we appear to have another group of editors who, like me, have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues but just see a real mess being made of Misplaced Pages articles. I only waded in because I remembered some of Linehan's comedy and noticed his article had been distorted into an attack page with several other glaring issues. It's also true that the problems at these pages do run much deeper than you and Bastun, although you have undoubtedly been consistently among the worst culprits. If I had strong emotions around hating some celebrity or pushing some other sort of controversial positions I'd probably keep away from them on Misplaced Pages to be honest. Experience tells me that it will only end one way, and ultimately no amount of whataboutery or off-Wiki canvassing will change that. ] (]) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The thing is, Daz, I have nothing against ]; I have nothing against ]; I have nothing against ]. In the latter two cases, I hold real respect for their early work. In the case of Linehan, I don't know his work, and I literally had not heard of him until his 2019 fiasco on Trans issues. | |||
| :::: But when you did followed by on Linehan, well, your perception that you have no {{tq|strong emotional attachment to trans issues}} seems misleading. Your idea of BALANCE in the currently existing RS commentary on Linehan just seems to be off, and your edit-warring last year to remove the section on the issues for which he is now best known is, in fact, a version of RGW thinking, even if you can't see it in yourself. That isn't the "centre ground", man, and we can only base an assessment of NPOV on sourced discussion, not on feelings. ] (]) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ec}} Daz, please do not claim that you are trying to hold the center against POV pushers when you , and then . | |||
| :::: To be honest, I have been very frustrated by this rhetorical gambit from multiple people on multiple trans-related articles. For some reason, people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. But that's not true. Everyone is trying to improve these articles, including the people you disagree with. The people who are trying to add examples of anti-trans activism to Graham Linehan's page aren't doing so because they are pushing a POV, they are doing it because it is heavily documented in reliable sources. If the people who were claiming they were "neutral" had free reign of these articles, they would be worse: ''heavily'' POV and discounting many statements from many reliable sources. ] (]) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: In fact, when that happens, we get "balanced" versions like . ] (]) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: More whataboutery and finger pointing. This was a genuine attempt at ] to a single article, more than a year ago. Contrary to what you have written here there was no edit warring on my part, and the 'examples' of supposedly POV edits you've cherrypicked are pretty lame too. Contrary to what you are suggesting I took the result of that RfC on the chin and walked away. I have never been active at any of these other articles which you all descended upon. No wonder you're currently subject to interaction bans if you go about making these sort of unfounded aspersions! ] (]) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: When we are talking about TENDENTIOUS editing that {{tq| does not conform to the neutral point of view...}}, I think we have to consider specific, representative cases or descend into mudslinging or caricature. Thoughtful consideration of cases is not what WHATABOUTISM is. Section blanking with POV insertion in the midst of an RfC is not a "cherrypicked" example, it is a key one in terms of policy, as I thought you understood since to my knowledge you have not repeated the gesture. ] (]) 17:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: You don't seem too worried about descending into mudslinging and caricature - it seems to be your stock-in-trade. I'm glad you seem to have dropped your incorrect allegations of edit warring though. ] (]) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: It is still edit warring even if you don't break 3RR; you reinstated both your template tag and your section blank after reverts. But those are just facts ] (]) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: That isn't edit warring. Given your own long and happy liaison with edit-warring (and other WP:BATTLEGROUND antics) I might have expected you to know the difference! ] (]) 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: FWIW, Daz, my problem is not so much with the edits themselves. I recognize they were made years ago, and that you struck the comment later. My problem is your insistence that you are merely a neutral observer fighting against POV-pushing opponents while you have in the past demonstrated a clear POV. I don't have anything against you personally and recognize that even edits I think are obviously POV were from your perspective a genuine attempt to improve the article. All I'm asking you is to assume that same minimal amount of good faith of everyone else. Your perspective isn't objective or neutral just because it's yours, and other people aren't "POV-pushing" just because they disagree with you. ] (]) 04:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Listen, if Graham Linehan had offended some other set of particularly zealous ideologues (vegans, Zionists or whoever) I'd still have showed up at the talk page, and tried to have the same sort of discussion with them. That's the difference. ] (]) 11:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{tq|people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing.}} There's an irony in how editors who like to go on and on about their own "neutrality" and their hatred of "activism" are very likely to be partisan. If you (and here I'm speaking generally) have a dog-eared copy of a RadFem book about how "transwomen" are "erasing" "real women" on your bedside, and if you can't stub your toe without angrily accusing the coffee table of being a "transgender activist", you probably aren't ''quite'' as neutral as you make yourself out to be. ] (]) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Shout out to ]. The page is aggressively archived, but there is some good material for those who want to see frustrated editors talking past each other. ] (]) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|WanderingWanda}}, I'm going to be honest here - I have no idea what your post is about, or who you are referring to. Please either be clear about the point you are making, or refrain from commenting. Thanks ]] 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| (This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section per ]) | |||
| 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. | |||
| The above clearly demonstrates that there is a huge battle going on regarding this topic. I would like to open a discussion about what to do about it. Suggestions? --] (]) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| '''Suggestion: terminology RfC''' - it might help to have an RfC on NPOVN concerning whether "anti-transgender activism" is subject to normal sourcing requirements (like "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish sentiment"), or whether it is subject to the stricter requirements of LABEL. Lots of people ''think'' they know the answer to that question, but it gets discussed heatedly on various pages without any consistent outcome. ] (]) 02:43, 2 August 2020 (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. | |||
| '''Query''' - I am wondering if there is any provision anywhere in the rules that could limit the sources that can be used for articles that are proven battlegrounds? I know it's a long shot, but it seems like a lot of the trouble occurs because there are so many subject-specific websites and publications now that whenever a topic is as controversial as this one, anyone can find a source that says pretty much anything on it that they happen to agree with. If we were limited to only using content from general news sources that don't specialize in either of the polarized viewpoints - meaning no feminist or LGBT publications - and that have a Misplaced Pages rating of "Reliable", it might cut out a chunk of the edit warring. I've never seen any provision for it and frankly, I don't even know if it's feasible, but figured I'd throw it out if we're brainstorming ideas here. ] (]) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{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 ]."}} | |||
| :{{u|Lilipo25}} Take a look at ]. Sources which might be perceived as biased are not disallowed if they are otherwise reliable, but it is often appropriate to use in-text attribution when using them. ]] 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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 == | |||
| == 23.120.104.213 == | |||
| {{atop|result=Indeffed by Canterbury Tail ] ] 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| <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)}} | |||
| | status = | |||
| * {{userlinks|TTYDDoopliss}} | |||
| | result = Buh-bye, IP. ] (]) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| 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 {{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. | |||
| 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 sequence of edits to ]: | |||
| The editor using the IP 23.120.104.213 removed description ( of '']'' as an {{tq|antisemitic forgery}} with an edit summary {{tq|opinion language. This is an encyclopedia not a jewish propaganda site}} on the article ]. The user also vandalised ] to change the lead sentence to begin {{tq|'''Whiteness studies''' is the racist study of the imaginary structures that produce ] to make excuses for the poor performance and inherent intellectual abilities of minorities}}. The rest of the IP's edits consist of quickly-reverted unsourced additions to BLPs identifying their families as Jewish. | |||
| ** {{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. | |||
| It feels pretty clear that the editor is single-purpose, tendentious, racist and antisemitic. (Apologies if I've reported this on the wrong board!) ] (]) 09:28, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :Blocked. ], ], ] 11:21, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::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}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == ]: ] and ] behaviour. == | |||
| == Socionics == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{pagelinks|Socionics}} | |||
| There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources , , . There is a long-running conflict over socionics in the Russian Misplaced Pages. Almost all supporters of socionics were permanently blocked. --] (]) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Here are two editors that remove RS: {{userlinks|ThesariusQ}} , {{userlinks|Sounderk}} — they seem like sock- or meatpuppetry (like in ru-wiki) intended for violation of ] rule. --] (]) 15:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{u|Q Valda}}, can you link to the blocked accounts on ru-wiki? Seeing that they are blocked and why would help your case. But yes, the two accounts you link to here are ]s, and ThesariusQ especially looks like a sockpuppet (if not that, a meatpuppet), in terms of appearing out of nowhere when needed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** Blocked accounts of socionics supporters: | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| **** ] | |||
| *** --] (]) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Two more editors with the same modus operandi: {{userlinks|Igor RD}} , and anonym – – . --] (]) 21:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC) and one more {{userlinks|Echidna1000}} --] (]) 08:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's worth noting that Gennadiy Frolov has the exact same userpage formatting as ThesariusQ with the weird sub-heading with the username, I think it's clear that they are the same user. ] (]) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] edits are completely identical to the edits of ] in ru-wiki ,,,. Later ] took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version . Тhey seem like sock- or meatpuppetry.--] (]) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::QuantumBorg edited exactly once on the 14th. Q Valda has previously edited the article in 2018, and resumed recently on the 29th. I don't see the problem there - as opposed to the pro-fringe editors who all rotated in and out in the course of a day to game the ] rule. - ] (]) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious.QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--] (]) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::MrOllie has it right. I address this here: And ThesariusQ is themselves the subject of an SPI: ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent ] and ] == | |||
| {{user|ThymeCypher}} has been attacking me and casting aspersions about myself non-stop at ] and other places for the whole day, and has continued to do so despite being asked to stop. | |||
| *Our first interaction was where he accused me of "]" the page because of reverting a non-consensuated edit of theirs (this revertion, btw, was in violation of the discretionary sanctions currently in force in post-1932 US election articles{{mdash}}namely, 1RR and the requirement to seek consensus before reinstating any edit that has been challenged{{mdash}}as it followed a previous revert of theirs to another user on the same content). Note that there is an ongoing RfC on the issue, so it's all but obvious that no one can make these kind of edits until a consensus arises and the RfC is closed (this was pointed out to them by other users as well ), and it's literally stated everywhere that you can even get blocked for doing so. | |||
| *I pointed this to them , which was replied with a full-blown attack barrage both at their talk page (first by accusing me of "insulting" other users without any evidence to back it up ) as well as in the referred article's talk page (launching generic accusations of "voter suppression" and "media manipulation" before directly dubbing me {{tq|a bully}} ; it's also implied that , where they say {{tq|one specific user}} is responsible for {{tq|an absolute s**tshow of attacks}}, was in reference to me as well). | |||
| *I took it to their talk page where I demanded them to source where my alleged "insults" were and pointing out to them about the notices on the discretionary sanctions (), but I was replied with further unproven aspersions (such as that I was {{tq|continuing to boast about long and bountiful contributions to the site}} , and further unproven claims that I was "insulting" and "threatening" others ). | |||
| *I repeteadly warned and asked this user to either stop these claims or bring them with proper evidence here to ANI, to no avail ( ). I also the concerning fact that this account , then suddenly reactivated today just to POV-push ] in the ongoing RfC at ] as well as to attack me everywhere as if they had a personal grudge on me, with my interactions with them being mostly-limited to having to defend myself from their attacks. | |||
| *Their latest actions have been to somehow justify themselves (despite the account ) and blanking the discussion at their talk page in its entirety (). There was also this egregious comment, once again accusing me of "bullying" (and again without any evidence to back up their accusations) but where they also made the (again, without evidence) accusation that I was accusing others of "foul play" (). | |||
| (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) | |||
| It should be noted that this came mere hours after I spotted an off-wiki canvassing attempt on the RfC, attempting to ] for a particular candidate and use Misplaced Pages as a ] for their political positions (), which in turn came after another user had to add the ] because of ongoing suspicions on widespread off-canvassing (). I removed the links from the page for the sake of avoiding possible negative feedbacking, since there are many new accounts being created for the sole purpose of participating in the RfC in favour of a singular candidate {{small|(though I've collected evidence as screenshots and print shots in the case it needed to be denounced at an higher stance).}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| While there have been many emotions and not-too-fair tactics involved throughout the RfC's progress (even seeing an attempted on-wiki canvassing which was, nonetheless, dealt with without major consequences) this barrage of personal attacks is just too much, and the fact that {{u|ThymeCypher}} has taken it so personally on me despite no previous interaction between the two of us, coupled with the fact that they were a ] from September 2015 to today, also hints at some possible ] or ] issue involved; in any case, ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| More specifically this line: | |||
| : First off Misplaced Pages isn't a daycare with workers trying to resolve toybox arguments. You taking some of my broad comments personally is on you, full stop. Second off this he-said-she-said nonsense is ridiculous - you took what I said offensively but what I said was that YOU were offending others. Two wrongs do not make a right. Third, seriously, stop with the blind accusations. This is my only account. I made edits that I believe feel are important to the core mission of Misplaced Pages. They were made in good faith and in alignment with the current policy. This should be dropped on the basis of your blind accusations alone. ]] 16:06, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| : Additionally, you were asked to stop - so why must I? Are you the lord of Misplaced Pages? Seriously - this behavior is unacceptable for Misplaced Pages or any professional setting period. ]] 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::These two comments above are two perfect examples of the persistent ] & ] behaviour on myself that I have denounced and sourced in my opening statement. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| ::: Pointing out another’s personal attacks is not a personal attack. Just stop already. ]] 16:23, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| :::: ], specially when such "personal attacks" are false and without evidence. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| ::::: The fact I did not explicitly provide evidence is not a lack of evidence. ]] 16:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{yo|Impru20}} - In the future, please don't hesitate to ] users of discretionary sanctions using the {{tl|Alert}} template. Handwritten messages are not valid, no matter how detailed. As it stands now, you've reported numerous clear-cut violations for which I would not hesitate to topic ban the user, but I can't really do much because they were never templated. Oh well. I'll go ahead and alert them now, with a '''formal warning''' that they will be banned from a relevant topic area if they continue making personal attacks, casting aspersions, or committing any other violation. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Swarm}} Ok, understood. Thank you for your response; hopefully the behaviour will stop now that the RfC has been closed (I filled this ANI thread when it was still ongoing, not knowing it was about to come to a close), but I'll take note in case of any further such incidents in the future. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Swarm}} The user to delete their whole user and talk pages (). Seems to confirm suspicions of it being a ] which has lost its purpose after the RfC's closure. I guess this thread can be closed accordingly, since the behaviour will probably not be continuing considering the aforementioned circumstances. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|Swarm}} Since {{Ping|ThymeCypher}} has accused {{u|Impru20}} of personal attacks in this thread, but without evidence, I believe there is unfinished business in this thread, and ThymeCypher should be required to produce some evidence or be sanctioned right now for the NPA vio done right here, under regular policy if not DS. If there are no diffs available, also applicable is ] (not answering simple questions). Ordinarily, I might be tempted to let the drama die out here and proceed under the DS alert that has now been given, but the user's attempt to delete their user and talk page makes me believe we would just be kicking the can down the road when it should be dealt with now. ] (]) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. This editor's behaviour seems to have been designed to be disruptive, and the decision to delete their page and vanish is also troubling. It should be particularly troubling given their sudden appearance yesterday after nearly five years of inactivity to edit and comment exclusively on articles concerning the US presidential election.--] (]) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| '''Addendum:''' for the same behaviour is being discussed, but the link is buried in the discussion.] 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Johnpacklambert and Prods == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = resolved | |||
| | result = Boldly closing this. I have commented, so anyone should feel free to undo the close if they feel it's out of process, but JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently, the OP has indicated they are satisfied, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for anything else to happen. Back to work folks... ]] 11:27, 1 August 2020 (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 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. | |||
| * {{userlinks|Johnpacklambert}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| I'm concerned that Johnpacklambert (JPL) does not understand when a prod should be used to delete an article. ] states in the opening line that it is for "a way to suggest an article or file for '''uncontroversial''' deletion". ] goes into detail about what to do '''before''' nominating an article for a prod, including a link to ]. | |||
| *:I cannot disagree, except I think that speaking authoritatively about how a change will not be done regardless of sources provided simply breaks ]: | |||
| *:{{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.}} | |||
| *: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 (, 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) | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| *::::@] 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: | |||
| *::::{{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 (). | |||
| I have raised my concerns with JPL ] and ]. Despite bringing this to his attention, prods are still being made by JPL that I believe are improper use of the prod process. Examples from today include: | |||
| :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.}} | |||
| Having one (or no) sources does not equate to the article being non-notable, and therefore these are not valid reasons to delete by prod. I'm happy to be corrected on this! I'm sure there are articles that get prodded that deserve to be so, as they are total rubbish. However, I see no attempt in trying to fix the issues, just drive-by tagging. These articles may well be non-notable, but not for the rationales being used. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Is this the type of report that would be better addressed at ]? ~~ ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My concerns about his ] of the prod process are also echoed across his AfD noms, for example ]. I see that in , JPL was banned from making more than one AfD nom in a 24hr period. I think something similar should be applied to his prods. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *This is an unreasonable proposal. Having 1 or no sources means an article does not pass GNG in its current state. The whole purpose of proposed deletion is to nominate for deletion articles that clearly are not meeting inclusion criteria. If a biography of a living person has no sources it can be nominated for speedy deletion just one those grounds. Proposed deletion is likewise meant for articles with little sign of notability, and especially when we are dealing with biographies of living people, as these articles all are, it is perfectly acceptable to nominate for proposed deletion articles that lack any sign of notability.] (]) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::But do you know the difference between notability and an article having no sources? I don't believe you do, as these examples show. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll have a go. One is a concept, the other a waste of space/pixels. -] ] 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Frankly, probably? I misjudged how long this had been going on and the scale of it. ] 17:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I’m not sure I understand why linking ] was necessary seeing that overall {{u|Johnpacklambert}} is competent & a good faith editor maybe a few errors but a “lack of understanding” ?? I think not! I also do not see how “banning” which is a tad bit too extreme would be necessary here when other non extreme measures which would be just as effective would be sufficient here.''']''' 17:46, 30 July 2020 (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. ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If he's "is competent & a good faith editor" then why was he banned from logging multiple AfDs? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| ::'''Oppose''' any sanction. It must be very disheartening for JPL to see his good work dismissed in this way. Well done JPL. -] ] 17:52, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| :::There's also ], such as the ones on the article ] (see the edit history). Multiple times JPL has proded an article with no summary to indicate this, against the very instructions detailed at ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::Now this is turning into "let us find fault with everything Mr. Lambert has ever done that we do not like". There are not "disruptive edits like D'Alterio", this is one case of legitimatly not realizing I had prodded it before. The fact of the matter is that that article still lacks any one source that would pass GNG. If you look at the edit summary the three times were seperated by first a year and then seven months. The most interesting thing is that in all that time no one has bothered to even try to add anything that is at all better sourcing. I have been very particular of late to make sure every time I propose an article for proposed deletion I include this in the edit summary, so Mr. Lugnuts attack on me for not doing so in the past really does come off as trying to find fault.] (]) 18:44, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :::::Of the 7 entries in that page's history since 2018, 3 are you PRODding it, 3 are someone else removing it, one is a bot. That's ... not great. But it does seem to be an isolated incident. I'm wondering why you haven't punched it to AfD though? You're allowed one a day. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See ]: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." | |||
| ::::::You have to bear in mind how much emotional abuse I get from Lugnuts every time I nominate any article on an actor, actress or film for deletion. Working up to be ready for that level of insults for even thinking that not everyone who had a credited part in a commerically produced film is notable by default is not easy.] (]) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (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? | |||
| :::::::Here are some more recent examples from just the past few days (forgive me if I don't do the diffs, you can see from the recent edit history) - ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. All declined, all show no evidence that ] was used. If you were making geninue prods on non-notable articles, there would be no issue, but that's not the case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| *'''Comment''' So, this seems to me like a bit of a culture war. Some editors don't like articles that are published without being supported by multiple sources (which is what GNG calls for), and seek to delete them without doing as rigorous a BEFORE as they probably should. Some editors are happy with making thousands of stubs supported by a single source and an SNG, hoping that someone else will come along and improve them, and they get annoyed when people seek deletion without attempting to improve the sourcing first. A certain proportion of editors will see one, or the other, or perhaps both, of these approaches as less than ideal. I would encourage any reviewer to look for sources before nominating for PROD; I would also encourage any experienced author to aim to provide refs to enough sources to establish an obvious GNG pass before publishing an article in main space. I don't see anything actionable here, but I hope all editors might consider whether there's any room for them to up their respective games. ]] 18:53, 30 July 2020 (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? | |||
| **Some of the issues here goes to the issues that for a long time we allowed articles to be created without even making an account on Misplaced Pages, and there seem to still be ways to do so. There still is lots of creation of sub-par article, especially with relation to people involved in sports, but there is also a huge problem with legacy articles sitting around from a time when Misplaced Pages had even less clear standards for notability, inclusion and creation process than it does today. As an editor I have evolved in my understanding of what does and doe not constitute sourcing that passes the general notability guidelines, and have nominated at least 3 articles I created for deletion, but I think that number is a bit higher.] (]) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ***Quick question: do you agree that a lack of sources in an article is not a reason for deletion? ] (]) 19:08, 30 July 2020 (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. | |||
| **<ec>: **I've got to disagree with you here. The rules for using PRODs are pretty darn clear. If this editor is commonly ignoring the rules and nominating because the ''article'' (not subject) doesn't have enough sources, they are doing it wrong. It's about as much about "culture" as stopping at red lights. I've not yet looked at the underlying issue (though I'm quite familiar with JPL's comments at AfD), but if they are regularly nominating things using WP:PROD without an actual valid reason for deletion, that's at least as much of an issue than doing the same at AfD. ] (]) 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:{{u|Hobit}}, if you don't stop at red lights, people die. Let's keep this in perspective. ]] 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **::Apparently I need to work on my analogies, second time I've been called out for them. The point I'm making is that the line is clear and this is way over it. If he (or anyone) feels that not having sources in the article is a valid reason to delete an article, I'd suggest he propose that change. As it stands, it clearly is not. ] (]) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:::Sure it is; see ] which is specifically for BLPs (which JPL's recent prods all seem to be) which have no sources at all; clearly "no sources" is expected to be a reason for deletion for BLPs. Maybe finding a reference is preferable to some but it's not required, and presumably if someone like Barbara D'Alterio is "prominent" someone ought to have found ''any source at all'' besides a cast list and a Wordpress blog saying so in the fourteen years that article has existed. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **::::Help me out here. He's not using ], he's using ]. The bar for BLPPROD and PROD are really quite different. In particular, any source is enough to overcome a BLPPROD. Are you claiming that because BLPPROD exists, the bar for the PROD process is lower than otherwise specified in ]? Sorry, I really don't follow your argument, sorry if I'm just being slow--it's been a long day already. ] (]) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::But you actually need a source to overcome a BLPPROD, you need absolutely nothing to remove a regular PROD. Which is what on some occasions is exactly what happens after the PROD is removed, which is in part why it is not uncommon for a PROD to lead to an actual deletion nomination. So if someone puts a PROD on a page, any editor came remove it, including the page creator, with absolutely no change to the article and no reason needed to be given, and then it is ineligible for PROD, and can only be deleted by AfD.] (]) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::Right, any source cancels a BLPPROD, and any objection for any reason whatsoever cancels a PROD. I would say the bar for removing a PROD is ''substantially'' lower. My point, though, is in response to your assertion that not having sources is not accepted as a reason for deletion: clearly it is accepted, for BLPs. The ] says that information on living persons that is challenged may not be restored without providing a reliable source. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I would suggest that JPL PRODding a BLP is in effect challenging the information wholesale, and if nobody provides a source to counter the challenge then policy ''compels'' deletion. But maybe I'm wikilawyering. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::Wow. PROD is really clear on what a valid deletion reason is. BLPPROD is really clear on what a valid use of BLPPROD is. "No reliable sources in article" isn't something that either PROD or BLPPROD have as a reason for using them. Hard stop. Making sure that the line between the two is large was part of why BLPPROD didn't just get folded into PROD. ] (]) 21:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' any sanction. As per Roxy. This is ridiculous. ] here is unwarranted, prods are worthless anyway and I doubt anything is going to get "mistakenly" deleted after a 7 day prod by flying under the radar. ] (]) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I've honestly no idea. Doubting that anything is going to get mistakenly deleted via PROD seems like a strong statement. How can you measure how many articles mistakenly get deleted via PROD? Is there some common review process or some other way to know this? My own intuition is that PRODs would be more likely to have problems than the much more regulated speedies and there are a fair number of wrong ones there that not only get overturned at DRV, but later get kept at AfD. ] (]) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're explaining a theoretical situation where a prod would actually probably be appropriate because I find it unlikely that a notable subject would be deleted by way of a prod and it would just suddenly slip away. If no one cares to refute it for 7 days, well.... | |||
| :::Prod deleted articles are very easy to restore. One only has to make a request. ] (]) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh, good grief. '''OPPOSE''' --<b>] ]</b> 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' proposed 24-hour restriction. This recent behavior continues the same trend of ignoring ] that got him topic banned from AFD. I'm not sure why the topic ban didn't include a restriction on PRODding in the first place. '''<span style="border: 1px #8C001A solid;background:#8C001A">]</span>''' 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **It didn't include a restiction on prodding because one of the actual complaints was that I was flodding AfD in some cases with articles that should have just been prodded. The more pertinent complaint was that I had dared to question the absolute deference of allowing everyone who has ever played one game in a football league to be considered default notable.] (]) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' pretty much what Praxidicae 'said' I don’t see any real reason here thus far for any dire sanctions or actions to be taken. Hence I oppose any sanction(s) against {{u|Johnpacklambert}}. Please let us quit attacking good faith editors over relatively trivial matters. ''']''' 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{yo|Celestina007}} Question: Do you feel it is appropriate to PROD articles solely because of the sources currently in the article? ] (]) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***That is the explicit rule on BLPPROD and I always thought it was at least the implicit rule on all prods.] (]) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ***:Ah. That's not the case for PRODs. PRODs are not appropriate for insufficient, but non-zero, sourcing in the article where a search for sources has not been carried out. That is, before nominating for ]/] reasons (absent a blatant hoax), you have to do a ]. --] (]) 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@{{u|Hobit}}, I 100% get your argument but {{u|Johnpacklambert}} has acknowledged he may have erred by thinking BLPPRODDING & general prodding followed the same rules. What I don’t understand is why {{u|Lugnuts}} & perharps yourself are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill by seeking for the 'death penalty'. There are real problems facing Misplaced Pages & JPL making infinitesimal errors isn’t one of them. @{{u|Mdaniels5757}}, yes you are very much apt & I think JPL understands that by now. Can someone close this discussion already? ''']''' 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{yo|Celestina007}} Unless I'm missing something, and it's quite possible I am, he's been told his PRODs were problematic in both March and April (per the top of this section). He's continued to do the same things. In general, he is highly involved in the deletion processes on Misplaced Pages (500 AfDs in the last ~30 days, likely more than any other editor), but misunderstands basic deletion issues and seems unable to hear issues. Of those 500 AfDs, he !voted to keep less than 1% of the time. For example, in something I nominated for deletion, he said it wasn't verifiable which was just utterly wrong. When I pinged him, there was no response. At the end, the article was kept. He literally !votes to keep less than 1% of the time, which seems to indicate not really looking at the subject. I don't think I've ever used this link before but ] seems to apply here. Maybe he can help Misplaced Pages in other areas, but not understanding the deletion process (PROD, WP:V, WP:BEFORE) while being perhaps the most active editor in that area is a big problem. ] (]) 01:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::His whole deletion mantra of using "one source is never enough to pass GNG" (or variations of this) seem complelty at odds to his own article creations, such as ], ], ], ], etc, etc. It just reaffirms for me that he simply doesn't understand prods, notability, or indeed, what he's actually doing. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 31 July 2020 (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 @]’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) | |||
| * I don't like sanctions of well meaning editors but think deserves criticism, at least a ]. It's an article about a Portuguese actor. ] has no fewer than 30 sources. There is ] of this article being deleted at ], so nominating it for ] is disingenuous at best. --] (]) 21:51, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Support''' the 24 hour restriction and will provide examples of the editor's poor PROD work shortly. ] (]) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (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 | |||
| :Johnpacklambert often prods incorrectly because he doesn't consistently do adequate ]. Examples include: | |||
| :::::{{tq|You're more than welcome to comment on or undo the source review, if you disagree with my findings}} | |||
| :Prodding ] with the comment “neither IMDb nor Find a Grave is a reliable source we should not have articles with no reliable sources”, and after it was deprodded, providing a rare plot twist and demonstrating he is capable of adding sources . | |||
| :::::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 . | |||
| :Prodding an Emmy nominee ]: with the following reason: “The only sources are the subject's own website and IMDb, just repeating them multiple times to fool people to thinking there is something of substance here does not change the total lack of any reliable sources”. Here he assumes bad faith editing of whoever made the article in the nomination statement and focusing on the state of sourcing in the article rather than the subject’s notability and the existence of reliable secondary sources. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :Johnpacklambert has been vocal in his defense of how he prods articles sourced to IMDb. To Bearcat, he has written, “I have nominated several for proposed deletion but keep having the proposed deletion be removed and was even threatened with being taken to ANI for nominated articles that have as their one and only source IMDb.” Yes, multiple people have a problem with that because one is not supposed to prod unless one has completed BEFORE and believes the prod is uncontroversial. By this point he must know how controversial entertainment BLP prods are. Note he created two sections for this, eleven days apart: and . | |||
| ::::::*As I expected, {{ping|Warrenmck}} - your claims are simply baseless. Consider this my final response to them. | |||
| :I think the privilege of being able to do multiple prods per day is inappropriate for him at this point. I’m sorry if Johnpacklambert feels anxious or frustrated when he sees tagged articles or articles sourced only to IMDb. I’d prefer he stick to one deletion nomination per day and if necessary one prod per day so that editors with researching tendencies can look into a matter for him. Speaking of which… he should be able to just use his daily deletion nom. I have not seen him attempt the max deletion nomination per day I think since back in April when he was very into the classic film scene, though he could be doing it in other spaces. Thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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. | |||
| *'''Support a ban from all deletion processes''' I just took a look through his last 15 or so prods. I would say approx 3 or 4 of them were maybe valid PROD's according to the PROD rules and thats being generous. This isnt to say they would survive AFD, quite a few of them wouldnt. But just as many would. But its clear the bare minimum of BEFORE just isnt being done. It also looks like JPL has just switched from nominating at AFD, to systematically going through topics and PROD-tagging to avoid his AFD restriction. This wouldnt be so bad if he was actually following the guidelines and only prodding articles that qualify. But he's just carpet bombing and seeing what sticks. Its the same issue that led to the AFD restrictions. There is no indication he understands (despite it being explained to him multiple times) what you are supposed to do before nominating/prodding, so why waste time constructing another custom restriction, the problem will just be moved somewhere else. Either make it a blanket ban from all deletion, or just unprod everything he prods. ] (]) 02:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - In this case, I don't see evidence of an unacceptably-high error rate sufficient to necessitate the proposed sanction in light of the exchange between JPL and Mdaniels above, plus I agree with Prax. More broadly, I don't understand why it should be OK to mass-create articles that don't meet our policies (like WP:V) but it's not OK to mass delete them. Why doesn't the creator of an article have to do a ] search, but the deleter does? Hobit is right that PROD is clear but policy should follow practice, not the other way around, and I, for one, think PRODing articles that are only sourced to IMDB is a good thing. It's good for the encyclopedia. Not PRODing them is bad for the encyclopedia. And--just my opinion--if PROD says otherwise, it should be changed. No one should be creating an article without, at least, one reliable source, or else we're just ignoring WP:V. After 20 years, it's time to require some minimal verification for all topics. Or, at least, don't ban those who PROD unverified articles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] <sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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. | |||
| **Two points: #1 yes, if you want to change our deletion policies you probably should propose changing them rather than supporting people who are massively ignoring them. #2 are you saying you disagree with ]? Because that seems to be exactly what you are saying--that someone using our deletion process has no responsibility to look beyond the article as it exists. If you believe that is "practice" (and I often see that it is, though I think it shouldn't be) then propose the change and see what happens. It might well be that people support such an action these days (see the sandcastle essay/story on my ]), though I'd personally hope we aren't at that point quite yet. ] (]) 14:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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. | |||
| **:{{u|Hobit}}, consider this series of events: Editor 1 creates an article with no source. Editor 2 PRODs it. Editor 3 de-PRODs it but does not add a source. Now, who should do a BEFORE search? All three should. Assuming there is a source out there, who should add it? All three should. Who do we sanction for failing to perform a BEFORE search? Only Editor 2. ''That'' is what I disagree with, and it doesn't require any change in policy, because while policy might forbid JPL from PRODing an article based on a lack of sourcing in the article without first doing a BEFORE search (which JPL has acknowledged below), policy does not ''require'' that we sanction JPL for failing to do so. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] <sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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 understand the argument. I don't even disagree with it. But A) thems the rules as they exist right now B) If someone was dePRODing 100s of articles a month without any relevant arguments, I suspect they'd be here too C) this editor seems to really not get our policies and guidelines. As I said, he's probably involved in more deletion debates (AfDs, Prods, etc.) than any single user right now. But apparently he honestly didn't understand that we don't delete on the basis of the state of the article (aside from WP:TNT). I mean *didn't know* even though he's involved in at least 500 discussions a month. That seems like a problem. And it's not like people haven't reached out to him. Over and over. I've done it once in the last month ''and he was supporting my position'' but it was so wrong I had to say something (again, he claimed the article wasn't verifiable when it had plenty of sources in it to meet ]). I'm happy, for now, with the PROD agreement found below. I suspect, much like we did with BOZ, I'll be asking for more meaningful and policy/guideline-based deletion arguments at AfD too. Right now they are almost all of the form "no reliable sources in article" (and *that* isn't always true...) or sometimes "non-notable lawyer" or something like that with no policy basis at all. ] (]) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Firstly, PROD is not supposed to be a big deal. People can remove them for any reason no matter how stupid, or even no reason at all, so it's also no big deal if you get a lot of PRODs declined. Secondly I agree with Levivich. Why do we allow the apparently semi-automatic creation of a bzillion tiny, badly sourced stubs but then wail and gnash our teeth and put people through the wringer for trying to delete some of the worst of them? We should move ] to be a prerequisite for ''creating'' articles rather than deleting them. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:44, 31 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Whatever would we do without hundreds of articles about f list athletes who once set foot on a notable stadiums field? ] (]) 13:06, 31 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :::Find some other database to scrape, no doubt. ] <sub>]</sub> 13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:::A professional paid editor frankly should have a much more complete understanding of ], ], and ]. ] 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''re:''' ''"We should move WP:BEFORE to be a prerequisite for creating articles rather than deleting them."'' Wholeheartedly agree. This should be proposed. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><strong> // ] :: </strong>] </span> 14:11, 31 July 2020 (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: | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Prax. --] (]) 13:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:{{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.}} | |||
| * '''Oppose:''' There's a .sig I've been using for many years that runs ''"It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying."'' Inadequate sourcing is not only a valid ground for deletion, tens of thousands of articles have been zapped for just that lack. Neither JPL or any of us are under any onus to agree with Lugnuts' definition of "uncontroversial," which happens not to be set down in any guideline I can see. From what I can see, the nom's objection is to the language JPL is using in his prod rationales. Any kind of sanction for *that* is just plain absurd. ] 14:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*: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 . | |||
| **I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I'd like to be sure. Are you arguing ] shouldn't be a part of the deletion process? If not, could you clarify | |||
| ::::::*::'''1.''' You failed to actually demonstrate there was a consensus, as one didn't exist in the place you directed me to. | |||
| *** I'm pretty sure that WP:BEFORE forms no part of my opposition, but I'll answer your question anyway: no, of course not. In fact, I really would love to see it explicitly written in that a ''deprodder'' must use BEFORE prior to removing a prod. But, like with the original complaint here, I want rather more proof that JPL ignored BEFORE than mere speculation. ] 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*::'''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 | |||
| *'''question''' for edification, can the OP or those supporting sanctioning JPL for this please provide an example of a prod placed by JPL which resulted in deletion but shouldn't have? ] (]) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*::'''3.''' In the absence of any substantive objection, ] material should be added in. | |||
| **That someone would have to be an admin, yes? ] (]) 14:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:] 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) | |||
| *I'm concerned that John Pack Lambert seems to be circumventing his 1 AfD a day restriction by nominating multiple prods, a lot of which seem to be dubious. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions that don't require a discussion but do not meet any CSD criteria, and there's no way that "one source is never enough to pass GNG" should led to an article being deleted without discussion. An AfD should be had in such cases to determine if additional sources exist to establish notability. If JPL is making prods that need to be AfDs, that kind defeats the point of the restriction-- ] (]) 14:43, 31 July 2020 (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 == | |||
| *'''Support''' The ] process explains itself quite clearly: "''PROD is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.''" It seems apparent that JPL is nominating topics for deletion in the face of expected opposition from editors such as Lugnuts. As PROD must not be used in such an adversarial way and JPL has been previously warned and sanctioned for their abuse of deletion processes, they should be banned from the PROD process altogether. ]🐉(]) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I am a he. Your use of the plural to refer to me is very insulting.] (]) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Jesus Christ!, '''Oppose''' per Roxy, JBL, Prax, Celestina and DFO - I see nothing wrong with John's PRODDING here and IMHO this relates nothing to AFD. –]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', Johnpacklambert’s work in deletion areas is far superior to many of those voting to support this proposal. ] (]) 01:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{yo|Devonian Wombat}} I'm seriously surprised to hear anyone say that. Could you point at specific things (with links) that you feel were outstanding in some way? Say three things? I've looked over perhaps 100 AfD !votes of his, and I only found a few things that I thought were policy/guideline based comments, and I don't recall anything particularly worthy of praise. ] (]) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ===A modest proposal=== | |||
| It's been suggested that ] be moved to being before article creation, rather than as part of the deletion process. That will further reduce our editor pool (adding in-line sources to an article is likely initially beyond most new editors), but I think a lot of folks here wouldn't mind the reduction in new article and frankly our new editor pool is shrinking enough that it's not clear we need to worry about shrinking it more. So perhaps we are at a point it's time to require all new articles have at least two possibly-reliable sources within 7 or 14 days of creation. A bot tags them say no sooner than 24 hours after creation and notifies the creator. After 14 days it gets treated as a speedy (admin reviews but probably just accepts unless the bot screwed up or it is clearly notable). We also agree to follow ] as part of the deletion process of older articles. I suspect the folks who really worry about in-line citations being a requirement for articles could work their way through the articles in a year or so, much like we did for BLPPRODs (which was actually a fair bit of fun for me--just taking name off a list and trying to source them). | |||
| On , I informed ] about the ] extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant. | |||
| For the record, I think that the impact on the editor pool is the main reason to not do this. So I'm probably opposed to my own proposal. But if we did do it, I'd hope we could create some YouTube videos about how to create an article and maybe start seriously working on recruiting drives, creating a list of topics that are notable (with proposed sources) that newbees can start on, and maybe dropping the DRAFT space entirely (who wants to create an article that someone else has to approve before it shows up) or at least for pre-approved topics. I honestly suspect DRAFT space is the worst thing that has happened to editor recruitment ever. Drafts sit waiting while folks that often have a bar for creation that is way over our inclusion guidelines act as gatekeepers. ] (]) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd support it myself, but (a) it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus, and (b) this isn't the venue to make the suggestion anyway. ] 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Yeah, partly just pointing out that people are effectively doing this already here by saying "eh, it's not within policy, but that's okay". Partly trying to get a sense of if this is where we want to go. ] (]) 16:57, 31 July 2020 (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: | |||
| * '''Oppose''' We already have a huge number of guidelines, policy and process for article creation including ]; ]; ], ], &c. ] is not some simple shorthand for citations; there's a lot more to it than that and it is written specifically for the ]. We don't need some half-baked version of this repeating for article creation because we already have a mountain of such stuff. | |||
| :The general issue with article creation is that doing it well is beyond most people. Hobit himself only seems to have created 10 articles and 4 of those were deleted. They should please get more experience of the process <u>before</u> trying to tell the rest of us how it should be done. JPL has created 2,421 articles and, while 244 of those were deleted, that's a better survival rate. ]🐉(]) 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' more bureaucracy that could deter new good faith editors but not bother the undisclosed paid editors and sockpuppets who are skilled up in advance. Also too much automation will have a dehumanising effect and further deter new editors, imv ] (]) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *AfC is a joke because we do not force anything through it. Those who oppose an expectation of before for creation of an article show a very strong bias against making Misplaced Pages a source that lives up to its own stated principles of verrifiability.] (]) 20:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ===Another modest proposal=== | |||
| {{u|Hobit}} your proposal is worth consideration, but this thread on a specific editor's conduct isn't the right place to do it. Perhaps start an RfC and link to this discussion, which we ought to keep focussed on how to deal with the issue at hand. | |||
| * | |||
| How about this as a way forward. {{u|Johnpacklambert}} said that he thought a lack of sources was an implicit criterion under which an article may be PRODed. John: no, it's not. You need to satisfy yourself that there is a valid ] to delete. While ] describes the checks you should make before nominating at ''AfD'', you should still check for sources yourself to confirm whether or not the subject is notable - if there are sources out there which aren't currently in the article, but which might establish notability, either add them to the article or, if you're feeling lazy, slap a 'sources exist' tag on it (or, if you're feeling ''really'' lazy, do nothing) rather than PRODing. I have already said that I don't think that you should be sanctioned over this, but that there is room for you to up your game in this area - perhaps if you would undertake to do that, we can all move on? ]] 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I will try to use more review before prodding articles.] (]) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **{{u|Johnpacklambert}} - I'm not sure about the 'try' in there - any chance of something more concrete? I was thinking of something like "I confirm that I will not in future use standard PROD on any article on the basis of a lack of sources unless I have first checked and been unable to find suitable sources (although I reserve the right to apply BLPPRODs to entirely unsourced articles about living people)." ]] 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd support this too. Thanks Girth for putting together some sort of wording. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Here is goes. I confirm that I will not in the future use standard PROD on any article on the basis of a lack of sources unless I have first checked and been unable to find suitable sources (although I reserve the right to apply BLPPRODs to entirely unsourced articles about living people).] (]) 16:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm perfectly fine with that. I'd love it if you did that for your AfD !votes too... ] (]) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@{{u|Hobit}}, I don’t like the manner in which {{u|Johnpacklambert}} is being treated. Established good faith editors like JPL should be able to enjoy editing & not feel like they are walking on egg shells. I’m still baffled at how minor errors pertaining to prod use would escalate into this. Seeing as prods are the least important of the three methods of deletion. I mean who really cares about prods? or uses them? Save for JPL because of the same limitations this commmunity has imposed on him. Let us not sacrifice good faith editors on the altar of perfection. ''']''' 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|Celestina007}} I responded in detail to your query above, I'm not sure if you've seen it. Suffice it to say I disagree with your characterizations of his deletion work. But he's agreed to do a better job moving forward and I'm hopeful that will happen. ] (]) 05:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The fact, as you say, he's an "Established editor" should mean he's been here long enough to understand the process. After (at least) three attempts to explain this to him in recent months, he now appears to get it. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| ===Move to close=== | |||
| JPL has acknowledged the issues and committed to avoid repeating them. The OP seems satisfied. As I read it, no further action is needed at this point, so we should probably close this. ]] 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :@{{u|Girth Summit}}, this seems to be the best course of action at this juncture. I second this/'''Support''' this. ''']''' 23:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that now JPL understand the prod process better this can be closed. ] (]) 01:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Fine with me too. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Removing sources from multiple articles with bogus edit summaries == | |||
| :Even after this report, Scherbatsky12 still continues violating the extended confirmed restriction . ] (]) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{user|RHuns97}}; needs administrative attention. Looks like ]. Requesting a block and reversion of their edits. ] (]) 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given them a on the matter. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :BLocked until the give a decent explanation. --] (]) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Thank you. I've reverted a few dozen, and would appreciate someone with better tools taking care of the remainder. ] (]) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, thank you again. I saw that after I posted here. ] (]) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (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 == | |||
| == ] (formerly ]) == | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| {{user2|AnwinNovaTrichy}} has a long-term pattern of making ] on topics related to India and Islam. These edits often insert unverifiable claims or remove citations of reliable sources. A significant portion of these edits are accompanied by edit summaries that are not representative of the content of the edits. See the following examples: | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential block evasion by IP 211.184.93.253 (old IP 58.235.154.8) == | |||
| # ]: Inserted a link to a personal website that redirects to an article on ] {{rspe|OpIndia}}, a domain on the ], to claim that ]'s cause of death is disputed | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocks guaranteed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| # ]: Inserted unsourced political labels with ], {{code|<nowiki>] ]</nowiki>}}, in '']'', marked as a minor edit | |||
| 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. | |||
| # ]: Changed {{!xt|"areas currently '''administered''' by Pakistan"}} to {{xt|"areas currently '''occupied''' by Pakistan"}} (emphasis added) with the edit summary {{xt|"minor gramatical error"}} in ], marked as a minor edit | |||
| # ]: Added {{xt|"(and to some extent, extremists)"}} to ] | |||
| # ]: Removed a citation to and changed {{!xt|"] and ] groups"}} to {{xt|"centrist islam groups and anti-islamic extremism groups"}} in ], with the edit summary {{xt|"Cleared dead links"}}, marked as a minor edit | |||
| # ]: Changed {{!xt|"Islamic religious-political-armed movement"}} to {{xt|"Islamic '''Extremist''' religious-political-armed movement '''cum Terrorist Organization'''"}} (emphasis added) in ] with the edit summary {{xt|"minor gramatical error"}}, marked as a minor edit | |||
| # ]: Changed {{!xt|"], ] volunteer organisation"}} to {{xt|"nationalist, volunteer organisation"}}, added {{xt|"(It should be duly noted that said person was kicked out of the organisation even before he assassinated Gandhi for his radical and supporting ideas irrelevant to Rss's agenda)"}}, and changed {{!xt|"]"}} to {{xt|"culture of India and her place in the world"}} in ], with the edit summary {{xt|"Numerous Spelling Mistakes and long quotations have been removed"}}, marked as a minor edit | |||
| They had been banned before (two month ban) for the same behaviour. | |||
| ] shows that most of the user's edits violate policy in some way. Some of these affected articles do not receive enough attention for the unconstructive edits to be reverted in a timely manner. | |||
| A few examples that I sourced in my : | |||
| I propose that AnwinNovaTrichy be indefinitely blocked for long-term ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{bi|em=3.2|1=The user formerly known as Guru Trichy has to AnwinNovaTrichy. I've updated the above comment to reflect the new username. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Support site ban''' on the basis of the bold and outrageous deceit between the edit summaries and the contents. Noobs get patient instruction. Policy followers with a tinge of POV get somewhat more assertive reality checks. Intentional deception of this sort should get shown the door. ] (]) 08:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Don't we have a DS in this topic area? AE might've been faster. Can't indef with it, but topic bans and 1 yr blocks sure. Flicking through contribs since 2016, I can't find a single constructive edit. ] that aren't highly problematic are edits that go against our core content policies, and the rest are just religion/IPAK POV pushing -- support site ban. ] (]) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes we do, however it only kicks in if you can show the user was "aware" of it. In this case, the alert notice has been given, but not before most (all?) of these diffs. So its in place for next time, but given the outrageous deceit, why kick the can down the road? ] (]) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: NewsAndEventsGuy is right. This kind of report would ideally be submitted to ], but the editor ] with the ] prior to making all of these edits. The edits are both consistent and egregious enough for me to submit this report right away. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' A long time editor with a history of productive edits, that's someone to whom you give a warning shot. But it just seems that this guy shows up every year or so and makes a heap of such edits. ] 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' seems to be on a political mission, ] (]) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Guys sorry about all the disruptive edits, My father(Who is a full blown conservative) had been making all these edits for the most part,He couldnt think straight due to his old age and his political positions, The only edit i made personally was the one about the Siberian husky, Sorry about this mess, I understand that my account cant be deleted, but i still support a edit ban on this account as he still has access to this account! ] (]) 07:5, 01 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: The fact that ] added a link to what appears to be your personal website contradicts this explanation, but we will accept your suggested resolution. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *: Regarding ], My father added a page to my site's root for some reason(He has access to my cpanel from the RPI i keep in the living room for easy access, he has worked in IT before, I am just sorry about the whole thing ] (]) 09:19, 01 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| IP ] is now repeating this pattern, in what appears to be block-evasion. | |||
| == Hostility towards tag and prod removers from Ravenswing == | |||
| Out of the five edits made by this IP: | |||
| Let me preface this by saying I respect the time ] puts into the project. | |||
| Made before 58.235.154.8 ban, changed Flight 8 launch date from Early 2025 to February 2025. Doesn't add a source. | |||
| That being said, there is a problem. Ravenswing has been ]. While I personally think that in general ] that have survived for over a decade is unlikely to be entirely uncontroversial, that's not even what this is about. The issue is that when anybody has the nerve to challenge a ] or tag by Ravenswing, his response may be: | |||
| * "]" | |||
| * "]" (the "fair enough" is obviously dripping with sarcasm) | |||
| * "]" | |||
| * And he just ] the ] by repeating the same "10 years" argument over and over. | |||
| Delays ] on ] from February 2025 to March 2025. No source added. | |||
| These examples are from this month, but apparently it ain't nothing new: "]" is from December 2019. | |||
| Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added. | |||
| I have asked Ravenswing directly in the discussion on ] whether they acknowledge that this kind of approach isn't inspiring collaboration. Instead of answering the question, Ravenswing suggested I bring this to ANI. | |||
| Delays Flight 8 on List of Starship launches, again from February to March. No source added. | |||
| In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals. — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> (] or ping me) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Delays Flight 8 from February to March on dedicated article. No source added. | |||
| *"Ravenswing talks to us the way we talk to him! How beastly!" ] <sub>]</sub> 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* Aye, thank you. For instance, what ] carefully ''didn't'' quote from that bit from last December, on my user talk page, was the bit preceding it, which I invite people to review: . Or, perhaps, some of Alexis Jazz's own comments: (Just FYI, my actual answer to them, in a discussion based on the deprodders' alarm that I was prodding more articles that had been carrying notability tags for over a decade than they appreciated, was “I certainly acknowledge that "When did you stop beating your wife?" style questions aren't going to get any kind of answer from me. Feel free to take it to ANI, if you're unafraid of boomerangs.” ] 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| In addition to the ] (I beleive this was prompted by my ] deprod) that {{u|Alexis Jazz}} has already cited, I found ] unnecessarily hostile. ~] (]) 14:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I certainly found hostile, in that case, that you deprodded with a rationale that a redirect or merge was more appropriate, ''then'' you reverted the redirect, and then claimed that there were useful sources when not a single one of them actually mentioned the subject. Nor, if you were wishful of avoiding hostility, was a response of "Why don't we just close this as redirect and I'll make some improvements to Steven Martini and we'll have an edit war there or whatever" helpful. ] 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you willing to acknowledge your own hostility? You're eager here to identify it when yours brings out the worst in others. ~] (]) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' any sort of action against Ravenswing. This is just plain old silly. Disagreement can be terse but it isn't uncivil and there isn't any type of disruption to warrant any sort of ban. ] (]) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Praxidicae}} We do have editors reluctant to challenge Ravenswing's prods due to expected hostility. Isn't that a type of disruption? I do see incivility in these interactions. Am I imagining things or being overly sensitive? ~] (]) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds like they are afraid to be challenged. Doesn't seem uncivil to me. ] (]) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There's absolutely nothing civil or constructive about , , , or any of the other stuff that has been presented here. It's evident from this that Ravenswing is attempting to bully anyone who opposes their attempts at deletion. The ] are not a good sign either (, , , , , ). ''']]]''' 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support:''' This sort of thing is unfortunately very common among ] (who almost always have a victim complex as they assume bad faith toward anyone who deprods or opposes them for any reason). '''Everyone''' is entitled to deprod an article if they dispute the deletion. Controversial redirects must be discussed. Full stop. If Ravenswing has evidence that this snarkiness is called for, they should present it. But generally speaking, even an ''"eye for an eye"'' approach is disruptive. ''']]]''' 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Overzealous deletionist who almost always has a victim complex" is, in my view, more uncivil than any of the recent quotes in the OP. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] <sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 19:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::* It's not uncivil. OZ is something that I feel is aptly applicable here, and "victim complex" refers to acting like the victim after attempting to bully or harassing another user (which is something that tends to happen on Misplaced Pages, to the point that there is a ]). ''']]]''' 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*It's not a policy at all. It's an opinionated essay. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, geolocate places both IP addresses in the same region, which makes it quite likely that they are evading a ban. | |||
| ::::*The comment I was replying to originally presented ] as a policy. That's been quietly edited away. ] <sub>]</sub> 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| : ] (]) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' in case this wasn't obvious from the above. Firstly, it's not clear what admin action is being requested. Secondly, it hasn't been shown that Ravenswing is being any more hostile towards others as they are towards him. The opposite has been shown, in fact. Thirdly, the above support is so mendacious and hypocritical that I can't let it pass without comment. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:05, 31 July 2020 (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) | |||
| :*{{re|Reyk}} From OP, the requested admin action is, {{tq|In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals.}} ~] (]) 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I honestly cannot remember where to go for that. ] (]) 21:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I just double checked all of the supposed "evidence" of rudeness from Alex Jazz above, and they really don't help Raven's case (, , , ). Each of these diffs clearly show Alex and {{u|The Drover's Wife}} responding to Raven in a calm and collected manner. Calmly calling someone out for being uncivil or bludgeoning a discussion is not disruptive, and it's exactly what ] says to do. Likewise, no one needs anyone's approval to deprod an article, and no discussion is even required in the first place. Instead of ] those who do, Ravenswing needs to either open an ] or engage in dispute resolution in a less confrontational manner. Harassment in fact disruptive, regardless of whether or not you agree with the prods. ''']]]''' 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] ] (]) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks! ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (added after discussion close) | |||
| :::* Drover's Wife accuses Ravenswing of being a vandal, of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and of marking his territory like a dog cocking its leg. Ravenwing tells him to jog off and ''he'' is the bad guy? Really? Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound. ] <sub>]</sub> 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* {{green|"Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound."}} - Yes, that's very ironic coming from you. There is absolutely no weight to any of the supposed "counter evidence" against Alex Jazz. So far, no evidence has been provided that The Drover's Wife is casting aspersions either. You can poke the bee hive all day long, but that won't magically help your case. As of right now, everything else makes Raven look worse, not better. The ball is in your court. ''']]]''' 10:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*To say that the case against Ravenswing has collapsed would be to imply there ever was one. At four opposes to one support, it's clear that no action will be taken. This is not surprising: generally evidence against someone must be presented before action can be taken against them, and this has not been done. {{tq|The ball is in your court.}} The fact that you treat this as a game says a lot. ] <sub>]</sub> 11:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Would be better to decide (via RFC) the criteria for prodding. ] (]) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ** That has already been discussed to death, and regardless of criteria, it doesn't justify harassment. This is not a content issue. ] is defined as {{green|"Incivility consists of personal attacks, ] and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable"}}, which I think fits the bill here. There are claims from Reyk and Ravenswing that the deprodders were uncivil first, which I don't believe has been substantiated and Raven's statements at ] suggest that s/he is always confrontational. But even if that's the case, it still doesn't justify what Ravenswing is doing - {{green|"In general, ''be non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility''. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought he or she was being uncivil; Misplaced Pages is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see ]) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve."}} ''']]]''' 22:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *** I don't think that anyone who, a few lines above, accused another editor of having a "victim complex" is in any position to be lecturing others about incivility. ] 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **** I should clarify that I didn't say Raven necessarily has a victim complex, I said that harassing other users and then accusing them of their harassment ("victim complex") is a common trend among overzealous deletion. However, I must opine that you are treating this more as a content dispute than an actual ANI report. This thread is not an RFC about the value of prodding/de-prodding. If Ravenswing can substantiate that s/he was attacked first, I believe s/he should do so. ''']]]''' 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Another argument over the mess that is PROD - Misplaced Pages really doesn't help itself with this half-arsed method of deletion where a tag can be removed purely because someone doesn't like it, unlike a speedy tag. IMO there should only be two reasons for removing a PROD tag - 1) The reason given for deletion is either not a valid deletion reason, or is clearly not applicable to the article 2) The deletion reason is valid, but you fixed it before you removed the tag (i.e. you added sources to an unsourced article). If you're removing a PROD tag for another reason ("well, this actually looks notable, but I haven't got time to fix it now"), a ''far'' better idea would be to shift the article to Draft space so you can fix it when you can. ] 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've noticed Ravenswing's hostility too. I shrug it off myself but others are more sensitive. Note that ], who is mentioned above, has retired, specifically citing Misplaced Pages's culture of bullying as the cause. That's a shame as they were quite congenial and productive. | |||
| : ] indicates one possible reason for this unpleasantness, "''This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages.''" Per ] and ], they should not be using Misplaced Pages to blow off steam. The remedy is also indicated there, "''...work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict.''" ]🐉(]) 13:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* "You're not acting in good faith: for one, you don't tag obviously experienced users with newbie warnings because you're feeling passive aggressive. Stop tagging articles that you have no intention of ever helpfully contributing to with tags that add nothing to the article and serve no purpose except to say "Ravenswing was here" so you can see your "work" marked on articles. These tags serve exactly the same function and rationale as someone graffiting a wall in real life, and they will be reverted." That's from The Drover's Wife; it's the ''beginning'' of the exchange you claim you read. Reyk characterized that eloquently above, but if that's your definition of gentle flowers wilted by "bullying," then I don't know what to say. ] 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Hang on here.''' Curious, I went to The Drover's Wife user page to see what was what. And I see this: "Misplaced Pages has always had a hardnosed culture, and as someone who's pretty tough I've managed to get through it for a lot of years. It's one thing if people exchange hard words in a content dispute, as long as the point is ultimately to resolve that dispute, find an outcome people can live with, and move on. Bullying for the sake of bullying, over a resolved content dispute, on a level I've never experienced in all my years on Misplaced Pages, because someone feels like that's a thing those around them will accept, is a very different matter. When you're then threatened for speaking up about the influential bully's conduct, it tells you all you need to know about the culture you're dealing with." This is for an incident in ''April,'' several months after our own dispute. And you're inferring that ''I'm'' the cause? ] 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes, for some reason a lot of inclusionists seem to think they can badmouth people all they want and everyone's supposed to nod sagely like they've just dropped a devastating truth bomb. But if you backchat they get all flustered and think they're being hard done by. ] <sub>]</sub> 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Reyk, most of is spent being condescending and generally standoffish. You were recently called out for it at ] (by someone supported you) and your most recent accusation of "hardcore inclusionists" turned out to . If you believe that these unnamed "inclusionists" (whom may or may not exist) are badmouthing you, I can only speculate that's the primary reason. ''']]]''' 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Not one of those links you just dumped goes anywhere relevant. Try again. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* I think I was very clear - {{green|"your most recent accusation of "hardcore inclusionists" turned out to be objectively false."}} But thank you for continuing to demonstrate your battleground mentality. I rest my case. ''']]]''' 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*You "rest your case"? That you think this is a court of law says a lot. Actually, I don't think you will "rest your case". I suspect the pompomendacious sermonizing will just go on and on and on. ] <sub>]</sub> 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The subject here is Ravenswing and so extensive quotes from The Drover's Wife are not relevant. Ravenswing's are better in communicating the issue:{{tqb|"My Rant of the Month: Turning on the flamethrower (7/20)<br>An occasional column for rants of mine that I wanted to memorialize. For past rants, see my Rant Archive.<br>...<br>But here's where I cross the civility line, and I don't really much care.<br>...<br>what I feel for you is utter and deep contempt. |Ravenswing |ts= 02:19, 1 August 2020}} | |||
| :::]🐉(]) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If those quotes are not relevant, then neither you nor the other two who raised her as an issue should have done so. Unless you're seeking to confirm Reyk's assertions? ] 20:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanction as nothing has happened that warrants sanctions. -] ] 13:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unlikely to see anything come of this''' - Some of the diffs above show comments from Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. ...And some of the diffs above show comments towards Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. A couple notes before this thread is inevitably closed without action: (1) Don't bother asking people why they deprodded. Ideally they'll use an edit summary or leave a comment on the talk page, but beyond asking for the most basic reason, just don't bother. Been there, done that. They're not obligated to elaborate and I've never seen someone restore a prod they've removed. It's just meaningless conflict. You don't like it? Change the PROD rules. The only way I can think of that might show evidence of abuse is if we could generate a list of someone's deprods and show that some extreme number find consensus to delete at AfD, but that's hard to do and I'm still not actually sure people would support a sanction on those grounds. (2) Arguments appealing to the essay ] (or otherwise sounding alarm bells about deletionist bogeymen) tend to quickly lose me. There's no actual argument there other than "I don't like it" plus an assumption of bad faith. (3) is not ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanction whatsoever. Could {{u|Ravenswing}} act more civil & adjust his 'Tone' probably, but I don’t see any dire transgressions to warrant any sanctions. ''']''' 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Apparently it's pretty hard to write out "a PROD can be declined for any reason, so if you're giving other editors stick about it you're doing it wrong", but there we are. I wrote, anyway, and {{u|Ravenswing}} can take note that one administrator asked him point-blank to step back and stop getting in other editors faces about de-prodded articles. Is it frustrating when a crap article gets de-prodded for no reason? Of course. Is that a reason to go snark at the person who did it? Never. ] ] 19:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* No worries, that's a lesson already learned. ] 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :* This. ''']]]''' 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *In looking at this ANl, I have notice other deletion-related problems; among them is the excessive use of redirects, instead of merges or a search for additional references. As I am not going to ask for action on this , I omit diffs, but some that I reverted as samples of the problems are on my user contributions page this evening:. ''']''' (]) 03:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any sanction. When someone edits a lot, occasionally, among the many civil comments I have seen from Ravenswing, people may get angry and be a bit uncivil, including me and pretty much everyone commenting on this discussion. It's not great, and it's certainly something I've got better at the more I've edited Misplaced Pages, but we all make errors and there doesn't seem to be any history of attacking lots of other editors, maybe just not ignoring uncivil behaviour but hitting back - which probably isn't the best way to deal with it most times, but is understandable. Ravenswing has been working on the backlog at ]; it's a slog, difficult to judge, leaves you open to quite disheartening attacks from others and accusations of being an 'overzealous deletionist'. I appreciate the fact that Ravenswing is doing this valuable work. ] (]) 12:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == 109.197.152.21 == | |||
| * {{IPvandal|109.197.152.21}} | |||
| Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well. | |||
| * They removed text from 3 times this year | |||
| * from Kurdish phonology last year as well | |||
| * | |||
| * . | |||
| * | |||
| * More stuff removed/useless stuff added in other language-related pages. | |||
| Been ]. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing important information. -- ] (]) 11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" | |||
| | <strong>About the word "vandalism"</strong> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| ::"Their revisions appear to get reverted" is not our definition of ]. ] (]) 11:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{mention|Boing! said Zebedee}} Look. They remove important stuff or add useless stuff and it stays so for a few days until somebody reverts it. The reversion is not vandalism, it is correction of the vandalism to prevent further spreading of misinformation. Are you just going to let him/her continue removing important stuff/adding useless or incorrect stuff and let it stay so until somebody notices and reverts? Isn't it easier to just not allow said user to edit at all? -- ] (]) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hang on now, don't get shitty with me. I'm not defending this IP, and I'm not suggesting they've done nothing wrong. I haven't even investigated your claims. I was just trying to help you by pointing out that disruptive editing is not necessarily vandalism. This instance might be vandalism and it might not, but the mere fact that someone's edits are usually reverted does not mean it's vandalism. But if you're not interested in what we mean when we use specific terminology like "]" here, then that's entirely up to you. ] (]) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Don't get angry, I misunderstood you. I thought you thought this was not worth investigating because of the last sentence in my report. The "additions get reverted" was a tiny part of my report and I got annoyed when I thought that ruined the entire report. -- ] (]) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, let's tone it down. The documentation as to ] is important to consider when remarking on edits which are deemed otherwise ]. ] 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Removed the word "vandalism" from my entry. Sorry if I used it incorrectly and I hope something will be done :) -- ] (]) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Refactoring another's user talk page, and edit-warring to do so == | |||
| {{atop|{{noping|CommanderWaterford}} has been indefinitely blocked by Tony for ] related to ] and poor ]. ] 20:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|JorgeLaArdilla}} on ].{{pb}}CW they had been having with JLA. JLA then ( , in fact]).{{pb}}I left JLA a reminding them of WP:BLANKING. To which their response was to back to me. And carried on edit-warring on CW's talk.{{pb}}I think someone should have a word with User:JorgeLaArdilla reminding them of WP:TPO gnerally and WP:BLANKING specifically, with, perhaps, more emphasis than I've been willing/able to show.{{pb}}(I have deliberately not looked into whether JLA's original complaint to CW was sound; CaptainWaterford has come under admin scrutiny recently (,,) but he should enjoy the same "rights" on his talk page as the rest of us.) ]] 12:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like CommanderWaterford ''incorrectly'' gave JorgeLaArdilla a {{]}} warning, which JorgeLaArdilla then . Then there's a discussion on CommanderWaterford's talk page about this, which CommanderWaterford likewise (after, ironically, invoking ] to JorgeLaArdilla who joined in 2018, which CommanderWaterford himself had just templated!). JorgeLaArdilla gets upset, removing multiple sections from their own talk page, including their . Multiple ] violations are then committed on CommanderWaterford's talk page by JorgeLaArdilla. Neither party comes across looking especially well in this exchange. Both CommanderWaterford and JorgeLaArdilla are cautioned to channel more patience in their Misplaced Pages interactions. ] 13:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Generally agree with El C, <s>except</s> <u>and</u> I can sort of sympathize with JorgeLaArdilla getting upset and going kind of overboard. I'm very quickly losing faith in ]'s ability to use RedWarn, and wonder if there's a way short of blocking him to prevent him from using it anymore. I'll leave him a note to make sure he knows that this thread is about him too; he may have assumed it's all about JorgeLaArdilla. --] (]) 14:26, 31 July 2020 UTC) | |||
| :::That's a perennial problem with the JAVA-based power tools. No easy way to turn them off (that I know of). When it's an admin-conferred privilege, it only takes the click of a button. --<b>] ]</b> 14:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::After reviewing his work this morning (multiple poor CSD tags, multiple false accusations of vandalism, refusing to discuss with people raising problems) and his response to my note just now, I am going to block CommanderWaterford indefinitely if he uses RedWarn again without getting consent here to do so. --] (]) 14:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, see you at the Arbcom. Have a nice day. ] (]) 14:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|CommanderWaterford}}, uw-delete3 was likely automatically selected by RedWarn. You had 3 chances to review this decision: | |||
| ::::::* On the rollback screen, you could've selected another quick rollback reason | |||
| ::::::* Normally, you have the choice to choose a number of options after rolling back, however, you had warning selected as default, which is not a problem but did remove another chance for you to review your decision. | |||
| ::::::* On the warning screen, RedWarn deliberately illustrates its selection of a warning template. You are then shown a preview of it. You then must click the button yourself to confirm this choice and submit. | |||
| ::::::* On the user talk page, if you noticed an issue, you have a 10 second (ish) timeframe to click "undo". You can go to the page history to revert this even after the issue occurs. | |||
| ::::::RedWarn is a powerful tool, this is clearly shown at the top of the RedWarn page and in ]. More care. ] ] 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, I already left you a note on the talk page, honestly don't know what you are exactly trying to achieve by threatening me to block from using Redwarn, as I told you, wishing you anyway a nice day. ] (]) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What I am "trying to achieve" is prevent further disruption by you. --] (]) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry {{u|Floquenbeam}} but you can discuss this with the arbcom in the next days, I don't have time in life for this, sorry. ] (]) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, I am in agreement with you, actually, which I thought was reflected in my evaluation note. {{u|CommanderWaterford}}, calling Floquenbeam's warning a "threat" and escalating this to Arbitration while the matter is still ongoing here at ANI, does not inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. ] 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Didn't mean to imply we disagreed. Report was about Editor A. You commented that actually Editors A and B were both at fault, which I agree with. I'm just saying that in my opinion, Editor B is ''more'' at fault, so to speak. <small>(Floq goes and looks again at his post)</small> Ah, I see, poor word choice on my part. Fixed. --] (]) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::CW: You'll just be wasting everyone's time, as ArbCom is extremely unlikely to accept such a case at this point in the process. ArbCom is the '''''final''''' step in dispute resolution, not step #2, and they're likely going to see Floq's actions as being well within admin discretion. In fact, I'm surprised Floq gave you another chance, I thought for sure you were going to be blocked from using RedWarn (whatever that is) in this cycle, not the next one. Maybe the fcat that you're pretty much a newbie (2 months) saved your bacon. ] (]) 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<small>According to ], CW disclosed that he had a prior account to both {{u|TonyBallioni}} and {{u|Rosguill}}, fyi. Some kind of clean start, perhaps. ]] 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::<small>which they subsequently denied and demanded a cu to prove "innocence"...] (]) 15:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''indef block''' Misuse of power tools and lack of accountability for their use. Taking a wholly unacceptable approach to criticism, including but not limited to threatening to escalate to ArbCom when concerns are raised. Such is well within admin purview and well within the scope of ANI. --<b>] ]</b> 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Going back to Tony's comment at Serial Number 54129's dif's, I'd say the line has been crossed.''Adding per ] and ]'' --<b>] ]</b> | |||
| A two-month-old account citing ] and knowing about ArbCom? There's a rash of well-meaning but largely inexperienced users showing up and going nuts with Redwarn, but this particular account smells a little fishy. Like a piece of dirty laundry. ] (]) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Grandpallama}}, in fairness to CommanderWaterford, I actually informed them of ] a few weeks ago. ] 17:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I do see that was a fairly big topic on their talkpage near the beginning of the month. It looks like there are other degrees of familiarity with WP processes before that which are also alarming, though. But familiarity with DTTR seems explicable. ] (]) 17:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Reply|Grandpallama}} Somewhere up above it talks about this account being a ], though I must say the successfulness of the freshstart is open to debate. --<b>] ]</b> 17:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(ec) Yeah, telling an admin to take a hike and then threatening with Arbcom probably isn't what a fresh start is meant for. Is there any way RedWarn can be removed, short of blocking them?-- ] (]) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :How many months should someone be here before they know about DTTR and ArbCom? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] <sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::In and of itself, it's not a big deal, maybe a minor red flag at most. In combination with , it becomes part of a suspicious pattern. ] (]) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Grandpallama}}, "smells a little fishy. Like a piece of dirty laundry" - how better to discredit oneself than with such insulting comments? Ridiculous. ] (]) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * I have been keeping a general eye on the use / misuse of RedWarn as of late, and CW is one of the users that has come across my radar a few times. I am incredibly dissapointed that even in the face of what is actually quite gentle, constructive criticism, {{U|CommanderWaterford}} insists on reacting to aggressively, both in general and to Floq especially. CW, I'll be frank here: This cannot end well for you. If you want to remain unblocked, even a tiny sign that you're willing to accept criticism of your actions and attempt change your behaviour would be a good place to start. Otherwise, I'd like to propose a somewhat novel solution: an '''indef block suspended for three months''' subject to their use of automated or semi-automated editing tools. I think being forced to "get their hands dirty" will demonstrate if they're really interested in contributing constructively to the project. This will both help calm the pace of their edits, and mitigate their "warn first, ask questions never" attitude without wasting much more admin time. Hopefully we can make a helpful editor out of them! -- a <sup> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] | ] | ]</span></sup> 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes it's nice to be gentle with people as Alfie proposes, but this editor has made it clear on their talk page that they have no intention of listening to, let alone acting on, advice, so I don't see any resolution short of an indefinite block. ] (]) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I went ahead and blocked CW, per my previous final warning and their responses here and on their talk page: if there’s a consensus to lift it here or if any other admin thinks it was a mistake it is no longer needed, I don’t mind the block being lifted. ] (]) 19:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{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: | |||
| {{atop|{{an3|w}}. Will followup. Please feel free to update me, personally. ] 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| * After ] was declined by {{u|Stuartyeates}}, and I ] that such pages are not notable, Danny5784 ]. | |||
| * {{userlinks|SantiagoRamosPhysio}} | |||
| * 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 ]. | |||
| * {{userlinks|146.199.83.56}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| * {{pagelinks|McKenzie method}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] who started engaging in ] from his first edit. | |||
| <!--{{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) | |||
| As a self-described "Physiotherapist with 18 years of experience... trained in the McKenzie Method" there is an obvious ]. | |||
| :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 == | |||
| COI edits: | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Personal attacks: | |||
| * "Oh, so you decide which research articles are worth summarising properly and which ones aren’t? I’m so glad you’re here to protect the rest of us plebs from information you don’t agree with! You and your pals are clearly enjoying your power trip. Personally, I’ve greatly enjoyed putting you down, but I have better things to do with my life, so I'll try to think of other ways to make this right (mostly out of principle) and perhaps come back one day. Or not. Entitled trolls like you are what give Misplaced Pages a bad name. Enjoy the afterglow! You are the winningest of all the winners and not at all pathetic! (And PLEASE correct me once more because I wouldn’t want to deprive you of another orgasm." | |||
| * "You and your friends are coming across as more interested in proving your point than in cooling things down, and you seem to have absolutely no interest in actually updating and improving the article. As it stands, this Misplaced Pages page is incredibly misleading. I feel bad for the people who were trying to update it, it looks like you’ve bullied them into submission and punished them by making the article even worse than when they started trying to update it. I had no idea Misplaced Pages worked this way, it really makes me question all the other Misplaced Pages articles out there… " | |||
| * "Any neutral observer (which you absolutely aren’t, having been edit-warring this article for months)... if you’ve become the self-appointed guardian of this article, and you’re letting your pride cloud your judgment... the three of four editors that appear to be your friends who have been tag-teaming here for months... your comments make it clear that you have a HUGE interest in proving to others that you’re right, and that you know more than they do. It really does look like you’re letting your personal feelings affect your judgment, and you’re not being objective..." | |||
| * "a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the conclusions of a study, and I believe it clearly shows bias, and potentially a conflict of interest or some sort of personal agenda. Some of these editors have been edit-warring for months, which leads me to believe that they're letting their personal animosity towards the people trying to update the article cloud their judgement. The fact that someone with power is letting his personal feelings affect the information presented in a Misplaced Pages article on a scientific matter is troubling." | |||
| :Sorry, I only intended it to be up there for minutes at most before changing it back. ] (]) 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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::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 == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Userlinks|Cambial_Yellowing}} | |||
| This editor is starting ] again, just reverted , and has done this before with these edits and , repeatedly.! | |||
| Some people seem to be unconvinced that this psychological tool is valid and repeatedly insert things such as "pseudoscientific" in the lede or categorise it as "Alternative Medicine", even though it is almost never categorised as such in scientific literature. Although the MBTI is very controversial, this does not seem to be constructive editing. --] (]) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I tried to communicate on ] but editor just went away! | |||
| :Probably because - a , invented by a couple of ''']''' <small>(])</small> 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| For such behavior the editor has been | |||
| ::Bingo. ] (]) 17:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>Apropos of nothing, my "personality types" story: as part of a class my first year of university, a guest lecturer gave us a bunch of those personality tests (to "learn about how we best work with others"), and at one point I stood up and asked the lecturer what difference it made if I was an ], or whatever my ] value is, or any of the other "types", when the tests are so obviously gameable as to be meaningless. She responded "well of course you'd say that, you're an INTJ!" Probably the only time in my life somebody has used reasoning so circular that I was literally left speechless. ] (]) 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::<small>Is that a taughtology? ] (]) 02:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tautolly. ] 04:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| This editor last time also pushed me to violate ] , | |||
| == Move dispute on ] / ] == | |||
| 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.''" | |||
| Yesterday ] moved ] to ], claiming that the current page title resulted from a "bogus" page move back in February. ] and I disagreed (see ], so I moved the page back to its previous title at ]. Cold Season further disagreed and moved the page again to his preferred title and stated that he was acting per ] and Horse Eye Jack or I must open a ]. | |||
| Because, before this, i was reading similar article, ] and the criticism section make it easy to understand. | |||
| I'm aware that, regardless of whether one considers the February move part of today's "revert chain", Cold Season's latest page move would be the second time he moved the page within 24 hours despite opposition from two other editors. Since there is a possible edit warring situation, and that the ] process only opens up a local discussion and thus unlikely to generate a local consensus, I'm escalating to ANI. There are two questions for which we would like outside opinion: | |||
| * Did Cold Season (or I, or any other involved editor) violate ] or any other relevant policy? | |||
| * Which page title is better? ]] 17:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| ::You should have opened a RM yourself, instead of implementing without consensus or discussion a move from the original "killing of..." title. You decided not to do so. --] (]) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::Why edit war though? I told you before that two wrongs don’t make a right and now I’m telling you that four wrongs don’t make a right... You don’t appear to be getting the point. ] (]) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::? <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. | |||
| == Talk page disruption by a proxy == | |||
| 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) | |||
| At ], {{IPuser|36.77.92.128}} ] a comment that copied a sentence from mine almost verbatim. This caught my attention as a possible attempt at creating an impression of canvassing or puppetry. Then I realized another IP from ], {{IPuser|36.77.92.121}}, had spuriously ] a bunch of articles as subjects of the RM despite the OP's (]) intention. {{IPuser|36.77.93.19}} is also clearly the same person, ] after 36.77.92.121. | |||
| :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) | |||
| and test quite poorly on IPQualityScore. There clearly seems to be an attempted disruption, but I can't quite pin down what kind or by whom. But I think the range is worth looking into and should at least be blocked on the basis of being an open proxy. ] (]) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (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) | |||
| * '''Block''' the IPs. They have disrupted my requested move of ]. Therefore, I had to withdraw the RM and start a discussion at ]. --] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> 04:44, 1 August 2020 (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 is no "nom". I'm just alerting admins. ] (]) 05:14, 1 August 2020 (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 ] == | |||
| == Knox490 == | |||
| {{atop|1=Done (for now). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|2600:1700:9366:e040:506c:d71c:7e0b:3528}} | |||
| ] please. ] ] 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No response there; strictly speaking it might not be the most obvious vandalism in any case.--] ] 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. ] (]) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (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) | |||
| **{{ping|Isabelle Belato|Acroterion}} Needs talk page access yanked too.--] ] 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Done. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Meatpuppetry/tag teaming at Conor Benn == | |||
| ] has continued to beat a dead horse into a pulp over at ] for 4 days or more over the issue of Molyneux being called a white supremacist. Their essential argument being "RS are wrong" ]. Its time this was stopped.] (]) 18:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Resolved. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I provided ample evidence for what I maintained. I did so in a cordial manner despite some incivility of some of the discussion participants. I also invoked a Misplaced Pages rule which is designed to amicably resolve situations such as this.] (]) 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Conor Benn}} | |||
| :: I've been following this (as a non-participant) with some interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, Knox490, but essentially you are using an ] argument to set aside the RS SECONDARY coverage of this matter and base the article text on PRIMARY research? ] (]) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ], 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 ]? | |||
| :::Newimpartial, yes. That is correct. The mainstream press is not infallible. And in cases where they are wrong, it makes sense to do so.] (]) 18:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the sake of cordiality, I have decided to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.] (]) 19:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| I think the issue may go deeper than just this one article.] (]) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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) == | |||
| == Muboshgu Censorship and Overlording == | |||
| An ] is behaving similary to an ] blocked by last November. The orignal block was later extended due to ]. | |||
| Admin user Moboshgu openly likes to use their admin privileges to censor information on political figures or notably referenced quotes they don’t like without opening consensus discussions and then turns around and tries to act like the editors he censors are the ones that have to open a consensus. They abuse their position. They act as an arbitrator of truth, you can find their actions on the politician Karen Bass’s wiki page. Tired of these partisan hacks acting like arbitrators of truth by censoring completely valid and verified information they don’t want others to see or know about their pages they watch. Misplaced Pages!!! Get it STRAIGHT and NEUTRAL. People like this admin have no business being here whatsoever. ] (]) 19:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Sirsentence}}, please provide diffs of the edits that you believe were improper. You also have failed to notify Muboshgu (whom I assume is the actual subject of this section) as required by the ANI instructions. Please see the red box towards the top of the page for how to do so. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I've checked their edits in the last 2 years on that page (4, in total). None used any admin tools afaict (that is, they're engaging as a regular editor). They removed new edits cited to Fox News. Per the recent RfC, doing this and seeking consensus on the Talk Page (where they have raised a discussion) seems perfectly legitimate. Consensus is needed to retain edits like this. In lieu of Sirsentence providing specific diffs of policy-breaking behaviour, I'm inclined to say no foul. ] (]) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Nosebagbear}}, yeah I acknowledge my ] in US politics and do not act as an admin on AP2 pages, except in the cases of extreme vandalism. – ] (]) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *This was unwise. I anticipate a ]. First of all, I was not notified of this post, even though the instructions are clear, in red lettering, that you are supposed to notify someone when discussing them here. Second, when adding contested information to a page, the ] is on the person who wants to add it, not the person who opposes it, to establish consensus. Third of all, I have used the talk page, at ], and so far you have not. Finally, there is the highly POV content of your addition, seen and , to which I have a valid objection as even the Fox News source you use doesn't go as far in attacking Bass as your edit does. – ] (]) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *How does one apply to be an overlord? Asking for a friend. ] (]) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*<small>If you have to ask then you'll never be one. ] (]) 20:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::*<small>I was offered an overlordship, but I held out for being Lord of the Underworld, which I was told was already occupied by some orange guy in Washington, DC, Tramp or Dump or something like that. ] (]) 06:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *When I see accusations of "partisan hacks" concerning political topics in election years I am reminded of the parable of ]. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 20:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The location of these IP addresses are all quite similar, which I have attached below. | |||
| == "Feminism is as bad as racism." New user Velvetlaptop looks like Dcasey98 sock == | |||
| Back in March I reported this person, resulting in a block. See ]. The person is strongly nationalistic, pro-American to the point of absurdity. Now they have a new username, {{u|Velvetlaptop}}. | |||
| The first involvement I found from this person was activity on the IP range ] in 2017. They shifted to the range ] in June 2019. Activity on the range included climate topics, pop culture topics such as music and fashion, and politics. One locus of trouble was at ] in August 2019 with the person blanking a section and saying, "America gave Britain its modern musical heritage." Another trouble spot was the article ] in which this person said, "Fuck off. '''Feminism is as bad as racism.''' It’s a female supremacy movement that has ran unchecked for decades..." | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In March 2019, the IP ] began disrupting the ] article, saying, "America invented punk..." This stuff was reverted, and {{u|Honethefield98}} continued the disruption. Honethefield98 was found to be a sockpuppet at ], who was also using the same range of IPs. | |||
| :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) | |||
| In February 2020, this person began using the IP ], tagging a bunch of global music genres as being American. This IP returned to the 2010s article to add a bunch of fashion stuff, unreferenced. | |||
| ::<small>] - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Thank you for the correction on my wording. ] (]) 23:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment and personal attacks == | |||
| ] was blocked by {{u|Berean Hunter}} in May for a period of three years. Today, the range ] was blocked for six months by {{u|Widr}}, followed one minute later by new user Velvetlaptop picking up where the IPs left off, restoring reverted material. I have a discussion going at ], but it looks like the user should be indeffed as a sock of Dcasey98. ] (]) 02:30, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| :{{an3|b|indef}}. Story is not adding up. Perhaps they can offer a cogent explanation, but it's best if they were to do so in the form of an unblock request. ] 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Indef'd. Completely unacceptable behavior. ] (]/]) 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''? ] (]) 23:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The "track down" comment crossed a huge line, in my book. That's not cool. ] (]/]) 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. - ] <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) | |||
| :::::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 ==== | |||
| ::{{reply to|El_C}} Ha, smoking gun on their userpage now... Our exchange I'll quote here, starting with my statement: "{{tq|Let me quote what you state above, ''"] has often battled with me on Misplaced Pages on my original IP address, and repeatedly reverted a sourced edit I made to Heavy Metal music about 5 months ago that was reverted..."'' The only reverts "five months ago" on the Heavy metal music by Binksternet were to revert an Checkuser blocked sockpuppet named Grafton56 (sockpuppet of Dcasey98). Binksternet reverted no IPs and no other accounts "five months ago", and no other repeated reverting of a user or IP has occurred by Binksternet this year on that page. This to me reads that you are saying that you are Grafton56 (aka Dcasey98), no? Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (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. | |||
| ::to which they replied | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer; interested in further comments on the scope of a topic ban. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"{{tq|That was indeed the account I had used at my previous address a long while after I had lost the Dcasey98 account. I think I mentioned this, or at the very least implied it, on one of your talk pages. I'm often frustrated to find seemingly convenient accusations of sockpuppetry linked to me, often over accounts that I have lost the log-in information for and can no longer access. That's why I was mainly focused on my current IP conduct, on which I abided by any bans I have ever received, under which I made this account today. I think it's counterproductive to accuse anyone who's ever owned two+ Misplaced Pages accounts of engaging in sockpuppetry, and banning them continuously for it. Velvetlaptop 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Lengthen the block if you want. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Acroterion has since marked them as that sock, and turned off their talkpage access. ] (]) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| {{od}}Two new socks today by Dcasey98: one edit by Illinois IP ], and some reversions by ]. ] (]) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| *:::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 ]. (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 ]. | |||
| *:::*: 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 | |||
| *:::*] shows the same pattern of coming in very strong with personal attacks and aspersions, then backing down and apologizing a while later. | |||
| *:::**Similarly on other talk pages {{tq|Did you just revert it because you hate change, or was there some actual reason?}} | |||
| *:::*] 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 ] 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.}} ]. | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| ==== Proposal: Reinstate indef ==== | |||
| == Flagrant Twitter Endorsements == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = Blocked | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| | result = {{np|209.122.10.206}} for '''3 months''' for the persistent addition of poorly-sourced content by {{np|El C}} {{nac}}] ] 14:02, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| This IP User: ] continues to add Twitter Endorsements to different pages. They have been warned many times about not adding solo Twitter Endorsements. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many warnings on one talk page. Most recently I had to change back something on ]. Thank you! ] (]) 03:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous8206 == | |||
| These warnings were mainly for unsourced or poorly sourced edits as well as speculative vandalism and being uncivil to other editors. They have had way too many warnings in my opinion. ] (]) 03:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :{{an3|b|3 months}}. ] 03:51, 1 August 2020 (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}} | {{abot}} | ||
| ==Two editors edit warring and attacking others while whitewashing fascism of an individual== | |||
| == More eyes needed on Patrisse Cullors == | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| ] is one of the founders of the Black Lives Matters movement, which unsurprisingly is despised by the right wing (bloggers especially). | |||
| ::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. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Camarada internacionalista}} | |||
| As such her article has had a succession of mainly drive-by editors trying to push “Marxist” into the article. Although it’s been somewhat civil and mainly a content dispute, I’m wondering if there is anything else we can do as it’s a bit exhausting to deal with the same issue repeatedly. ] (]) 05:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 ]. | |||
| Both of them were sufficiently warned. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello ]! I am not an administrator but I saw this post and I added warnings to this page. Anyone who makes further disruptive edits, I will report. I’ll let the administrators take it from there! ] (]) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| :Full protected it for four days, that should knock off the edit warring and give some time for a consensus to build. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| I have blocked both editors indefinitely. ] <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == 2601:600:817F:B270:0:0:0:0/64 - personal attacks == | |||
| :{{Ping|Gleeanon409}} Oh, and by the way you were definitely edit warring, don't do that. I have decided not to block you only because I've protected the page, but I doubt another admin would have been so kind. Don't push your luck going foward. Even if you're right, that doesn't mean you can break ]. ] <sup>]</sup>] 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|CaptainEek}}, apparently she "learned about Marxist thinkers". We had a programme at school that also did this: it was called "history". ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Likewise for me. Our history teacher (Britain, early 1960s) was an Irish Catholic communist and Marxism was prominent on his curriculum. He was very successful – in putting us all completely off communism. ] (]) 10:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apologies, I should have come here sooner. ] (]) 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have come across this a while ago, and spent some time looking into a YouTube source that a new account had used (can't remember which one, but can dig it out if anyone is interested). For what its worth, there is a video of her being interviewed some years ago where she does describe herself as a "trained Marxist", but the context is important. The interview was about setting up the Black Lives Matter movement, and the interviewer was asking her whether the movement was grounded in theory (in a history/political science sense). Her response included a brief statement that she was a "trained Marxist", by which I inferred that she meant that she had studied Marxist theory, but they moved on and didn't explore that phrase. I agree that for any mention to be made of it in the article, we'd need a heavyweight sourcing with discussion of what is meant by the word in this context - it's not a ] shat should be used glibly, or without thorough explanation. ]] 13:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please consider pasting this in the new RfC. ] (]) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| == GA nomination disruption == | |||
| :I blocked. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{atopy | |||
| ::Just for the one IP, though - the range is unblocked, looks like. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| ::Thanks. I was sleeping, but good to see action being taken. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| == Incivility and edit-warring == | |||
| {{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: | |||
| {{Userlinks|Thelittlefaerie}} | |||
| {{userlinks|MapReader}} has continued to disrupt {{pagelinks|Little Women (2019 film)}}. First, they . Next, they made cosmetic changes to the article in relation to its and asserted that their {{tq|substantive}} contributions showed that the article was not ready for GA. Per this , I have referred them to ], where it specifically states that users should not impose " own stylistic preferences", but they have continued to edit the article without adding any content. There are currently many film articles nominated for GA, so I don't understand their obsession with this particular one. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Wizmut}} | |||
| All of that said, MapReader has stated that I, the article's GA nominating editor, . Per , they also suggested that I'm not adhering to ], so I would like to put my own conduct under scrutiny. I welcome any feedback. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a very strange report, and I would ask for a WP:BOOMERANG here since IMO the reporting editor is struggling with both WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in relation to this article, about a film listed on their userpage as among a small number of his or her favourite films. I don't believe that my editing history evidences any of the above accusations. If an article is put forward for GA, it is not reasonable to describe matters such as corrections to grammar, punctuation, formatting of quotations as "cosmetic changes". My comments about the article not being ready for GA were reasonable and measured, flagging areas where more work is needed to get the article up to standard. Editing the article "without adding any content" is perfectly permissible and frequently helpful - certainly for an article aspiring for GA. I don't see any evidence that I have an "obsession" with this particular article - my recent edit history evidences hundreds of edits on other articles, including adding content to get a Geography/Places article up to potential GA standard, and as a frequent editor of film pages my interest in this particular article is no greater than in very many others. The other editor seems excessively keen to revert my changes even where they are simply modest improvements to the article, and equally keen to get into some sort of dispute process when such is neither appropriate nor justified. Even the title of this report is unnecessarily gratuitous, with nothing in my edit history to back it up; indeed the reporting editor has previously thanked me for my help to move the article toward standard. ] (]) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If your reason for removing the GA nomination was so {{tq|reasonable and measured}}, then why did an administrator state, ? You copyedited the article without adding/removing any actual content (e.g., modifying {{tq|In April 2020, ''Deadline Hollywood'' calculated the net profit of the film to be $56 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues}} to {{tq|In April 2020, ''Deadline Hollywood'' calculated its net profit to be $56 million}}), so "cosmetic" is the word I would use. Forgive me for not noticing your contributions to other current film article GA nominations. Can you kindly direct me to one of them? ]<sup>]</sup> 07:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is disappointing that your approach to discussion comes across as so combative. Whether or not my comments about the GA nomination were reasonable is something others can judge - I linked to them directly above. The Administrator's comment you tag was fair enough, and the article remains in the GA queue. Indeed nothing would disrupt the nomination more than your frequent proposals for RfCs on the most minor of textual changes, which would take weeks to resolve and put your nomination on hold meantime. The edit you quote above is a good example - the sentence said "net profit" and then went on to say "when factoring together all expenses and revenues". The second part is unnecessary and simply padding to say the same thing as "net profit" again. The term "net profit" crops up regularly in articles and doesn't need defining each time; if there is any uncertainty a link to the relevant WP article is the answer, and I have added one into the article. Such an edit is not "cosmetic" and I would ask you to reflect on whether dismissing other editors' contributions in this way is the best way to approach things? Besides, even if they were cosmetic changes, why all the fuss? Filing an ANI report because you think someone else is making cosmetic changes to an article is simply wasting the Administrators' time. ] (]) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|MIHAIL}} | |||
| {{u|KyleJoan}}, {{u|MapReader}} I've had a look at this, and the situation is not quite as KyleJoan has described. MapReader cancelled the GA nomination because he felt the article was not ready, but did so because has an interest in improving it and since he has contributed to it, he doesn't feel it would be appropriate to review it (presumably, with the intention of quickfailing it because it is not ready). For example, in , he says "What is stated in the article needs to be cited (with statements in the lead supported by the article)." and that's right, because good articles must adhere to the ], being an accurate summary of what is correct and verifiable in the article body. Elsewhere, I see claiming "stylistic preferences", but what you reverted seems to be a simple case of copyediting and making the prose a little tighter and easier to read. | |||
| {{Userlinks|Magnolia677}} | |||
| I see that the article is up for GA review again; I would personally be tempted to quickfail it for failing ]. "Stability", but that probably wouldn't be constructive. Aside from you reverting each other, I don't see MapReader being anything other than helpful and putting the article in a state where it genuinely is "good". He's not making major structural changes. I ''totally understand'' how you can get pissed off when you've done a lot of work on an article and somebody comes along and fiddles with it, but you really really have to resist the urge to do anything, because the chances are the other editor is just trying to help you. I would simply let MapReader "have at it" and let him have his copyedit. The two of you have a shared goal - improving the article - so why not focus on working together as a team? | |||
| Dates: | |||
| tl;dr - content dispute, no administrator action required ] ] ] 09:08, 1 August 2020 (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. | |||
| == Edit war (sorry!) == | |||
| 21 Dec 2024 : Thelittlefaerie tries again, this time using a source, but an unreliable one. | |||
| I’m sorry, but I could not figure out the edit war noticeboard. On the page ], ] keeps adding back controversial information without coming to a consensus. I believe that they even broke the 3 revert rule. If someone could please take a look that would be great. Once again, sorry this is the wrong noticeboard, the other one was a bit confusing. Thank you! ] (]) 07:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : There are two users asking for "consensus" but effectively blocking the addition of specific content. They provide no sources, their references to policy are pretty artificial, and they do not provide much if any constructive contribution. The contention centers around the addition of Patrisse Cullors' self-description as a marxist, which has been supported by 8 users on the talk page (myself included) during the past few weeks. There are quality secondary sources and the primary source is provided as well. The addition consists of a few words (10-15) on the page of an activist that has over 800, yet this is called POV-pushing, undue, etc. I almost initiated a procedure here but I felt that the matter was solved, the two users being unable to engage meaningfully on the talk page, consistently falling back on their request for "context", because the proposed addition is considered to be in itself a political statement which could have consequences outside of wikipedia. If need be I can of course provide diffs and attempt to detail the debate a bit more. ] (]) 08:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Fa Suisse}}Even if you're right, don't ]. You have just narrowly escaped a block, only because I opted to full protect the page. Do not break ]. At any rate, this board does not solve content issues. What it seems like is needed at this point is either formal ], or for someone to create a neutrally worded ] on the subject. ] <sup>]</sup>] 08:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think the decision was wise (as to my intentions, I was not planning on reverting any further). The discussion is still proceeding on the talk page and we'll see if this needs formal dispute resolution or a RFC. Thank you. ] (]) 09:36, 1 August 2020 (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 ]. | |||
| == Gd123lbp and Alex Jones == | |||
| 26 Dec 2024 : User ] (] and ]) changes the figure back to an official source. (yes that government does use google drive links) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Gd123lbp}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Alex Jones}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|InfoWars}} | |||
| * DS Alert: | |||
| 3 Jan 2025 : Thelittlefaerie changes it back to his version, and in the edit summary he uses the phrase ''"This is your final straw."'' | |||
| Gd123lbp has been complaining about how unfairly Misplaced Pages treats Alex Jones, which is fine; with 10 million monthly visits to ''InfoWars'', a few of them showing up on Misplaced Pages to complain is inevitable. However, despite there being a clear consensus against him on the article talk page, he has been edit warring to remove sourced material from the article. --] (]) 14:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| They have now said that Guys posting a link to this is a PA.] (]) 15:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Partial-blocked for a week from the article and talk page. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#000">愛</span> ])</span> 15:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **It is working so far. No disruption elsewhere and he just made a noncontroversial edit to ]. Good call. --] (]) 11:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| == Legal threat against me/WMF(?) == | |||
| 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. | |||
| I recently reverted an edit by ] on the ] page (]) due to it being an unreferenced change to a BLP article. I gave them a level 1 notice for an unreferenced BLP addition. They shortly after ] seeming to believe I represent Misplaced Pages/WMF and threatening legal action. I ] stating that I do not work for WMF, nor represent Misplaced Pages, and attempted to give them advice on what to do. I'm not quite sure if this was the right thing to do in terms of responding, however I attempted to be as helpful as possible in regards to the issue. I've asked on IRC to talk to an administrator and was recommended to post about this here, which I was wishing to avoid making it public however I don't quite see a quieter route for this. ] (]) 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Yeah, the IP might well be the article's subject; Kris Weston has mentioned his autism diagnosis widely on social media and his own website, so I can understand why they might be upset even though you technically did the right thing. ] 19:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *There are more edits from the same /64 range, all of them to ] except for the post on your page, ]. Contributions . Note especially . I have blocked 2A00:23C5:BB05:9500::/64 for two weeks for personal attacks. Perhaps another admin wishes to block them for longer for legal threats; I don't have much taste for it myself. ] | ] 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC). | |||
| :: Thank you for the assistance. I'll hold off on archiving the post on my talk page until this discussion is closed; the post is a tad out of place. ] (]) 22:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I have added an NLT block as well. --] | ] 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also note edit. I think that semi protection is needed for the article and talk page.] (]) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm I reading this right? Threat over ''removing'' "autistic"? --<b>] ]</b> 02:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::This guy has been at it since 2005 apparently: . <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ]</span> ] 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, that's arelief. --<b>] ]</b> 03:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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."'' | |||
| :::{{RFPP|s|1 week}} --<b>] ]</b> 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I would like help in responding to this user, who has exhausted my patience. | |||
| == Issues with a user == | |||
| ] (]) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, | |||
| :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) | |||
| Please let me appeal to your tolerance if this is posted in the wrong place. I joined Misplaced Pages yesterday and was almost immediately threatened with a ban by a {{u|Celestina007}} who has continued to be abusive since then, both on my talk page and on other pages, including purposefully misrepresenting my answer to a question she put to me and telling other editors "not to bother" investigating my request for help at the Teahouse. I’m not so concerned about editing the article in question, some Wikipedians have explained the process around that to me and that’s fine but given that she’s been following me around the site I’m actually now worried about posting or editing ''anywhere'' and feel effectively bullied off the site. Could someone take a look at this for me please? | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Thank you! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{atop|result={{NAC}} {{u|Swagsgod}} blocked and TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *In this you competely & significantly overhauled an article “]” I reverted your edit & rather than discuss your proposed changes in the talk page of the article you undid my revert & labeled me a “vandal” as can be observed . Now In this {{noping|Ian.thomson}} told you the same thing I told you earlier which was, for such bold changes discussing it in the talk page of the article is good practice. Then in this here you cast ] by insinuating that {{u|Aciram}} is a sockpuppet of mine with 0 proof to substantiate that. You proceed to go to the TEAHOUSE to attack my character as seen . I’m afraid defending myself isn’t stalking you. In that same TEAHOUSE you were told the same thing every other editor remotely involved in this has been telling you, which is; seek consensus first at the TP of the article, simple! Furthermore please stop using your “expert editor on occultism” excuse to introduce ] into the article & if you’d quit with the ] that wouldn’t be a bad idea as well. It’s never about what you know for a fact but rather what you can prove via ].''']''' 22:44, 1 August 2020 (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) | |||
| :Looking into it. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{U|Celestina007}} My first edit was my overhauling of ]. Being new, I was unaware that overhauling an article was considered problematic for you. In my edit summary, I asked anyone reverting it to continue the discussion on the talk page. You undid it, I rolled it back, you undid it again and since then I have not touched that article. Your first interaction with me, which can be seen on my talk page, a few hours after I'd opened an account to contribute my learning, was to threaten me with a ban. There was no discussion, no explaining, just you on a power-trip, abusing a new user. I advised that I wanted another editor to check over my work. You asked me a question about whether I had any practical experience of the occult and when I answered yes but that that wasn't relevant to my edits you behaved appallingly, openly telling me that you hadn't bothered to read the rest of my detailed response but that you'd caught me out and that I was pushing POV. You ''know'' that that is a lie. After more of your abuse and power-tripping and because I didn't want to presume the time of {{u|Eggishorn}} who'd been kind enough to explain a few editorial matters to me and who also called you out for your aggression, I went to the Teahouse to ask if other users could help me to deal with you because I felt that if I made any further edits, anywhere on the site, your ego would go berserk again. You followed me there, said untrue things about our discussion and then told the people that I was turning to for help not to bother getting involved. You've left me no choice but to ask an admin for input. I would like to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I have a lot of learning in some areas that I'd like to share and I do not want you to continue stalking me and abusing me while I do that, in fact I do not want you to ever communicate with me again. You should read your own comments back to yourself in a spirit of honesty and feel ashamed of how you have behaved. Also, I am aware that if you've done this with me you'll have almost certainly done it with other users as well who won't now be editing because they've been bullied and abused from the minute they have started contributing. You have caused me to feel that this website is a hostile environment but I will do what I can to make sure I'm the last person you do that to. So, I would ask any admin to check over our contact with each other; let them see my talk page, my contributions at the Teahouse and on the ] talk page. You've written the words that are there; I think you should be judged by them. ] (]) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeffed. Here is an example of the stuff they are spamming: | |||
| :::Feel free to do you, don’t just be disruptive. I’ve “watched” & “bookmarked” that page since 2017 & if you are going to up & make such drastic changes please propose them first at the talk page of the article. Simple! Quit dragging me. ''']''' 00:13, 2 August 2020 (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}} | |||
| :::: Like I said when I opened this complaint, none of this is about the article. I'm an intelligent person, once it was explained to me that there's something of an etiquette around major edits, I understood that and I've been using the talk page since then. This complaint is about your behaviour. ] (]) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{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) | |||
| :::::As a point of order: {{u|Bohemian Alchemyst}}, before they even registered, attempted to discuss the issues with the article on the talk page and received no response. The idea that they came stomping in and whacked a great heap of changes in without attempting to engage is a herring so red it makes candy apples look dull. I also note that {{u|Celestina007}} has yet to respond on the article talk except to accuse BA of socking, not apparently noticing the timestamps of the initial talk page post or BA's explicit acknowledgement that the IP comment was theirs before they registered. I don't honestly know what to make of this. There is nothing that should have resulted in immediate threats and it's all way out of proportion to an obvious good-faith attempt to contribute content and improve the project. BA could have done better but we tend to cut newbies that want to contribute some slack - that is what AGF says, after all. The lack of AGF that should be extended by experienced users is disappointing. This is certainly not how we should welcome subject-matter experts to the project, with templates and threats. At this point, however, there is nothing here that should result in administrative action. ] ] ] 06:37, 2 August 2020 (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}} | |||
| == IP Editor(s) continuously changing flags without source == | |||
| :I'm outdenting out of context. I hope to suggest to both parties and admins and others who taken action or interest in reports of this nature that a period of quiet reflection be taken by involved parties, with a view to quiet resolution away from this board. This feels like a ] that has escalated almost by accident. There is no long term problem here, just a ] (0.9 probability). | |||
| :I'd like to see olive branches held out by both {{u|Celestina007}} and {{u|Bohemian Alchemyst}} to each other (probably on one or other editor's talk page, not here on this board in the harsh glare of other editors' opinions), and a quiet resolution of a situation which most assuredly ought never to have happened. I am making a conscious decision not to "''A said, B said''" here, but to make a firm suggestion of each of them standing away from this for at least 24 hours and then either approaching the other in spirit of working together and both discussing how to improve Misplaced Pages rather than sparking off each other. | |||
| :If that happens successfully please may I suggest that this be closed as "No action needed, issue resolved"? | |||
| :If it does not happen, certainly let whatever transpires here take its course after due consideration. ] ] 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Mohd.maaz864 == | |||
| ], ], ] and ] ] (]) 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am at something of a loss as to how to approach {{user|Mohd.maaz864}}. This user is a relatively infrequent editor who has a somewhat abrasive and disruptive editing style that I have not been able to address. I previously gave them a warning at their talk page (]), which describes some of the problematic and somewhat off-putting behaviors that this editor has engaged in. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about (though essentially every edit that they've made is in this style): | |||
| *] (, I would have quoted it but it's very long) | |||
| *] (same) | |||
| *At least somewhat disruptive edit summaries: | |||
| ** edit summary: {{tq|1=Undid revision 970463345 by PedroLucasDBr (talk): “Unconstructive” how? Don't be impetuous because of your WP:UAL. I didn't mention the relevant docs owing to an advice of much-senior ''editor'' but here they are, chronologically: MOS:RETAIN, 2nd para in WP:MOS, and WP:GLOBAL. If you can't fix any of my lapses, please don't break!}} | |||
| ** edit summary {{Tq|1=Undid revision 970593489 by Marko67efc (talk): Welcome to Misplaced Pages, "dear"! Regardless of whether you happened to just watch the rerun of that documentary on AJE a while ago or something else motivated you to know more about him, but what you've done is called vandalism here. Hopefully, you'll stay.}} ("Welcome to Misplaced Pages, "dear"!"?) | |||
| **: {{tq|1=Undid revision 969019342 by Aroma Stylish (talk): Spelled-out my tags questionable to the extent of any reason! There's no compulsion to open talk-page to merely "discuss" inline tagging if they're succinctly explained in "reason=" parameters and even duly-linked to their respective policies for oblivious editors in edit-summaries — especially when they're. Cease-and-desist from acting obtuse and vandalism. ''Shabbat Shalom!'}} | |||
| These are just the first diffs I came across; there are many more. I simply cannot make sense of what's going on here. A large portion of the edits this editor makes is varying levels of disruptive and the editor doesn't seem to get it, though they're likely here in good faith. The user's been previously blocked by {{U|Bishonen}} for {{tq|1=edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression}}. Any advice? ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 20:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Their various responses to my block in 2018 were just as strange as the diffs you found, ]. I would have thought by now they'd either have learned better or been indeffed, frankly. 's their unblock request (warning, may cause dehydration) and one of their responses to me. Since it was in 2018, it doesn't matter. Just saying that what you found is not a new thing, Kevin. As for their being here in good faith, welll... is that your honest opinion, or just your Wikipoliteness? ] | ] 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC). | |||
| :My advice involves opening their userpage, selecting your block tool of choice, entering a reason like ], ]/], or ], and pressing the go button. ] (]) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree. ] | ] 21:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC). | |||
| :::I agree too. Indef'd for NOTHERE. ] (]) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That works. Thanks all. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And thanks for shutting down talk page access. That screed was the icing on top of the lovely cake. ] (]) 13:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == 142.190.62.131 == | |||
| == serious issue with another user == | |||
| 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) | |||
| here is the story: | |||
| : 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) | |||
| == IP range edit warring on variety of Canadian politics articles == | |||
| basing on the experience I acquired about sources, writing a gay porn bio myself, I decided to get rid of all the not notable gay porn bio (there are so many, believe me). So, I started reading them, checking out the sources and when I found one that wasn't notable I put an advice on my page ], I left a message on the article's discussion page to ask if people had more sources and I looked for more sources myself. if after one or two weeks I couldn't find any significant source I nominated the article. | |||
| Anyone can see the result of my job here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats | |||
| everything was fine until {{ping|Gleeanon409}}: entered into a discussion, since then he kept following me around accusing me to nominate with out doing WP:BEFORE. I asked him to check my statistics to see that my nomination are pretty reasonable but most of all I asked him, politely, 1000 times, to argue the sources and not me. obviously he kept accusing me in any discussion (more than once per discussion). the first time he accused me I also left a message in his talk page to ask him if he wanted to help me out to find better sources for articles before I nominated them but he never answered. | |||
| I asked for help on the teahouse but no one could help me. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| So, how does this story end? | |||
| # | |||
| I can't simply stand his personal attacks no more, so I have insulted him. for this reason I will be banned from wikipedia. obviously, for our community telling a person he is an A.H. or to F.O. is way worst that stalking a person for weeks pulling his never to the point he is ok with being kicked out as long as he gets rid of its stalker. --] (]) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| 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) | |||
| I just saw that an admin here said he (Gleeanon409) should have been blocked for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#More_eyes_needed_on_Patrisse_Cullors | |||
| --] (]) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} {{nacc}} {{ping|AlejandroLeloirRey}} You're required (see above) to notify other editors you're starting discussions about at ]. Another editor has done this for you since you forgot, but keep it mind for future reference. You should also try and provide ] which are examples of the types of behavior you're reporting. "Diffs" are like evidence and if you don't provide any evidence, administrators are not going to go digging through Misplaced Pages to find it for you. You should also probably take a look at ] because someone examining your contributions is not automatically considered "stalking" or "harassment". That's another reason for providing diffs; they will help administrators see if this is really a case of ]. -- ] (]) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Marchjuly}} thank you for helping me. examining my contribution is fine as long as u do not keep accusing me of the same things again and again in different discussions, especially after other editors told u that my behavior is perfectly fine. I will look for some examples. thank you again. --] (]) 23:09, 1 August 2020 (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 {{IP user|2605:8D80:662:E1A9:50D1:410C:7C35:3C07}} | |||
| ::{{ping|Marchjuly}} ok, these are the first examples I could find. as u can see I explained him why his accusation are wrong more than once and I asked him to argue the article not me more than once: | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Barry | |||
| {{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) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raging_Stallion_Studios | |||
| :This is a matter for the ''']'''. Be sure to read the rules there before posting your situation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| and this is the last one (notice that in this last one i offended him and swear at him and because of this I had a warning so I deleted my messages). As u can see Gene93k told him to discuss the article and not me also: | |||
| :@]. 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 == | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Kincaid | |||
| *{{userlinks|93.204.189.212}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B51E:70D0:BF68:E7ED:B8DA}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|2003:D3:FF39:B598:98F3:BF2A:47F0:FB06}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| I don't care for having him blocked but please, I need an administrator to tell him that what he is doing is not good and he needs to change his behavior: argue the article nominated not the nominator. --] (]) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''TLDR''' - Gleeanon409 has been accusing AlejandroLeloirRey of making disruptive AFD nominations, e.g. . AlejandroLeloirRey's show 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] <sup>] – ]'']</sup></span> 00:09, 2 August 2020 (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. ] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I encountered the op through watchlisting the LGBTQ article alerts, specifically their string of AfD’s targeting gay male porn actors. As I’ve previously stated elsewhere I have no issue with removing the ones that no longer arise to Misplaced Pages standards, bravo for eliminating crap articles. But their goal seems to be to systematically remove them all or at least as many as possible. (See their talk page for evidence of this.) | |||
| == Does this edit summary warrant redaction per BLP == | |||
| Where I sharply disagree, is with the OP’s tactics where they apparently don’t follow ]—specifically searching for and identifying sourcing—and ]. Also their being combative towards those they disagree including being rude and dismissive, and repeatedly violating ] all while arguing and repeatedly filling the discussion with ] walls of text frustrating the entire process. Additionally they exhibit a breathtaking inability to use logic in their targets: ] (RS), a ], another ], another ], another ]. Much of this seems to be an odd vendetta against Misplaced Pages for trying to delete ]. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Edit summary revdel'd and {{noping2|GreatLeader1945}} blocked for one week for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| pinging: {{ping|Kbabej}}, {{ping|Ipsign}}, {{ping|Chris7179}}, {{ping|Toughpigs}}, {{ping|Bearian}}, {{ping|GoldenAgeFan1}}, {{ping|Britishfinance}}, {{ping|Cardiffbear88}}, {{ping|Sharouser}}, {{ping|QueerEcofeminist}}, {{ping|Theroadislong}}, {{ping|Kleuske}}, {{ping|Sulfurboy}}. Please feel free to comment. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: Since porn bio has been deprecated things like being in the Hall of Fame of whatever prize doesn't prove notability itself anymore, this is why I don't take that parameter into account when I nominate an article (I told him 1000 times). About the text wall, we both showed to have that problem more than once. I am trying to do it less (it is not an excuse but English is not my mother tongue). about my swearing and offending message I got a warning for those, I removed them and I admitted I wrote those message right from the begging (see above). pluse, I wrote them today, when I lost my nerve and finally lost control. I know I shouldn't have and I apology for that but I have been stalked for quite a while now. moreover, 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April (about 10 nom per month) should convince anybody to stop following me around accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations. For all the other accusation I can't see where they come from. --] (]) 01:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm unclear as to why I was pinged to this. Granted, I've had to take a leave of absence due to working in a field involving the COVID outbreak, so I might have totally forgotten how I'm involved. If you could clarify my involvement or what level of comment you need from me, that would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **You’ve interacted with one or both of us on the associated afd’s, if you have input to offer it would be welcome, if not is fine as well. ] (]) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Gleeanon409's "stalking", as shown in Levivich's list of diffs above, is just commenting on three of Alejandro's AfD discussions, and chiding him for not following WP:BEFORE. Two of those AfD discussions (] and ]) were closed as keep; the second one was even withdrawn by Alejandro. The third one (]) also seems headed for Keep. It is possible to get a decent hit rate on AfD nominations and still make some mistakes. Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack. | |||
| I believe that Alejandro is a bit ] in wanting to delete as many gay porn bios as possible. He argues a lot with people voting Keep, and often refuses to accept other people's opinions on sources. (See ].) I think that the process would be smoother, and get more positive results, if Alejandro would simply make his case for deletion in the nomination, and then allow the discussion to proceed without trying to dispute every Keep vote. If Alejandro could do that, and Gleeanon could participate in the discussion without making sarcastic comments about BEFORE, then the world would be peaceful once more. — ] (]) 02:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Toughpigs}} "Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack" correct, when u say it once or twice not when u say it 1000 times in different discussions, especially after I showed u my stats that proves I do WP:BEFORE. u know I am right, I really expected more from u. --] (]) 09:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| : In my interaction with Alejandro at the Raging Stallion AfD, I asked twice if a ] had been done, and Alejandro responded with "Is this a trial?" I think Toughpigs' suggestion for Alejandro allowing the discussions to proceed without ] other editors would be good advice to follow. Also, I reminded Alejandro in the Raging Stallion AfD not all gay porn bios are the same, and BEFORE should be completed on every AfD nomination at the very least. --] (]) 02:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note''': Please ping me if mentioning me or replying. I will not be watching this page. Thank you. --] (]) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Kbabej}} the conversation we had is here for everybody to read ]. I was being personally attacked by Gleeanon409 (as usual) and u started personally attacking me too. I had to explain my actions once over again (this is why I end up being accused of text walling) this is why at the end I told u that I was not on a trial. u drop it immediately, so I was (and I am) fine with u. As a personal note, I asked u politely to add the sources u found to the article but u and Gleeanon409 made a big fuss of it, like if I was asking who knows what. So at the end I added the sources myself (after asking u the permission), I asked u kindly to double check what I wrote as my english is not good and u never answered... that is not the best conversation u had. --] (]) 09:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ok, I don't know how this works but, should I ping people who can talk positively for me or just let the facts and the examples here above talk for me?. is this a voting process? Once again, "77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April" proves I am not making disruptive AFD nominations (why are we even still talking about it?). Could I have done a better job sometimes? of course, like anybody else but this doesn't mean I didn't do WP:BEFORE. do I argue too much with people (text walls)? yes, just like Gleeanon409 does. But at the end of the day we are not here to decide if I am perfect because I am not, we are here to let know Gleeanon409 that he should argue the article nominated not the nominator and stop accusing me of something I obviously don't do, just to pull my nerve and provoke a reaction from me to make me kick out of wikipedia. --] (]) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I believe I’ve been pinged as I have contributed to some of these AfD debates. I have some sympathy for ] because I also nominate a number of articles for AfD, and there are some editors who throw around WP:BEFORE whenever they find ''any'' source. Highly frustrating. And I can see why they find some of ]‘s comments aggravating. However, its undeniable that AlejandroLeloirRey has made some poor nomination choices, and have bludgeoned editors who make Keep votes. This needs to stop. And there needs to be some action taken against . Saying that an article looks like it’s been written by a “r******* 10 year old” is grossly offensive language. However the editor thinks he’s been provoked, this offensive language is completely unacceptable and I hope some action will be taken against this comment. ] (]) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Alleging chronic false statements by an administrator == | |||
| {{archive top|result=IP blocked per boomerang. That is all. ] (]) 00:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'd like to dispute a months-long series of statements and actions by administrator ]. It may be possible to glean the essence of the controversy from the diff for his talk page comment at Before going farther, I'm wondering whether there's a way to prevent him from blocking me or closing my talk page discussions while the dispute is ongoing, and I'd like to be sure this forum is an appropriate place for it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 23:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The easy fix is for you to create an account, agree to only edit from that account, so you can be officially blocked by a uninvolved admin, for the necessary time until you stop disruption. Do you have any other advice on how to stop your from edit-warring from a dynamic IP other than semi-protection?] (]) 00:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. ] ] 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :For context, I’ve repeatedly protected the primary page that this ] edits because every time the page is unprotected, they edit war or edit against consensus. And every time, it stops until the page protection ends, when they start it up again. Also, the IP refuses to use our edit request system. And it’s been going on for over a year now. And they didn’t notify me if this conversation on my talk page. ] ] 00:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == revoke TPA for ]? == | |||
| == Maddie1243 and Teardropcity == | |||
| {{atop | {{atop | ||
| | result = Done. ] (]/]) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| | status = | |||
| | result = Both warned {{tl|uw-agf-sock}}. Both blocked 48h by Cullen328. ] (]) 05:09, 2 August 2020 (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) | |||
| Two users ] and ] have been vandalising pages related to ]. Since they both share the same editing patterns, they are very likely the same person. While neither of them have a very high edit count, I think that keeping a close watch on both users would certainly pay off. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">(] | ])</span> 04:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| :Actually, I blocked both of them. If any other administrator thinks longer blocks of one or both are justified, please go ahead. ] ] 05:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd have indeffed as VOA's. There may be more. I SP'd Michael Mesmith. --<b>] ]</b> 05:15, 2 August 2020 (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: