Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ragesoss (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 7 August 2023 (move Helaine's update to a separate section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    POV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Blatant POV pushing. Pretty obviously they're not a new editor. Their edits should be carefully reviewed (and probably mostly reverted). --Cavarrone 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they seem to have caught a case of ANI flu, I have gone ahead and put a noarchive template for seven days. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the repeated attempts by User:Portwoman to add defamatory claims about the son of a politician at Bandi Sanjay Kumar, from 22 - 23 July. Highlights:
    [12], adds a subsection titled "Criminal activities", claiming multiple attacks on multiple students by the son
    [13] reverts my move of this section about his family to the end, placing it up between the Early life and Career sections
    [14], slaps an edit-warring warning on my talk page with Twinkle
    [15], pads the section out with vague allegations about the subject of the article
    [16], reverts my correction from references that the charges were about a single attack against a single student, with the edit summary "restored content"
    [17], attempts for the second time to semi-protect the article.
    The rather WP:UNDUE section about Kumar's son being charged (but not prosecuted) for a fight at college remains up near the top of the article. It's been a busy month for me on that article, having up to now been busy reverting attempts by IPs and a SPA to whitewash Kumar's involvement in a scandal. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this please get dealt with, Portwoman is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didnt want this to be archived without action for lack of interest, so here's another such edit, made after this ANI filing :
    [18] - Added an "unreliable source" tag with reason a community website like think print.in is a reliable source. The Print is one of India's most reliable and objective news sites, not a community website.
    It seems they wont reply here, can an admin close this now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit removes The Commission later dropped the case at the request of the woman in question, who wrote that she and Surya were "good friends" and that the complaint against him by the Congress was "politically motivated", that is, it removes sourced content on the Karnataka State Commission for Women dropping a case of sexual harassment filed against Tejasvi Surya. The edit summary is "spacing and sentence format corrections". I agree this user should be blocked. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t quite tie Portwoman to any blocked accounts, but I can say with conviction they are  Confirmed to Jewishblood. I need to do some more digging when I get in to the office. Courcelles (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't prove anything to my satisfaction for a block beyond NOTHERE and creating that Jewishblood account. Which, quite frankly, is enough. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged Jewishblood as a Portwoman sock, but I'd bet good money this is not the true first account. Portwoman is basically at the age CU ages out, so I'm not surprised my search didn't turn up anything definitive. Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion of Nguyentrongphu by using 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46

    This user avoided the ban when he used IP addresses to discuss about Holocaust in the article Holocaust. Check his IP range here and what he revealed himself here. He tried to play a game when he forced everyone "My edit request should be a quick fix. If denied, I'm interested to hear a good rationale behind it". @Drmies and Deepfriedokra: Please consider to ban this IP range. We can not leave the Holocaust supporter break the Wikipedia policies. 1.53.113.236 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1.53.113.236 and @Đại Việt quốc: Your "Check his IP range" link goes to a list of contributions whose second entry, this message, got changed a few minutes later here, where User:TheScotch replaced the IP signature with their own. What exactly are you saying is going on here? CityOfSilver 14:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver: User:Nguyentrongphu has been blocked for "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". From an earlier version of their talk page, I noticed that it all started from a conversation related to Holocaust (section "Refactored from ACN"). An IP has been making non-contributing discussions in the talk page of The Holocaust, which I am suspecting to be Nguyentrongphu evading his block, according to WP:DUCK. They also revealed themselves here. I think something has to be done about this, otherwise what's the point of the block? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Đại Việt quốc: Sorry but this is just a restatement of your first post. Please re-read my reply. CityOfSilver 14:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Holocaust is now under indef semiprotection, so there's no chance of mischief by IPs on the article itself. The /46 range appears too wide to justify blocking the whole thing, even if it's being used for evasion. Nothing more to do here, I think. Let me know if you notice any registered socks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver: I think I answered your question "What exactly are you saying is going on here?" clearly enough. If that's not the answer you are looking for then I'm sorry, can you be more specific? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Đại Việt quốc: I was trying to figure out if you were saying or implying that User:TheScotch, who apparently also edits from that IP range, is a sockpuppet of the blocked user you reported. Per EdJohnston's message in this thread, that range is so massive that it likely includes a lot more users besides those two. So now it's looking like a rangeblock isn't going to happen. CityOfSilver 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Achar Sva editing restriction violation

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

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

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

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

    I see what you are saying. I think some of this does violate the editing restriction. I don't see Achar Sva engaging in the talk pages on these pages you linked. There should be more consensus seeking by the editor who has the editing restriction and should be even more careful to not violate the restriction at all at this point. Perhaps it is a good idea to notify the admin too since they are familiar with this situation. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, the implementing admin has not be notified since they are not on the project at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I've been keeping an eye on this thread the past week. The latest ~violation seems marginal compared to the previous two. It's edit-warring, but the bit of sourced info it removed isn't actually the crux of the dispute. So I dunno. I'd really like to hear from Achar Sva, to confirm they understand the scope of their revert restriction. Otherwise I'm inclined to treat this more as a communication is required issue, where the remedy would be an indefinite block (albeit a relatively gentle one). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: Thanks for commenting. Because of lack of initial admin response, I used the find-an-active-admin feature EW kindly linked on their talk to speak with Rosguill, a discussion that can be found at User talk:Rosguill#Request for admin action (note: Rosguill was the third admin I contacted personally, with no immediate response from the first two). I favor Rosguill's approach: wait until Monday because AS edits mostly on weekends and then implement a short block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, any further thoughts? From a bureaucratic overhead perspective, I think that a wrist-slap remedy of 2 weeks block is the simplest way forward, signaling to Achar Sva that this pattern of editing will not be tolerated without adequate explanations on their part, without slamming the door on their face at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill I think both approaches have their merits—both gentle in some ways and harsh in others—so I'll defer to your judgment. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CMD007's behavior is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS, stemming from a seeming personal hatred of the Filipino people and his insistence that we were just slaves. He specifically seeks out Philippine-related articles and changes them subtly enough for others not to notice, but significantly enough that they completely change the meaning.

    1. He removes or replaces words in existing text to say something completely different from the sourced original text (like this and this), resulting in contradictory or factually incorrect statements (like"Spain banned brandy" or that "fermented agave to be distilled into mezcal is still called pulque"). Then he arbitrarily adds on references afterwards when challenged which do not verify the claims made by his new edited text (like this or discussed by me in this), or are less reliable sources than the ones he replaced (like replacing academic articles with coffeetable books because he does not understand WP:DUE).

    2. His other edits consist of removing entire sections with regards to the Philippines in articles relating to its former status as a Spanish colony (like in Mestizo). And removing sections or paragraphs on the Philippines in shared subjects inherited from the Spanish Empire (like in Bread, Churros, Polvoron, Flan cake, etc.), regardless of the sources. He also curiously substitutes colonization with euphemisms like administration

    3. The underlying reason for these edits are again, not based on sources, but his insistence that the Filipinos in the Spanish Empire were just slaves ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23]), and thus could not possibly have been capable of contributions to Spanish and Latin American culture, emigrate to other Spanish colonies, or be discussed at all in relation to Spanish Empire. Like his previous edits, he uses one source repeatedly, which he did not read, because it does not say what he thinks it does from the title.

    I lost my temper during this as is obvious by the template in my talk, after he again refused to read the sources and just reinstated his changes based on his reasoning that Filipinos were just slaves. I am Filipino. And it does make me angry when the same people who colonized us, now try to erase our links to them using the same racial bullshit we lived with for centuries.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles and your vandalism on them are plain to see. I have not done anything but add sourced information and historical clarification. This user seems to be obsessed with his Filipino identity and making every article point to it. The Philippines were not the only Spanish-ruled islands in Asia, and I have changed certain headings to reflect that fact. The Carolinas, Northern Marianas, and Guam are also included in everything historically related to the Philippines as they were all known collectively as the Spanish East Indies. As for changing certain wording, it is sourced only. An example is the article Mestizo, where I correctly add sources that define the word from the Oxford and Merriam-Webster themselves. How does he think he could just ignore the sources?? He cannot be let to just delete MULTIPLE sources at his whim. Also, about the Filipino slaves, I am again using SOURCED language. His feelings are hurt by what happened historically, but facts don’t care about feelings. This is an encyclopedia, not a love letter to his native country. It is documented Filipinos were brought as slaves[24], even stopping by California for the first time. He either pretends not to be able to read the sources or is just a plain vandal wishing to wreak havoc. In the Mezcal article you can see that even a day after I’ve engaged in conversation, he claims I am not. He is a gaslighter and a vandal. CMD007 (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes. I forgot you do that too. Change subtopic headings specific to the Philippines and conflate them under generalized headings like "Asia" and "Spanish East Indies", even when they are specific to the Philippines and do not exist in Guam or the Carolines. Apparently just to remove the word "Philippines."
    And no, I have never claimed Filipinos were not enslaved. I even expanded and sourced our article on it after you swept through it with your bullshit. The issue is your claim that ALL Filipinos who arrived in New Spain were slaves. Which is simply not the case. Your new Seijas (2018) source and Seijas (2015) makes that clear. In fact, Seijas discusses FREE Filipino immigrants to New Spain quite extensively. Your obsession with that one idiotic misconception is also irrelevant as a reason for your Wikipedia-wide changes.
    Mestizo literally just means "Mixed person" in Spanish, and is used as a legal racial category in the Spanish Empire. All of the Spanish Empire. Not just Latin America. It determined the status of a person and what taxes he has to pay. THAT is the context that matters. How it is used in English is irrelevant.
    My own editing history speaks for itself. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your deletion of multiple sources at a time speaks for itself. You have also already been warned not to use derogatory language and not to aim it at other users, which you promised on your talk page to not do. I don’t have any use for your feelings or your personal anecdotes, I merely stick to sources and what they back up. Anyone can see that you have great emotional turmoil with these subjects, but we are only sticking to sourced facts. Your constant reverting of sourced material is VANDALISM. Add in your source and be done, stop taking other sources out. You claim your one source is better than 10 others, yet they’re from Universities and scientific journals, which is exactly where you got your one-off source. Stop the multiple acts of vandalism. CMD007 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that all of those articles are now in CMD007's preferred state due to the continued edit war; those with more knowledge of the subjects may wish to look at these articles and consider which version is more policy-compliant. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess would be that none of them is policy (NPOV in this instance) compliant. Looking at their first diffs, it took me literally seconds to find this source (see bottom left section) about the introduction of distillation to New Spain. M.Bitton (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: This isn't something you evaluate "in seconds." Please read all the text within this part of that WP:TERTIARY source: "How stills reached New Spain remains a point of contention... Pacific Port of San Blas (p.1262)."
    Then read the sources I used: [25] [26] [27]. 2 scientific journal articles, 1 secondary. Zizumbo-Villarreal et al. (2008) in particular, is the most comprehensive. Though the Hatchett article explains it better in layman's terms. The key points being what type of stills were used for mezcal, when, and where. Philippine-type stills (acquired from China in pre-colonial times) use a simple tree trunk with two copper pans, and is very different in appearance and use over Spanish-type stills (acquired from the Arabs) which is the much more complicated alembic type. Mezcal does not use the Spanish-type stills, which are difficult to make and hide. Critical because mezcal was banned along with coconut liquor (vino de coco) in its early history (1600s to 1700s) in New Spain, in order not to compete with imported Spanish liquor (which is made with Spanish-type stills and grapes, in Spain, though vineyards were starting to be grown in Peru by this time).
    I do not know of any comparable academic studies on the claim that Mezcal used Spanish-introduced stills. You're welcome to find one. It's easy enough to look up traditional mezcal stills and see they are most definitely not alembic stills. Though of course, alembic stills were probably also brought over by the Spanish, for Spanish use. It was clearly protected technology since again the sales of Spanish liquor was important enough economically to Spain to ban the indigenous production of cheap liquor for two centuries. That's irrelevant to mezcal. It's not like this is also even the only evidence for Filipino influence in indigenous alcohol production in New Spain. Tuba is another.
    The only academic source - Puche et al. (2023), spuriously inserted by CMD007 verifies nothing about Spanish stills, but is instead a paper on a possible pre-colonial production of mezcal based on the discovery of kilns (not stills) for cooking agave piña in Xochitecatl (summary here). An important thing to note here is that they do not have evidence of distillation (or even an explanation as to how they could have acquired copper pans in 600 BC, a thousand years before metallurgy in the Americas), only that agave piña were cooked (which is only the first step in making mezcal). They could be cooking agave piña for food for all we know. It is an extraordinary claim with little acceptance for now. As Zizumbo-Villarreal et al. (2008) pointed out quite cleary, there is NO evidence of pre-colonial distillation. But we can add Puche et al. (2023) to the article with WP:DUE considerations if you insist.
    All of these should be discussed in the article's talk. Convoluted enough as it is for passing editors. Which I have tried to do. Which CMD007 rejected outright, not based on evaluating sources, but again based on his repeated assertion that Filipinos in the Spanish Empire were just slaves.
    This is about his behavior, the problematic way he edits (by just changing what something says entirely), and the reason for his behavior. Not only in mezcal. If this was just a content dispute, I wouldn't take this to ANI.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a WP:BOOMERANG sanction on Obsidian Soul for WP:BLANKING and WP:POINT DarmaniLink (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I see CMD007 has posted a second NOTTHEM unblock request. I'll wait for any other thoughts on the states of the articles and may consider rolling them back. A note to User:Obsidian Soul, don't do this yourself. The articles have been reverted by two other editors. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: -Just standing by as our own (sourced) history gets excised out by someone who insists we were only slaves isn't really an option. I appreciate not being blocked, and will honor that by not editing those pages further until this is resolved.- -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined the second request and attempted to explain the disruptive nature of repeating declined requests. I'm not sold on a promising outcome. Hopefully I'm just jaded. Tiderolls 13:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: After CMD007's block expired they proceeded to revert back to their preferred version of Manila galleon, Mestizo, Mezcal, Polvorón, Bread in Spain, Creole peoples, and History of Spanish slavery in the Philippines. There might be more articles they made reverts to, but because they resumed their reverting after being blocked for that exact issue, I have blocked them again. - Aoidh (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just close this. If you're not going to do anything about it. Let's AGF all the trolls. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to me that there is a lot of complex historical issues here at play, which all go over my head as I'm not very familiar with the history of the Philippines, so I can't speak to which 'side' is 'correct'. But I can say that its pretty clear that both parties Obsidian Soul and CMD007 have been edit warring. I think both might need a time out.★Trekker (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see now that both are blocked, with Obsidian Soul being indeffed due to what seems to be a bit of a break down. (@Obsidian Soul: as you are a long-time editor who has contributed a lot to the encyclopedia I hope this can be resolved.) My best wishes to both.★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obsidian Soul blanking out whole articles, deleting sources

    We really need intermediaries on many articles which are being controlled by one user User:Obsidian Soul. He is deleting entire sources and sentences just because he doesn’t like what they say. These are historical sources and some scientific sources. I have left many of his edits and added to them, but he will not stop until every page is how he wants it to look. If you look at our edits, I am the one adding sources to unsourced information. He is deleting them. Im trying not to get into another editing war with him. CMD007 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No I'm not. How dare you vandalize the articles, you vandal. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass blanking of articles isn't a good way of resolving a dispute. Could an admin look at at this and give Obsidian Soul some time out to cool down. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Tell me more of these so-called policies.
    Just ban me permanently. Almost 14 years of service. This would be my first and last ban. I hope that gives you all joy. Because you sure as hell don't want to help.
    As I've said before, I'm tired of how Wikipedia bends over backwards to accommodate the least helpful and most disruptive editors, many of them SPAs or ban evaders, and losing the older active editor population year by year in the process. I'm tired of the bureaucratic bullshit of AGF that refuses to call a spade a spade.
    Someone who is clearly doing Wikipedia-wide changes to label my people slaves and invalidate, minimize, or remove my culture and my country from any articles concerning our former colonizers, doean't seem to bother you. No one else noticed it for months. Why would me helping him remove our relevance bother you further?
    Ban me. Go back to bickering over western stuff. Maybe in 40 years someone else notices what he's done and fixes it. But probably not. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Obsidian Soul: I understand your frustration (I really do), but the mass blanking is clearly is a disservice to yourself and to the readers. Please reconsider. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in the ongoing dispute, but your experienced enough to know this isn't the right way to go about solving it. I implore you to undo what you've done, getting blocked won't help to overcome the issues you've highlighted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was filed as a separate complaint, I have merged this into the existing one. Notifying both users @CMD007@Obsidian Soul. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Obsidian Soul for vandalism. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt an indef block for Obsidian Soul is a bit harsh. I think it would be better if he was blocked for a week or topic-banned to help him blow off some steam. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't actually have the ability to topic-ban him (since this isn't a contentious topic). He is welcome to make an unblock request whenever he is ready. Any admin should feel free to lessen the duration of the block if they feel this is excessive. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Someone make it a week, please. People are human. Andreas JN466 17:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the block durations are exactly the opposite what they should have been. CMD007 should be indeffed, and Obsidian should have been given a short "stop being POINTy" block. We screwed the pooch here. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Courcelles: I have absolutely no objection to anyone adjusting CMD007's block as they feel appropriate to take into account the wider issue; my block was solely related to the continued edit warring and was perhaps too conservative, though I absolutely agree that with this ANI discussion's full context, the blocks are "backwards" by comparison. - Aoidh (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoidh I wasn't criticizing you, I actually kind of like what you did as was an entirely suitable block that allows stopping the immediate mess and then looking over the edits. Suffice to say, I do not think CMD007 is really here to build an encyclopaedia. Their edit warring history is significant, they seem to be combative frequently, and therefore, I have indeffed their account. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How did a 13-year user just get indeffed without substantial discussion? Bad block. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks where deserved, 1 day or 10 years mass vandalising articles to make a point is not acceptable. But looking at the details I can understand some of Obsidian Soul's concerns, Courcelles suggestion isn't without merit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    my 2 cents of a cent here, He did screw up bad, and I think a 1-2 week block would have been in order for this.
    Usually for indefs though, they're only given to new users because they haven't been contributing at all. In this case, this was a user that was heavily contributing, a lot. This seemed like a single episode and not a pattern of behavior. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see where Obsidian Soul explained how This was a justifiable edit. Or even a good faith mistake. Near as I can tell, above, they doubled down and implied that it wasn't a problem. I don't care how much Wikipedia experience you've had, that's just not acceptable. --Jayron32 18:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, the edit summary here is also not something I would expect to be acceptable from anyone. --Jayron32 18:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that absolutely merits a block. Just not an indef one. Somewhere between 4 days and a week would have done the trick, as their first block ever. Indeffing a long term contributor likely needs some indication there's been a longer history of problems than a week old diff. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I hope this can be resolved with both editors coming back and being constructive (if they wish to). I can recognize Obsidian Soul's feelings here, I have also had times when I have been very mad at the site and made poor choices.★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the discussion above, I have reduced the duration of the block to one week. Obsidian Soul is warned to refrain from future vandalism, and to use Dispute resolution processes instead. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I would’ve done that myself, but I’ve been away from the computer since this morning. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring, harassment by FMSky

    Before and after leaving this gem of incivility on my talk page, FMSky has been whitewashing a couple of articles related to Sound of Freedom (film) by removing sourced paragraphs over and over again, claiming consensus on the talk page where there is none. The same thing is going on at Operation Underground Railroad. Some of the controversy regarding the film and the organization has centered on the film's accuracy and the connections to QAnon, but everything that they're removing is extremely well-sourced. After the profanity left on my talk page, I don't see a way forward for this editor without admin attention. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like you didn't notify them of this discussion. I have done it for you, but do note that it is required to leave a notice on the editors talk page. Deauthorized. (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually an issue. I am assuming FMSky is, when referring to 'talk page consensus', is referring to the RfC, which is ongoing and is definitely not going to WP:SNOW from a quick glance. The comment on Fred's talk page is definitely uncivil, and uncalled for. I'm not familiar with the dispute regarding the Sound of Freedom page, so there may be context I'm missing. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Zepelin has edit warred and re(added) stuff to this section a total of 14 (!!!) times throughout the last month ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, i may have missed some), despite there being TWO talk page discussions/RfCs going on about whether to include it, that are currently leaning towards not including it. He has been reverted multiple times by multiple different users, not just me, and clearly doesnt grasp the concept of WP:Consensus. He has basically been doing nothing else the last month. The article's current version is a revert of Fred Zepelin's additions by another user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168339873 Fred Zepelin should be blocked for longterm disruptive edit warring. Leaving two talk page messages is also not "harrasment" and saying "how many fucking times" isnt an attack or personal insult --FMSky (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I also just noticed a WP:Canvassing violation on the user's part: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1168309898 --FMSky (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so there's the context I'm missing. Just a question: you referred to talk page consensus in some occasions. Both RfCs are ongoing, so I don't think there is talk page consensus. The edit-warring is a major issue, which I completely missed. I'm still of the opinion that the talk page comment was unnecessary. Stern language sure, but swearing is not needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i didnt mean it like there IS consensus but rather that consensus SHOULD BE REACHED before adding the content. I used that language because i was pissed off and was mainly trying to understand his behaviour. -FMSky (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC) just as i'm typing this i noticed another user's complaint about Fred Zepelin's slow motion edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1168316257 they also cited 9 reverts alone on this page and these weren't even all of them (+this is just one article, he has been doing it in multiple ones). maybe he intentionally waits over 24hrs for every revert to avoid 3RR --FMSky (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of the editors who's had multiple run-ins with FMSky, which I suppose is why I was notified. Looking through FMSky's talk page history, they've received a number of warnings over the past few months which they responded to by reverting and leaving uncivil/dismissive edit summaries. They're clearly not receptive to peer feedback about their editing habits:

    They're also one of several editors who's been repeatedly removing a paragraph from Sound of Freedom (film) with claims that it's "not related to film in any way whatsoever" despite being supported by sources that are specifically about the film. Of course these ongoing content disputes should be resolved on the article talk page, not ANI, but I don't think that FMSky's repeated reversions and slow motion edit warring are helping to work towards a resolution. I would also like to point out their awareness that BLPs and Post-1992 US politics are contentious topics, so any admin is free to warn or block as they see fit. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "should i make a compilation about your history of edit warring and biased editing?" Please do, community feedback and opportunities for growth are always welcome. –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of these reverts are messages from you because of your failure to respect consensus, which you even acknowledged here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1167905632 , and good job digging out months old talk page edit summaries. should i make a compilation about your history of edit warring and biased editing?
    note that this user was brought here through canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&diff=prev&oldid=1168309898 by Fred Zepelin to sway discussion in a certain direction

    --FMSky (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    good job twisting the truth btw. one of the edit summaries you didnt even post in its complete form and two of the others i adressed on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&diff=prev&oldid=1167725240 --FMSky (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note. I have imposed a one-month consensus-required restriction at the article for changes pertaining to QAnon or other conspiracy theories, broadly construed. If participants in this thread could get back to working together toward consensus, rather than sniping at each other, that would be greatly appreciated. No one looks innocent here, so if this gets into editor-level sanctions I don't think anyone's going to like where that goes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this should put a stop to the slow edit warring.
    Consensus Required restrictions always bring the risk of editors from either side blocking consensus via bludgeoning and/or non-policy-based arguments. I forsee this being an issue with including/excluding "alleged" in a subsection header, for example. In situations like this it's often helpful for admins to informally moderate the discussion and warn users who may be disregarding our guidelines or relying on personal opinion instead of what the sources say. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred appears to be adding material with a mostly indirect connection to the subject (only one of the citations in this block of text, Insider, is about the film), and should perhaps focus instead on the Ballard/OUR articles. Regardless, he should really stop adding the material since it has been challenged and is under discussion. Trout for FMSky for losing their cool with the talk page message and coming off broadly WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. I don't know that a consensus-required restriction is necessary beyond that one article, but that seems like a reasonable step given how much edit warring there's been. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued hounding by FMSky of my edits after he was warned

    FMSky is now following me around and undoing edits I make without regard for any policy. [35] [36]

    I'd really like this harassment to stop. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not aware of whatever makes this "continued", but the first edit is pretty standard CSECTION enforcement, and the second is a revert without an edit summary. That's...not much of a case for harassment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment was made prior to this sections merger to the discussion detailing other overarching issues. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    pretty standard CSECTION enforcement - Just as a side point, CSECTION is an essay and shouldn't be "enforced" by edit warring to change a section heading. We have an awful lot of reasonable "criticism" sections across the pedia, not to mention entire articles on "criticism of X". "Reception" always strikes me as a goofy heading in an article on an organization or a person. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the same as WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS a couple of days ago. Why even have these "essays" then if they can simply be ignored and a user's preferred version inserted --FMSky (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FZ, I do think that there are issues with FMSky's conduct (more on this soon), but i don't think it's fair to characterize those linked diffs as "following me around" or harassment. As the central content dispute at Sound of Freedom (film) concerned Jordan Peterson and Operation Underground Railroad, the AGF explanation is that FMSky found their way to those closely related pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After I warned FMSky about edit warring once again at Operation Underground Railroad [37][38], they left an edit warring notice on my talk page [39]. I haven't been edit warring and they did not respond when asked for an explanation. They've already been warned about this spurious tit-for-tat templating and I would like it to please stop. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Any objections to moving this up to be a sub-section of #Edit warring, harassment by FMSky? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Firefangledfeathers: I was thinking the same since it's a continuation of the already open thread, so I've moved it. No objection if my move to a subsection is reverted, but it seemed like a logical move. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing much here that's sanctionable other than Fred's edit warring. It wouldn't hurt if FMSky could be a little less blunt. Some of these examples it would have helped to AGF, but this seems like much ado about nothing. Nemov (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you comfortable with them leaving completely unfounded notices accusing me of edit warring and harassment [40][41] and leaving Contentious Topic notices without checking to see if I'm already aware? Does this not merit a warning of some sort? –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you also left contentious topic notes on my page when I was already aware of them and you left edit warring notes when I was not doing that FMSky (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked and did not see any CT/DS notices in the past year. Could you please provide the diffs showing that you were aware? –dlthewave ☎ 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&diff=prev&oldid=1166131204 , kind of weird that you went all the way to page 5 of my talk page history to dig out these other comments but didnt see this --FMSky (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (sigh) I notified you of BLP and post-1992 US politics. I did not notify you of gender-related topics because I saw that Beccaynr had already done so. –dlthewave ☎ 12:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm currently being hounded and threatened by both DLthewave and Fred Zeppelin who bombard my talk page with tons of unwarranted notices and messages. dlthewave wasn't even supposed to be here and was brought here through canvassing FMSky (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FMSky and Fred are on opposite sides of the culture wars. These are content disputes on related subjects where, depending on one's perspective, one is trying to make a subject look bad or one is trying to whitewash a subject. These are directly related articles, and it's easy to assume that if someone watches/edits one, they're watching/editing another. If you find the other person abusive or find them unable to edit constructively in a given topic area, you'd be better off spending time compiling a case for WP:AE IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazi flag

    Collapsing to make just the useful info visible — Trey Maturin™ 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what the protocol here is, but anon 213.121.189.138 just vandalized my talk page with a Nazi flag. Anon is clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a new one. Apparently this random IP from the United Kingdom placed a swastika on my talkpage with the caption "The chungus impostor is sus." I'm not sure what those words mean or why I was targeted... but anyway, is this a new form of trolling? And shouldn't that image be on the bad image list? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, "chungus" is a meme and "imposter is sus" refers to Among Us. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I got one of those too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    check AIV I'm reporting as many as I can Knitsey (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. A different IP put one on my talk page too and on another users page as well. I just deleted them both. Here's a link to their contribs page. This IP only has the two edits so far [42] EEBuchanan (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page was vandalised several times too. First, it was the Nazi Swastika flag, then a different IP came in and changed random words throughout my talk page to bad words. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    188.74.100.3 posting a swastika on my user talk

    I've obviously annoyed someone because a IP user has just posted a swastika on my user talk. This is obviously unacceptable behaviour. AlanStalk 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. That's the third one in a row. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit filter time? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot, see also WP:AIV. Might be worth a brief block on any AS belonging to Hutchison 3G UK Limited/Mobile Broadband Service, which seems to be the originating AS? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit filter is way smarter, ignore me. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs were from the Netherlands and the UK. Netherzone (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi and Acroterion's talk pages just got hit a few minutes ago from 3 different IPs. I think an edit filter was requested, but someone should double check.Netherzone (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what their motive is. Seems very juvenile. AlanStalk 03:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of our frequent fliers, I can't be bothered to figure out which one, using proxy IPs. I've asked for an edit filter, since the image is widely used and hard to blacklist. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're going nuts on my user talk at the moment with Geni reverting the edits and blocking different IPs over and over. AlanStalk 03:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My page was also vandalized in this way. I have reverted. The IP which left the hate symbol on my page is: 88.202.157.204. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IP Addresses spamming Nazi flags on many user's talk pages

    Can I request any admins to help clear the backlog at WP:AIV? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No point. The vandal cycles IP after a couple of edits regardless of if they have been blocked or not.©Geni (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes a very good argument for requiring registration for any form of editing. AlanStalk 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just a good argument for having better IP abuse tools. We can WP:DENY and not let a vandal decide our editing policies; wouldn't be shocked if the whole "point" was to get people to react, and they'll get bored before we do. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Best we can do is require IP address masking" -- WMF. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    46.20.220.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    188.222.180.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    81.130.142.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    81.56.152.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    80.14.119.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    My god when will this stop....
    These IP addresses have replaced most of my decorations with images of Hitler. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please stop reporting these IPs, both here and at AIV? It is clear that the vandal is quick about hopping to new IPs after making a single edit, and unless there is evidence that they like returning to a particular IP, I really don't see what WP:PREVENTATIVE benefit there is in playing whack-a-mole with the block button here. I'm afraid the edit filter and patrolling recent changes are just going to be what we have to do. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I was reporting them because I figured they were probably open proxies that should be blocked anyway, but I'll remember that next time I'm cleaning up after a similar attack. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular kind of proxy they are using is very difficult to detect because they could be a mix of legitimate and anonymized traffic, and they often don't last very long. In other words, we can block these IPs in the short term (e.g. for a few days), but anything longer could result in collateral damage. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my opinion at this point is still that it's not worth blocking at all, but I recognize it is within discretion for another admin to make blocks. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with AlanS. Registration should be required. If someone really gives a hoot about editing a certain page in good faith, they surely could spend two minutes creating an account. Imagine the headache this would spare everyone. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flaw in your logic is that most editors don't start out really giving a hoot about editing a certain page -- they just see a way they might contribute, and take the opportunity, and then 1 in a 100 of them gets hooked and become long-term contributors. I can personally attest that if I'd had to create an account before making my first edit, I never would have, and WP would have to have somehow got along without me all these years since. (Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I leave to others to decide.) EEng 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The flaw in that logic is that for everyone like you who states they never would have bothered if they had to make an account, there's at least one editor who isn't building the encyclopedia because they're too busy whacking IP vandals.
    And with that, seriously? Everyone on Reddit's made an account. Everyone on Discord's made an account. Everyone on Facebook's made an account. Everyone on Twitter's made an account. Everyone commenting on a Disqus forum's made an account. Most forums require accounts. Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube, accounts all around. The notion that Wikipedia would be shunned if registration was required flies in the face of 90% of the Internet. Ravenswing 12:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Wikipedia was in it's infancy, anonymous editing was still a big thing I would say. Now? It's an outlier. I've been on the bandwagon of no longer having logged out editing for sometime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt blocking anonymous edits would do much to deter this type of attack in the long run. Since enabling captchas stopped the current round, that demonstrates it's likely automated. In that case, they could still do the same thing if anonymous editing were disabled simply by adding a few steps in their attack script to create a new throw away account with a random username and automatically create a new account after a few edits and/or when the current account gets blocked. AI enhanced tools have gotten rather good at solving captchas too. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:E06F:6EFC:616E:44FE (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have now moved on to inserting random words into articles. I've done my bit by reverting 100+ of these today (as have others). A filter for the flag would help. Knitsey (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given the timing, the nature of the edit, and the fact that it is the only edit in the IP's contrib log, I think my talk page got hit by this vandal as well. And yet, for some reason, instead of a swastika, I got a random photo of some polish boxing commentator? 🤔 I don't know if this data point is at all useful to those addressing this disruption, but figured I'd mention it here just in case someone is compiling all the utilized IPs. SnowRise let's rap 10:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got hit, and they changed out the about 10 images on my user talk page to pictures of Hitler, and added text. IP from South Korea. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Defacement of talk page by 37.210.128.134

    37.210.128.134 (talk · contribs) defaced my talk-page with disturbing images. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChaipau&diff=1168411340&oldid=1168391998

    I have reverted it but request some action.

    Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to the above Nazi imagery LTA attack. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I should have checked. Thanks for mentioning it here. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau Fyi, I have reported to WP:AIV for you. This is related to #Nazi flag above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could potentially be the same IP as 50.86.121.146 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an LTA automated attack. See the above Nazi flag section. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    EmergencyCaptcha mode in effect

    EmergencyCaptcha mode is in effect as of a few minutes ago. It applies to all unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users. Disruption has stopped for now; if that holds for a few hours, someone should reach out to a dev and ask to have it turned off. The task to reference, even if you can't view its contents, is T343294. Longer-term, a relevant task is T303433 (allowing stewards to enable EmergencyCaptcha). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can tell, this measure appears to have been highly effective. Thanks for your work on this! Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Hopefully this fixes the problem. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we think we're ready to revert this? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 09:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: I'd say so! -- RockstoneSend me a message! 10:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is that if there is no evidence of disruption for the last 1-3h, it's worth turning it off as long as we have a reasonably quick way of flipping the switch again if needed. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockstone35 and Blablubbs: Reverted, thank you — I am monitoring this thread, so please ping me (or any other sysadmin) if this level of disruption resumes — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: We might need this back on again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, are filters ineffective again? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandalism hasn't resumed yet - but they just threatened on SFR's talk page to start vandalizing again, so we might need the captchas soon. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a number of now revdel'd post with the same type of message here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime-WMF: It'd be for the best to wait until it actually resumes to enable it as it's a rather disruptive mitigation. Deauthorized. (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deauthorized: Understood — other mitigations are being reviewed — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is best practice the next time this happens? I responded to this incident last night and blocked probably a score of IPs, maybe more. I wasn't sure what the best route for escalation is. Feel free to reply by email if you don't want to, erm, spill any beans. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @C.Fred: when things get "bad enough" that community-based mitigations are no longer effective, privately asking for SRE/Security assistance (ideally via a Security Task on Phabricator) is the best course of escalation, as Tamzin did in this case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) @C.Fred: I think this much ought to be said publicly, to increase the bus factor of admins who know what to do: My approach and others' in these cases is increasingly aggressive filtering of IP edits (or new-account edits, depending on LTA M.O.), up to an extreme of disallowing or drastically limiting all IP edits outright. (Granted, not all admins are edit filter managers, but all can monitor private filters and discuss with EFMs as needed—or self-grant EFM and make limited changes to the extent they feel competent to do so.) When one is in the territory of those extraordinary measures, that's the time to talk about EmergencyCaptcha. There's a few sysadmins I'm friendly with who I'd normally reach out to in such a case; in this one, they were all offline, so I dropped a message in #wikimedia-operations connect and got a response after about 20 minutes. If things had been a bit more acute, I might have requested a Klaxon blare, although in practice finding someone with Klaxon access can be just as hard as finding someone with access to do the needful in the first place. I'll note that, while antivandalism work is usually below our devs' paygrade, I've found them uniformly enthusiastic about it when push comes to shove. They also have other interventions they can use, such as removing limits on AbuseFilter hits and some other stuff I won't get into. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin advice for "ordinary" editors who spot an outbreak

    I missed yesterday's main drama, so apologies if this has been discussed. If this can be done without spilling stuff... what should "ordinary" editors like me do if we spot another outbreak of this sort? I've seen admins asking for and recommending against reporting the IPs to AIV, for instance.

    What would you lot with the mops and big red buttons like us to do? Is it just revert and ignore, knowing that others will see the issue and do the revdeling and blocking as and when? — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If it continues it might be worthwhile setting up something (another type of AIV?) somewhere (I'm still a noob so I've no idea where) to request rev/dels maybe? I don't know if that's a possibility? Knitsey (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's of this severity, then Tamzin's writing above is the reasonable solution. Due to it being a security task it's unfortunate that 191 people can know whether the process has started without asking, but it comes with the territory. As Ingenuity said below, there's not much point in reporting (and by extension blocking) since they hop around the IPs on speeds that make it unviable. Reverting and ignoring is indeed the way to go, with RD being applied when appropriate, although I don't believe adding photos of Oswald Mosley and replacing random words rises to that level. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there's basically nothing you can do except revert the IP edits. Each IP is only used for one edit, so there's not much use in reporting them to AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more about asking for rev/dels after reverting. In this case it might be there are too many though. Knitsey (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The insane attack took place in the early dawn in UTC+3, it just like block numerous IPs and cleaning up the clutter. My talk page is protected already but will end on August 5, but the logic is, the numerous anons claim to be from the UK and Netherlands as stated above when it was dark then. If this persists, other than the filter created fails, it would be a problem to all non autocomfirmed users. Too odd that all affected versions are hidden from view. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly speaking, simply patrolling recent changes is a truly big help and is something anyone can do. I think some of us who have been around for a while like to roll our eyes at the banality of this work compared to other things we could be doing on Wikipedia, but the less editors doing it, the likelier it is that vandalism will slip through and be seen by readers. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dedicated filter for emergency mass IP block

    Well that was... something. Since it's suboptimal to have a massive IP block be logged on whichever more specialized edit filter was in use before then, especially if the filter is private, I have created filter 1263 for such (hopefully extremely rare) cases going forward. It is disabled by default. For any admins reading this in the future: to use, select all, IPv4, or IPv6; select namespaces if applicable; enable; notify AN or AN/I; and request EmergencyCaptcha if it has not already done so. The filter uses the custom MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-emergency-IP, newly created by DatGuy and Reaper Eternal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like it'd be instantly throttled. Unless the configuration for throttling has changed. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. 684 wasn't throttled (although it was flagged) in the 2 minutes it blocked all IPv4 edits. Either way it'd be better than nothing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there really needs to be better tools for these types of mass attacks. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Will it also affect new users? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It could be easily modified to do that, but—at the risk of tempting fate,  Kinehore—that's a significantly less likely scenario, since account creation is a bottleneck. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ABSOLUTELY don't prevent edits by new users, it's disruptive enough when IP editing is disabled. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note of appreciation

    I just wanted to take a second to thank all of our admins, functionaries, and patrollers who so quickly and diligently moved to effectively address this disruption, and who did so with an eye towards minimizing the impacts on good faith contributions. Unfortunately, for reasons I'll BEANS past, I feel like these kinds of attacks are probably going to be occasionally with us, for at least this immediate forthcoming era of the project, so it's good to know that our response mechanisms are so adept and well-crewed. Three cheers for our response team here: you're too numerous for me to track you all down and give you barnstars for your work, but please know you are noticed and appreciated, during larger scale disruption, and generally. SnowRise let's rap 22:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And while I'm at it, an inquiry too. Per Mz7's comments above, I'm going to make an effort to over the following days to lend some extra eyes at RCP. And I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a mass-message subscription that could send up a quick flair to regular patrollers to let them know when one of these attacks is happening, and extra hands on deck would be appreciated? Maybe also some notices to some high traffic spaces, or a reserved space/template/notice so that editors such as myself who do not regularly volunteer as new page patrollers, but would be inclined to do so under the circumstances, can be aware of the temporary need?
    Of course any amount of adjustment that requires mobilizing additional editors risks becoming the kind of reaction that only encourages this sort of thing. And vandalism busting is not my area, so for all I know CVU already has some tools in this area, which might be perfectly well supported by sufficient numbers of volunteers to respond to these issues. But it seems like mobilizing enough extra rank and files on short-to-immediate notice timelines to squash these kinds of attacks flat as instantly as possible might be useful thing? I don't know, I'm a little out of my element, so maybe I'm only talk about obvious stuff that already exists. SnowRise let's rap 22:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. — Trey Maturin™ 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SnowRise, my impression is that those who are interested already have ways of notifying each other off-wiki. But in any case, the less edits that are made over this sort of thing, the less happens on-wiki because of it, the better. One of the initial vandal messages here on ANI was that they want 'war'. The obvious answer is WP:DENY. I think that actually, we handled this case particularly badly on that front. What we're doing here with the barnstars, and my very comment (also acknowledging I actually read their trolling message), runs directly contrary to good practice. Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the admins working on this. I also appreciated them the last time I witnessed a similar display by another hopelessly pathetic proxy-wielding vandal. But at the time there was almost no fuss about it on ANI, and it seems that 'fuss' is all these trolls are really looking for. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough as to most of that, but I actually think the barnstars and general expressions of appreciation to our anti-vandalism volunteers runs in the opposite direction: it's a healthy response as an internal matter, and even if the LTA does see it, all it shows them is that they are only bringing us closer together and making us more committed and organized.
    Mind you, I can understand the BEANS and DENY arguments for keeping the community response small and discrete on the whole, and hiding community organization and response "under the bonnet", so to speak, but celebrating our hardworking volunteers at the gates in good cheer feels appropriate and if anything makes it clear to the vandal that we are largely unfazed by their nonsense. SnowRise let's rap 04:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Silence is the best response to this kind of disruption, but in a case like this where it's not entirely an option (some public coordination that needs to be done, plus the inevitable influx of "what's going on??"), I do think wholesomeness is the second-best response. I think trolls like this often have an image of hyper-intense admins seething behind our keyboards, obsessing over their next move. During the first wave of this, I listened to Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss' rendition of "Simple Gifts" on repeat while I blocked IPs and then had a good night's sleep; I handled the second wave while chatting with friends and listening to "House Atreides" from The Dune Sketchbook, and then signed off for a boardgame date with my polycule. The most stressful thing that's happened to me today has been trying and failing to win as the traitor in Betrayal at House on the Hill. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A little shameless self-promo: User:Giraffer/Sworn enemies. But on a more serious note, I agree with what most of the above are saying; it may not be the ideal scenario (or necessarily the most comforting), but for most patrollers, using our standard processes for vandalism should be a good solution in incidents like these. I don't think a massmessage or anything of that form is really needed at this stageknock wood -- it takes a surprisingly low number of patrollers to deal with something of this scale, and I think the DENY-violating aspects of sending a message out heavily outweigh whatever positives may be gained from having a surplus of users ready to revert. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing that perspective, Giraffer. Seems like everyone familiar with the area is convinced our current wo/manpower is more than sufficient to the task of restraining even the pronounced spikes of vandalism quite easily and that, as you say, any benefits of extra hands on deck are outweighted by the troll feeding it might enable. SnowRise let's rap 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so that's who outed me as the Sussy impSuster from among Sus while i wasn't looking? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Barnstar_of_Reversion_Hires.png File:No_Spam_Barnstar_Hires.png File:WikiDefender_Barnstar_Hires.png
    File:WikiDefender_Barnstar_Hires.png File:Technician_Barnstar.svg File:The_Patrol's_Barnstar.png
    		The Multiple Barnstar
    To all those above represented and those behind-the-scenes.
    Your vigilance and diligence serve to keep the Wiki working and thriving.
    ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this person even want? Or are they just bored and pissed? Any idea? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't know, don't care, WP:DENY. Deauthorized. (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their demands are simple: they uploaded some extremely reddit image (note that it's a browser on a booru and not /g/ or hosted on their own server or in a file explorer). Then they used it to perform the highly redditous behavior of vandalism, and it was deleted on Commons. This got them extremely rustled and they ran a massive botnet to piss and crap all over Wikipedia, instead of going back to reddit, which is where they belong. jp×g 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any page to co-ordinate the clean-up so cover everything once rather than duplicating effort? Obviously ANI isn't the right place for it, but it would be good to have a link here. Certes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • My two penn'orth, an anecdote. I was a mod on a site (now shuttered) on which the main problems were commercial spam and to a lesser extent trolls. We were hit by a Chinese spambot, making 8,000-10,000 junk posts per hour. After some initial confusion, it was dealt with in a couple of hours. The second attack was handled more efficiently. When the third struck, there were three mods in our chatroom: the rough equivalent of a steward and 2 CUs (a veteran and the office junior (me)). I was monitoring the equivalent of recent changes, sounded the alarm, and volunteered to sit on the head of the queue (a task which included advising honest users what to do). The veteran took the tail and worked up towards me, both of us reporting new IPs to the steward as they were found. The latter used mass-deletion tools and applied blocks (at one point, she proudly announced that she'd just blocked one-third of mainland China). The rubbish started disappearing as fast as it was posted, and within an hour and a half they gave up and never came back.
    Obviously, this recent idiocy was a very different type of incident; but the way editors came together to counter it was familiar. I am confident that the public and behind-the-scenes channels set up because of it will make for an even more efficient response next time. Well done, all! Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you search for instances of that image?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know the filename (please do not post it here), then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=20&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22FILENAME%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 replacing FILENAME with all or part of the filename should do it. But... it's a commonly used file with many encyclopaedic uses, so each and every article would need a check – no blind reverts. — Trey Maturin™ 17:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several images; one edit I reverted introduced three and I've seen others elsewhere. Unfortunately, an insource: search is likely to time out unless accompanied by an indexed search term, and I can't think of one. I'm currently working through a list of changes from relevant time ranges which are by IPs and still current, but thankfully finding very few edits of concern. Certes (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start watching RCP with Huggle and AV a little bit more than normal, at least for the next week or so. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 22:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Image blacklist

    Why isn't this image on MediaWiki:Bad image list and whitelisted to be on articles where it is necessary? I would have sworn it was a while ago when I went through said list. Indeed, there are already some swastikas on there. jp×g 20:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is used on 184 pages, and there's no reason to think that's an exhaustive set. There are many encyclopedic reasons to depict the Nazi flag. The image was temporarily added to the bad image list while it was being spammed, at the expense of it rendering correctly on articles where it is used legitimately, but was removed once things died down. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User Chaitanya kalra continues disruptively editing articles after their temporary ban ran out

    User Chaitanya kalra has been disruptively editing Wikipedia, with a specific focus on Sikh articles, for a few months now. They were temp. banned but their ban expired and now they're back to their old behaviour: [43], [44], [45].

    I have tried to engage them on their talk-page ([46]) requesting them to stop and warned that I would report them if they didn't but they haven't replied to me. Can something be done against them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThethPunjabi (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ThethPunjabi, can you please explain in more detail what the problem is with those edits? Were they reverted? Was there discussion of the edits anywhere? Fences&Windows 19:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fences and windows: If it's not obvious from the edits themselves, this reply by User:MrOllie to a completely outrageous rant by Chaitanya kalra is a pretty good summary. CityOfSilver 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was about edits in May they were blocked for so can't apply now. It's not obvious from the linked edits. Explain it like I'm five! Fences&Windows 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In May, MrOllie told Chaitanya kalra "You must cite sources for your additions, and you must make some effort to format them correctly." This applies to their most recent additions to Hinduism and Sikhism, all 3 of which came after they were blocked. Their first edit from August 1st is a major change that didn't include additional sourcing, is really badly written, and has an aggressive edit summary that all but declares it's original research. The second, which introduced a typo, has an edit summary that says "fixed typo." The third is, just like the first, a really substantial, badly written change that didn't include new sourcing but did have an argumentative summary that strongly indicated the new text is original research. All 3 were reverted by User:DeCausa per, you guessed it, WP:OR. This person isn't citing sources, they're banging out text with next to no consideration for how it'll look to a casual reader, and they're preemptively picking fights in the edit summaries. User:ThethPunjabi hasn't explained why they didn't try to discuss this before they came here but I bet it's because those two edit summaries show that Chaitanya kalra hasn't learned anything from their block. CityOfSilver 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver @Fences and windows - Hello, I think CityOfSilver explained the issues with this particular user well. I just want to add that I did try engaging with the user on their talk-page but they have not replied to me. Essentially, this user tends to push particular point-of-views on articles, removes sections of (cited!) text on flimsy grounds, such as in one case where they said the info not being "acceptable to Indian scholars" to justify their removals (but they do not explain which scholars they are talking about) and they introduce original research or poorly cited content into articles to support their particular viewpoint. They were already banned before for similar activities after ample warnings and attempts at discussion but the same disruptions just started up again after their ban expired. Essentially, I do not feel like this user is here to build an unbiased and balanced encyclopedia. I honestly tried giving them benefit of the doubt by requesting them to read relevant Wikipedia rules on these subjects but I don't know if they bothered to look into it or intend to change course. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect at Sunrise

    Not going anywhere--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user Future Perfect at Sunrise should NOT have administrative privileges. If you look through his edits it's clear he has a pro-Turkish agenda and distinctly edits articles related to Turkey, or former Ottoman territories in order to glorify Turkey or give a pro- Ottoman bias. This completely goes against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. At the least he should be barred from editing Ottoman/Byzantine related articles. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What specific diffs can you provide? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    :Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't this the same sort of problem that saw this same user indef'd less than years ago? i wasn't even aware that they had been allowed to return, or - in a Bizarro-World tweest - was an admin again. Strange days, mama. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

    Who exactly are you referring to? Who was indef'd less than years ago? Future Perfect at Sunrise was accidently indef'd about 9 years ago by mistake and was unblocked within 60 seconds of being blocked, as it was a mistake. Do you have diffs for whatever you're referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SouthernResidentOrca: This looks like a content dispute limited to a few edits over a couple of days on a specific page, and it doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the dispute with Future Perfect at Sunrise in any way, either on their user talk page or at Talk:Byzantine Empire. I would suggest using the article's talk page to try to get a consensus for your proposed changes, and using dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:DRN if the talk page discussion stalls, but this doesn't seem to be an issue that warrants WP:ANI or the duplicate AN discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Rollbacked edits and blocked the spam-only account. --Leyo 08:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sahiltopmychart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding a link to a website to multiple health related pages, repeatedly, without relevance, and in a form that indicates advertising. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SPECIFICO issue at Julian Assange

    This was a misunderstanding, and when the sentence is read correctly in the context of the post, the issue is cleared up. Just my opinion, I would agree with TFD's point that SPECIFICO could have clarified in their first reply by stating who the thief was after being questioned, rather than stating "Please review". starship.paint (exalt) 13:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    SPECIFICO Article: Talk:Julian Assange, specifically Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_-_Manning_documents Issue(s): defamation on WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPCRIMINAL in which the editor twice refers to the article subject as a thief. Article subject is not a thief. The subject has also not been in prison for a decade.

    • Specifico states "he published illegally leaked, stolen documents that landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." 15:20, 2 August 2023
    • I noted it was probably a BLP violation to call the article subject a thief saying "SPECIFICO, above you call the article subject a thief. I think we can stop the discussion here, this is a WP:BLP violation" 06:57, 3 August 2023
    • Specifico denies it: "No, I did not. Please review this thread and address the stated issue. Assange is the one who associated himself with a criminal. Others, including the US, claim that he too is a criminal due to having published stolen information. Also please review WP:ASPERSIONS." 08:25, 3 August 2023
    • I seek clarification: "@SPECIFICO: I read you say "landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." Apologies I thought you were saying landed the thief. Is that a quote of Assange or someone else? I am unable to find this quote in google. Did that article subject call himself a thief? Thanks!" (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Specifico doubles down confirming he is accusing the article subject of a crime and adding emphasis to that claim: "@Jtbobwaysf: Bob, I am going to AGF and respond to you this one more time before seeking outside assistance: Those are my words, italicized for emphasis after various unresponsive replies in this thread. There is no quotation, and it's hard to understand the purpose of googling a just-written WP talk page comment. So please consider the issue raised above and respond to the crux of the issue, per WP:TPNO. Thanks." SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I reply: "It seems problematic that you are referring to the article subject as a "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis". That appears to be a BLP violation, as I would think these talk pages are also covered by that policy." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

    -Specifico no longer responds at this point. It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, that the editor should refrain from editing that particular article (or be prohibited if the editor cannot control himself/herself).

    Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think SPECIFICO is referring to Chelsea Manning as a thief, not Julian Assange. Manning was convicted of theft in 2013, and spent seven years in jail. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post the same comment, this appears to be a misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO is being unnecessarily acerbic, but I agree they have not violated BLP here. The "thief" they are referring to is not Assange, it is Manning. That's a bit obscure here, but they haven't violated WP:BLP. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd that ununivolved editors see immediately that I was not referring to Assange but that several of the most active editors on that talk page shared OP's view to the contrary. And that OP, even after I tried several times to clarify the meaning to them, comes here to argue for sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd that you refer to Chelsea Manning as a "thief," and it betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic. Find me an RS that uses the word "thief" to describe Manning or anyone else convicted of stealing govt property. The words used by RS, and our article, are "whistleblower" and "activist," but it would be clearer if you just referred to Manning as "Manning" and not "the thief." Levivich (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There exist a very large number of RS that say Manning was convicted of theft. From Webster's: The meaning of THIEF is one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny. I don't see the problem using the term on the TP as it was used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000: From the very message you replied to: calling Chelsea Manning a "thief" instead of using her name "betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic". CityOfSilver 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the point of the paragraph. Neither the article or the paragraph was about Manning. Simply replacing the word with the name would have been less clear. The point made was that the documents Assange released were stolen documents and the perpetrator received a heavy sentence. Actually, leaving her name out is less of a problem as it is the action and the sentence and how they relate to Assange's actions that matters, not the name. In any case, this is not an NPOV problem since she was convicted on much heavier charges. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000: If Manning was mentioned, call her "Manning" instead of "thief" because calling her "thief" makes it look like you're speaking from a place of opinion, whether or not that's what you're actually doing. Or keep pretending it's more complicated and nuanced than that. CityOfSilver 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an opinion, and as far as your word pretending, WP:AGF. The point was that his notability derived from her, whatever you want to call it, that ended in a severe sentence. Simply replacing the word would not have put that clearly across. Oh, and I don't remember calling her a thief. That's all I have to say on the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich is correct here; there are shades of misdeed, and while sensu stricto SPECIFICO did not violate BLP, they did use intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory language, which is likely to engender emotional responses from others. They were also rather circumlocutionary about the antecedent of thief, even when it was confusing to others. Clearly, they are acting in ways which any reasonable person would see as unnecessarily provocational. Tone matters, and as Levivich notes, one has many choices when referring to a person. Using a person's preferred name is always neutral. Calling them a thief (even if correct) is usually not. Make better choices, SPECIFICO. Please. --Jayron32 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I understand your point. And yes there are shades of misdeed. But it would seem "thief" is a very mild term considering she was convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years. It just seems like "thief" is simpler on a TP than "the person who stole the documents". Just saying "Manning" doesn't make the point of the post in its entirety. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, in this thread Jtbobwaysf said "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis" which I don't see as true as the entire sentence was italicized, not the word thief for emphasis. Also, they went on to say: It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, which I think is out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a strong POV statement to replace their name or pronoun with the person-noun form of a crime that they committed or to define the person by an offense they committed. Signed: Chronic-speeder North8000. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasnt aware that SPECIFICO was referring to Manning, apologies for the confusion. Manning was jailed for theft, thus probably not a BLP violation if that is the case. Apologies for much ado about nothing. I was thinking SPECIFICO was referring to Assange, hence the confusion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    SPECIFICO could have avoided this discussion accelerating by saying that by saying "thief" they were referring to Manning, rather than Assange, instead of cryptically saying, "Please review this thread." An the fact that the U.S. has accused Assange of a crime is something everyone editing the article already knows.

    This is trolling: using incendiary comments designed to create discord and disrupt improvement of the article.

    TFD (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is me, or is AN/I becoming even less polite than its reputation? This thread was a misunderstanding. There is no BLP vio. Seems like time for a close, and sorry for any part I took in extending it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second thread that User:Jtbobwaysf has created to complain about other users making negative edits to the Julian Assange article/talkpage. Might be worth looking into his edits to see if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, per WP:RGW. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not either party's first time at this noticeboard (indeed, in May SPECIFICO was given a thirty-day topic ban from American politics) or even the parties' first time at this noticeboard specifically regarding arguments on the Julian Assange article. That time, and this time, I have tried to go to the article's talk page and figure out what the dispute was, and been completely unable to determine what the argument was about, what each side of the argument believed was true or not true, or what changes they wanted to be made to the article (or what the reason for these changes was supposed to be). My honest recommendation -- this is not a joke -- is that all users be given word limits on the Julian Assange talk page, and limited to, say, 100 words per day. jp×g 22:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jayron32, TheFourDeuces, and North8000: On the article page, I made this edit. It was reverted, so I started this talk page thread. The three editors I've pinged have made comments about the word "thief" lead me to wonder whether you have read the entire thread that is the locus of this complaint. If you have not done so, I request, given the conclusory observations you have both made, you read the entire thread at this time. The sentence in which I used the word "thief" arose only for emphasis after a rather inexplicable failure of OP to understand several explanations of the straightorward article edit I was proposing and after I had repeatedly referred to Ms. Manning by name and had repeatedly explained that the central issue of Assange's current situation -- this is his bio page -- is whether Assange will personally be prosecuted and convicted as if he inherits culpability for Manning's crimes or whether, on the other hand, Assange will be afforded the protections of a journalist who reported but did not himself appropriate the information. I presume everyone's now aware that Manning was convicted of theft, just to put that concern to rest. Any of the 3 pinged, if you choose to review the entire Assange talkl page thread, I'd appreciate knowing whether you affirm or revise the views you've shared above. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Describing someone as a thief when that person is admired by some segments, including some Wikipedia editors, is provocative and likely to upset them. It distracts from attempts to improve the page as we get into off-topic discussions about whether that description is fair or accurate. I'll make no comment on whether it is or is not, but point out that having thst discussion on the talk page does nothing to improve the article and makes it difficult for editors to read through discussions.
    You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them. Again, I make no comment on whether or not I agree with them. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify your proposal? Are you saying that we cannot talk about someone being a thief (and far more serious crimes) who has been convicted and imprisoned for theft to make a point about notability involving the source of stolen property distributed by another person on their article talk page because it will upset some editors who admire the person convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Manning is being described as a "thief" not because it's true but because that's a word with extremely negative connotations that has no practical use in this context but to cast aspersions against an ideological opponent. This is a violation of NPOV. And before you link me to AGF again, consider that you just fired off a 65-word sentence that ostensibly restates another person's message but in reality completely, entirely misrepresents it. As you know, nobody has said or even implied that Manning didn't steal anything. CityOfSilver 02:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We wouldn't call Nelson Mandela "the ex-convict" even though he was convicted and served time in prison. Nor would we call MLK "the serial offender" even though he was arrested nearly 30 times. We wouldn't call Martha Stewart "the liar" even though she was convicted of lying to investigators. None of those are neutral terms, or even truly accurate, despite being technically correct. So let's try this out again: referring to Manning as "the thief"? Not cool. Levivich (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was necessary in the context because it was specifically about the fact that the material was stolen; not a general characterization of the person. And the paragraph wasn't even about her. It was about the distributor of the stolen information. Basically, the paragraph was stating that Assange was not the thief, presumably as a mitigation. Your analogies are way off base. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did no such thing. And what "ideological opponent"? WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On your comment:You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them, considering thet she is a Democrat, trans, and her sentence commuted by Obama; I guess you are saying SPECIFICO's politics are right-wing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Invitation

    The moral of this tale is that we need more editors to volunteer on the Julian Assange page. I may post at NPOVN and BLPN shortly. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious troll is obvious

    (non-admin closure) Don't talk to me about cars, I'm just a comedian has been indefinitely blocked by Courcelles as clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Don't talk to me about cars, I'm just a comedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing to deliberately set off filters and attract attention to their edits… which are good edits. Can we not? — Trey Maturin™ 14:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, they’re not good edits. Not looking at the full history. Blocked for trolling. Courcelles (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued disruptive edit at Miss Teen International and Miss Teen International (India)

    Hello, good day. The help of an administrator or editor is needed to resolve the conflict caused by Aayat1998 who intends to usurp part of the the history of the Miss Teen International (Americas) article and put this information in the Miss Teen International (India) article. The user Aayat1998 has repeatedly destroyed the work of other editors, because previously the user had taken over the article on Wikipedia and did not allow edits by other users or editors; and despite the fact that this issue has already been resolved at the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miss_Teen_International, Aayat1998 continues with the disruptive editing. The user has been acting vandalistically all the time, there is no way to make him understand. I feel very stressed having to revert all the time the false information that he post and he change in the aforementioned articles. I will appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahsabaot (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    When you raise someone here at ANI, as the large notice says at the top of the page and the edit page, you must notify them. I have done so for you this time, but please don't forget again. Canterbury Tail talk 16:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, thank you. Yahsabaot (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors have been blocked for 3RR violations. One after a warning, one after continuing to edit war after warning the other about 3RR, so both were aware before their last edits. This doesn't cast any judgement on the merits of this case which still needs someone to look at it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's seriously time to designate pageants a contentious topic through community sanctions. They're just a never ending source of disruption equal to many of the current topics in the AE log (though not as bad as the worst of them, of course.) Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Beauty Pageants and Wrestling. Canterbury Tail talk 16:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While there are community sanctions on both; Wikipedia:General sanctions/Beauty pageants is considerably weaker, authorizing only semi-protection. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling is the standard ArbCom CTOP modeled sanctions. Currently. the only way to topic ban someone from pageants under a discretionary sanction is to shoehorn it under NEWBLPBAN. Which is problematic, of course. And unorthodox enough I don't know if people think about doing it. Courcelles (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup help needed Ladyoftrees' contributions

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

    CU indicates it is not a (recently) compromised account, for what that’s worth in deciding how far back to verify contributions. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This search is ones that she created and was the last editor on. None look harmful but they don't appear particularly necessary either.
    Note there's an unformatted unblock request. I don't see any way to "apologize" for these creations. Star Mississippi 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi They seem to have been going through the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and making redirects for all the nicknames in it. It was a really bad idea as without context these would be attack pages, but this seems more a case of "really poorly thought out" than "deliberate vandalism". 192.76.8.66 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User Yaujj13: systematical POV pushing

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

    I agree with user NmWTfs85lXusaybq. Although the sources are valid, Yaujj13 likes to overcite and engage in original research, completely misleading the reader.
    examples: the user made the same original research edit in three different articles.
    1. [48] and [49] and [50]
    user wrote: "General Ishii Shirō's mistress recruited Japanese girls as prostitutes for the Recreation and Amusement Association where up to 70,000 Japanese girls were forced to serve US soldiers in brothels.[1]
    source: "Of course, prostitution on a large scale continued but as a privte business activity." and "At is peak more than 70,000 women worked for the organization. As the demand for women to staff the organization outstripped the supply of professional prositutes, geishas and the like, other groups of women were drafted..." (it was a mix of professional prostitutes and forced girls, not all 70,000 of them were forced, and it was the japanese government, not the general's mistress, who organized and implemented the system.)
    2. [51]
    user wrote: members were forced by USA to conduct live experiments on humans. [2]
    source: members were funded. american coercion was never mentioned in source.
    i rewrote the information to reflect what was in the article. [52] LilAhok (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilAhok can you provide the diff where they wrote that members were "forced" to conduct experiments? This[53] just talks about funding which seems consistent with the Guardian article.
    Also, the claim about prostitutes isn't that far off, is it? @Yaujj13 claimed (1) the general's mistress recruited girls, and (2) there were "up to" 70K at the brothels. Source says the mistress ran a brothel, and says "more than" 70K worked at the brothels. Consistent, certainly not "completely misleading."
    The "liver" thing was added in May but reverted in July (some potential WP:BOOMARANG drawing attention to the hounding accusation?).
    I'm not taking sides here, at least not for now, but there is a history on both sides of harsh words and failing to discuss. The worst seems to have been in April when @Yaujj13 was a new account - I called out @Yaujj13 out for their editing behavior and @NmWTfs85lXusaybq for harshly worded edit summaries and pro-China POV accusations. The next time @NmWTfs85lXusaybq posted anything to @Yaujj13's talk page was the ANI notice. If you think I'm misunderstanding what's been happening feel free to explain. Oblivy (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See this diff: The US military forced Japanese members of Unit 731 to conduct experiments on Japanese people in Japan in 1952.
    The claim about prostitutes is pre-prepared material copy-pasted to several articles including United States war crimes, Unit 731, Japanese war crimes and Shirō Ishii, which could be a type of POV pushing regardless of its sourcing.
    Besides, I'm asking @Oblivy to focus on POV pushing and mass copy-pasting material added by Yaujj13, not the interaction between Yaujj13 and me. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On "forced", fair enough, that was wrong, although there was factual material in the paragraph which you just reverted when a change of wording would have fixed the problem.
    I think your history of interactions is relevant, and you yourself added links to the April talk page discussion and their allegations against you of hounding. The closing admin can disregard but I think it belongs in the mix. Oblivy (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still misleading this discussion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the situation of POV pushing and mass copy-pasting. My accusation is contesting NPOV of their material, not verifiability.
    I added these links to help others learn the background and the scope of articles affected by Yaujj13's edits. However, I see you're just complaining about your mediation, which is unhelpful to this discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I am here to address my case on my actions and the accusations against me.
    @NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I believe your argument is in bad faith here as the edits you kept reverting has an agenda. I believe you are a pro Japanese vandal who target my edits for anything anti Japan. The reverts you do wasn't because it was breaching the neutral POV. It is because it conflict with your view in the world.
    You also edit articles relating to China vs USA and Japan and edit articles of China dealing with Hong Kong, Taiwan etc in the Chinese Wiki on his other account. All the articles he reverted on me was barely or never about China government with focus on the Asian people and its history (all before the CCP) like Filipino Chinese, Peranakan, Battle of West Hunan, Jambi Sultanate, Persecution of Muslims, Japanese migration to Indonesia, China Marines, Alawites etc.
    @LilAhok While you are also a player in this edit mess, I think you are just a victim in the mess (I think you are just a PRC nationalist and putting your own POV in the Japanese war crimes page).
    You thought NmW is an anti Japan editor for deleting excerpt that paint Japan in a bad light. However, he just deleting the facts that Japan have instance of incompetence that exist for every nation that happened in history, like poisoning their own men with the ineffective cholera and prostituting their own people. Not because he want to paint Japan as the belligerent aggressor.
    You are kind of no better as you try to mix two contradicting sources by original research on the comfort women rape and the rape in Nanking.
    For the liver food article, it wasn't just Japanese doing the cannibalising, I also mention other instance of cannibalisim who are not Japanese and especially the Moro who cannibalise the Japanese.
    My edits may be a mess but I always try to edit according to the sources. I would never add my own bias into the edits even in my Fandom account (plus I mostly done cleaning and organizing in the Fandom wikis), in short, his accusation back in Jambi Sultanate talk is just straw argument. Whereas the two users who accuse me for inserting my own POV, those two revert my edits because it contradict their narrative. I never had been pro CCP or current China government, in fact I do not like them for reason diggressing the topic.
    I also noticed the very pro Japan and west POV by NmW along with another user Rastinition pushing in Japan related articles and especially Japanese war crimes. These users delete all Japanese war crimes against non Chinese people and like people in Quora, are hired to propagate their own view and disguise themselves as neutral. While in Quora are pro China, in Wikipedia, I believe some users are pro Japan and USA due to a Cold War between China and USA & Japan. Yaujj13 (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of my contribution to English Wikipedia is anti-vandalism. I was attracted to Yaujj13's edits on Peranakans by multiple CS1 errors and tried to solve them here before I realized his editing behavior is actually systematical POV pushing starting from 30 March 2023 and the contravention of his claim on user page: I will not edit any Wikipedia pages unless there are minor error. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like to add my further suspicion on users like NmW and Rastinition. Like knowing how to fix template errors or editing for their POV. It might not be suspicious for an average user but the user I accused started doing those when their account are brand new along with the fact they are using bots or script to remove content farms and fix template errors. While it can be excused by saying they read the Wikipedia rules, but that implicated them in planning their editing before starting their account. A new users would not immediately do editing that only experienced editor would know. I believe that NmW account is only a single purpose for the China Japan Western political topics and using template fixing as a disguise for his malicious actions.
    Also these type of users have been removing kknews.cc sources
    Rastinition:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-12&diff=prev&oldid=1062345056 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-34_variants&diff=prev&oldid=1054956976 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aerial_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=prev&oldid=1055041072 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Ying&diff=prev&oldid=1054956666 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunming_Changshui_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1054956582 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donegi_Abena&diff=prev&oldid=1054955633 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wang_Wenfeng&diff=prev&oldid=1054412851
    EpJjgOa8rVvvsRmZL:
    https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%98%BF%E5%AF%AC&diff=prev&oldid=77138842 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%B4%85%E9%B8%9E&diff=prev&oldid=77138839 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%A5%AD%E5%A4%A9&diff=prev&oldid=77138837 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%BA%AB%E6%9F%94%E7%9A%84%E5%AD%90%E5%BD%88&diff=prev&oldid=77138835 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%97%E5%90%BE&diff=prev&oldid=77138833 Yaujj13 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    References

    1. ^ Tanaka, Yuki (2019). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes In World War Ii (reprint ed.). Routledge. ISBN 0429720890.
    2. ^ https://theguardian.newspapers.com/article/122763034/postwar-japan-us-backed-japans-germ/%7Cwork=The

    User:2601:582:300:5340:F025:AD89:5894:6625

    Blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User has been making spam edits and inserting irrelevant YouTube links to 2023 Nigerien crisis (Special:Contributions/2601:582:300:5340:F025:AD89:5894:6625). Also found this deleted reply when they were called out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:582:300:5340:F025:AD89:5894:6625&diff=prev&oldid=1168770073. Borgenland (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocked. Petty vandalism like this should probably be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though. Or if it sits there too long, you could post on an admin's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admonishment against WP:SOAP brings WP:LEGAL threat.

    (non-admin closure) Deathmolor blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller for long-term issues of personal attacks and not assuming good faith. Talk page access also revoked by RickinBaltimore for continuation of personal attacks there. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This request for dispute resolution drew my attention to Talk:WikiTree where there seemed to be (on a cursory examination) some significant WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP and possibly WP:COI going on all around in different ways. I responded with [54]. Another editor took the suggestion to just nominate the article for deletion. I particularly noticed the editor Deathmolor was FORUMing on Talk:WikiTree (e.g. [55][56]) and I gave them a level 1 warning (dialed back from initially level 3 because I realized they maybe just had no idea).[57]

    Their response to the level 1 warning is thus:[58] Meant to be a chilling effect on contributions by those indigenous people choosing to contribute to English pages. If the discussion continues to be about the known racism in english wiki then I highly recommend just staying out of it. It will come to pass eventually when there are another set of rules, that does not require me to wade into the wiki English bureaucracy. The courts will have to be involved to simplify this process.

    To be fair, their concerns about the WikiTree article may be well founded and I supported its deletion and proposed SALTing. My response to the dispute resolution request was meant for anyone at all involved in the article on any side, but Deathmolor's response here continues what I had feared about their approach to editing, and does seem to be an explicit legal threat against Wikipedia. I was actually ready to apologize for not maintaining an even and impartial tone, until I saw this.

    If this grows into a wider inquiry about WikiTree's editors that's fine, but that was not my intent here. I didn't notice any other glaring problems than with this individual. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior for sure. Not sure if that's a legal threat though EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a distinction of "Wikipedia will have to be sued if it doesn't stop" and "I will sue Wikipedia if it doesn't stop"? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You talk like people don't read what you say, you people truly live in your own little rule lawyering and deanthropomorphizeing process. I am a real person, and i do not understand your little world of alphabet soup rules. I shouldn't be required to understand this to contribute. Again this would be a chilling effect to to wiki's objective of participation and cooperation. As for legal threat, i believe an actual legal threat comes with it an actual legal objective. It is interesting that there is an actual rule that allows administration to silence someone for even mentioning the existence of courts. Deathmolor (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [59] Ya i have noticed you are having an internal cross pollination with other talkers of alphabet soup rule language intended (intentional or otherwise) to intimidate participating editors of other cultures. Why do you feel you are being discriminated against? WikiTree, Wikipedia, other Wikipedia users, everyone seems to be discriminating against you. I was under the impression that most (all?) cultures have rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a cultural difference between the intent of Wiki and the actual execution of english wiki, based off the collective cultural example provided by indigenous cultures and then the inevitable use of rules to then chill the very culture of the wiki origins. Deathmolor (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another added point, I am glad the legal threat section WP:LEGAL acknowledges the chilling effect of legal threats, i believe in this very same way that using wiki rules in and bombarding way used by DIYeditor has a similar effect. Using the alphabet soup of rules on someone is chilling. The paradoxical use of rules is astounding. Deathmolor (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked Deathmolor for a long history of personal attacks and showing bad faith. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that admins like to give blocked users some leeway to vent after being blocked, but two more personal attack comments by Deathmolor indicate that it's perhaps time for TPA to be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore has blocked, removed the PA and taken away TPA. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible bot account

    User:Cyrobyte appears to be operating a bot account, or if not a bot certainly highly automated.

    The account has made over 25,000 edits virtually all of which simply add a 'use dmy dates' tag at the head of the article. The account adds over 30 of these tags every single minute while active. It is not possible for a human user to open a page; open an edit window, add the tag, add the edit summary and then close the window in under two seconds. 86.177.26.80 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for the legal threat. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Emekaanyaora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made two legal threats after edit warring to introduce POV and partisan content. The first was less overt, here. I warned them that it could be perceived as a legal threat. They responded with i will report this to our legal department in Germany . . . There'll be definitely consequences if the wrong information is not taken down cause we're registered entity with reputation.[60] — Czello (music) 11:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for the direct legal threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nassimohr: not here

    In a continuation of the situation from this thread, Nassimohr has been disruptively editing by attempting to overturn the concensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 2022 World Athletics Championships. They were aware of the correct way to request a deletion review, but chose to instead ignore that suggestion. Nassimohr has previously been blocked for edit warring over the above concerns after three escalating warnings, has made personal attacks and their talk page shows a distinct sign of a mentality of content ownership. Even though they were blocked, they proceeded to once again revert these articles back to their pre-AfD form, once again ignoring concensus. I think it is clear that Nassimohr will not listen and is not here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility and possible WP:CAMP issues

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

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

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

    "Took me a while to understand what you were trying to say here. You made it unnecessarily difficult by, for no apparent reason, nowiki-ing the legal term bright line, which I had never heard before, and by using lots of multiple negatives.
    But the brunt seems to be just a repetition of the statement that one obscure science branch you bloat to "the sciences" - uses the word "panspermia" with a different meaning than the rest of the world."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Warrenmck, despite your invocation of WP:CAMP (which is merely an essay), the discussion on FTN looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I see that Hob Gadling ran out of patience, but I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part and I don't think his comments to you are at the level of WP:Incivility. My advice would be to first read through the talk pages (and their archives, if there are any) for Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, as well as discussions of 'panspermia' in the FTN archives, to familiarize yourself with the history on the articles on wikipedia. (Notice how the subject heading at FTN ends with "(again)"?) After catching up on all that's gone before, you'll be better equipped to perhaps propose a solution that addresses your concerns as well as the other editors'. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part"
    Friend:
    :"This is so boring, I regret reading it." Warrenmck (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warrenmck, What good/bad faith means on wikipedia: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. An accusation of bad faith means that you're saying the other person is deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. I don't see evidence of that in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors."
    I don't think this is an active, explicit interest in harming wikipedia. I think this is behaviour which unintentionally does which requires a willful abandonment of civility and critical evaluation of sources. I've been editing for 16 years and would frankly expect to get ANI'd if I acted this way. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not trying to bludgeon the process. Warrenmck (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenmck, there are two topics that bring out the worst in editors who patrol the fringe topics, extraterrestrials (including UFOs), and panspermia. It’s been this way since the Internet was invented. Part of the problem is that the claims themselves are considered extraordinary (I don’t believe general panspermia is extraordinary, but the idea that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere is impossible to prove at this time). The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated. The best advice I can give you is to find a quiet area to work in; perhaps create articles related to the subject with good sources and develop the topic area as best you can. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated.
    Incivility becoming normalized does not make it acceptable. I stand by my decision to post this here, particularly in light of other uncivil behaviour from the poster in question. If WP:FTN regulars can’t avoid burnout and incivility then that’s what either WP:WB or this page are for, but neither I nor anyone attempting to edit in good faith and within the guidelines should be greeted with that kind of response.
    Don’t get me wrong, I would completely understand the distinction in this kind of response if I was trying to push a fringe POV, but that’s not what’s happening here. Warrenmck (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I didn’t communicate well? I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse? Let me explain by way of a somewhat tortured analogy. If I, a progressive liberal, traveled to the most conservative part of the US wearing a Joe Biden shirt and waving a rainbow flag, do you think that maybe, just maybe, I might be treated a bit harshly, albeit undeservedly? All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening. And there’s nothing you can do about it, just as there’s nothing I can do about being treated unfairly in a red state. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse?"
    No, actually! My exposure to panspermia is entirely professional and I'm essentially unfamiliar with its reputation online. If you checked my profile I'm sure you saw I'm a meteoriticist, a.k.a. the field that's actually publishing on this besides astrobiology. I don't get to claim my expertise as a justification to ignore Wikipedia's rules, I need to play by the same playbook as everyone else, provide the same sources, work to build the same consensus, and treat people with respect.
    If users of WP:FTN cannot engage on a topic in a civil tone, they need to stop engaging on that topic. Plain and simple. I can understand their frustration, I can recognize it, and I can still be here saying I have no interest in accepting it. Incivility is incivility and there's not a huge carveout in the rules around cilility for WP:FTN regulars. I've seen more than a few well intentioned new people (making terrible edits, to be fair) eaten alive by the FTN and this continues to be an issue. There seems to be an attitude that verbally berating people is acceptable for posting fringe content, and that's apparently spilled over to simple content disputes from people who are ostensibly on the same anti-fringe mission.
    "All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening."
    You're potentially describing WP:OWN. They don't have to like Panspermia or discussion around it. If an edit improves the article, is factually accurate, and meets all guidelines for inclusion for a given source then they're free to try to build consensus for why something shouldn't be includeed. I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain this, and I definitely understand their frustration. However, I do not think that being frustrated to the point of incivility because you're puppy-guarding a specific version of an article should be considered acceptable. Warrenmck (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's acceptable because it's house style (bias). Wikipedia has it's own house bias, just like other websites. Is this the first time you're encountering this phenomenon? Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely fail to grasp how that is in any way different from just saying “power users are allowed to act like jerks when frustrated.” Warrenmck (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took panspermia off my watchlist years ago when they did the same to me. I suggest you do the same. You could be the leading researcher in your field and they still won't accept what you have to say. There are various, long-term reasons for this, but it's outside the scope of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, since this is ANI, perhaps we could get the issue addressed at an admin level if this has been going on that long? Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, nothing you can do. The bias was here when Wikipedia first went online. As I said previously, it's a carryover from pre-Wikipedia. This has been going on for a very long time. What I recommend doing is publishing a paper in your field describing the bias and then waiting until it is used as a source in the article. This will be my last comment on this. Pick your battles. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of people from the Indian subcontinent who engage in undisclosed paid editing, but the mind boggles trying to imagine someone being treated with prejudice by a new page patroller due to their nationality, and then being told at a noticeboard that they deserved to be given a hard time because of how many people from there write bad articles. Like, I understand that there are a lot of POV-pushers and grifters who try to use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate deranged views, but there's got to be some limit to how hostile people are allowed to be on the basis of "oh, sorry, you mentioned outer space, so I figured you must be a Scientologist". jp×g 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did this accidentally get posted to the wrong thread? I feel like this reply was intented for the Nazi Flag section above. Warrenmck (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to indent it properly, and probably failed. It was meant for this. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On one hand, this would seem to be a content issue, but looking at the noticeboard discussion, the situation becomes more and more baffling. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my reading, but it looks like Warrenmck (the OP)'s claim is something like this:
    "Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"
    This seems to me like a reasonable enough question. But reading through the thread, the responses are perplexing; basically, the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet, so the Wikipedia article about the word he uses to describe it takes precedence over any other use in scientific publications. Again, let me know if I am missing anything. jp×g 03:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty much essentially correct. Just to be clear about this though:
    "Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"
    Panspermia (bonkers crackpot theory) would undeniably hit WP:NOTABILITY, and the use of pseudo-panspermia is noted in the literature, particularly in astrobiology, but it's far from universally used. "Panspermia" is frequently used in scientific publications without qualification to refer to what wikipedia is calling pseudo-panspermia.
    "the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet"
    Unfortunately he's actually a serious academic, just also someone who said in a paper:
    "The presence of complex organic molecules including the building blocks of life in comets is now amply confirmed; so it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is fully fledged microbial life in comets"
    Which I hope doesn't require a specialist education to see the problem with. It's like saying we found metal in a meteorite so naturally Rodin's The Thinker can be found on chondritic bodies in the Solar System. His notion of panspermia is undeniably fringe, but that fringe definition isn't the one widely used in the field and as someone who is in the metoeritics field myself Wikipedia's elevation of a mathematician's contributions to astrobiology were literally my first exposure to it. I think the conversation above with someone else who gave up on this exact situation years ago makes me think there's a serious WP:OWN issue at play which is manifesting as incivility. Warrenmck (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still do not understand why anyone would write "[[bright line]]" instead of "bright line" or "bright line". It's more work for them as well as for the readers. If you annoy people like that, you can expect them to get annoyed. When I point out that they are making communication difficult, and also point out that the tiny branch of science that looks at life in space is not "the sciences", they start talking about civility, instead of justifying what they did or acknowledging that it could have been done better. Such behaviour is counterproductive for problem solution. Also, boring. They continued in the same vein, making accusations while saying they were not making accusations, which I subsequently pointed out. But, again, pointing out suboptimal communication methods is viewed by the bad communicator as incivil. I have experience with such people - usually, they are not scientists but pseudoscience fans, or maybe lawyers of pseudoscience fans - and I try to avoid them because they want to talk about all sorts of tedious stuff except the actual subject.
    Fred Hoyle is a big name in astronomy, and some people say that if it were not for his panspermia ideas and his silly attacks on biology, including the junkyard tornado misconception and his allegations that Archaeopteryx was fake, he would have been a candidate for the Nobel. The Hoyle meaning of the word, however stupid, has been much more notable over the last decades than whatever astrobiologists do, in my opinion. Biologists still have to fight against that nonsense. A discussion about the exact names of the disambiguation pages would take that into account as well as Warrenmck's quotations from astrobiology. But I cannot see any attempt on their side to find an acceptable solution. Instead of discussing the page names, which could have been interesting, they talk at length about concerted, explicit efforts and then drag me here, both of which is too far down on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to be not boring. I will now avoid this person more actively than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under any reasonable assumption of good faith, a misplaced nowiki tag is almost certainly a typo (the buttons are right next to the edit box), making it rather confusing why you have responded to it with a pointed accusation of deliberate malfeasance on two separate noticeboards. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so there is a button that does that? I do not use those. They are for clickers, I am a typer.
    I really do not know where you got the deliberate malfeasance from.
    When I make a mistake, and someone points it out, I say it was a mistake. I find it extremely weird not to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    See here for an example where I intentionally did that [61] This makes sense since the visual editor isn't intended to be used by typing out wiki code. If you type something that it thinks will be interpreted as wiki code, it may first try to help you by providing a tool for you to add formatting which will appear as formatting in the visual editor. But if you ignore this help and proceed to just put wiki code, it will put nowikis around it.

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

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

    Just to be clear, the only time I ever typed out nowiki was when I made the above reply. I didn't do so in my own talk page I just typed two square brackets then clicked away from the menu that popped up. While I don't use the visual editor myself, adding nowiki tags is a well known feature/bug partly for the reasons I explained but also in the past I think it did so even when it was unneeded. So when the issue of stray nowiki tags came up, I had an aha moment, checked the edit but found no tags but then tested the reply-tool and confirmed that it doesn't seem to tag replies as any different, whatever mode/s you used when composing your reply. And as I expected I was easily able to replicate the nowiki issue by just closing the menu for adding a wikilink and then typing out the rest of my wikilink as normal. Oh and it just occurred to me if you paste a reply into the visual mode of the reply tool with a formatted wikilink, it will likely do this as well. (I'm lazy to check.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You hit the mail on the head, I minimally edit with the visual editor and every now and then just sort of use it because it loads, and have had some slight issues with it, particularly on mobile.
    I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced
    Just to be clear this is a Wikipedia:Clean start mainly to edit under a real name account, I doubt the pipeline for new user to RfCing with twinkle consistently is quite as quick. But experienced users can make mistakes, too. :)
    I mostly ignored the comments on the bright line thing, in addition to some other particular comments made, since civility seemed to be faltering and I’d rather drop something than try and drag it out into some spat. Warrenmck (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find an image for you hit the mail on the head so I had to settle for "mail hit you on the head": [62]. EEng 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation.
    It does not "matter that much" to me. I just intended to mention it once, but, having been dragged here, had to do it again here to explain the situation. I was not aware that this is such an inexperienced user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature comic relief

    • Just to point out that the FTN discussion linked [63] at the top of this thread contains the unfortunate choice of words trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. And for those who don't believe in lightning striking twice in one discussion, above we've got conceptions of Panspermia. Oy vey. EEng 08:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was pinged here. My quick impression is that there is nothing going on that requires admin action. EEng, does this have something to do with sperm? (Don't answer that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Normal discussion resumes

    • Wouldn't the easiest way to resolve this be having two separate articles using disambiguation. The disagreement seems to come down to the naming of the Pseudo-panspermia, and Panspermia articles. Opening a move discussion on renaming the articles, with disambiguation to separate the two articles. As the most common usage is the pseudoscience nonsense, but the common scientific usage is the hypothesis this would seem to be the way to resolve the issue. I don't believe everyone's behaviour has been perfect in the discussion, but it doesn't seem to meet the standard of incivility that would require any form of sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories. That's a plausible claim, and consistent with my own perception of FTN. Really, I question whether in 2023 we still need it. Anti-fringe thinking has been thoroughly integrated into the communal ethos, much more than it was in 2007, and FTN procures a lopsided sampling of people who favor the most maximal interpretations of related policies, sometimes (perhaps as here) to a fault. (True of all single-issue noticeboards, but we collectively do a much better job handling fringe issues than we do with NPOV, BLP, etc.) But that's another issue for another day. No one did anything sanctionable here IMO. If Warren wants to merge the articles, he should propose a merger. The closer of that request should be wary of any arguments, from either side, of "that's how I always hear this term used", instead looking to empirical evidence of how sources treat the topic(s). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This looks like a content dispute, so you should contact them on their talk page and/or discuss on the relevant talk pages. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheClubSilencio A donation does not qualify as an endorsement, see the guideline WP:Political endorsements, specifically point 3. To add someone to that list they need to have been explicitly described as endorsing Ron DeSantis' 2024 presidential campaign primary, you cannot add them on the basis of donations or expressions of support. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some donors "spread their bets", especially early in the United States' primary season, donating to more than one candidate. Or they donate to more than one because they change their mind.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

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

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

    In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of WP:OWN at least 6 times ([64][65][66][67][68][69]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([70][71][72][73]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([88][89]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [90], and whatever this is: "You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...", which seems to be an accusation of meatpuppetry. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([91]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics (Xtools), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

    In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically User:ReyHahn and User:Kingsif. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([92][93]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([94]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([95][96]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([97]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS), which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received.

    Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [98][99][100] [101], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([102]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([103]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

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

    Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([104][105]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([106]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • "including one aimed at me"
      • Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
    • "oddly does not ping WP:PERU"
      • The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
    • "Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"
    • "WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"
      • Again, the projects should be notified via template.
    • "7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"
      • After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.
    WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Case study

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

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

    I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been La Patilla, Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela), as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP, as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got.
    But according to The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and just about everyone else (sample 1, sample 2 but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term "opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government. So do WP:GREL sources, including BBC (see WP:RSP), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using WP:RS to place verifiable content on the project is one of the most basic processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a false equivalence of the Venezuelan opposition and political opposition in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as WP:GREL sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the political polarization that exists in Venezuela, but as International Media Support writes, "Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution." WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"
      • It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable WP:NOTABILITY. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
    • "7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"
      • The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is WP:PUFF.
    • "WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."
    • 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
    • "18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"
      • Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
    • "And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"
      • This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.
    Some of these accusations against me seem to be WP:POT. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Nelson Bocaranda--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is even more fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). Even if you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist.
    Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how you want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use ad hominems against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is very unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The Nelson Bocaranda article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and expanding it greatly recently, there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; all of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were cherrypicking, attempting to illustrate a point, libel or to canvass, etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "colleagues" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is WP:PUFF, plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ad hominem. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. Even with access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with Nelson Bocaranda when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted.
    Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", BLP policy applies to all living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs).
    Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; removing a national prize for journalism from the article, while sticking your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead, and expanding the article based on a blog source to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

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

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

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

    (edit conflict) I'll be clear on this, hoping the comment won't be long: I opened this thread because you casted aspersions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS RfC, cut and dried. This has been a persistent issue that I have warned you about and before coming here and I specifically asked you to strike the accusations, which you have not done. If I have attempted to avoid further content disputes for the time being (Operation Gideon and outlets articles), but the aspersions have continued in the form of yet another request for comment, it begs the question: when will it stop? Addressing the issue here is a first step, and withdrawing your accusations for the RfC is still pretty much an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking that I will open an ANI. There is no need for it as previous users have said that we are both responsible for these disputes, so I won't add on to the fire. My interest in Venezuela-related articles was limited to the reliability of sources after there were concerns related to Peruvian topics. I seek to distance myself from both topics in the future as they were not why I initially began my editing.--WMrapids (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

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

    I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. WMrapids (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see here and here). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. WMrapids (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that before you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who Nelson Bocaranda is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest WP:BLUDGEON, and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious activity by new accounts

    Ok, I didn't know that this was an easy sockpuppet case. Closing per WP:DENY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeschylus (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can someone please investigate what these users are doing? It's clearly WP:NOTHERE

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/He%20is%20making%20you%20an%20offer%20to%20buy%20back%20your%20case

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Contestants%20compete%20for%20the%20top%20prize%20of%20%24250%2C000%20in%20a%20high%20energy%20contest%20of%20nerves

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Contestants%20compete%20for%20the%20top%20prize%20of%20%24250%2C000%20in%20a%20high%20energy%20contest%20of%20nerves aeschylus (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    All undoubtedly sockpuppets of Agt2008fan. I sent one to SPI, and when I went to the next one, it had already been blocked. Thank you to the speedy admin who took care of it! Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what they do. You're welcome. I've nothing more to add. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruption/vandalism by Aditya Greatest to WP:BLPs

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

    User:Dexedream

    The editor is engaging in persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

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

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

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

    Monkeylady999

    (non-admin closure) Monkeylady999 blocked 1 month by Cullen328. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 20:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Monkeylady999 has been making uncited sporadic edits relating to music genres, particular dirty rap. Their edits mostly involve changing genres without consensus, ignoring any hidden warnings in place ([110][111][112][113][114]) Furthermore, whenever someone leaves a message on their talk page, they often respond with a snarky remark with numerous grammar errors. A few of their recent responses trouble me, particularly the ones where they ask "how" one edits. I surmise that means they have their own set one rules that directly contradict WP guidelines, which they don't intend to follow anytime soon. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by uninvolved editor: I just had a quick look, and Monkeylady999 was previously blocked in August 2021 (block log), following this ANI thread back then. In that thread, user Robvanvee complained about the persistent unsourced changes to information, especially music genre changes, and the lack of communication from them. The editor was initially blocked for 31 hours, then blocked again for a week for continuing the same disruptive edits that led to the 31h block. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are fond of inserting their opinion on which genres apply to which music, which artists belong in which genres, and which shootings should be considered "mass shootings" (this last change has not been reverted in 3 years). There has not been any effort to source any of this, nor do they seem to grasp the concept of notability. Some good-faith edits have broken templates that others have fixed. They average around 1 edit every 3 days, so the volume doesn't strike me as causing all that much disruption. They might benefit from having a mentor, but disregard for clearly written hidden messages is a bit concerning. StonyBrook babble 14:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have blocked Monkeylady999 for one month for persistently making unsourced changes to musical genres after being warned repeatedly and blocked twice previously for the same behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    About the association with AudiGuy1204

    Obvious sock is obvious. (non-admin closure) — Trey Maturin™ 14:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user named AudiGuy1204 was indef blocked back in November last year for disruptive editing. Despite my similar username, I am not them. Please try to provide information about not associating me with AudiGuy-1204. CarGuy0011 (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ...no one questioned if you were. But now... RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't laugh. But... SN54129 13:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for the blatant obvious socking. I need more coffee. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting behaviour of Lama tanpa dirimu

    WP:FORUMSHOP
    Already at SPI. I'll take a look over there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to report the behaviour of Lama tanpa dirimu. As Sportsfan 1234 mentionned it here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymarcbadz. User Lama tanpa dirimu has the same kind of behaviour that Raymarcbadz had. I suspect these users to be one person. I remind you that Raymarcbadz is forbidden to make any edits on Wikipedia and on Olympics topics. 2A01:CB14:1190:F700:88C8:245B:AB44:E984 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I would like to clarify some of the concerns that this anonymous user answered
    1. He made an obscure and unfounded suspect just because of one assumption that I did the same behavior as Raymarcba, I don't know how I should prove it, but if you search my logs and identity , then it is clear that I am a different person from that user, so it is clear that this is an act of violation in reporting the wiki
    2. This user's concern is just a trivial matter, only because I edited the men's team chart in Archery at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification in alphabetical order. I'm not a selfish editor, but there's no clear issue why it should be sorted by results, apart from the concern of this anonymous usewhich is ty the appreciation of the results from the team. The question is whether this team will immediately change its medal positions when I edit by alphabet? It's illogical
    3. You validate this user's statement, the same as you indirectly agreeing to an anonymous user compared to a user whose account has been logged in and verified by Wikipedia, and that is very embarrassing, because my contribution to the Olympics article is greater than this user Lama tanpa dirimu (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dzkk9

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

    Why did my page that i edited is down? you could tell me something is wrong and correct me not delete everything that i wrote on this website randomly with no reason?!?? You deleted my page because of VANDALISM??? For just editing a page about a micronation that has been put on wikipedia randomly by a user like 4 years ago. reply about this! Dzkk9 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as a point of information, I didn't delete anything. JMWt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and where is the "edited" page that ive done. even my user info? Dzkk9 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt This isn't a very helpful comment - new editors almost universally refer to "removing the words I wrote" as deletion, and the article the editor wrote was redirected and indeed deleted for copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt, FYI, you should have notified Dzkk9 on their talkpage as stated at the top of this page. However, it seems moot at this point – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I misread what I was supposed to do. I have belatedly rectified this. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt: Have you tried discussing anything with them at all? CityOfSilver 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also FYI, this version of the article is largely a copyvio of this Daily Mail article. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to the page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done without comment on the rest of this Star Mississippi 01:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt: Isn't all the stuff in that article true, or at least plausibly true? The fact that it's poorly written aside. jp×g 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's plausibly true, but we don't deal with "truth", we deal with verfiability, and the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a reliable source. Aside from that, the article was not really about the "Kingdom of North Sudan" as a geographical entity, it was about the guy who declared Bir Tawil to be that, and his family. If someone wants to write an article about them, and take the chance that it would pass notability, using non-Daily Mail sources, they should do that, under that person's name as the article title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail is a not-even-with-an-extra-long-bargepole source. Narky Blert (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well, I am not the one who wrote the article, nor do I really give a hoot either way -- I am saying that, given we have a long newspaper article that confirm all the stuff it says, it was probably not a bad-faith attempt to vandalize, even if we think the newspaper sux0rz (and indeed even if it DOES sux0rz). jp×g 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Ed instructor not engaging with community concerns

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

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

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

    I left a message at their talk. Further action might occur if there is no response within a short period. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as I have been now for 6 years. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) in a discussion about your perceived engagement, an acknowledgement that doesn't acknowledge anything is pretty... brave. SN54129 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m afraid that we’re past “brainstorming” here. You need to demonstrate that you understand the problems with both your past courses’ contributions and your own failure to communicate about them when concerns were raised. signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I, like you, am not in control of other wikipedians contributions. I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. WikiEdu's training is something that they have control over. I assign my students ALL the lessons available. If students do not complete the lessons, they do not receive full points for the assignment in my course. As it relates to their actual contributions, if they rely to heavily on a single course, the grade they receive will not be full credit. In my capacaity as an instructor, my role is to model best practicies, ensure they are aware of the policies of Wikipedia (through the WikiEdu portal and trainings), and then assess them. I'm not sure what else you'd like for me to do. The WikiEdu portal would need to be changed for this to happen. All of this has been documented in my communications with WikiEdu. If you require furhter information, then I would suggest you ask for greater access to their records and actions they take to improve the program. On my end, I can only access what I see as well. As always, thank you for your multiple messages while I was on vacation. Now that I am back, I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. Actually, you do have the power to edit these pages. In fact you have a responsibility to do so as the person in charge of these student editors. That you don't understand this is the root of the problem here. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a conflict here, with the same page trying to serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a piece of coursework? If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability. It's hard for one page to do both jobs simultaneously, and the encyclopedia has to take priority. Certes (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my personal opinion, this is a problem with using Wikipedia in teaching in general. There are ways to use Wikipedia as part of a course that don't result in this dilemma (for an instructor, the course/students really ought to take priority! so your assignments should avoid putting the two aims in conflict). -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit stunned by this response given that you are quite obviously aware of your ability to edit other wikipedia editors' contributions - you removed a part of the initial post on WP:EDUN that you found objectionable. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This also doesn't explain why you chose to move patently unready articles like Draft:Iraq and the World Bank or Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund to main space. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to interpret this as "I don't have any control over anyone else's edits", which is true; everyone can make whatever edits they want. But when you went on to say you couldn't edit anyone else's contributions, you kind of lost me. @Bergmanucsd, are you aware that all of us here, not only everyone in this discussion but everyone in the world, can edit anyone else's contributions? Literally everyone in this discussion can edit anything that isn't fully protected from editing, which is a minuscule portion of pages, and hundreds can edit even those. You can edit anything that isn't fully protected, too.
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to get at? Valereee (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pinging Brianda, and Ian for their thoughts. - jc37 06:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging User:Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Education), Frank Schulenburg, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Liannadavis - jc37 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37 In the area I edit, WikiEd has provided ample materials, which apparently the instructors don't access or teach. I agree that perhaps more on instructor accountability might help (particularly in a case like this one where the instructor is coming off as blaming WikiEd and being combative).
    But anyone concerned about WikiEd's materials or lack thereof should know some history. While the WMF was quite happy to promote, advertise, and piggy back on the very limited successes in 2008 of Jbmurray and Awadewit with generating student-edited FAs with considerable use of resources (meaning time from numerous FA regulars to get the articles promoted), WMF has since provide insufficient funding for WikiEd, which even resulted in layoffs some years back. WMF will not devote the necessary resources to addressing these issues, and that is the direction anyone who is concerned about student editing might focus. We can't ask more of WikiEd if WMF is unwilling to give them enough resources to make encounters with student editing less tiresome for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this would be helpful.
    As I have mentioned to the WikiEd staff through my collaboration with them for 6 years, I am available to brainstorm ways of how to improve their training and overall programming. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we are available to respond to non-copy pasted comments, if you'll give us that courtesy Bergmanucsd. You have been asked to engage; I recommend doing that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be patient. My read on things is that the instructors may not be as wiki-fluent in the back-project processes as you or I might be. Please let's give everyone some time to work this out. - jc37 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd can you explain why you chose to remove part of Rosguill's complaint as your opening action in the discussions? I would also like both Bergmanucsd and Brianda/Ian to lay out what actual concrete steps got taken in 2018 and 2019 to resolve these issues. As a more general point, while instructors obviously don't need to be back-end savvy in the way that we are, I do expect them to be more responsive to concerns than the average editor because of the nature of their role. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed my non-Wikipedia name Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd, FWIW, your full name is publicly displayed at Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/IPE_Money_and_Finance_IMF_WB_2023_(Summer_2023). If you are concerned for your privacy, and want to edit outside of your courses, you may wish to open a second account for your own editing. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that googling "Bergman UCSD" gets us immediately to your non-wikipedia name. If you're worried about your name being on Wikipedia I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, since anything I can come up with is a real "closing the barn door after the horses escaped" kind of solution. At any rate, I would warn you against following Valereee's suggestion and starting a new account until this ANI discussion is resolved, so that you don't look like you're trying to evade some kind of consequence or to create a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe this explanation. You also unnecessarily removed a full paragraph the entire sentence along with it, and you seem to have no problem linking to 23 pages which prominently list your name on your user page. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill, I only see the removal of a single sentence, am I missing something? Here's the diff I'm looking at: [115] -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering, I misremembered the length of the text in question and have corrected my comment. Thanks for the ping. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do actually find it believable from someone who may not realize everything onwiki is public and even if removed is visible in history unless oversighted. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're correct, that's very worrying. Either this prof has misunderstood something in WikiEdu's materials or WikiEdu isn't sufficiently clear on this. Because this is a major issue for student privacy, I hope one of the WikiEdu staff tagged into this discussion can clarify which it is. This would cause serious privacy concerns under various FIPPA rules and, I presume, American legislation as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The students are private, except for those who use their names for their user accounts, or those who edit with IPs (which I'm not sure I've actually seen). Valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their work, however, is not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think grades are public, if that's what you're getting at? This is probably getting to be a tangent. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if after 6 years they are not "wiki-fluent", then that appears to be a competency issue. ValarianB (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bergmanucsd: Voicing concern about another user's competence isn't necessarily a violation of those policies/guidelines. If someone's ability to edit this site is far below where it should be based on the amount of time they've spent on here, editors are expected to call that out. CityOfSilver 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it". Valereee (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think something ADMINACCTesque would actually be that strict a bar to meet. As ArbCom recently reaffirmed, admins don't have to give a good answer, just a reasonably prompt and generally coherent one. (My gloss; some might leave it at "any answer".) It seems reasonable to hold course instructors to a similar standard—a trade-off for the exemption courses get from WP: MEAT. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin WP:MEAT allows students to operate within what would typically be considered meatpuppery for other users, but should it disallow admins from blocking problematic courses? The many and long-documented probably with student editing can be addressed in some cases by stopping the bad courses from editing. Disallowing them from working with WikiEd, as Rosguill suggested, does nothing to stop the bad course-- just allows them to continue without someone watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Well, there isn't any explicit exception to MEAT for courses. (There's an explicit exception to SOCK for the students themselves, but that's separate.) We generally don't consider courses meatpuppetry because, at least where the master isn't blocked and there isn't intentional deception, there must be disruption for something to count as meatpuppetry. (Otherwise it would be meatpuppetry for me to email you a suggestion for an article.) Usually there isn't an issue with that when it comes to courses, because disruption doesn't exceed the standard levels for new users, and we don't hold the occasional student's misunderstanding of policy against the instructor. Or it does happen and someone chews the instructor out and they learn their lesson. If there's persistent issues with students making inappropriate edits under an instructor's direction, though, yes, I would say MEAT could apply. I have not looked closely enough at this case to say whether it does here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just linking the instructor orientation, which includes fixing bad articles: How to clean up major problems in articles that your students worked on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiEd

    Does WikiEd actually bring any real benefit to the encyclopedia, a benefit that exceeds the downsides of their activities? For example, do a non-trivial number of the students stick around to become long-term editors? BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As troublesome as WikiEd can be, when instructors run courses completely on their own the results are on average more disruptive than when WikiEd is involved. Unless we're prepared to ban edits-for-grades entirely (and police that somehow) we are better off with WikiEd. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, my concerns here are with this specific instructors’ courses (and noting as well that part of the reason for the WB/IMF problem’s persistence appears to be the changing of the guard of Wiki Ed liaisons since concerns were first raised). signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that there's already a strong basis in policy for banning edits-for-grades: WP:NOTHERE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a sandbox for editing practice. However, we need to tolerate good-faith mistakes by newcomers, especially if misguided by an inexperienced teacher, because they may go on to become regular editors or at least make enough good edits to be a net positive during their course. One way forward might be to have some way of finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject, who may be able to provide a volunteer with adequate subject knowledge and long experience of article creation to work alongside the teacher. Certes (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject I think there have been efforts to do this in the past. Certainly with medical courses this became routine practice after the issues Sandy is referring to (I don't know if it still is). This could probably be automated in some way, but do bear in mind there are hundreds of these courses every semester, which means lots and lots of notices on pages like WikiProject Sociology and other not-very-active WikiProjects. I think the main reason this doesn't already happen is because WikiProject activity is so uneven that professors/students can't rely on help there, and not wanting to overload volunteer projects (similar to why professors are discouraged from requiring students to go through DYK, GAN, PR, or other parts of the project where community time is already spread thin). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overwhelmingly the edits made by WikiEd students are productive and end up sticking. The issues are created by a small percentage of classes/students - I'd estimate in the 5-10% range based on when I did a fairly comprehensive look of the edits from 15 wikied classes last year. Issues are particularly vexing for the community both because when a class goes off the rails it's not 1 editor doing so but 5, 10, 15 editors and also because the community has a harder time sanctioning editors when they're mission aligned (even if some students are quite clearly only doing it for the grade). This is how you get the fair idea of "seems like we spend a lot of time dealing with wiki ed classes" to square with "overwhelmingly productive editing happens by wiki ed". It's also not clear to me how much WikiEd causes classes to be taught that wouldn't otherwise be taught and how much WikiEd serves as an additional layer to help us make edits that would be happening anyway more productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the bigger problem is that some instructors won't communicate and don't bother to educate themselves on what they're teaching. I removed a lot of cruft sourced to sales sites at Scrunchie a couple months ago, apparently just before the work was graded because the instructor quickly came in and reverted, which is how I discovered it was a wikied project. I posted to the talk and pinged the instructor, who never responded. Out of sympathy for the student being graded, I left it for a few weeks before removing it again, but it's pretty frustrating when an instructor with 228 edits over her entire career and who is teaching "Public Writing" every semester at an esteemed university hasn't bothered to learn anything about what she's apparently teaching and doesn't respond to pings. Her immediate previous edit was a similar reversion in March to removals of promo by someone else. Valereee (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be worth imposing some requirements on who can run courses on enwiki? I like the idea of imposing something similar to WP:ADMINACCT to require that the coordinators communicate, and considering your comment here and above (Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it".) perhaps a minimum-contribution count requirement as well? Perhaps at least 1000 edits, including at least 500 to article space and 300 to talk space? BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be satisfied with requiring engaging by responding to pings. I don't mind someone well-intentioned not knowing what they don't yet know. I do very much mind someone not bothering to take advantage of a ping to a concern, which in the case of WikiEd should be seen as an invitation to learn something. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 is there data to back that student edits are overwhelming productive? That has never been my experience in the medical realm, although it may be so in areas less difficult to edit. Colin did some analysis years ago: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013.
    BilledMammal, a fine line has to be walked with course instructors to convince them to work with WikiEd, as they aren't required to, and having them work with knowledgeable Wikipedians gives us at least some small chance of stemming the bad edits. If we impose anything else on their ability to get free unpaid tutors (Wikipedians), they can just run their courses outside of WikiEd, and then we (the unpaid volunteers) end up in a worse place in terms of the amount of cleanup we are forced to (which in my case has caused me to unwatch huge numbers of medical articles, because once students descend, the cleanup takes over my editing time). It has long been argued at the noticeboard that a better way to deal with bad courses is if admins would start blocking them after repeat offenses. I believe Tryptofish might have more on this discussion-- I stopped following the Education Noticeboard years ago as the problems with student editing in the medical realm became too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't impose these requirements solely on educators working with WikiEd; I would impose it on all educators, although I don't know how difficult it is to identify those operating outside of WikiEd? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least in the medical realm, there are few things easier to identify than student editing. The issues are so common and repeated course after course that they are inescapable: frequent plagiarism, very very sub-standard writing, adding off-topic content to main articles rather than using summary style for content already written elsewhere, essay-like original research, almost absent knowledge of WP:MEDRS in spite of training materials, use of substandard sourcing, "peer reviews" from fellow students that have nothing to do with WP:P&G clogging talk pages, edit warring as course end approaches and they need to get their content to stick for a grade, over-segmentation of articles to make their own portions stick out, usually with faulty section headings ala WP:MSH, failure to engage on user or article talk, and disappearance from the article after the course ends. I could probably think of a dozen more (and will as soon as I hit send). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We see the disappearance after the course ends regularly at DYK. It seems some instructors give extra credit for a DYK nom, and neither the instructor nor the student will respond to pings. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I'm curious how often you still see issues with medical content from students? There used to be a lot, especially before WikiEd and in its early days, but since then there are specialized trainings, requirements that apply just to medical/psychology classes/articles, special flags on the staff end to monitor those courses, and other interventions based in no small part on your feedback. Back when I was involved with WikiEd, it seemed like it had improved dramatically from 2014-->2019. Are you still seeing a lot of those problems (or a recent uptick)? Just curious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see them often now simply because I gave up almost entirely, and unwatched almost all popular articles (which are those typically targeted by students). I do recall there being dramatic improvement in those cases where WikiEd was successful in reaching out to the professors and making them aware of the problems, but I can't say whether those were few or most courses (only that I came to really appreciate those times when WikiEd was able to successfully intervene). After Nikkimaria posted at WT:MED recently, I looked into this class (which historically is not as bad as others). Gratification disorder has a SYNTH list of primary cases, some which were from journals that HeadBomb's script redlinks. You can look at my edits at Premenstrual water retention; as WAID said, perhaps not as bad as most new editors, but the use of primary sources and other issues is less than what I would hope for in a course with a long history and theoretically knowledgeable profs. Similarly, the commercial sources used at operative vaginal delivery surprised me, as I had the idea this course did a better job than most at explaining optimal sourcing, but I agree no worse than a typical new editor. Asynclitic birth had very bad sourcing, again, perhaps typical for a new user, but surprising relative to what I thought (formerly) of this course. The take-home message, as usual, is that with what limited time I had, I didn't look further and I barely scratched the surface in briefly glancing at those few articles, and we don't have enough active editors to keep up with the issues. It's surprising those students still aren't all fully understanding medical sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into that particular class with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal I would always encourage student editors to start fresh with a new account if they intend to do other editing on Wikipedia, since their previous work in a listed course is an obvious doxxing angle. I think it's also very likely that many student editors get interested in Wikipedia through their course, get busy with their normal life, and come back to the encyclopedia later, having forgotten their password or account and just making a new one. So I'm not sure there's any data we can really use here. I will say that in the history and biography topics I edit, I have seen some awful contributions by students, but more often I see useful ones. The problems I see more often are a) creating articles on non-notable topics and b) translating articles without checking any of the sources. The first is easily dealt with (though really traumatic for the students), and the second is hardly a WikiEdu-alone problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The original proposal -- wrote this before the subheading was added, and it partly addresses that so leaving it here -- not because I want to defend edits made in this course, but because I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction. We can block, topic ban, etc., but we can't make their pedagogical decisions and can't preemptively block people who have never edited before just because of who their professor is.
      This situation is not ideal for anyone: the community, the students, the professor, or WikiEd. Fun fact: there are thousands of students editing Wikipedia in hundreds of courses every single term. The ones that wind up here aren't the ones where students make lots of mistakes. They're newbies after all, and enhanced newbies at that because they have a support system in place. Someone sees a problem with a student edit and flags it to the student, professor, or Wiki Ed staff. Between them, they fix the problem, get the professor to work with students to avoid it happening again, and/or assign additional training modules. Professors don't want students to have a bad experience, professors don't want to be dragged to ANI, WikiEd doesn't want courses to go to ANI, students don't want to get blocked/reverted -- none of this is good for anyone, so in general, professors and students are super receptive of feedback/training, fixing problems and what not. You never hear about those. If the problems are course-wide, WikiEd can set boundaries for the class like "only work in userspace". Again, people are generally content to abide by this because nobody wants to have a bad experience and working in userspace takes the pressure off. The most common reason a course winds up here at ANI isn't that new editors made mistakes -- it's that they made mistakes and the professor doesn't understand the problem, doesn't agree that there's a problem, doesn't listen to WikiEd, or is simply too overcommitted to address problems properly. (Every once in a while problems come because a few students simply defy the professor, but that usually winds up being simpler, because the professor understands the need to block them).
      WikiEd can't force the professor to do anything, though. They can just say "abide by these best practices and listen to our advice or we won't support your classes in the future". From the thread at WP:ENB, it sounds like that support might've been withdrawn, but the course was accepted again accidentally (apologies if I've misread that).
      So that brings us back to "what to do". We can't tell a professor what to do in their class, but we can be crystal clear that if WikiEd withdraws its support for any of the reasons they might do that, your courses will have a heightened degree of scrutiny form the community and, if it has problems it's extremely likely your students (and maybe your account) will just be blocked. No professor wants to go into an assignment knowing they'll be subjecting their students to so much stress and scrutiny and no professor wants their assignment to fail, so that should be clear enough. In other words: no need to "you can't teach with Wikipedia" -- just "for the sake of public knowledge on Wikipedia and for the sake of your students, please don't run this assignment again" and keep the block button handy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction I'm not yet convinced such a sanction is called for in this case, though I am leaning towards it, but I disagree that we cannot impose such a sanction. The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwiki; we are not required to permit educators to use our platform as part of their course, and if we believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia we can topic ban individual educators from doing so.
      If they chose to ignore the topic ban then we can block them, and we can contact WMF Legal who can get in contact with their institution to make them put a stop to it; I'm sure there will be some sort of TOS violation that WMF Legal can use. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwik - We can sanction someone's on-wiki activity. The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. How else would enforcement of this sanction work? No, WMF Legal is not going to be sending a message to a university because a professor runs an assignment (this is frankly bananas). Especially not when we can so easily deal with it on-wiki. We can certainly encourage WikiEd not to support this course (if they haven't already made that decision), and we can certainly discourage him by making clear students that make the same mistakes will just be blocked. We can even block the professor's account... but we shouldn't be creating sanctions that try to reach off-wiki or which can only be enforced by preemptive sanctions against otherwise good faith contributors. Simply "if students keep making mistakes, they'll get blocked" followed by blocks. What's wrong with that? Also, I should say that I'm opposing the sanction and articulating alternatives not because of anything to do with this professor or their students, but because of the sanction. I'd need to actually look into it more before supporting these alternatives, but having seen the thread at ENB it sounds like enough experienced users have identified long-term problems that probably call for some action. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. Telling people what to do off-wiki, when it is very closely related to on-wiki activity, is implicitly part of most bans we issue because of WP:MEAT; when we issue those bans we are saying "we are banning you for being disruptive, and if you recruit others to continue your disruption we will ban them too". We also wouldn't be preemptively sanctioning anyone; we would be sanctioning them after they make their first edit as meatpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My intent in proposing the topic ban is to prevent them from performing instructor roles on Wikipedia, based on a track record of failing to engage with criticisms of their and their students' work. It is in no way telling them what to do off-wiki, although it does preclude the possibility of continuing to teach courses centered on editing Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Support (TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed... not sure of the exact verbiage... but a TBAN such that they can no longer invoke the WP:ASSIGN exception to WP:MEAT), on WP:CIR grounds. Clearly, this person does not have enough competence to direct others to make edits, or to instruct student editing. There are the bad edits themselves, the fact that this has been going on for 4 or more years, the lack of meaningful communication (including the initial 4 verbatim copy-pasted responses about "brainstorming"), and then the whopper: "I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc." That last bit shows they not only don't understand their "power," but they don't understand their responsibilities under WP:ASSIGN. This is wasting a huge amount of editor time, we should just put a stop to it. Let WikiEd worry about WikiEd, let the prof's university worry about the classes and the prof, but Wikipedia should just bar this particular prof from "teaching" Wikipedia editing due to lack of competence. If the ban is imposed and violated (if another class is taught post-ban), then the prof and students can be blocked by any admin. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a tban from using Wikipedia as an instructional tool unless Bergmanucsd comes in here and makes at least an attempt to address the concerns. Bergmanuscd, are you aware that the community does actually have the power to do this? That is, we can actually prevent you from using the Wikipedia portion of your current syllabus? WikiEd staff do not have the power to overrule the community. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update from Wiki Education

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

    Repeated addition of unsourced content and general vandalism by Prabhash2513

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

    User:Ojadi Emeka making renaming vandalisms

    Caught User:Ojadi Emeka unilaterally renaming Simon Ekpa to a frivolous name. Apparently has some prior issues regarding Biafran/Nigerian topics involving bias/conflict of interest. See: User talk:Ojadi Emeka and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Ekpa&diff=prev&oldid=1169166392 Borgenland (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this account is linked to User:Emekaanyaora that was just blocked for legal threats. User just came off a block for disruption as well, reblocking for 1 month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think user is here to contribute to Wiki, citing the introduction of their talk page:
    "Philknight blocked my account I want to ask is he working against the Indigenous people of Biafra that he will allow some people to edit the history with lies What did he wants to gain from allowing that to mislead the public with fake information That Simon ekpa needs to be removed he is not a member of IPOB And he is not related to what IPOB is doing If you need the documentation or news link I will send it to you here Also IPOB's website is Ipob.org not that one those criminals are putting there You need to stop this to maintain good history so not to mislead others"
    Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also made direct references to User: Philknight Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They look very similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban evation by User:Johnsmith2116

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

    • Looking into this, but first, here's the composite diff for others' convenience. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So, normally a first-offense TBAN violation is somewhere between a warning and a one-week block, but from the totality of [116] I really can't look at this as anything but a deliberate violation. This isn't like an AMPOL TBAN where someone can accidentally wander into a violation as they learn the boundaries. John clearly knew what he was doing. Between that and the history of DE blocks, I have blocked for a month, and would suggest that any future block under this TBAN should be indefinite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks / WP:OUTING by new user

    During a discussion at Talk:Suella Braverman, this user responded to a fairly reasonable comment with a personal attack on User:Jonathan A Jones and outing their apparent social media.[117] From what I can see Jonathan doesn't list their social media anywhere on their profile, so this was done without their consent. I removed the comment and warned the user, which they removed with the edit summary "thanks, buster".

    Next they violated 3RR by edit warring on the page of this article. After User:ProcrastinatingReader explained why their edits were unacceptable, they reverted with the edit summary "No worries xo", which is pretty dismissive. Instead of taking them to WP:EWN I noticed they hadn't been warned, so I placed a notice on their talk page (which they deleted).

    They then resumed bringing up Jonathan's social media and dismissed his comments on the talk page based on this ("Your assertion of 'never mind as true' seems to stem from the content and patterns observed on your social media usage. It gives the impression of a certain detachment from the UK political scene due to the incorporation of some rather unconventional and quite fringe views.") I once again asked them to assume good faith.

    Despite this, they once again attacked Jonathan and brought up his social media, (" So far, it appears that both you and another user, a well-known TERF/climate change denier account from Twitter") despite the fact I've asked them several times to comment on content, not contributors.

    On top of this, they have brought up User:DeFacto's block record in an attempt to discredit their edits several times.[118][119]

    In short, I find this is a user who can't collaborate with others, and despite multiple warnings feels the need to continually comment on others rather than their content when they encounter opposing views. — Czello (music) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this editor has made collaboration difficult. My sole substative recent contribution to the talk page was to suggest that some material should only be added with attribution, and the response was outing (since deleted) and personal attacks. I'm not particularly concerned about the outing as I make no secret about my real life identity either here or on Twitter, but the behaviour is still inappropriate as I have not made any connection explicit. Multiple warnings have been issued, but the personal attacks on me and DeFacto continue. I'm grateful to Czello for raising the matter here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo Jonathan A Jones's remarks, particularly his gratitude to Czello. After more than 17 years editing here, and with much of it dedicated to the often perilous task of trying to improve Wiki policy compliance in subject areas that generate a lot of passion and polarisation, I consider myself pretty thick-skinned. However, one thing that I do consider is totally unacceptable is the use of inflammatory language and false accusations in talkpage discussions as in this editor's contribution in their first paragraph in this edit, and particularly when they refuse to correct it (which I had to then do later) after being politely asked to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have blocked them for 31 hours for "Edit warring, Personal attacks including WP:OUTING and general WP:INCIVILITY" though I have no issue if any admin wan't to adjust the block as appropriate. I'm hopeful that a shorter block like this will resolve these issues, but if it does not then the subsequent block may not have an expiration, as these behaviors are unacceptable in a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Article hacking and unresponsive editor

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

    Looking at the most recent 500 contributions shows some potentially eyebrow-raising removals, some of which have been restored by myself [120].

    The editor has made one edit in the user talk space [121] since registering in May 2020 [122]. Less than 20 posts on talk pages [123] were made, but it's this one [124] at Talk:Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (consul 177 BC) that was made in June asking an editor to not post on their talk page after being approached with a request for an explanation of this series of edits, which are of the same type that I and GreenC have been noticing.

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

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

    User:Michael21107

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1169225135"