Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

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)

@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)

"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)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I tried to indent it properly, and probably failed. It was meant for this. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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": [2]. EEng 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Premature comic relief

• Just to point out that the FTN discussion linked [3] 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)

  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)

  Let's organize a seminar on the subject. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That would be showing proper spunk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute: are implying there's a naughty subtext to this facially innocent subthread? EEng 03:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there is you only have yourself to blame. Until you prematurely ejaculated your comedy into this, it was a perfectly clean discussion. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Will you do something productive instead of trying to be witty, go and read a book about a sea man or something by Conan Doyle. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

  This seems like the most reasonable way forward, but would likely require an RfC. And honestly, given the sheer glut of pseudoscience around panspermia, it would be an ugly one.

  Probably what we need is to swap the two articles: Psuedo-panspermia becomes the Panspermia article, while the current Panspermia article is moved to Panspermia (fringe theory) or something similar. But I expect any RfC around that to be a bit of a fight, as people have PTSD from literal decades of dealing with the pseudoscience variant being pushed both here & on various other sites. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage, so either the main article should be about the conspiracy theory or both articles should have disambiguation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  “ The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage”

  I don’t think this is blanket true, and we should all be cautious of extrapolating how often we hear a specific term and what our bubbles are. I unfortunately think the reality is that WP:COMMONNAME applies to both, and the article needs to either reflect that or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory), because there is not an easy case that Pseudo-Panspermia is the common name of that idea. This is why I thought the disambiguation page was a decent idea, despite accusations I wasn’t willing to engage in discussions about solutions. Warrenmck (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)", or similar. The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  When that is being pushed to IDHT levels. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble"

  Undeniably, but I think that there's no easy way of evaluating whose bubble is more or less valid. My bigger concern comes over using Pseudo-Panspermia to refer to what the literature often calls Panspermia, but we're really getting into the content discussion here and I don't have any strong disagreements with any proposals, we just never even got to the point of evaluating the facts since things were shut down pretty hard.

  "You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  I think this is what I said? I may be misunderstanding you, sorry:

  "or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)" Warrenmck (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well you definitely appear to be misunderstanding. I might agree pseudo-panspemia is wrong, but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic. Ignoring that many editors have said the same thing is not a content issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic"

  Sorry, I think I'm clear on what you're saying now. As I said, I didn't get too far into the content discussion of how to approach it considering the brick wall. I obviously disagree vehemently with the quoted line above considering the huge number of scientific publications that refer to Panspermia without the pseudo- qualifier, but I don't really have a verifiable way of demonstrating which common use term is more accepted. I think the real answer is there isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME in the way we'd both like, as most people have simply never heard of Panspermia at all. The common name depends entirely on which bubble you've approached Panspermia from, as far as I can tell (see: the "surely you're familiar with how Panspermia is percieved online" comments). Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I think I missed the distinction you were drawing between

  "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  and what I suggested

  "Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)"

  I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear. Warrenmck (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The difference is that there isn't a clear primary topic, so both articles require disambiguation. This was, again, my whole point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  No argument from me on that, sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Warrenmck (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Another possibility (which I am virtually certain would be roundly rejected because of the history here, but which I think might actually be the one that makes the most sense under policy) would be to merge the two articles. The two theories have a conjoined history, equal claim to the term as a matter of historical usage, and shared physical mechanics--and neither is anywhere near large enough to trigger a forced SUMMARYSTYLE spin-off. I think ti probably makes the most sense to discuss the evolution and relative levels of acceptance of both concepts together. But again, for practical reasons involving the history of the dispute, it's probably a non-starter of an idea. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That being the case, and following the model proposed above, how about a DAB at Panspermia, with a robust 2-4 sentence description, and then the daughter articles being Panspermia (organic compounds) and Panspermia (microbial); an awfully clunky and atypical (if not outright confusing) way to label these concepts (the first in particular), which is why I lean towards the combined article, but if we're going to use this three-part organizational scheme, I don't know what other terms could be more appropriate or precise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  To get very nerdy with it, I think in advance that specific delineation would result in multiple years of edit warring over Allan Hills 84001. Warrenmck (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is exactly what I suggested, and what has been previously suggested at FTN before this was brought to ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  ”So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories.”

  This, and that greeting counter-evidence with “this is boring, I regret reading it” is not civil and that attitude has no place on a noticeboard. How can I improve an article if those puppy guarding it refuse to evaluate evidence (which meets all standards for inclusion) because it counters their crystallized notion of a term? If my sources are dismissed out of hand by those who would instantly revert any changes I make, then my incentive to improve the article is pretty low, which is why I referenced WP:GANG. Like I’ve said, I can recognize the burnout, but above in this ANI thread is someone who unfollowed the same article in question years ago due to this behaviour and I already bowed out of trying to actually revise this because I think it’s going to be a huge cluster given the history and, frankly, the lack of concern from admins at some of the behaviour displayed.

  I’m not trying to bludgeon the process, and I’m sorry if I come across as doing so here, I just can’t imagine wanting to spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia in a field I am familiar with if there’s essentially going to be a cadre of power users are simply going to shut down discussion.

  I maintain that if FTN users can’t engage with civility due to burnout the solution is a wikibreak, not tolerating burnout manifesting poorly, and there does seem to be a lot of that explicitly going on. In all my time editing on Wikipedia I don’t think I’ve every just said “This is boring and I regret reading your contribution.” Sometimes I may not reply, but I don’t try to Molotov a discussion. For the same reason I never fear WP:BOOMERANG, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and Wikipedia is better without it, even if it’s from me. Warrenmck (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin and others here: over the last couple of years, I've started to become concerned that FTN has developed into the Lupus of en.Wikipedia--based in mechanisms that serve an important function in protecting our content from certain kinds of infection and thereby maintaining the health of the project, but increasingly this methodology for applying those mechanics is becoming unrestrained by necessary limiters, and as a consequence is starting to become an issue in its own right.

  It's gotten to the point where I won't recommend it to newer editors in conflicts over edge case fringe content, but only for instances where I am absolutely certain policy does not allow the disputed content, because it is a terrible place for discussion or dispute resolution, but a reliable place to get extra !votes to keep fringe content out. But that's the exact nature of the problem that has developed there: it has essentially become a place for editors working in content areas with inordinately high levels of psuedoscience, crank concepts, products, or treatments, and fringe social theories to gather together and call on one-another for support.

  Now, that might sound to some like not such a bad thing, but the issue is that it has essentially allowed a semi-tight cadre of editors to be at one-another's call without running afoul of WP:CANVAS. Further, it encourages a certain degree of group think; even when non-regulars bring matters there, it's extremely rare to see a high degree of disagreement: the ostensibly non-mainstream view is always going to get piled on. This sense of belonging on the right side of the battle against misinformation while enjoying reliable support has also lead to some tonal issues, from what I have seen: the dismissiveness bordering on hostility that has been alluded to above is something I have seen myself in other cases and has bothered me even though I tend to align strongly with the consensus when I have followed discussions there.

  About the only part I disagree with Tamzin about is whether we should necessarily wait until another day to start addressing the issues that have taken root at FTN and, indeed, the question of whether it has outlived it's usefulness-to-issues threshold. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a regular at FTN, but I would disagree that is has outlived it's usefulness because anti-fringe thinking has become part of communal etjos. In fact the last few years appear to show the exact opposite, with fringe becoming more normalised in certain communities and counties. The discussion of canvasing is also the same as concerns over projects that have been rejected elsewhere. If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Etjos isn't a word, but it really should be. Not sure for what. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yours is, as ever, the most useful comment in this whole discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  "If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it."

Maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time we closed down a process or space because the manner of resolving issues had gotten unruly and impractical. And we can't just conjure newer, fresher volunteers from thin air. The thing is, FTN has always been the odd duck out when it comes to our noticeboards: it's the only one which is content subject-specific; every other one of our dozens of boards is focused on a particular type of issue, behaviour, or process. Only FTN is concerned with a certain (albeit quite broad) area of content. So it's the only one set up to accrue a cohort of specific contributors with similar outlooks who can routinely form ranks together to push a specific POV. Even considering that the subject matter in question is an expansive and somewhat unique one like fringe theories, I question whether it is really an appropriate function for a notice board.

I don't think Tamzin was suggesting that fringe concepts (or their impacts on our work) have gotten any less prevalent, but rather that our policies surrounding it have tightened considerably since the mid 2000s, and we have pretty robust means for dealing with these kinds of issues without forwarding them to a subject-specific board where the received wisdom on (and willingness to entertain new thoughts and approaches, or even truly open discussion for) certain topics gets stagnate or even stigmatized. Almost every issue that gets taken to FTN could probably as (or more) easily be addressed through an RfC, which would bring in just as much outside perspective, and a higher percentage of it would be from editors without possibly already entrenched perspectives. Truly repetitive or tendentious issues surrounding POV pushing in fringe areas could still be brought here, and broad changes to reading or interpretation to relevant guidelines to the village pump, same as how it works for every other subject area. And really, those issues often have to be passed here from FTN as it stands anyway.

I think it's worth considering: FTN's reputation for generating heat versus solutions has been growing for a while, and I don't think I'm the only editor/community member that happens to consider themselves strongly philosophically aligned with the concept of empirical skepticism who nevertheless finds the attitudes and behaviours there become increasingly walled garden and even territorial, for at least some subjects. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Very non admin) comment: If FTN is useful for centralizing fringe issues, but suffers from a culture issue, could it exist to act as a central notice board for fringe issues with the discussion taking place on the pertinent Wikiproject? i.e. just have a “there’s a discussion about this fringe issue at link” without any discussion taking place at FTN. That would possibly avoid the risk of things flying entirely under the radar, but keeping the discussion in the relevant topic-specific Wikiproject would elevate “domain knowledge-possessing users as part of the “anti-fringe” userbase without just dumping the work on Wikiprojects or scattering all the FTN users to the winds.

Some of the issues I’ve seen on FTN come from users having a greater vested interest in being anti-fringe than they have knowledge of a topic that they’re trying to keep fringe content from. Having the discussion on the wikiproject for whatever topic it is also prevents FTN powerusers from, well, powerusering. Warrenmck (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a notion worth pondering, though I would add the caveat that really the discussions should typically be taking place more locally, at the talk pages for the relevant articles: if anything WikiProjects tend to exacerbate walled garden approaches (which is why we have the WP:Advice page standard. Mind you, they certainly have their role, but I wouldn't necessarily say their strengths lay in decreasing the tendency for camps to form! Maybe the notion of putting these cohorts in tension with the FTN crowd so that they keep eachother from exercising too much influence has some merit, but I wouldn't consider it likely to act like a silver bullet to any problems we see at FTN.

I also question whether moving the discussions from FTN to the local spaces would do much to discourage people from using the forum as a recruitment shop with regard to the "users having a greater vested interest in being anti-fringe than they have knowledge of a topic that they’re trying to keep fringe content from" issue you (I think quite correctly) identify; users who have lost perspective in this way can just as easily tag team on the talk page as on FTN itself, afterall. The one benefit I can see is that maybe this might lead to issues being resolved by RfCs more often--which is really a mechanism that works infinitely better (and with much less risk of systemic bias / self-appointed guardianship issues) for resolving these sorts of issues than does an FTN posting--and the existence of this and similar tools is a big part of why I question the cost-benefit value of the forum at this juncture.

Another possibility that has occurred to me during this discussion is whether we might go in the other direction and expand FTN into a Contentious Topics Noticeboard ('CTN'). I can actually see a lot of utility for such a space (although, needless to say, it would become a gravity well for tense loci of disputes; though the existence of ANI and AE demonstrates that this community sees benefit in aggregating such issues together at times), and it would have the additional benefit of diluting the anti-fringe crew (both the ones who act with the appropriate level of restraint when outside their wheelhouse and the ones who don't) among other participants. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

”users who have lost perspective in this way can just as easily tag team on the talk page as on FTN itself”

Honestly that’s why I think the use of Wikiprojects would work; you can keep all the users tag teaming each other but they’re at least somewhat supervised by those with a positive interest in the topic, as opposed to a negative interest in fringe. If nothing is out of line in the anti-fringe content then I don’t see why it couldn’t just be business as usual (i.e. FTN regulars posting as they always do, just on multiple pages instead of FTN, with FTN serving as a central repository for where anti-fringe discussions are taking place), but if something has been misunderstood then it’s getting posted where a lot of eyes capable of pointing that out are on it.

This one does seem a wee bit complex to navigate! I’m curious to see what (or what not) comes of it, thank you for all your time and thoughts on this. Warrenmck (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Only FTN is concerned with a certain (albeit quite broad) area of content. That's not true; WP:BLPN is just like FTN in being about a specific type of content (sometimes they even overlap in coverage). Maybe observation of the one can lead to insight on the other. :) Shells-shells (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right--I did fail to account for BLPN in that generalization! Though I will say that I think BLPN does probably have an at least slightly broader purview in terms of aggregate subject matter. Hard to say with certainty though. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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 ([4][5][6][7][8][9]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([10][11][12][13]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([28][29]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [30], 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 ([31]) 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 ([32][33]), 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 ([34]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([35][36]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([37]) 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: [38][39][40] [41], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([42]). 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 ([43]), 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)

Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([44][45]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([46]). 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)

While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which can then be used to slant reliability discussions (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

• 25 February, WMrapids is successful in a move request at Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt that was prematurely closed.
• 22 April NoonIcarus re-opens the move discussion
  • 19 May WMrapids relists the discussion and oddly does not ping WP:PERU (tagged on the talk page), but does ping WP:Socialism (which is not tagged on the talk page - inappropriate canvassing)
  • 12:26, 24 May the move request closes, not in the direction WMrapids preferred
• Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[47][48] (WP:POINT) Neither of these close as WMrapids preferred. One closed 31 May, the other closed 21 June
• WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk (Colombia, Crime, International relations, Latin America, Military history, Organized crime, South America and Venezuela) to notify instead WP:Politics and WP:History (WP:CANVASS)
• Until 5 June, WMrapids confines their edits to Peru other than these (pointy) move requests
• 5 June, the series of RFCs leading to the complaints in this ANI began.
• 7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP.[49] See #Case study. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• "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)"
  • NoonIcarus mentioned the article Operation Gideon (2020) as an example. After reviewing this article, I suggested that the same conditions for the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt be applied to those other articles. One can perceive this as WP:POINT, while I was interpreting this as WP:CCC, especially when both articles were handled differently.
• "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)

Case study

(Aside: the WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• 7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP, which NoonIcarus appropriately incorporates to the body of the article
• 7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery – this edit alone (because of the popularity of Bocaranda which pre-dates Chavez's cancer), indicates that WMRapids is inserting POV while editing outside of their knowledge base. Further, a Google search easily turns up BBC sourcing this content and others and more. Before removing something so obvious, sources could have been found easily; NoonIcarus had to readd it later, after which WMrapids attributes it without necessity (still not finding an easy source BBC via Google). Again, later fixed by NoonIcarus, who added BBC. A lot of work because WMrapids didn't do a simple search before deleting obvious information easily sourced (POV editing).
• 7 June, further indicating they are editing outside of their knowledge base, and with a POV, WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters. Bocaranda increased his social media following after the Chavez diagnosis; he was well among the most popular journalists and television personalities in Venezuela even before that (see sources now in the article).
• 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.
  • And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer and maligning Bocaranda for reporting it, by changing "veil of secrecy" (quote) to "Bocaranda would go on to gain much of his following covering information on the illness of Hugo Chávez at a time when information about his health was scarce." (Information was not "scarce"; the gov't was denying it, and had to acknowledge same a few days after Bocaranda reported it -- see reliable sources now in the article.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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."
  • Reuters plainly says "Bocaranda's investigative work on Chavez's health has brought him more fame than at any point in a half-century media career spanning back to when he was 16". Pretty sure this was properly placed. It is questionable that you are attempting to twist this...
• 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
  • WP:VENRS said Caracas Chronicles was "run by respected journalists" until it was removed by Sandy today. Again, this information was attributed as part of reception, which is common.
• "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)

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)

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)

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)

BLP vios continue

See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at WP:AN and at WP:RSN,[50] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I pointed out the first BLP issue, and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down (ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs), WMrapids returned to Nelson Bocaranda to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see points 3 and 6 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

For concerns about my edits regarding WP:BLP, please see that I successfully advocated for the page protection of an article about a child who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. WMrapids (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. Kingsif (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", Lil Tay is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

A quick comment

Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:

• We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
• The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is Kingsif (talk · contribs). However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.

"the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did.

Based on what I've seen at Nelson Bocaranda in only three days of engagement, essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research, so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

As suggested earlier, the VENRS page is largely owned by one editor. At times, their view about NPOV with respect to Venezuela has conflicted with that of other editors. On VENRS, there is often no attempt to justify the categorisation of the listed sources. The problem would be solved if Noonicarus hosted the VENRS content on their own talk page so that they would not be bothered by other editors with different views changing the content of the page. It would also stop them using their essay as a justification for "Removing unreliable source per WP:VENRS".

Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article Juan Andrés Mejía containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[51] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[52]

You may also be interested in Noonicarus’ use of Caracas Chronicles as a source. Here is the list:

Poverty in South America [53], Economy of Venezuela [54], Cine Mestizo [55], Greg Abbott [56] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D. C.. Rafael Osío Cabrices in Caracas Chronicles compared his tactics to Aleksander Lukashenko's, who provoked a migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border as a reprisal to criticism, and Fidel Castro's, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 Mariel boatlift and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [57], 2021 Apure clashes [58] [59], Special Action Forces [60], Crisis in Venezuela [61] [62], Venezuelan presidential crisis [63]

Btw, I am not saying either you or Noonicarus did anything specially egregious by using CC. I only mentioned it because you introduced the subject with respect to WMRapids. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain WP:CIVILITY and if we have disagreements, seek WP:CONSENSUS before plowing ahead. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.

• Juan Andrés Mejía has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
• In this diff, where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor

Stalled with feed (back)

-EEng

It seems we're now talking about two issues, so let's try to tease them apart and see what we can say about each. With regard to WMrapids' conduct that lead to this discussion, they seem to have made a substantial (if somewhat protracted) mea culpa above: they have struck some content, made apologies for others, indicated an intent to take feedback on board and revise their approach to certain issues, and said they have no particular attachment to the topic area where the issues giving rise to this report arose and that they are looking to exit involvement there. It does seem to me, based on a reading of the above and a superficial follow up on the diffs, that their conduct did cross the line and was moving towards tendentious. But at the moment I'm not sure what more is to be done in light of their responses: they've done more than enough to justify an extension of WP:ROPE in my opinion. Does anyone substantially disagree with that, or can we say that part of the discussion is resolved with, if not exactly complete satisfaction to those who were on the receiving end of the aspersions, at least enough to let the matter go with the hope of real change from WMr?

The second issue is VENRS. This is nuanced. VENRS is undeniably an WP:Advice page and an WP:essay, as I am happy to see it has been correctly labelled (which does not always happen with WikiProject issue-specific recommendations). Policy is very clear on this and came out of major community discussions and ArbCom cases where the WikiProject cohorts attempted to apply their idiosyncratic, non-community-vetted 'guidelines' to every article they perceived to be in their purview: it is not permissible or helpful to cite such advice page guidance like policy, and can often be viewed as WP:disruptive if pushed in certain ways. Anyone who has so much as cited VENRS in an edit summary in order to justify a possibly controversial addition or removal of content probably will want to rethink that perspective and habit, since (again, per the relevant policy) this 'guidance' has no more effect than the opinion of a single editor. Anyone who has gone further to try to leverage VENRS to justify an edit in an edit war or to try to shut down discussion on a talk page or bootstrap their personal opinion with the "consensus" of VENRS (and I don't know if that has in fact happened) has definitely stepped into problematic territory.

Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is still not understanding days in to this discussion. At the NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source for a BLP described by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate WP:BRD on the article itself and attempt to shift WP:ONUS in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it takes me ten posts to make one. :)

It doesn't help that I have to digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability in relation to BLPs. [64]

The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at #Case study and #BLP vios continue date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual, El Nacional (Venezuela) and Runrunes, of which the last one is directly related to journalist Nelson Bocaranda. I have added tags to the disputed sections and the discussion about the issue has restarted, but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for WP:BRD to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances.

That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion this amount of dedication to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the WP:LOCALCONSENUS issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles.

It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to WP:RSN and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.

But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while feral cats are all the rage, Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a WP:3O, WP:RfC, the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! WMrapids (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a WP:3O happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.

Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. ActivelyDisinterested provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, who responded harshly after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw some edits that would support my argument about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted here and here), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have WP:GOODFAITH that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So let’s just all drop this. WMrapids (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to call a spade a spade, so sorry for the boomerang. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have good faith that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. WMrapids (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of J. K. Rowling, where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept your apology, it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to WP:BROTHER as you blamed your dog for your behavior, which you are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain WP:CIVIL in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should all work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. WMrapids (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful.

That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. WP:BLP is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). WMrapids (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about arepas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It should surely to navigate ways around this, such as establishing that coursework should be conducted purely in the sandbox and only be migrated/copied to mainspace upon the nod and approval of the instructor? And then be checked again in mainspace? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Certes "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." But if you correct it on Wikipedia, it's still there as a record of your (lack of) abilityl - that's why we have the history and contributions publicly visible. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

As a former educator though not with WikiEdu, while Bergmanucsd certainly has the editorial power to edit those pages, same as any other editor, it would be inappropriate to do so directly as a teacher. While you can certainly provide feedback on a student's work and even suggestions for how to approach or solve a particular problem, typically at any point up to the final submission, it is wholly inappropriate for a teacher to directly edit a student's piece of work. As a teacher your goal is to impart knowledge so that the student can do the work, not to do the work of the student for them.

What I can't see on wiki though is Bergmanucsd giving any feedback to his students. Perhaps that is something that is happening off wiki, whether in the classroom or through the WikiEdu portal. Going forward it might be helpful to editors who are active on pages that WikiEdu use as part of their courses to be able to at least see the feedback being given to the student, as that might make it easier to identify whether this is a student cohort problem, or a class/course provider problem. Right now as a non WikiEdu editor, I don't see any obvious or easy way to tell if a student is being given wrong or misleading advice or information as part of what should be an ongoing course feedback loop between the teacher and student. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article isn't the student's work. The edits are the student's work. No one can edit the edits -- the diffs remain -- but if a teacher edits an article to fix a mistake their student made, that is not changing the student's piece of work, it's changing a Wikipedia article. There's nothing inappropriate about it. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

This behavior I will refrain from in the future. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Yes I am aware that everyone in the world can edit any page. What I meant to say is that I can't put my name on the edits or specific contributions of my students, only after they have been posted. Maybe I was misinterpreting some of the comments, but it seemed as if editors were asking me to make changes to what students post. As I mentioned above, the course structure does require students to acknowledge that several aspects of their contribution conform to wikipedia standards. If they claim it does and publish it, that's on them. And edits should be made on their contributions and discussions on their talk pages to remind them of the wikipedia standards. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

But it's very much also on you, since you are the reason they are editing wikipedia in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd:, you wrote: I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes... Co-signing what other have told you that yes, you do and you have a responsibility to keep an eye on them and minimize or reverse the damage they do. Instructors and students who turn up once or twice a year to dump these inferior drafts, and often edit-war over them, are harming the project. I think we need to treat them the same way we do any other user who disrupts. As some of them have done this repeatedly, they should know better than a new disruptive user. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Pinging Brianda, and Ian for their thoughts. - jc37 06:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Education), Frank Schulenburg, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Liannadavis - jc37 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

I removed my non-Wikipedia name Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@Rosguill, I only see the removal of a single sentence, am I missing something? Here's the diff I'm looking at: [65] -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Their work, however, is not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Thank you for this tutorial Bergmanucsd (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FWIW, I agree, neither teachers nor students are really WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia; one is here for money (it's their job) and the other is here for a grade (also their "job"). Neither is volunteering. If the teacher keeps the job and the student gets an A, neither will care about WP policies (and why would they?). I don't see what benefit it brings to require people to edit as part of a class -- I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia or to the student. Editing only works if it's something you want to do. So I'd support just removing that exception from WP:SOCK policy and saying teachers can't assign editing to students, but that's a discussion for another page. (Not to be confused with a class on editing, which should of course still be allowed, but that's different from editing as part of a class about something else, as is the case here.) Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What a bizarre take; teachers' job is "teaching", not "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia"; they aren't "here for the money", they're here because they think that it will serve a purpose for their students and the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing), and the students are paying to attend the class (part of which involves Wikipedia editing). The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money and the student, who paid the money, is doing it for the grade. Neither are volunteering to build an encyclopedia, they're using the encyclopedia for something else (their teaching job, or their class grade). Levivich (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." Yes. The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing) Maybe. The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money Certainly not. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I learned about (lower-case r, not the WP version) reliable sources in middle school writing classes. The fact that a writing professor apparently can't handle it is appalling, and raises many questions partially separate to the issues in this thread. casualdejekyll 23:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the support for a ban of Bergman so far, it looks like there might be a ban in this public writing instructor's future as well. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sandy, thanks for the ping. I don't have a whole lot to add in regard to what you asked about, beyond what others here have already said. I'm fine with student editing in general, and it's a fact of life here. But I feel strongly that we have to treat student editors, and class instructors, the same as we treat other editors, not better, not worse. As to whether student editing is a net positive or a net negative, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for raising this important point. I did not check courses where I knew my knowledge would be completely inadequate to judge the edits. So I did not check any medical writing in my sample. It is entirely possible that the failure rate for medical articles is much higher (the same it would be for articles within the scope of contentious topics). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

I ran into that particular class with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@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)

No, WikiEd is not more beneficial than it is harmful to Wikipedia. I think introducing students in research-heavy courses to Wikipedia can encourage them to edit it, but having done a deep-dive of the training materials and how instructors engage when issues have repeatedly come up before, it is clear that students are not guided through policies before being asked to introduce large edits to articles. Some are requested to create articles in sandboxes that they are led to believe is their untouchable work, and this is then moved into mainspace by some. Students are encouraged to check each others' edits conform to policy, rather than engaging with experienced editors - this also leads to students not even knowing other editors can engage with them and their work. Instructors generally have no idea what they're doing, and do not engage.
Any new editor can be a benefit, especially students with specialist knowledge, but I will always believe that WikiEd is a piece of crap (offense intended and maintained), and that the best way to get these students to start editing would be through edit-athons in collaboration with universities. They will be introduced to Wikipedia not through this seminar and coursework style format that is at major fault for the many editing issues. If WikiEd is kept, instructors at least need to have good standing on Wikipedia before they start teaching, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Oppose tban now that Bergmanucsd has come in to address concerns. I am willing to give this editor another chance now that they've started listening and responding. 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) Valereee (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm willing to give another day or so for the folks at WikiEd to try to communicate with the instructor, before moving ahead with sanctions. And I want to say that WikiEd deserves the support and appreciation of the community, because they really do try very hard to help the community, and they don't have many resources to work with. But when I start from the perspective of what I would expect from anyone working in education, in terms of being able to communicate with other people, I'm pretty disappointed with what the instructor has been doing here. It's not like this should be difficult for anyone to understand. If things can be worked out, then OK. But based on what I've seen so far, I think I'm quite likely to support a topic ban against being able to instruct others to edit or using Wikipedia as an instructional tool. Yes, we have the ability to do that. (Can't tell instructors what to do in their classes, but absolutely can determine what they and their students do as edits here.) And the community needs to get comfortable with making these kinds of decisions, because they are going to come up more and more frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm now ready to support TBAN. I don't see any reason to continue waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Like Tryptofish, I am willing to wait a day for a complete and fully responsive reply from this editor as opposed to copy and paste comments that tell us nothing. If engagement is not forthcoming, I will support the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all Wikipedia editing related to educational courses, after waiting a day and seeing this infuriating non-answer on their user talk page: My conduct in future courses as it relates to the content that my students post? I will reiterate the trainings provided by WikiEdu and the policies contained therein, reiterate the course grading requires them to conform to Wikipedia policies, and show them some flagged pages as examples for the type of contribution that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. This person is clearly not taking our concerns seriously, and is either unwilling or incapable of engaging seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed. I would also like a serious re-evaluation of Wiki-ed. My experience is that the students and instructors usually do more harm than good. I can recall one OK experience and many horrible ones, including personal attacks and edit-warring. As others have said, the priority is the 'pedia, not anyone's grades. The ones I've seen don't stick around, nor do their edits. They almost always waste the time, energy and patience of good editors. So much cleanup of bad, copyvio term papers. Per WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is it possible to get a list of all editors who participated in Wiki-ed? I will be able to get some statistics on how many stuck around, revert percentage, etc, but only if I can get that underlying information. BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal The dashboard seems to record all campaigns since Spring 2015. Possibly there's a bulk data download somewhere. Shells-shells (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I notice you were already aware of this (and of Category:Wiki Education student editors). In that case I don't know if there's a collection of data on WikiEd more extensive than these. Shells-shells (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as above. The talk page non-answer Cullen328 cited is altogether too prevalent in the education field, where dressing oft-simple concepts in torrents of polysyllabic, passive voice pretentiousness is both a standard dodge to cover up a lack of content and a badge of faux erudition. Happily, while that nonsense is the norm in academia, it is not on Wikipedia. If Bergmanucsd cannot bring himself to communicate in plain, active voice English, then he surely is not capable of teaching students how to edit Wikipedia effectively. Ravenswing 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TB, per Valereee, and also per Bergmanucsd's being available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as he has been now for 6 years. And six later, nothing has changed. This dismissive, non-answer of the decade—now repeated several times—attempts to place culpability and responsibility with WikiEd rather than accepting it himself. SN54129 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - TBAN; Bergmanucsd has shown that it is necessary. Their non-answer that tries to shift responsibility shows that the issues will continue, and the response gives a strong impression that they didn't read or understand what the concerns here actually are. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as Bergmanucsd now appears to be focussed on improving the situation. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Tban If Bergmancsd's comment below were an unblock request, I _{Note:not an admin} would expect it to be granted without issue. The comment explicitly identifies the main problems with their actions, Correctly identifies the steps necessary to prevent the issue that caused this ANI thread, and takes an immediate step to prevent the problem from reoccurring in the future. So long as he keeps his promise to be more communicative going forward, I see no reason for further action here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  An unblock request, quite possibly. Would we consider such a comment sufficient to reverse a desysopping, by contrast? There's a large difference between giving someone the chance to make edits -- especially with many eyes looking them over, and reblocking easy enough to accomplish -- and giving someone the thumbs up to teach novices how to edit Wikipedia ... especially since we went through this a few years ago. A student who repeatedly fails to learn from their mistakes gets a failing grade. Don't we expect a little better from their teachers? Ravenswing 09:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  The thing that inspired me to be willing to extend a little more rope here is that below, he is announcing his intention to cut actual Wikipedia editing from his summer courses, because he has come to realise that he is unable to achieve the required standards there. I think that's a major course correction, and I'm willing to extend some patience to see if it has the desired effect. He's definitely still on thin ice for his initial lack of competent response, though, so I definitely see where you're coming from. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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.
• Bergmanucsd 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 similar issues .
• 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 WP:ENB.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed), thanks. Maybe also explain to the instructor that this is actually quite serious, that his ability to use Wikipedia for instructional purposes actually is in jeopardy, and that his continued interaction at ANI is necessary if he wants to keep teaching that syllabus? Valereee (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely plan on discussing the severity of the situation and the importance of interacting with the community. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed): I put this on hold for a day to give y'all time to confer. Any progress? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll be speaking with Bergmanucsd this Thursday and will update here following our conversation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed), please convey to Bergmanucsd the gravity of the situation and the necessity of engaging fully and frankly here at ANI. Further evasive non-answer answers are unlikely to be received well. This editor has been given far more time to respond than usual, and their comments are bafflingly unresponsive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thursday. Others here see this as enough of a priority to respond more promptly. Just saying. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I just talked with Bergmanucsd, and we had a very productive conversation. We cleared up a lot of misunderstandings and discussed how things went awry. Bergmanucsd is going to be posting a response here shortly based on our conversation. Again, we respect any community procedures taking place here and are having internal discussions to ensure issues like this are avoided in the future.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That ping probably won't go through, because it was added in a subsequent edit, so I'll re-ping Bergmanucsd. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, "shortly" appears to have been either overly optimistic or a misunderstanding. One thing that might be worth discussing in those internal discussions is how to make it clear to instructors that, while many discussion areas on Wikipedia move slowly, if an admin is demanding an explanation for your conduct, they really do want one very soon, ideally now. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed), we are getting cheery, chipper, upbeat assurances from you and we are getting surly non-answers and failure to substantively engage with the Wikipedia community from Bergmanucsd. You promised a reply "shortly" and nearly seven hours has passed with no further response. I do not know how you define "shortly" but it is difficult to avoid the perception that Bergmanucsd really wants to blow us off and ignore our concerns. Very disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bergmanucsd response

I apologize for my delay in writing out a formal response. I had a meeting with Helaine (Wiki Ed) who helped clarify the concerns posted by Wikipedians on this page as well as some others

First, I want to take responsibility for my delay in responding. There were numerous pages where discussions were going on and it was difficult for me to keep track. There were several days where I was overwhelmed by the activity and mentions that I was receiving. I am also currently not in a similar timezone as many Wikipedians so I was losing a day during the conversations. Now that I have identified this page as where the conversation is being held, I will be sure to be responsive (noting the time zone differences) in a more reasonable amount of time when I am mentioned.

There are two conducts that I ought to directly address. The first was editing someone else’s comment with my mention in it. My edit was to remove my name from the discussion. I am aware that this information is available for those searching as part of the WikiEdu project. For the discussions of behavior of Wikipedia, the standard is to use Wikipedia handles and not given names. I was trying to keep the discussion in that vein.

The second is moving the page of someone else. Sometimes in the process of creating pages, students generate pages that begin with “userID:” or “draft:”. When I notify them that they are not posted, students send me the link and think that they are. In that regard, after several back-and-forths, I then move them. In this future, I will not partake in this process. If student editors are unable to move their own pages, it is a signal that their work might not be ready for publishing. In the cited cases last week, I had reach out to students individually to identify the issues with some of their pages and how they are not conforming to standards (for example, if a student contribution relies to heavily on primary sources). I had also instructed them that it is crucial to the mission of Wikipedia that they engage in constructive discussions regarding comments made on their pages. I had mentioned in previous messages, perhaps too flippantly, that students ignoring such comments are their own decisions. Should I continue on Wikipedia, I will be sure to make this more clear to students that it is not just their grade that is affected, but the whole Wikipedia project that is at stake.

I have been with Wikipedia for 6 years now. I believe in the mission of Wikipedia and I share it with my students as well as other instructors in my academic discipline. I believe that the weight of these contributions tends towards the constructive rather than the destructive. That said after these most recent contributions, I think that future iterations of this summer course are not appropriate for the Wikipedia project. To better conform with Wikipedia standards, I think that it is crucial that student contributors do (at least) the following: (1) examine existing high quality pages; (2) receive feedback on their own draft contributions from peers, Wiki Education staff, and instructor; (3) present a revision for review before permanently posting. The summer session format (of only 5 weeks) does not provide enough time for this process, and as such, might be setting up Wikipedia for subpar contributions. Should I be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, I will work more closely with Wiki Education staff and be more engaged with contributions before posts become published.

As mentioned above, I am available to clarify any of the further concerns that you may have here on this page. I have mentions automatically sent to my e-mail, so I should be able to respond to them in a timely manner (noting the time zone differences).Bergmanucsd (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)BergmanUcsd

For those reading who haven't taught or taken a summer course like this before: I think the resolution not to use wikipedia in summer courses is a very good one. These five- or six-week courses are an absolute whirlwind. Everything goes very fast, students are stressed, and it's really difficult to properly scaffold assignments. They're pretty awful, unless you're doing a mostly-lectures course with a huge exam at the end. fwiw (non-admin comment), I find this response heartening, though there are still some parts to iron out (eg, "permanently posting" and "published" worries me a bit, since everything on wiki is "permanent" and "published" to some extent, so I'm not sure what the intent is here). -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bergmanucsd, there is a process available for draft review at WP:AFC. Like almost everything else on WP, it doesn't allow for deadlines (such as assignment due dates). One alternative to consider is not requiring new articles but instead improving existing ones. For instance, here is a list of high-importance stub-class finance articles. Upgrading those to start-class would be a very positive contribution. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

While I'm satisfied that Bergmanucsd intends to engage with Wikipedia in good faith at this time, I still think that the tban from teaching courses is appropriate. The (well-intentioned) misconceptions regarding editing processes included in this response, the lack of acknowledgement relating to the sourcing concerns that precipitated this whole situation, and the fact that this is not the first time that Bergmanucsd has made assurances that their instruction would improve, leave me unable to trust that future courses will be unproblematic. I am happy to have Bergmanucsd edit Wikipedia; I am not comfortable with them teaching courses full of students to edit Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I also still believe the TBAN is the best course of action. I don't doubt their good faith for a moment, but this response does not give confidence that the issues will not continue. - Aoidh (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm also still in favor of a TBAN. Aside from reasons cited above, some of Bergmanucsd's responses ring curiously hollow. I am having quite a hard time, for instance, wrapping my head around his time zone being a factor in his lack of response; Wikipedians come from all over the world, and edit at all hours of the day and night (I'm typing this over an hour before dawn local time, for instance). Nor has he addressed what Cullen328 accurately called his repeated, cut-and-paste "non-answers." Of course there's no question concerning his ability to edit generally. But when it comes to teaching newcomers how to edit, I would ten times rather have no instructor rather than a substandard one. Ravenswing 08:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd: I suggest that you also read WP:ASSIGN, as that will help you get a better understanding of community expectations here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a great listing of expectations for students and instructors alike Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for sharing. I will link to this page for my students as well. Bergmanucsd (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Input request for a proposal to address related concerns

(Please do not vote, this is just one of preliminary brain storming (earlier one at Wikipedia talk:Student assignments, to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page)

Proposal  : A) Allow only limited number of student drafts - only the number which community can monitor effectively. B) Let those be topic wise common drafts and not student wise draft. C) Student's drafts be tagged as 'Student's draft' in draft namespace D) extend draft life for student drafts up to four years from present six months. - The idea is multiple number of students from multiple batches for four years will work on single draft to be improved. E) Accept content through usual WP:AFC evaluation process only.

Bookku (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mm. If you're looking for a general proposal regarding how WikiEd does its thing, this isn't really the place for it; that ought to be a RfC, perhaps at the Village Pump. Ravenswing 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether we do this here, or elsewhere, Yes, you have some good ideas here. I especially support E: the requirement to go through the usual AFC process. If this is moved, please ping me. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea; pls ping me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's why this is a really bad idea:

1. Projects where multiple people are paid to look after them (professors indirectly and Wiki Ed staff directly) should utilize backlogged volunteer processes as little as possible.
2. AfC is not compatible with a class project, which needs to be on a clear schedule. What's the point of allowing four years? Students typically have a lot of time to devote to writing an article for part of a term. Once in a while they stick around, but it's not part of the course. If for some reason Wikipedians think it's worthwhile to devote a ton more volunteer time to AfC to get students feedback/evaluations on drafts promptly, then great, but otherwise you're just creating a pointless black hole. "You must ask for an evaluation" + "an evaluation might come this week or well after the evaluation does any good" isn't useful process unless the purpose is ensure the classes never stand a chance.
3. Students have a support system. They have a professor, paid staff, training modules, etc. They need AfC less than the typical autoconfirmed user (for whom AfC is not mandatory, after all).
4. This would effectively kill the education program (or rather, support for classes). I don't know what Wiki Ed's finances are like these days, but I cannot imagine a nonprofit with a big central program having its capacity to run that program cut to a fraction and still retaining its funders.
5. This is 100% based on a handful of anecdotes rather than actual data. There were 6,000 student editors in 350 courses in the spring. How many made it to a noticeboard? How many had problems but were easily addressed by Wiki Ed staff or a professor? These proposals always come when one professor and one class cause problems, and instead of just blocking the bad class it becomes about the dastardly scourge of student editors and inept professors, supported by a smattering of anecdotes that span years.
6. There's still an easy fix: if a class causes more trouble than it's worth, block them all. No need to ask special permission. Like, yeah, ideally you're seeing if they prof can get it under control, but if they can't or won't, just block. Problem solved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for so clearly stating nearly everything that horrified me about this idea. I will add, as something like a 2b), that I presume the value of using Wikipedia in teaching, for many instructors, is that it gives students a concrete, "real-world" thing to do with the knowledge and skills they've learned in classes. Multiple batches of students working on a draft for who knows how long that might get published at some point, maybe, very clearly does not fit this aim.

Furthermore, this would do real harm to the idea that wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". A class assignment might be the first time it has ever occurred to a student to think about wikipedia and the people who make it. Writing a draft that disappears into a multiple-year black hole is not teaching them that anyone really can edit. I'm not sure what it would teach them, but it certainly wouldn't teach them that. Meanwhile, the current WikiEd experience seems to be quite good, aside from the few courses that go really off the rails. A friend of mine who just taught with WikiEd tells me students found it accessible and clear. Their students found wikipedia a "welcoming environment", two words I have, frankly, never heard about wikipedia anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, students don't just create articles; they edit existing articles too - for example this list of assignments. WikiEd guidance is mainly about creating articles, leading up to mainspace creation. Misapplied to editing an existing article, this can mean a sudden batch of edits at course end. These may not be well received or last long, which might - I don't know - mean very low marks for the student. Concentrating on controlling article creation misses the potential for article improvement or, at worst, organised degradation. NebY (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is going after the wrong problem. The issue is with the people who are running WikiEd's. If they are not capable of running them correctly, they should have the issue explained to them, and if they are unwilling to listen or make corrections they should be banned from running WikiEd's. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Bluthmark

Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[66] The disruptive behavior continues.[67]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[68]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still[69] doing[70] it.[71] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

On 5 August 2023, you changed

• "vous" to "vois" in French personal pronouns[72]
• "In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in Spanish language[73]
• [[Urdu language|Urdu]] to [[Urdu language|Durdu]] in Official languages of the United Nations[74]

That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[75] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. And you are still edit warring. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shells-shelss, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as NebY pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding writers and producers to an infobox. Ferret, care to chime in? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Soetermans, I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly what they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even asked you directly for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated WP:3RR on that page as well (also, what's up with this unexplained revert?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. Shells-shells (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the editor who made the most effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @Bluthmark per the two threads above.

TL;DR:

The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @Bluthmark to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @Bluthmark in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @Bluthmark has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. UnironicEditor (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders (WP: VG/MOS, wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. Bluthmark (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)

Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for outdated ass interface are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the general idea.) EEng 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh Bluthmark (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you strike that. user:Soetermans has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. Meters (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."

Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.

The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."

And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.

Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.

Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~ UnironicEditor (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Some human guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging me. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x Bluthmark (talk) Bluthmark (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I was at the psychiatrist"

That explains a lot.

"No shit you're [sic] life is complex"

I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?

"Some human guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging me."

So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.

It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm curious what does it explain Bluthmark (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. Bluthmark (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

UnironicEditor, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "That explains a lot."

UnironicEditor, mere hours before posting that: "You are perfectly capable in using sympathy. [...] Currently your optics show real insensitivity [...] You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism."

Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...

You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the WP:CESSPOOL as possible? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. UnironicEditor (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly. You can just check my /64 to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

Sure, Jan.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.

And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.

Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, for future reference, boomerangs don't discriminate.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Would someone uninvolved like to close this? NebY (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([76], [77], [78]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Bluthark at least needs a serious WP:Civility warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a really bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Witchfynde

• Witchfynde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help, please. WP:COI accounts appear to be warring over the band's status and members, and of course none of it is sourced. I've wasted enough time just fixing the infobox format, which is broken again. Requesting user sanctions, page protection, and copy editing and paring of unsourced content. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So basically the article has long been needing additional sources to verify the statements. but as I can expect, @Wfynde is a new account created on August 6, with all edits from mobile, and all of them are directed to the article. Another account, @Iansmiler, begin almost exclusively editing in this article. Should Wfynde edit warring in this, it is obvious that the username is focused on the article. Futhermore, the new user doesn't use edit summary. Pinging the two users to pay their attention. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Correcting my mistakes:

• Account was created Aug. 5, not 6

Also, Iansmiler seems obviously a sleeper as the account was inactive for three years. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already notified both accounts. And while their edit histories are focused on the article, there are several IPs that have also dedicated their attentions there, so it's not unreasonable to think that one or both registered accounts have been involved while signed out. This didn't just start. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I am iansmiler :) I am a NWOBHM enthusiast. I edited the site following an announcement on the original bands FB page. Many NWOBHM bands on Wikipedia are not up to date with regards to information on their current status, but I do not know enough about them to commit my knowledge to a wiki. With regard to Witchfynde - I have followed the band for 40 years and know EVERYTHING about them! Including the direction each member has taken. I therefore chose to lend my pen and update the wiki. Recently I was alerted to somebody else editing the wiki, and was looking forward to see what additions had been made... alas - somebody had removed band information, this was not even band info that I had added. Two particular names that were removed were Tracey Abbott and Ian Hamilton. I know that in the NWOBHM scene there is a current 'difference of opinion' between these two former members and one of the earlier band members (It is all over social media) - I believe that the culprit that is editing this wiki is acting on behalf, or is the earlier band member based on this information. Iansmiler (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iansmiler. Notwithstanding the likelihood that Wikipedia is filled with experts on each subject, we can not publish unsourced content or WP:OR. Any content that is not WP:RELIABLEy sourced may be removed. If you can support edits with acceptable sources, please do. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When the article is barely unverifiable as one source says they are formed in Nottinghamshire but it says derbyshire. Source no 2 is just a wikipedia citation. Futhermore, the IP before the COI account was made can clearly be a sock. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything you add to Wikipedia must be verifiable, you're now personal knowledge isn't enough. I suggest reading WP:REFB, which is a simple explanation of how to add references for your additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Iansmiler, while I have hard-blocked Wfynde, may I request you to please read WP:PILLARS as well as our policies on biographies of living persons, verifiability and guideline on reliable sourcing? May I also request a hard confirmation here that you will not post any material on Wikipedia that is not attributed to a reliable source? Thank you, Lourdes 13:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Iansmiler? EEng 06:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing on "Gender-related topics"

I have been editing since 2006 and in January 2023 I stumbled upon the MOS entry for MOS:GENDERID. I was shocked to find it clearly violating NPOV and NOTCENSORED and got involved in recent RfCs where I perceived POV-pushing by activists trying to expand privacy protections to deceased individuals in the MOS, beyond even the scope of BLP. I initially brought up concerns on the talkpage 5 January 2023 (see 2023 archive) and recognized that the situation fits exactly with the article on WP:CPUSH, and I found myself struggling for months against a bunch of very civil activists trying to crush even the most basic policy-based improvements on any gender-related page (e.g. Irreversible Damage). One of the first comments I got was, You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade.

I followed closely two RfCs closed 7 June 2023 and 20 July 2023. They were started either in part or wholly by Sideswipe9th with a fairly biased setup that was leading the discussion toward another expansion of MOS-based restrictions. They both failed. I was labeled as part of "the opposition". My oppose !vote in the second RfC brought several activists arguing to dismiss my !vote. Numerous comments from the RfCs lamented the "MOS activists" repeatedly running RfCs and wasting people's time, gaining local consensus on the MOS page and failing at VPP with a wider audience. People are fatigued on this topic. In discussions with Sideswipe9th over many months, I've found they often respond to my comments within 10 minutes, regardless of time of day, and the comments tend to be very long and always oppositional and dismissive. The result, maybe intentionally, is that others find it hard to keep up with the enormous amount of discussion and they check out, leaving the few highly committed activists to dominate discussion. Consensus is impossible, creating repeated RfCs.

I started proposing a revision to MOS:GENDERID at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on 26 June 2023 and was clear since January that I wanted to work toward a new RfC that aligns the MOS with policy, which would inevitably be opposed to the nth degree by the activists trying to go the opposite direction. I went through about 5 different revisions over at least 5 weeks trying to get feedback, trying to parse the useful feedback from the fluff of specious complaints in the face of CPUSH. I'm not providing diffs because of the volume involved. When I finally got to the point of a reasonable proposal at Village Pump, I posted it today and within 15 minutes Sideswipe9th, Firefangledfeathers, and LokiTheLiar asked for a procedural close of the RfC, basically saying that because they previously opposed it, I didn't have consensus for the RfC and failed WP:RFCBEFORE. At a surface level their complaints may look reasonable, but they're not.

CPUSH seems to be the most difficult thing for Wikipedia to deal with, even ArbCom has effectively said that they can't fix the problem. I'm not sure what can be done, but the current VPP pole response seems actionable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified users involved here, here, and here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a bunch of exhausted people trying their best to improve policies and guidelines, mostly collaborating well. We also have Cuñado posting a complex RfC over universal objection and then posting this series of allegations with not a single diff of evidence. I am truly shocked to see this here, and I need some processing time. Please ping me if you have a question I can answer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m beginning to get the impression a boomerang GENSEX top8c ban is in order given this type of language, Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that if the consensus at ANI is that my perception of CPUSH is wrong, and that my attempt at RfC was inappropriate, you won't be seeing much of me on this topic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, I won’t, because I’m going to need a VERY good reason not to use the CTOPS protocols and topic ban you. My post was hoping someone can provide one. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on my warning, and their response to the rfc they opened where they said, The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. I am ready to topic ban now. Asking after clearly ignoring the warning is not the correct order of operations, and demonstrate that they understood that they were casting aspersions yet again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I respect the feedback that my perception was wrong and acknowledge my failure to stay civil. I'll propose a one-year topic ban on myself (never been topic-banned, so not sure if a self-ban is relevant), with right to coment civilly in future RfCs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish posted this on your talk page - "Comments like several extremely active editors on this page are WP:NOTHERE and your frequent referring to other editors as activists needs to stop." and posted an AE logged warning to that effect ([79]). What have you just done above? Yeah, referred to other editors as activists. I'd say that wasn't the brightest idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Given ScottishFinnishRadish's comment "If you believe that other editors are editing in bad faith or are NOTHERE WP:AE and WP:ANI are the venues to discuss that"[80], I thought this was the appropriate place to describe the problem that I perceive. If not, my apologies and I learned something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I dunno what Cuñado thinks is happening, but to me it looks like they proposed an RFC wording, nobody liked it, and then they disruptively tried to start it anyway.

This is actually something they've done before in discussions on that page: they proposed a wording for a section on the page, and over multiple drafts people repeatedly had the same objections that Cuñado refused to answer, enough so that I eventually made a draft incorporating those concerns over Cuñado's objections.

Like it or not Cuñado, you do not actually have consensus for the majority of the changes you want to make to this guideline. It's a pretty common pattern in this topic area, IMO, for someone to try to make a change to a trans-related page or guideline against consensus and then when nobody is for it they start calling all their opponents activists and accusing them of wanting to WP:RGW. But WP:RGW is not a synonym for "woke", and in fact it applies better to the pattern of behavior I've just described than it does to any consensus among editors. Loki (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, @Courcelles I think I'd oppose a topic ban because, while Cuñado's repeated refusal to listen to feedback from other editors has been frustrating, I do think that his efforts on the talk page of MOS:GENDERID have been more helpful than harmful overall. (Maybe I wouldn't think this if he had been this accusatory the whole time, though.) Loki (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As my last comment of today, is there any changes or it is the same so it will require closure? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit I think you want the discussion above us. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from Cuñardo is repeated failures to listen to other editors - repeatedly at the MOS discussion and then exacerbated by the failure to listen to the logged warning yesterday. Courcelles asks for good reasons not to topic ban, I am unable to provide one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, I'm not sure that a simple topic ban from GENSEX isn't too blunt an instrument but I'm not sure what would be better. Advice and warnings haven't worked, so we need to try something else. Blocks for personalising disputes and for casting aspersions maybe, but they're subjective and can sometimes cause more drama than they avoid and they also don't address the failures to listen. A topic ban from making new proposals in the GENSEX topic area, but not from commenting on others' proposals, would help somewhat but this feels too specific and comes with definition difficulties (e.g. is a comment like "I suggest point 2 would be better phrased as ..." a "proposal"?). When they engage constructively and without casting aspersions, commenting on motivations, etc. their contributions are valuable and it would be a shame to lose them, but if there isn't a way to retain the good without also getting the bad then a topic ban may be the best way forwards for the community. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think it's civil POV pushing? Shells-shells (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sideswipe9th and I have rarely agreed on topic related questions. However, I do think they are a good faith editor and I'm always concerned when the civil POV essay is brought out. Sometimes people do work to support their POV. So long as that effort is done civilly (and I don't recall a time where Sideswipe9th wasn't) and without edit warring, I think we should give a lot of leeway when it comes to taking people to ANI for, what amounts to, trying to make their point. I can understand frustration in topics like this but I think we should really err on the side of not intervening so long as things are civil. For what it's worth I wouldn't support any action against Cunado either as I have been in their position and understand their frustration. When you have a clear vision of a problem and others aren't understanding the issue it's easy to become frustrated. They should be careful in the future to distinguish between how something can appear and the likely intent behind things. I strongly believe Sideswipe9th's intent is good faith even in cases where I disagreed with them. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• This is far from the first time that Cuñado has referred to anyone who disagrees with them as "activists" and they also did so in a similar fashion on the Village Pump MOS:GENDERID discussion two weeks ago, where I called them out on it. Over there they claimed all the previous RfCs on the topic and their outcomes were "driven by trans-activists that made unreasonable proposals". Silverseren^C 00:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There have been a lot of discussions since the second of the two recent RfCs closed on next steps, and by and large we are trying to come up with a draft guideline amendment that will fit the consensus established by the first RfC, while also addressing the concerns raised in the second. This isn't an easy process, there are naturally strong opinions from all involved, and we're trying to hit what seems to be a very small target for where the community consensus lies.

• The problem, at least as I see it and reasonable minds may disagree on this, is that while Cuñado has taken some aspects of feedback onboard (for example in this reply after I pointed out that MOSBIO applies to all biographical content and not just biographical articles), there are some pretty major concerns from multiple editors that have not been addressed. The frustrations that arise from not listening to the feedback that has been given are compounded when those are met with accusations of being NOTHERE, that the two recent RfCs "had a biased activist-y setup", and that the GENDERID guideline is the result of a "local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented". When these are combined, it does not create an environment conductive to collaboration.
  For the most part, I have tried to set the accusations aside when giving feedback on the proposals, though some of my frustrations came out in this reply, where I really should have used softer language in the last sentence. However the accusations Cuñado has been making are making this process far more contentious than it has to be. I had hoped that SFR's AE logged warning yesterday would have put a stop to the accusations, however Cuñado's opening !vote in the now closed RfC, where he said The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. clearly flies against the spirit of that warning, as it is accusing the hundreds of editors who have contributed to the development of the guideline over the last twenty years of being activists by another name. For context, see regulatory capture, and then Google search a term like "transgender regulatory capture" for how this language is typically used off wiki.
  Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would urge Cuñado to rethink his approach to discussions on this topic. There are good aspects to your proposals, but those are massively outweighed when you cast everyone who opposes them because of the bad aspects as activists, and don't take constructive feedback about the bad aspects onboard when it is given. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• (comment in non-admin capacity) Back in January, I reverted Cuñado's attempt to unilaterally remove the deadname provisions. For what it's worth, I agree with some of Cuñado's criticism of the guideline as stands, but that removal was obviously inappropriate. Since then, Cuñado has no doubt seen that there's a diversity of opinion on GENDERID, even among those who generally support it. I, EvergreenFir, and Folly Mox all have expressed views (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing either of you) that the current guideline is in some ways too strict. The two aspects of GENDERID that most conflict with the preferences of the trans community—retaining deadnames on some articles and avoiding neopronouns—were both largely supported by editors who broadly support GENDERID. If there is activism afoot, it's not doing a very good job. MoS remains about the middle of the pack on style guides when it comes to trans issues: Don't misgender, don't out, minimize deadnaming, but in some cases put content concerns over the subject's preference.
  Maybe I and Evergreen and Folly and the other pro-GENDERID editors who've expressed varying degrees of heterodox, independent thought don't fall under the "activists" Cuñado is talking about. It's hard to tell, because, other than naming Sideswipe thrice and FFF and Loki once, it's not clear who in particular he's complaining about here, nor has a case been made for why those three should be considered "activists" rather than just people who sometimes disagree with Cuñado. I have my own critique of GENDERID and its ideological underpinnings—specifically that it represents a fairly stereotyped understanding of the trans experience, more the sort perpetrated by cisgender allies than by trans people. But I don't blame anyone in particular for that. If there's a problem with a guideline, that's a communal failing. I've appreciated a lot of Cuñado's critique of various aspects of GENDERID. I wish he could manage to give that critique without personalizing matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  (Summoned by ping) (in horror to an MOS:GID thread at ANI). I appreciate the characterisation above as a heterodox, independent thinker. I did comment " Works for me" on Cuñado's recent proposed rewrite of the section in dispute— which I'm not prepared to assess as more, less, or equally strict in comparison with the current guidance. I did not find anything in the rewrite that seemed immediately objectionable, and the comment was made – like my first comment at the second VPP RfC – ex exhaustio, in the vain hope that a bold do-over might stem the flood of RfCs. I have also given pushback against proposed changes to the current policy that would make it more thoroughly trans-accommodating at the expense of reader confusion or editor frustration, including use of neopronouns and specific guidance on "complex / complementary gender expression". That second pushback, where my edit followed Tamzin's and preceded EvergreenFir's, may be what Tamzin had in mind above.

  I think User:Slakr did a valiant and adequate job in the close of one recent discussion, seeing that people are arguing from entirely different policy underpinnings, talking past each other because we disagree with or don't understand each other's assumptions. It's natural to start seeing opponents and bad faith where none exist when staring down the maw of 800kb of raw text, unceasing workshopping and bikeshedding, and what might seem to us to be arguments that completely miss the main point.

  I do have a personal connection to this topic, and when I noticed myself having too many feelings to communicate dispassionately I took MOSBIO off my watchlist and moved on. My kind suggestion to anyone who feels themselves finding enemies in their codiscussants is to take a similar step away. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd support action against Cuñado here, but I do think they were being at a minimum at very IDHT with their most recent action. I don't think the "activists" language in itself is sufficiently problematic under policy to justify a sanction in these circumstances. It's not something I would personally use (it's just too likely to inflame and already heated debate), but the fact of the matter is that it's within a reasonable field of perspective on this one: there have been parties (on both sides) who have attacked this issue with some combination of bludgeoning, advocacy, and even borderline gamesmanship; these actions have been consistently well-intentioned, and any outright violation of process unintentional, but I think it is fair to say that at times in the recent discussions and related events, lines have sometimes been crossed by some of the more adamant hardliners on both sides.
  Feeling as they do about the underlying subject, I can understand Cuñado's view that some of the advocates for more stringent GENDERID protections have used aggressive tactics at points, but that doesn't obviate two major counterpoints: a) their wording should have been more selective, and b) they should recognize that they have been more than a little activist themselves in some respects, so glass houses and all that.
  What I am less ambivalent about is my concerns about how Cuñado approached the current nexus of dispute. As of the last few days, everyone on the MoS talk page, including the parties that Cuñado as seemed to identify as "activists", have been, through an effort of will and self-restraint, inching towards an agreed wording for a new proposal. Cuñado is one of about a dozen editors who made significant contributions to that process, but they had a very specific notion for how the final product should be presented to the community and which specific issues should be foregrounded as a part of that initial process.
  In at least one respect (whether to propose moving part of the policy language to BLP and when to propose that move), Cuñado was (I think) completely opposed by every other responding community member. Yet they either lacked the ability to see that counter-consensus or chose to disregard it. Attempting to the jump their version of the proposal on to VPP seems to have been an express effort to short-circuit the 'activists' from (as Cuñado saw it) controlling the narrative with their own proposal and thereby getting an edge in the next wave of discussion. Which is also in my book an understandable view (though not my own). But that being the case, Cuñado's appropriate responses could have come in the form of expressing that opinion on the MoS talk page. Instead they seem to have wanted to get ahead of the WP:GAME, which was not helpful. Cuñado should have read the room (including seeing that editors with more middle of the ground perspectives on GENDERID also opposed Cuñado's proposal as written).
  These issues were then further compounded by the ill-advised filing here, which occurred despite the fact that the VPP proposal was procedurally closed not just because Sideswipe, Loki, and FFF opposed it, but on the basis of a pretty uniform response from other community members at Talk:MoS/Biography and VPP.
  Personally, I would lean towards a trouting here, but I suspect we may be beyond that. CTOP or no, I don't think either a TBAN or a block is warranted, and despite some tenacity and myopathy, Cuñado has made valuable contributions to the discussion and I think the final discussion will be poorer for their absence. But at a minimum, they have to drop this categorization of their strongest rhetorical opposition into a monolithic camp. I'd urge them that this does not really reflect reality, and even if it did, it would not serve process or consensus to frame the matter in the terms they have chosen in recent discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Cuñado, are you okay to voluntarily stay off the topic for one year? If you confirm, we close this discussion and extended scrutiny (for all our benefit). Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I mentioned, I don't plan on being on this topic for a year, except as an RfC commentor. Everything is off my watchlist. I regret that this discussion became about my aspersions (which I also regret). I recognize CPUSH, and the MOS:GENDERID is an open wound on Wikipedia that needs to be aligned with core content policies, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation needs to make another special resolution on this particular issue. Whatever happens, I'm out. Thanks Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Tamzin, BilledMammal, Locke Cole, and many others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you won't be able to participate in the upcoming discussion which you helped to shape, Cuñado. That said, your response to community concerns here has been admirable and I for one will think well of you for it, going forward. And I'm confident you will be useful wherever you end up contributing as a consequence of not focusing on this issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cuñado, the voluntary nature of topic ban will include prohibiting your comments on any RfC, current or future, or any gender-related topics likewise. Are you okay with that? Thank you, Lourdes 13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I must admit, I seem to have missed the "except as an RfC commentator" bit of Cuñado's most recent comment (unless it was edited in after the fact). I hope I did not put words in their mouth as a consequence, but in any event, I'm glad you are clarifying the need to treat this as an all or nothing restriction. I still don't think I would be in support of a TBAN if this came down to a community ban !vote, but, even as a voluntary measure, no formal content-oriented TBAN restriction makes much sense to adopt if it has such a carve out. That said, I do think Cuñado willingly avoiding further involvement in the drafting while reserving the right to !vote in the resulting discussion is a wise decision, and a reasonable compromise (assuming they do not get formally TBANned in here, anyway). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Cuñado highlights a problem I see as well, and I agree with their invocation of WP:CPUSH. It feels like "activists" just keep reigniting the discussion hoping to push things a little further each time (in ways that clearly violate WP:NPOV). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cuñado may be correct that this topic area is overrun by advocacy-based civil-PoV-pushing behavior, including proposals that sharply conflict with core policy, but Cuñado has also been very WP:ICANTHEARYOU about the RfC drafting process, and the attempt to launch the RfC equivalent of a WP:RIGHTVERSION after many of us made it very clear that the drafted language so far was a non-starter, was certainly not helpful. I don't think that's any reason to call for a topic-ban or other action. This is just a heated and rather polarized topic area, and people soemtimes lose their patience for a while. If we immediately turned to T-bans every time that happened, the topic would be a ghost town and the sanction log would grow quite massively in this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cluebat Cuñado, but don't go too much further; I don't think he's being maliciously disruptive, although I amongst others are just getting tired of the merry-go-round of continuously arguing MOS:GENDERID. It may get annoying, but being annoying isn't worthy of sanction in itself. I think we have a problem on both sides where someone on one side will see each other as calm-headed and neutral and the other as hot-headed POV pushers, and I include myself in this analysis. As much as I find the transphobic culture wars incredibly exhausting as a trans person (I am not looking forward to election season in winter 2024), as a Wikipedia editor, I find the to MOS:GENDERID debates to be downright collegial. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per the two editors above, I think this thread has been warning enough for Cunado. I would have Cunado formally warned. Though if it is indeed a warning, more disruption would probably result in an indefinite topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 06:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to note as you might have been missed it above, Cunado was warned about casting aspersions on 10 August 2023. This warning was AE logged, Cunado acknowledged the warning, and yet this still happened a day later. Is another warning going to work here? I dunno, and I'm too involved to try and objectively figure it out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Sideswipe9th, I was not aware and rescind my above comment. In light of that, I still think a one year topic ban is too long, 3-6 months topic ban would be enough. starship.paint (exalt) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cunado is the one who suggested a 1-year topic ban, so I don't see how it's too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cunado suggested a one year topic ban with a carve out for RfCs, but I don’t agree with carve-outs, instead preferring a shorter ban. starship.paint (exalt) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree the carve-out is a bad idea, but I disagree that means the Tban should be shortened. I think Cunado should accept the 1-year tban, without conditions or exceptions. Failing that, we need a formal discussion of what to do as a community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can understand why that might be perceived as necessary, given how the discussion has played out. But at the same time, I think if we read the room here, at least with regard to those who have responded thus far, I don't think there's going to be enough overall support to sustain a TBAN, so I'm not sure it justifies the effort of having the discussion.

  It's worth noting that Cunado was afterall told in the warning they received that this was a forum to bring their concerns if they though other editors in the space were contributing in bad faith or NOTHERE. That they chose to do so with this particular timing, and in relation to the reversal of a unilateral action on their part that consensus clearly was not supportive of is unfortunate and a bad look, but I get the sense that they have realized at this juncture just how clearly they misread the situation, and I don't think they are going to be confident enough of making another move like that.

  So, while it is a close call, I don't think there is a need for preventative action here. If the rest of Cunado's involvement here amounts to an !vote and maybe a couple of responses once the RfC goes up, and they avoid the "activist" accusations and anything like them while doing so (focusing solely on the arguments and not the rhetorical opposition), I don't see a likely problem. In fact, given their work in helping to frame the discussion (and the fact that even some of those they accused of being activists seem to agree as to the value of those contributions), I think their involvement will probably be a benefit for the upcoming discussions and increase likelihood of consensus for at least some aspects. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Persistent misuse of talk pages

• Special:Contributions/95.149.166.0/24

A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [81] [82] [83] [84]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ahh, IP on IP reporting: don't see that every day. But the OP is correct: the first of the four diffs is arguably defensible as it is pulled (kinda-sorta) around to a content-relevant inquiry at the end. But the other diffs and various other comments raise a substantial indication of WP:NOTHERE: in addition to the NOTAFORUM issues, there's pretty continuous WP:RGW, WP:POVPUSHING, and WP:SOAPBOXING behaviours. However, not only did the OP not notify the other IP of this discussion (93.72.49.123, please see above about the standard template for notifying someone that you have raised their conduct on this board), but neither they nor anybody else has reached out to raise these issues on their user talk. OP, can you please show us when and where the multiple warnings you are referring to took place? At the moment, I think action to block the IP may be premature if we don't have at least some showing of pro forma discussion. Don't get me wrong, given this apparent SPA's bias, I am dubious much will come of trying to get them to contribute more neutrally in this area, but policy mandates that we typically at least give it a try. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure:

• User talk:95.149.166.130 (three warnings)
• User talk:95.149.166.138
• User talk:95.149.166.153
• User talk:95.149.166.156 (one warning, not for misuse of talk pages but for trying to whitewash an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.186
• User talk:95.149.166.192
• User talk:95.149.166.194 (one warning for addition of their opinions to an article)
• User talk:95.149.166.231

93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've notified their most recent IP assignment of this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: [85] [86]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

CIR issue with User:Miner Editor

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

---

I recently edited the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for the first time on August 7th to add a paragraph about campaign financing. Since then, the content I added has been reverted or changed by Miner Editor (talk · contribs) 12 times. Here is an outline of their edits to the page:

1. [87] Adding incorrect donation timeline with no edit summary.
2. [88] Removing a sentence supported by multiple reliable sources by trying to claim it is somehow undue.
3. [89] Restoring incorrect donation timeline, this time with a misleading edit summary.
4. [90] Adding factually incorrect content that lead to this talk page discussion which was bludgeoned by Miner Editor and lead to their change being reverted by an admin.
5. [91] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
6. [92] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
7. [93] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
8. [94] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
9. [95] Removes a part of the lede that is supported by multiple reliable sources in the body, claiming "unsourced", as a result of this talk page discussion in which they claim they read the sources but completely missed the multiple occasions where it is verified.

Warning provided: User talk:Miner Editor#August 2023

So as you can see, Miner Editor has been haggling me over a single paragraph from this article for days now, and not one of their twelve edits was productive. When an editor can't figure out how to find a citation and read the source to verify a claim, they clearly do not have the competency to edit in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a tad bewildering, and I'm not sure how FormalDude things this is a case for incompetence, but they're on the warpath, so here we are. Every cited edit has a context which is easily obtainable and obvious and which I stand by. If anyone has any specific questions about an edit I've made, I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not going to provide a narrative for every cited edit when I'm not seeing the necessity. Miner Editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to be able to contribute without being hindered by disruptive editing ≠ "on the warpath". ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll be glad to address every one of FormalDude's points tomorrow. Just not now. I'm in too good a mood. Miner Editor (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the CIR issue here. I am seeing you making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC, and acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you, including a claim of harassment and an insinuation—repeated in this posting—that this is "a single paragraph" and thus, apparently, not worth getting correct? I'm not saying ME's conduct here is perfect—consensus seems against him on the "frequent donor to progressive candidates" bit—but I'm seeing you causing more trouble than him.

Also, a passing {{plip}} to Zaathras for the strange claim that a source's reliability can only be assessed at RSN. An experienced editor should surely know that the suitability of a given source for a given claim is determined on the article talk page, and that reliability is never guaranteed just because a publication is considered "generally reliable". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC – I made that error once. The second time I did not attribute the superPAC donations to the entire campaign.

acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you – Indignant? All I said to them was "In that case your version is not correct either."

I say it's a "single paragraph" in order to provide context to the number of edits and talk page discussions that have been started about it. Seems a lack of good faith from you to take that as meaning it's not worth getting corrected, especially since I have accepted corrections to the paragraph and would welcome more.

How do you not see a CIR issue when they've made so made so many unproductive edits? And how exactly am I causing more trouble? If I hadn't challenged Miner Editor, they would've introduced multiple factual errors and removed two instances of reliably sourced due content. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Miner Editor, may I request you to provide clarifications for each of the diffs posted by FormalDude above? I am interested in seeing your response to the claim that you have repeated added unsourced material on a BLP, interpreted reliable sources to your benefit, attempted to misrepresent words (such as "long-term" versus "long-time"). Would appreciate your response on each of the diffs. Thanks, Lourdes 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, at first opportunity. Miner Editor (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Answers to Formal Dude's objections

1: I added "in July 2023" to the article as it seemed to me after a reading of the sources that that was the purport. You'll notice that the source's title is "RFK Jr. - aligned super PAC raked in $6 million in July" so on the face of it it does not seem unreasonable. Regarding my not leaving an edit summary, that is a fair criticism. I tend to do that sometimes when I am making several edits in a row, as I did here. Going forward, I will strive to include edit summaries for all appropriate edits.

2: After FD created a new "Financing" section, I dug into it and began verifying and copy editing. FD added material describing Steve Kirsch as being a supporter of conspiracy theories and an antivaxxer which is true but he is also a frequent contributor to Democrats and Democrat causes including Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Stacy Abrams just a couple of years ago. Just highlighting the negative and ignoring the positive seemed like cherry picking and a matter of balance so I removed it, citing WP:WEIGHT. I don't think this edit supports FD's case for incompetence.

3: Same rationale for 1: (above). The article title clearly said "in July", so I changed the article to say "in July". My edit summary was "ce" indicting that I considered it a typo. I did incorrectly marked it as minor. I will strive to do better with my edit summaries.

4: I added that Kirsch was a "frequent donor to progressive candidates". The source said, Kirsch has been a longtime donor to progressive candidates and causes; in the early aughts, through his foundation, he supported many liberal groups, including the League of Women Voters, the liberal watchdog group People for The American Way, and the disinformation monitoring outlet Media Matters for America. The foundation is no longer active, but records show tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Kirsch himself to the Democratic party over the last decade—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, among many other candidates for various offices.. I changed "longtime donor" to "frequent donor" to avoid accusations of plagiarism/copyright. I think my edit was perfectly reasonable and don't believe it to be "factually incorrect", however, FD and @BD2412: (the admin FD refers to) disagreed, which lead to my ::gasp:: "change being reverted by an admin" (BD2412) A talk page discussion ensured where, in the end, I pointed out that Mother Jones is considered reliable but biased by almost all editors and not the best source. FD agreed, they removed it and the disputed text and we all moved on.

5: The article mentioned Abby Rockefeller, with no description about who she is. Her article title is "Abby Rockefeller (ecologist) so I added "ecologist" to "Abby Rockefeller". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source. With Gavin de Becker, likewise, there was no description about who he is. So I went to the article, found out that he is first off an "author" so I added "author" to "Gavin de Becker". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source.(note that the lead for the Gavin de Becker article did not include the word "billionaire" until FD added it later that day).

6: See 5: (above)

7: Prior to this edit, FD seemed to be insisting that if the immediate source did not describe a subject in a certain way, that it could not be included (e.g., because Abby Rockefeller being an "ecologist" was not in the immediate source at hand, therefore that was objectionable as being "unsourced"). So after FD adds "billionaire" to the description of de Becker (which was not in the immediate source at hand either) I gave tit-for-tat and removed it as "unsourced". With that same edit, I described Rockefeller as an "activist" which is how the immediate source at hand described her.

8: See 5: (above)

9: This is boomerang territory. FD repeatedly insists on inserting incorrect, inflammatory material to the lead and then when the material is challenged, does not respect WP:ONUS but instead immediately re-inserts it, calling me "incompetent". I ended up "dispute inline" templating the material. That seems to have gotten their attention... they have removed it and substituted material which seems at first glance to be actually supported by the sources.

If there is anything further I can do, please let me know. Miner Editor (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems some of this dispute was a misunderstanding. I don't agree with most of Miner Editor's characterizations, but I see their point of view better, and I no longer feel this is a valuable use of the community's time. My apologies to Miner Editor for coming to ANI too soon. I'm going to step away from editing the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Section re-opened for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that FD "no longer feels this is a valuable use of the community's time", as they were about to receive some well-deserved scrutiny for their actions. Also, in case anyone was wondering, I did not accept FD's "apology" because I do not care about the forum I care about his edits which were abhorrent. Them calling me "incompetent" was none too charming as well.

They said they were going to be "Stepping away" in their edit summary. They seem to have stepped away exactly as long as I have, plus the time require to revert my edit. I have asked on their talk page that they revert it, and threatened to ANI them if they didn't, but I am doing this now because I think you should all be aware that this editor does not follow through with what they say they are going to do at ANI, and going forward, their promises should be looked with suspicion. Miner Editor (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to step away, but then I saw that you took that opportunity to ignore the existing talk pages discussions and insert your preferred version, acting like a dispute never existed. I changed my mind at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday. Miner Editor (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I will ask again: Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday? Miner Editor (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I already answered this below. Because it was my desire and intent at the time to step away. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You are literally begging the question now, and have not answered it at all. You saw fit to say not only in your edit summary, but in text at ANI, that you were "stepping away". A reasonable editor would conclude that you realized the error in your ways, and decided to take some time to reflect. Miner Editor (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because you're not satisfied with my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer. I've told you that I felt no pressure to step away or "reflect". I admitted no "errors in my ways", I merely wanted to stop having to interact with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The only one questioning my edits was you. They were reviewed. There was nothing in the ANI, or anything that anyone said, about me or any of my edits, that criticized them or which precluded me from resuming editing the article. YOU, on the other hand... You need to revert your edit, and I recommend removing the article from your watchlist. Miner Editor (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI works best when formal sanctions are not necessary. When the parties can come to an agreement and then walk away, resting assured that each side will do their best to abide by the agreement. You have done completely the opposite of what you told the community you were going to do, and I find your behaviour disgraceful. Miner Editor (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's incredulous that this, along with your 6 edits to my talk page, is how you choose to respond to me apologizing and withdrawing my report.

And really, you're gonna refactor my comments now? [96] I said I changed my mind, and I explained why. You can feel however you want, but I'm allowed to change my mind. I was not under any pressure to step away from the article, and I only said I was going to because that was what I wanted, and still want for that matter. I'm just not willing to let it be at the expense of the article as I didn't expect you to use it as an opportunity to game the existing dispute.

As for your edit that I reverted, I brought it up at the talk page, and I see you've already responded by calling me "a disgrace to the community". ––FormalDude (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You edited a closed discussion. That is a newb error. By striking your words in a closed discussion, a reader could think that I was unaware in my replies that you had taken your word back. Miner Editor (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's not good. As for Miner Editor's threat to "I will be asking for formal sanctions at ANI on them today unless they knock it off" - well, I've re-opened this thread so there's now a venue if you really want to do that, but I'd point out that having just read the article and the talk page I can see nothing sanctionable on the part of FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC

1) WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have had to spend an astounding amount of time to prevent him from inappropriately framing everyone involved with Kennedy as a "conspiracy theorist" while refusing to include any other descriptions about the person, and it still continues. 2) They insisted on repeatedly adding to the lead the claim that a majority of his financial backing is from Republicans for which they could only find one very shaky source, after having been challenged, and ignoring WP:ONUS. This is a big deal. There is nothing more that foes of Wikipedia would like to cite as an example of our alleged unreliability than us saying RFK Jr recieves most of his money from Republicans when it is not true at all. I have more, but that's along the lines of my thinking at the moment... I have other stuff to do, but I'll be back. They have no business editing the article and are not only impeding it's improvement, they are jeopardizing it's reliability and reputation. Miner Editor (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still a content dispute. There are a few people who want the article to say one thing, there are others who want it to say another. And there's only one person being incivil on that talk page at the moment, and it isn't FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Insisting on inserting inflammatory, challenged and incorrect material into the lead is more than a "contet dispute". A pattern of tendentious editing is more than a "content dispute". Now, with that, I really DO have to get something done today. I'll be back later. Miner Editor (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not "insist repeatedly", I restored that content to the lede only once. After the talk page discussion, I did not object to another editor changing the same content in the body, and I would not have objected to them changing the content in the lede. In fact I've gone ahead and changed the lede myself to match the body. [97] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This thread has been reopened for Miner Editor, but Miner Editor has provided no evidence here and is making conduct accusations against me at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, including claiming I am WP:NOTHERE. [98]

I also want to provide this timeline of events for anyone reviewing:

• Last week, Miner Editor removed content which was reverted and started this talk page discussion that seemed to have resulted in stable content.
• I then started this ANI and withdrew it shortly thereafter saying I no longer want to edit the article.
• Barely 24 hours after I said I'd step away from editing the article, Miner Editor removed the same content that they had already tried removing last week. In trying to justify their second removal attempt, they completely change their mind on whether a source should be used, going from calling it "hilariously bad editing" and "amateur hour" to "it is a good source".

Changing their entire opinion on a source to try to justify their edits gives the impression that they don't actually care about the sources so long as they can be used to push their personal POV. Stating that the source can be used for the claim they agree with, but not for the claim they don’t agree with, appears to be blatant cherrypicking. Note they’re not saying that the source doesn’t verify both claims, just that they only want to use it for the claim they like. [99] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

FD mischaracterizes and misrepresents, as is their wont. Anyone wanting to know the real story would be advised to go to the talk page for the article, if you have the stomach. I have addressed their misunderstandings there and I do not have the time to do it again here. Miner Editor (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

After giving it some thought and reading some threads, I have come to conclude that FormalDude probably was not attempting to evade a boomerang, and genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for all involved by withdrawing their complaint against me. I will strike those accusations/speculations of boomerang evasion, etc., at first opportunity with apologies to FormalDude. I still believe he is unfit to edit the RFK Jr Campaign article, though. I will give it some consideration, and if I come to the conclusion that FD needs formal sanctions, I will open a new case. Miner Editor (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not be asking that FD be warned or sanctioned in any way, at this time. That would be an exercise in futility. I still believe they are a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia (at least when they edit topics for which they are obviously passionate about) but I am going to drop the stick. Miner Editor (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to walk away from ANI at this point, but Miner Editor calling me "unfit" and "a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia" is a personal attack since they're not providing any evidence/diffs nor seeking any warnings or sanctions.

Since declaring that they will drop the stick, Miner Editor has already gone on to levy other personal attacks at me on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, such as:

• Calling me "a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement". [100]
• Accusing me of "bullshittery" and having a "reading comprehension issue". [101]

If they're just going to keep up the uncivil personal remarks, this ANI may as well stay open. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And they're still at it, now accusing me (without evidence) of stonewalling and tendentious editing. [102] Note that I have previously informed them that article talk pages are not the proper venue for conduct accusations. [103] ––FormalDude (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking, this is better covered at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miner_Editor. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Dronebogus doesn't like IP editing

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

---

• Dronebogus doesn't seem to think I should be editing here and is continually reverting me. Do they do this to anyone who disagrees with them on an AFD?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trams in popular culture for the worst of it, but this spans a few AFDs and some minor article changes, and they're doing it across all of it.

See User_talk:Dronebogus#IP_editing_now_banned_on_WP? 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You've blanked the post on your talk page, but Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (and the reverts of it) are still necessary here. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently I reverted pretty much all the edits by 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743; most of them were harassing me across related AfDs I started, though one was casting aspersions against piortus and two others were probably good faith but were still not constructive (adding unreliable sources an unexplained “see also” links). The user then hopped to a different IP (this one) and began edit-warring all their old edits back. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

When you announce that you're going to use AFD as a harassment tactic in a talk: page argument on an unrelated article [104], then you go right ahead and do that, then it's not "harassment" if someone then calls you on it. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I struck that comment, thanks. Stop waving it around like it’s a smoking gun. Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You might have struck that comment (long afterwards), but you still went right ahead with the bunch of AFDs on topics that you agree you've no knowledge of. Then when someone disagrees on those AFDs, you bulk blank all of their edits. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye&diff=prev&oldid=1169848187 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbenheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1169635566 Dronebogus (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, whilst I understand you don't like the IPs comments about you at those AfDs, you should not be deleting them, it's not a good look to be removing "Keep" comments on AfDs that you started. Especially as it's possible the IP has a point - IMO some of those AfDs were poor ideas which seem to have been done with little attempt at WP:BEFORE. MY advice would be to restore the IPs AfD comments - though you could reasonbly NPA the jab at Piotrus in the one you mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m concerned they’re somebody’s bad hand account or a block evader re:Piortrus attacks Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Plus I’m not going to put up with systematic harassment and edit warring irregardless of context. Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps they are someone's sock, in which case it would be fine to remove the comments. But you don't know that. I note you didn't remove the comment that Rhododentrites made on one AfD [105], which basically says the same thing as the IP editor. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Rhondodendrites isn’t cruising from AfD to AfD hounding me. Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• After the IP commented at your AfDs, you then followed them to Alternator (automotive) and Dunball; at the first one starting an edit war in which you are still both involved, and at the second one blindly reverting the IPs removal of a terrible user-generated review of a pub (though you reverted yourself there when you realised how terrible it was). So I don't think that you're exactly standing on the higher moral ground here. Now, unless you have evidence of them being a bad actor, the AfD comments need to be restored. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, there's also nothing wrong with this edit, which you've reverted three times now. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  How does Ecky Thump relate to the Cloggies? Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just as an uninvolved party, they both deal with supposed Lancashire traditions played for laughs. Quite similar in concept. Cloggies is organized around a fictional 'Lancashire clog-dancing' troupe, Ecky deals with a fictional Lancashire martial art, Ecky Thump. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining Dronebogus (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m slightly dubious about the see also link being included but it at least makes sense now Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  For the record I have zero opinions on if the see also link should be there, but since I understand the argument someone would make as to why, thought it best to arm the less aware of British media with that knowledge so they can evaluate. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] While I'm happy the material has been restored, now Dronebogus has relisted a discussion in which they have already made an outcome assertion. Dronebogus has an unfortunate habit of clerking various discussions in which they've already participated. They were cautioned about this in a recent ANI discussion which removed their MfD editing privileges. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to relist a discussion. I thought I wasn’t allowed to close discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, you shouldn't be relisting your own discussions, but more to the point it was relisted only two days ago! I have reverted. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  That was simple ignorance. I have never relisted anything before and was worried I was out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The main issue here is that a relist is functionally a closing action, in that you're prolonging a discussion in the hope that it reaches one outcome or another. That involves assessing whether consensus has been reached, or could be reached. It's not appropriate for anyone who's been involved in the discussion to make that call. Furthermore, I believe you're topic-banned from closing XFD discussions. If you can't close a discussion, you shouldn't relist one either, and definitely not one that you're involved in. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I see. Dronebogus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• It seems Dronebogus is bound and determined to purge WP of anything that might incidentally bring a smile to the reader's face. See, for example, [106]. EEng 23:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do wonder if he applies the same modus operandi to his own userpages.... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you two have something important to say or do you just want to knit by the guillotine? Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  We did say something important: the pattern seems to be that you you seem bound and determined to purge WP of anything that might incidentally bring a smile to the reader's face. EEng 22:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• 'm unfortunately unsurprised to see this here. I'm also fairly certain relisting an XFD is a violation of his topic ban, as Mackensen said above. I also am completely dubious at the notion that he didn't realize it was a violation, considering that relisting prolongs the discussion and can very conceivably be used to stave off an unfavorable outcome, as it was indeed used in an MFD that he participated and commented in, including in response to the relist discussion. Sorry, I don't buy it at all. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's not fair. The actual wording on Dronebogus' talk-page is "Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.". Note the absence of any reference to "broadly construed". By definition, relisting something avoids closure. It may still be wrong to avoid a closure you don't like, but the fact remains that Dronebogus has exactly observed the letter of his ban. In fact, in response to his topic ban, he specifically asked "so in regards to closing I am only restricted from closing XfDs?", a perfect opportunity to clarify that he shouldn't be taking any clerking or administrative action in XfD discussions. But Extraordinary Writ replied "That's correct, yes.". The right way forward from here is a thorough trout for Dronebogus for observation of the letter rather than the spirit of his law, and the rewriting of the ban to ensure it's clear for the future. We shouldn't punish people for failing to stick to limits that we find we accidentally didn't set. Elemimele (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  As the OP of the original ANI complaint, I endorse User:Elemimele's suggestion limits on User:Dronebogus's editing be further defined. They regularly clerk or hat discussions in such a way to benefit their own position. All this was evidenced in that prior discussion. And now we're here again, seeing Dronebogus game the relist procedure while under direct observation, and then claim ignorance of error. I want to assume good faith but this user challenges the our social norms regularly. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  How can I game a procedure I had no idea about?! Dronebogus (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I don’t like constantly being told to remember the exact details of a restriction from months ago that, lo and behold, never existed. Dronebogus (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Further ICANTHEARYOU behavior. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  What are you even talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Although I think WP:BEANS applies as far as how we would or should define the limits of a topic ban in the XFD area, I suppose you're right that it's reasonable to say that it's not considered part of the original topic ban conditions, and it's worth amending the topic ban to take this sort of behavior into consideration. And also as I look into it, it was only the MFD topic ban that was broadly construed and not the XFD closures (I guess you can't really broadly construe those anyway). However, I do worry that at the rate things are going, we're continuously going to play Whack-a-Mole on the limits of his ability to clerk discussions. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here’s my suggestion: “don’t do anything related to clerking talk pages or xfds except removing obvious vandalism and WP:NOTFORUM comments”? Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Although I can't speak for Black Kite or anyone else, I think that's better. I worry that what you might define as obvious vandalism or WP:NOTFORUM could be different from another's interpretation, given what prompted this ANI discussion. But that being the case, if we really needed a third party to make that call, then there's really no other place to go besides AN or ANI. So your suggested changes are workable. More formally worded, it would be:

  • Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from clerking any discussion in which he is an active participant, except to remove or strike only those specific parts of comments which constitute patent vandalism or WP:NOTFORUM violations.

  And I feel even after implementing this change, I'd encourage you to reach out to another user to remove borderline comments if you're in doubt. Emphatically I should add that even if I think this change would work, I can't convince others to feel likewise. Lastly, knowing we've been on opposite ends of discussions before, I understand and appreciate that these restrictions are frustrating to you; perhaps I feel differently from BusterD in that I don't believe you're acting in deliberate bad faith. However, again I urge that you try to have care that you don't get too wound up over discussions that you feel are important to you. People do notice that. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that will be convincing the community that you can competently identify vandalism and WP:NOTFORUM comments, we have a lot of evidence to the contrary. I would suggest that regardless of the outcome of this discussion that you cease to remove comments which you consider to violate NOTFORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it’s just involved discussions then that’s totally fine. I only included the caveats because I was worried I’d be dragged back here for reverting “lol gay” on a random talk page I’ve never edited before. Dronebogus (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just in terms of NOTFORUM I was actually thinking in general, plenty of others around to remove it if it actually does need to be removed. Thats just advice though, in my own past there was a time when I was a bit heavy handed with removing off topic stuff and I've had to learn to let the grey stuff slide (and watching how the community treated those posts allowed me to better refine my understanding of black and white so to speak). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Look at it from my perspective: I don’t want to have to dance around a minefield of oddly specific restrictions either. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Can we just jump straight to the “Dronebogus is indefinitely topic banned from XYZJGQ and U on threat of permablock” so I can go back to something productive? Because I can tell I’m not going to win and would just like to minimize my losses. Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• If we're up to the whatever^th discussion along the lines of "Dronebogus can't follow basic discussion norms", and the whatever^th discussion in which he's not showing much interest in the substance of the criticism and just trying to get it over with, and the matter at hand now is finding a TBAN sufficiently broad that he won't (intentionally or not) exploit whatever exceptions are granted, isn't this the point where we start to say enough is enough? Quite a bit of community time has been spent on various poor decisions by this editor, and I'm no longer convinced it's worth the tradeoff for whatever amount of good edits we get in return. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m “not showing much interest” because I’m exhausted and resigned to it at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  What do you expect me to do? Grovel and beg for mercy? I did that last time, it got the same response. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just on a personal note, Dronebogus, I understand that deletion debates can be really emotional, it's difficult not to get attached to them, and continue to fight for the outcome you feel is right. I have been finding myself drawn into them, and going back to make more comments, but for me personally, the best debates are the ones where I give an opinion and walk away. I've no right to suggest how you handle things, and I've slipped up enough myself. But it can be helpful to learn to walk away from a debate with a sense that you've done your bit, and what happens thereafter isn't your responsibility. Elemimele (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I personally didn’t think I was the one getting emotionally involved with the deletion requests that started this. It seemed like everyone else was and projecting that onto me. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, I appreciate that being under the microscope at ANI isn't fun. I don't think anyone here has it out for you either. That said, we're back here because your behavior at XfD discussions continues to be subpar. We shouldn't have to spell out that involved users shouldn't relist discussions, regardless of whether they're under a topic ban in that area. I would support topic-banning Dronebogus from XfD discussions, broadly construed, in the hope that they can refocus their attention more productively. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought this was about clerking discussions, now it’s AfD Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Like @Mackensen: above I too would support topic-banning Dronebogus from XfD discussions, broadly construed. I also agree with Tamzin above that Quite a bit of community time has been spent on various poor decisions by this editor. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are only voting here because I disagreed with you constantly. Dronebogus (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

XfD ban proposal

A couple of editors above (Mackensen, Lightburst) have indicated their support for a full ban from XfD. From my observations both of this thread and of Dronebogus' recent conduct pertaining to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye, I had been moving toward a similar conclusion. At some point, it's time to stop bending over backwards to carve out increasingly specific restrictions on this user's ability to participate at XfD. He is already restricted from closing discussions and from participating at MfD, and he has subsequently made poor decisions with regard to clerking and relisting at discussions in which he was involved. Furthermore, the AfD that I linked was opened under very questionable circumstances, and Dronebogus has responded poorly there (as well as in this thread) to criticism of his actions. At some point, enough is enough. Therefore, I propose that Dronebogus be topic-banned from XfD, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. XfD and Dronebogus need a break from each other. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per the above. At some point, this seems to stop being positive contributions. - jc37 18:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• support just to get this over with. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• support a break from this editor's AfD participation will be good for the community. Blocks and bans are not to be punitive but escalating consequences are a feature of any good response to disruption. Lightburst (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  a break from this editor's AfD participation Was that supposed to be XfD? Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above, although I would tend toward a siteban, as the interpersonal issues that recur in AN/I thread after AN/I thread show a deeper issue that I do not think will be fixed by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was caught up on my partial support for a CBAN and forgot to note my normal qualification on XfD TBANs, which is that they should allow for a single comment in defense (or not) of an article that a user created or significantly contributed to. (If "significantly contributed to" needs a definition, let's say, "wrote more than 25% of the text and/or got through any content-review process".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum, as we have been here so many times before and Dronebogus has been a huge drain on editors resources. I do wonder though if we aren't just delaying the inevitable siteban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  And this discussion has been a huge drain on my mental health Dronebogus (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think most of us edit here because, to some degree, we enjoy it. Some days are certainly better than others, but I wouldn't be here if it made me miserable. You seemed upset during the ANI in March and you are obviously upset now. While I am not without compassion, you surely understand that we aren't going to ignore the problems with your editing simply because the discussion upsets you. With all of that in mind, I encourage you to reflect on 1) whether editing here is really worth it for you; and 2) if you are going to continue editing, what do you need to change to avoid situations like this from continuing to occur? Wikipedia isn't worth it if it's bad for your mental health. I can understand why you might not be inclined to listen to me after I opened this subthread, but I do hope you will find a way to prevent your involvement on Wikipedia from damaging your mental health. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not worth it if most people would rather see me gone. Dronebogus (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think most people would see you happy and productive, while keeping in mind the tenants of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. If you "want someone gone", as it were, you don't cast around for a remedy short of a siteban. You just ban them. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I hope you’re right Dronebogus (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've never been a big fan of that essay, for reasons I explain at my own essay User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses, where I try to apply the lessons I've learned over years of editing with dissociative identity disorder and bipolar-like symptoms. Both the first and second guiding principles I give there would be good for Dronebogus to look to in this case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I still think that's a brilliant essay and if any essay regarding mental health were in Wiki-space, that should be the one. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• No contest. I found myself grimacing at the sight of this discussion considering that I (despite my major conflict of interest) was willing to allow DB to amend the conditions for his topic ban, but regrettably, this outcome is probably inevitable with the way things have been going. Of course, there are people out there who appreciate his efforts to combat vandalism or extremism on Wikipedia, and I hope if they feel that this is in excess that they weigh in. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I expected that to happen I wouldn’t have voted in favor of my own topic ban. Dronebogus (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That's enough of this sideshow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This seems a bit extreme for a valuable editor who is obviously now understanding how to change for the better Grip Grabber (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Well, there's an interesting first ever edit... Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm not a conspiracy theorist... but something's fishy. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) It ain’t me, you can run a checkuser. Never seen that person. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a Joe job if anything. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) You’re being sarcastic Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm actually not. I do believe there's a likelihood of a joe job (that is, someone else's sock behaving as though it was your sock). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) But why would someone do that? Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) LTAs do weird things sometimes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm sure it's not you as well but it's still an obvious sock. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and at minimum expand to any admin-lite or "policing" tasks. Their behavior in these areas as well as their lack of understanding of general community consensus of how PAGs apply and are enforced is severely lacking and will lead to more sunk editor time in the future. Would support a full cban based on their past behavior and behavior in this thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm going out on a limb here, but as someone who hangs around quite a lot at AfD, I have a strong bias against excluding people from giving their opinion on articles. By all means extend Dronebogus' ban to cover all clerking and "admin-lite" activities, but don't ban the actual !votes and opinions. Banning anyone from AfD should be a fairly dire last resort because it has a chilling effect on others; it discourages people from saying what they actually think about an article. Elemimele (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was about to agree with Elemimele above and counter propose something a little less restrictive than a total XfD ban. Then I did a little more contribution searching and found more not-ideal XfD nominations and participation than I anticipated. I think the XfD-specific-WP:ROPE has been given, and sadly, more at this point will result in more problems. —siroχo 08:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst clearly being unimpressed with the AfDs mentioned above, I believe a complete ban on XfD participation is too much. I would have gone for a restriction such as "DB may make one bolded comment ("!vote") on any XfD. They may also reply to any comment in direct reply to their initial !vote." I think that would sort most of the issues out whilst sdtill giving them a chance to participate. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Would there be any stomach to me creating a counter-proposal to cover clerking/quasi-admin activities rather than a total XfD ban? I don't want to go to the trouble of it if I'd just end up muddying the waters; I've seen a lot of ANI threads die with no action because they've become oversaturated with competing proposals. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support 92.40.198.139 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  4 edits, ever, no rationale given? Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In recent interactions with DB I've found him to be passionate about his views and willing to defend them. Nothing wrong with either of those things. Maybe a bit more of a deletionist than not yet a complete block from all fD discussions seems a bit too far. Wasn't this discussion actually started because of a relisting that he did (aside from a WTF? removing of another editor's comments)? He's no more to be trusted with a close or relisting than I am but a total ban goes too far in the way of solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian, would prefer something limited in scope such as "one vote and one follow-up comment, if directly addressed". Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. How can anyone oppose if the subject of the ban has already asserted its support? Do we think Dronebogus did not take his own support assertion seriously? What would he think would happen if his own assertion was successful? Isn't this exactly the problem, that Dronebogus takes an unserious approach to their contributions in a serious setting? This ban is preventative, not punitive. It is clear by now that either Dronebogus doesn't understand these warnings or is unwilling to read policy and guideline pages even after being warned multiple times for essentially the same issues. Not knowing relisting a discussion is a no-no when when involved is an XfD process failure disqualifying him from relisting. He hasn't changed his behavior since his past warning; he has merely skirted around the previous sanction. I'd like to think this was mere passion, but we're witnessing recklessness. All this is my opinion, based on my experience with their edits in this ANI thread. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: How can anyone oppose if the subject of the ban has already asserted its support? Do we think Dronebogus did not take his own support assertion seriously? Anyone can tell he is under duress right now. I'm thinking back to all of those people who retired from Wikipedia after an unfavorable Arbcom ruling but then returned months later. Some compassion is needed on that front. That said, your position is pretty clear and has been clear since the start of the thread. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody has made threats against Dronebogus or is holding them under threat (i.e. duress). Dronebogus is once again facing the community for bad actions they have taken after already being warned against such actions. Normal consequences for what the community often views as bad behavior may indeed put them justifiably under stress. They have complicated the situation by being "exhausted" as opposed to admitting their own part in this. The XfD ban supported here is merely the remedy I asked in the previous ANI process I linked above. I haven't begun to document other sorts of bad behavior yet. Don't get me started about their frequent bludgeoning of discussions. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; nobody has really presented evidence that the problem extends to AFD as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  He was already topic-banned from MfD and from closing all XfDs. In this thread, we have evidence of his misuse of relists, improper clerking in discussion in which he is involved, and filing an AfD that appears to be vindictive. What more do you really need? It is a waste of community time to continue carving out specific bans that would allow a repeatedly-problematic editor to continue editing in an area in which he was been broadly disruptive. At some point, enough is enough. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The core effect of an AFD ban is to prohibit someone from weighing in at AFD. Obviously if you want to call for that you ought to try and show that it's their comments that are the issue. Neither do I find your (short) list of relatively minor issues particularly compelling - the relisting was an error, and the "vindictive" AFD nomination seems to consist of someone presenting an article to him as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It's not vindictive to respond to that with "well, I think we ought to delete that one too and I'll list it on AFD later", it's consistent - when you present a second article as an argument, you're introducing it to the discussion and opening it up to legitimate examination. "Vindicative" is poorly-defined to the point of being a bit WP:ASPERSIONy, but the policies that could be used to translate it into an actual coherent issue back this up - WP:POINTy edits have to actually be disruptive, which isn't really demonstrated here; the (proposed) nomination was in good faith and clearly reflected Dronebogus' interpretation of policy. Likewise, WP:HOUND is about following an editor yourself, not about acting on things that they themselves decided to call to your attention - it's unreasonable to say "see, look, this article hasn't been nominated for deletion!" as an argument and then object when calling attention to it does get it nominated. The clerking when involved was an issue but hardly sufficient to justify a proposal to topic-ban someone from an entire area of the site; and throwing a bunch of weak accusations at someone all at once isn't going to add up to enough to support it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to dismiss the evidence that I presented as minor and unimportant, I see little point in trying to persuade you otherwise. But I certainly can't agree with your summation. Even if I accepted your argument that the nomination was carried out in good faith (and I don't), that would still leave us with a poor decision to nominate an article on a clearly notable topic, which is still evidence of the user's lack of competence pertaining to deletion. And I don't think it's at all obvious that I need to prove that the editor's comments are the issue. When an editor keeps getting into one problem and after another in a given content area, eventually it is simplest to remove them from that topic area altogether. I believe we have reached that point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I believe only an administrator can relist an AFD. An editor who participated in the discussion shouldn't be able to do so. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_trafficking_in_popular_culture This seems to be his way of avoiding a no conscious closing when he wants it deleted. I haven't had any problems with him for awhile so assumed his behavior had improved, but looked through his recent contributions just to see, and found that right away. Dream Focus 16:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it an option in twinkle if only admins should be allowed to do it? Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe only an administrator can relist an AFD why do you believe this obviously false thing? --JBL (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Le sigh. --JBL (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions is quite clear on the rules. Dream Focus 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  It only mentions admins in reference to minimal participation AfDs (and I think that's actually an error, to be honest - I would replace it with "closer" like in the initial sentence). Non admins have been relisting AfDs for many years, usually without issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it is clear, and in particular it clearly does not say that only administrators can relist discussions. Moreover that would be bizarre, given that non-administrators can close discussions. Finally, it's worth noting that you don't actually seem to find non-admin relists objectionable, or even noteworthy, as a general rule 1 2 3. --JBL (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RELIST That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. Anyway, I did not object before because I didn't realize it was possible, I always assumed those relisting things were administrators. Someone who votes to delete something, shouldn't be able to relist it and keep the AFD open because they don't want it to end in no consensus though. Dream Focus 01:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, I just looked at their 12 August AfD activity (i.e. their last day of AfD activity) and almost each and every edit seems inappropriate: removal of legitimate IP comments, also removing other users' comments in the process (eg. here they also removed a TompaDompa comment), tagging the removals as minor edits, edit warring over such removals, relisting AfDs as involved. The worst (or weirdest) thing is that Dronebogus apparently does not seem to realise how inappropriate such actions are (especially with the involved relists, it should be a matter of common sense, and given just a few weeks ago in March they have been banned from closing AfDs for exactly the same reasons it sounds even weirder). Assuming good faith, they never got the point of the previous ANI discussions and the reasons for their previous ban, which leads to wider concerns (WP:NOTGETTINGIT, Competence is required). Cavarrone 17:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Um… that was months ago I was banned. Dronebogus (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  But yes you were right. It was a case of Hanlon's razor. I really am just that incompetent it seems. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support a third tban for the repeated AFD disruption after having just been tbanned months ago, and given the history, I'd support a site ban, too. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really don't like the idea of taking away anybody's right to !vote except as part of a general block on editing. I can't see a valid category of "editor who is trusted enough to edit but not enough to !vote". How about allowing !voting and absolutely nothing else on XfDs? That's a nice simple rule with no room for misinterpretation. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are free to propose that, but I cannot support it. From my point of view, if an editor is not competent to participate in any of the other aspects of deletion, it is unlikely that their !votes will be well-grounded in policy or otherwise productive to the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree. Consider actual voting as an analogy. We trust pretty much anybody in the general population to vote in elections but only selected, trustworthy individuals are allowed to participate in the operation of an election. A guy who drinks too much, swears at people, holds weird political grudges and can't count accurately wouldn't be allowed to hand out ballot papers or to count votes but even he retains the right to vote so long as he doesn't punch another voter or throw up in the ballot box. We don't exclude people from voting just because their votes might be dumb, only if their behaviour is sufficiently disruptive. DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  In real life, we can vote based on personal preferences; it can be as simple as whether or not we like a candidate. That obviously doesn't fly at AfD. !Votes at AfD are expected to have some basis in policy. To use your examples, a editor who swore at other editors or !voted based on grudges would be sanctioned. Therefore, I don't think actual voting is an applicable analogy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely oppose now that the AfD inclusionist posse have arrived en masse to remove one of their opponents from the scene. Strange how that happens. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  What a terrible comment @Black Kite:. You called DB an opponent but I have had zero contact with them in years. I barely participate in AfDs either but I came across this issue when I checked ANI. This is called the "community", but apparently it is not as some folks are not welcome to weigh in. If you have not noticed ARS died a few years ago, and it was mainly because of admins like yourself who trip over themselves to disavow contributing volunteer editors who participate in a group to improve articles. There was no canvass involved here and your accusation is classless. We all just work in our little corners of the project and when we raise our heads to comment on disruption, incredibly biased administrators like yourself spout off BS. Shame on you for your shitty biased comments and for your failure to protect the project and content creators from disruption. You are the cause of this disruption and now you make an angular ivote just to backhand good faith participants who arrived here organically; frankly it is jaw dropping bad behavior coming from an administrator. Tsk Tsk Lightburst (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I always check the list of list articles at AFD. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists I am quite active in them and have been for years now. Someone in one of these linked to this discussion. Please assume good faith and don't make wild accusations. Dream Focus 18:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Note that you and I both participated in the AFD in question. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_regular_mini-sections_in_Private_Eye Dream Focus 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I know. If you look above I was very critical of Dronebogus for starting those Private Eye AfDs when there was clearly notability. That doesn't, however, detract from my point about the !votes in this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "inclusionist posse arriving en masse" is a bit of an exaggeration. Who are we talking about here? Lightburst, DF and... is that it? Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  A couple of others who I'd place there, if not on the extreme side. I always think it detracts from the discussion when this happens, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I appeared every time he was here, then perhaps it'd be suspicious. I did not participate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Proposal:_Dronebogus_warned. Nor at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#User:Dronebogus_and_involved_NAC_closures, nor Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Dronebogus_@_MFD. What other places has he been at in Incidents where he is the topic this year? That should be listed somewhere is this discussion. You can then search to see if I showed up at any of them. I honestly don't remember anything, but can't be entirely certain. Dream Focus 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oddly enough I was not involved in any of these above either. Perhaps we will get apology now? Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure who you are referring to, but as for me I don't like such a characterization. I am very rarely active at AfDs (about 40 comments in the last three years). While slightly more on the keep side, my AfD votes are pretty various and generally match the closure. I have just checked and I have no previous interactions with this user, let alone consider him an "opponent" (on the contrary, I feel some sympathy for them, otherwise given their previous ban/ANI history I would had no issues in accusing them of WP:GAME). Cavarrone 18:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am profoundly disappointed by this 17:52, 14 August comment by User:Black Kite, an admin I admire greatly, who was the first sysop in this discussion to correctly point out bad behaviors by User:Dronebogus, the subject of this discussion. It is possible we might have a separate thread for misdeeds of a so-called AfD inclusionist posse, but this discussion is about Dronebogus's repeated bad behaviors and how to prevent their recurrence. Even if such a cabal existed, it is not surprising that editors who regularly find themselves interacting with Dronebogus might want to make substantive comments on the subject of Dronebogus's behavior. BusterD (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Reply Perhaps I'm one of those people who says what he thinks. As you say, I picked up that DB behaved poorly at those AfDs and that the AfDs he did start were done with clearly little or no WP:BEFORE. On the other hand, I can't help but note that whenever there is an ANI conversation related to deletion process about blocking or banning editors on the obviously inclusionist or deletionist side, the same people always show up to support or oppose them, and I knew it was going to happen as soon as soon as the XfD ban got put to a "public vote", as it were. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why people would support or oppose those that they have had positive or negative interactions with at AfD - we're only human. And I don't think it is a bad thing to lean either to the inclusionist or deletionist side, unless you take it to extremes as some have in the past. But I don't think it helps when we see people !voting along party lines - I just don't. Sorry. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate the words. I can't learn anything new by just reading my own words. No reason to self-excuse; I very much want to hear alternate points of view on this. As somebody who labored with the old-regime Article Rescue Squadron "canvas", this is better, IMHO. In his now legendary ANI thread, Dronebogus himself helped the entire community move forward on some old die-hard ARS thinking. This might accrue him regular opponents. I have complimented them on occasion for their BOLD. But to my eyes this clerking activity frequently looks like gaming, intended to bring a desired result. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not seeing how relists can be considered part of AFD closures as you only give due weight to the !votes not the relist comment, That all being said the IP comment removals, apparent vindictive AFD nom as well as the current AFD closure topic ban and MFD topic ban are all highly concerning. I sense if no topic ban happens we're gonna bounce from one AFD problem to another. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know if an XfD tban is the right sanction, but I'm inclined to support something at this point, sadly. There have been several times that I've found DB's nominations and clerking a little useful, but they're generally outweighed by the large number of low-effort !votes, ubiquitous bludgeoning, reliably increasing the ratio of heat to light, etc. I'm not going to guess how old DB is, but my guess (based also on some experiences from Commons) is it's a maturity thing. For whatever what's worth. I'm conspicuously missing a boldtext !vote, I know, because I don't know if this is the right scope. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support XfD TBAN: I take exception to cracks about the "inclusionist posse" engineering this -- I am very far indeed from being an inclusionist, to the point of having been taken to ANI myself by peeved ARS stalwarts hoping to sideline me. But c'mon; deletionists can recognize poor behavior as well. I recognize that there weren't explicit mentions of relisting or "broadly construed" in the TBAN prohibiting XfD closures. At some point, though, editors need to act with a measure of common sense. That TBAN was a warning shot, instructing Dronebogus to stop screwing around with deletion discussions. Dronebogus is an experienced editor who should not need continuing lessons about good practice and the proper way to handle deletion discussions, and we should not have to keep going to the well because the envelope keeps being pushed. Beyond that, his several melodramatic handwringing responses in this thread are far less impressive (and far less productive) than a simple "I'm sorry, and I'll refrain from closing XfDs going forward" would have been. Ravenswing 22:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Dronebogus has a history of hostility per this discussion. He was warned last year about gatekeeping XFD discussions and he's continued to do so. I know bans aren't supposed to be punitive, but I know from experience (having been under editing restrictions myself) sometimes a ban from performing certain actions is a way to get a user thinking "Maybe I shouldn't do that" and break them out of their radical behavior. Dronebogus's harassing an IP shutting them out of discussion(s) isn't the first time Dronebogus has been bitey towards his fellow users. If Dronebogus doesn't know how to conduct himself at XFDs, then perhaps he doesn't need to edit XFDs.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. My only previous experience of Dronebogus being that I have occasionaly seen them contributing in administrative / community discussion spaces (and usually having reasonable perspectives), I did not go into the reading of this discussion expecting an IP accusation of misconduct to bear out. Unfortunately, having followed up a number of the pages and contributions flagged herein, as well as the previous ban discussion, and having taken into account the various community reports on the broader issues in this area as well as DB's responses to the criticism, I don't see that there's much choice but to endorse the perspective that the WP:ROPE has run out. AfD seems to be an area of major focus for this user, so I don't take the TBAN proposal lightly. But bluntly, XfD is not a good place for a user who is having trouble contributing without disrupting process in the first place. And the situation seems to be exacerbated by a somewhat short-tempered, ABF, and battleground mentality's on Dronebogus' part.
  Honestly, I am less concerned about the clerking actions (dubious as they are) that have become the major focus of this thread than I am the ownership issues and violations of TPG/blanking another contributor's contributions and then refusing to hear the feedback from multiple admins and community members about why that is not acceptable, cognitively shrouding it in the suggestion that they (DB) are being harassed, such as to rationalize and excuse that conduct: that's a pretty massive amount of IDHT around conduct that is now somewhat getting lost in the mix here because concerns about other behaviour (that DB has an older and broader history with already) have eclipsed this newest issue. But that blanking (and defense of their right to do so) represents an escalation of tendentiousness and inability to see the forest for the trees in this area, imo.
  I suspect from following this discussion all the way through and looking at much of the context of complaints against them in this area, that this is a case of burnout pushing DB increasingly towards bad decisions and inability to drop the stick or judge the appropriateness of their actions in various respects. I can't know the cause with any certainty, of course, but the cluster of conduct issues needs addressing regardless: the proposed TBAN is preventative of those behaviours first and foremost, but I would hope it will also give DB distance to improve their frustrations and perspective, whether they would seek that break or not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

You are nothing more than an openly schizophrenic individual conditioned with anti-christian ideals that has hijacked biblical wikipedia pages on random biblical figures of your choosing. Unable to discern reality in your own life, you feel capable of discerning the reality of ancient figures. [107]

Such poor discernment of reality, my schizophrenic friend. [108]

I warned them it won't be taken lightly by admins, they did not listen. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Context is needed. Please see the context from tgeorgescu in his messages before and after these ones. Belittling and self-righteous dismissal of my concerns about his original research. Although my fallacy attack on him personally is irrelevant and I apologise for this, it was in response to his own off topic fallacy attacks towards me.

He also never warned me of anything, which is why he hasn’t referenced you towards his warning to me. He lied, this warning doesn’t exist. DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of lying. I have written very clearly I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, and using the above information against me in disputes will be considered a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please do not do it, it won't be taken lightly by admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Could you be so kind as to provide a diff to that comment? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That's from [109], and that's the only place on the web where I came out as a sufferer of schizophrenia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddyy, not only are your comments violations of the No personal attacks policy, but they are scurrilous and contemptible. I encourage you to withdraw them unreservedly, and perhaps you can avoid getting blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Hrm. That leaves one of two possibilities: 1) DennisRoddyy had not seen your user page, was speaking from a place of ignorance, and hit a raw nerve—which is a personal attack. 2) They had seen your user page and made the comment in spite of what you said. That is a flagrant personal attack. I agree with Cullen328 here: if DennisRoddyy wants to continue to participate in Wikipedia, they must unreservedly withdraw the comments—and ideally also apologize for them. —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Seen The only thing dead in the water, is your understanding of reality itself, being a self admitting schizophrenic. from [110], it is hard to believe that he did not read my user page. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm really supposed to comment on this board but what the heck.

The personal attacks by DennisRoddyy are truly appalling and upsetting to see. Knitsey (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Knitsey, your sincere observations are always welcomed, and this noticeboard allows good faith comments by any editor in good standing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy to withdraw and remove these comments and I also directly apologise for them.

I would also ask Tgeorgescu to withdraw his belittling personal comments regarding his assuming I have a pipe dream on the matter and his irrelevant assumptions about my personal identity DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, DennisRoddyy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"The fact posited by mainstream Bible scholars is that we don't know who wrote the gospel of Mark, but there are reasons to disbelieve the tradition that he was Mark. That's a vanilla claim, if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will highly probably say that. So, you are splitting hairs about an issue which is irrelevant to mainstream Bible scholarship. To draw the line: "the author of the Gospel of Mark could have been Mark" is not a mainstream POV. Your protests in this regard are contrived and futile. Authorship by Mark is dead in the water, and saying otherwise is a pipe dream."[111] This openly dismissive self-righteousness led to my retaliation, as you've seen. His claims are verifiably incorrect, even simply using the scholars he himself has referenced, yet he continues to move the goalposts of the discussion to confirm his views. Our mainstream scholastic consensus is that Mark may or may not have written the gospel. We simply do not know. Again, crucially, Mark MAY have been the author, contrary to what's written in the article which explicitly removes him from this possibility. I can provide countless reliable sources to confirm this if necessary, including his own sources. For some reason he continues to insist with certainty that Mark absolutely did not write it. No such certainty exists in any corner of mainstream scholarship.

He goes on to ad hominem assume my identity is Christian, which I am not, but is an unnecessary attack on identity "admit your holy book has severe mistakes, instead you blaming those who point of the mistakes"[112]

Further constant self-righteous belittlement about having "never read mainstream biblical scholarship in my life". [113] [114] DennisRoddyy (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere in this thread, DennisRoddyy, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. But are you now rejecting a source published by Harvard University Press in favor of your own personal unreferenced interpretation? Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I accept the published source as it supports my assertion, not his.

Why have you chosen to ignore the belittling self-righteousness I have referenced? DennisRoddyy (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or story" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pipe%20dream So, it's not like I would have accused you of actually using opium. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked DennisRoddy, but was reading the talk page discussion for context before doing so. Didn’t see this apology until after hitting the block button. I undid it… but I’m still not sure it’s wrong. I see a NOTHERE block coming pretty soon unless the attitude exhibited completely and totally changes. Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I will delete the statements when I’m in front of a computer. Having now read the context you would have noticed the self righteous belittlement of my concerns about original research. Diffs will be provided shortly DennisRoddyy (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs better be provided shortly, DennisRoddyy, because you are skating on very thin ice at this point. You are not in a position to accuse another editor of self righteous belittlement without immediately providing rock solid evidence. Otherwise, you have violated WP:NPA again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

About WP:OR, there was and is WP:CITEd a WP:RS/AC claim, namely Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,¹¹ and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century. I think the only way to read it is that most scholars today have abandoned the idea that Mark wrote Mark. Which DennisRoddyy denies. Besides, he got reverted by other editors (not me) when he tried to remove it from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, tgeorgescu, and I am quite familiar with Bart Ehrman, an eminent scholar. But as you know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it was an argument against his repeated accusations that I would have violated WP:OR. Which, if true, would be a behavioral issue. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddyy, if you are consistently arguing to reject modern scholarship like books authored by academics and published by academic outlets like the Oxford University Press, in favor of 1900 year old religious tracts, then that itself becomes a behavioral issue. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia that favors modern scolarship, not an outlet for promulgating orthodox religious dogma. There are countless websites where that sort of thing is welcomed, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Coming up on 48 hours since their last edit, still no striking of the hateful comments, still no diffs as requested, most recent edit is a personal attack... @Courcelles: Any objection to a reblock? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  None at all, @Tamzin. I was hopeful things were going to improve, but, alas… Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we bumped into each other in a thread too many and you caught some of my optimism. It's a terrible affliction, really. Reblocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Pessimism continues to win on this one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps why I have accused him of ignorance deserves an explanation: Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, and so on, is one of the famous claims of mainstream Bible scholarship. E.g. lambasted here and defended here. So, it is known for a long time by both its opponents and its defenders. It's very hard to miss, especially for someone spending their time to oppose it. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is a problem because he wrote I am so well versed in the current mainstream biblical consensus [115] and The modern mainstream biblical consensus is that the author may or may not have been Mark, because the texts were originally untitled, and their attribution to these figures is based on 2nd century guesses about the origins of the untitled works. This is not my opinion, or some pipe dream you think I have, this is the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, whether you like it or not. [116]. The latter is a very superficial understanding of what mainstream Bible scholars claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I also doubt very much that they are really a lawyer. For what it's worth though, I think you're dead right that their claim to being an expert in this field is largely inconsistent with their commentary, which seems to be very confused with regard to the historicity of the Bible.

Anyway, returning to the more immediate behavioural issues, even if anyone here were inclined to credit their (clearly very unlikely) excuses about the timing and meaning of their final edits with the benefit of every presumption, I for one would have gladly supported a community indef if it came to that. Their comments were so clearly calculated for maximum hatefulness and in a way that was both egregiously unacceptable and yet simultaneously petty beyond description, that I can't see that they could give even the project's single best mea culpa ever and win back the benefit of the doubt: what they said in the first instance was so far beyond the pale, so indicative of WP:CIR issues (to say nothing of the owership issues and ignorance of basic policy), that there was never any realistic hope they were going to be staying. Their post-block commentary is mere confirmation of that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do want to add though, tgeorgescu, that there were points where your tone took on a bit of a dismissive edge that probably could have elicited a strong reaction even from a more reasonable editor. I don't think it rises to the level of an actual violation of WP:CIV (even a mild one), but because it was enough to potentially give this user excuses for further poor behaviour, I'm going to point it out to you as purely practical advice if nothing else: please consider high-roading a little harder in these cases, if you follow my meaning.: it is much more effective against these types and gives them less excuse to try to justify their own disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddy (at their talkpage), seems to be suggesting they'll evade any blocks/bans. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

May this rank-and-file editor make the suggestion of a WP:DENY-based removal of talk page access? Something tells me this one is not going to be hard to spot when they do return. Though all things considered, we might want to consider whether this is actually the first time we've encountered their particular brand of disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There was an atheist who supported Christ Myth Theory who had been socking, often promoting WP:OR against WP:RS, in Bible articles that were not so obvious targets for his advocacy of CMT (especially The Exodus). DennisRoddyy self-identifies as agnostic.

If there was an excuse for me feeling irritated: I did not revert DennisRoddyy's edits, but other editors did. And he grudgingly took it to the talk page. So, I was addressing an editor who already edit-warred against WP:CONSENSUS (soon before that). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, but I still think that (up to a certain point) it's easiest to deal with these types by starving them of the oxygen they need in order to pretend that their view is being suppressed, even if just as a purely practical/strategic/rhetorical matter. Corner them with kindness, to repurpose an old adage. Or at least, that's my view. Now obviously once they made the comments in question attacking you along those personal lines, all pretense that this was someone who could be reasoned with was done: those were some of the most targeted, personally hostile, and unacceptable comments I have ever seen leveled at another editor here. I would tell you that I'm sorry you had to deal with that, but I hope it goes without saying that virtually any goodfaith member of this community would be displeased to see them. Also, you seem like a fairly unflappable sort; those who have gone through true trials in their life often are, in the face of such clumsy, petty, and low provocation.

Of course, that doesn't mean you didn't have the right to be incensed at that point. I only mean to stress that up until the moment such a nasty piece of work reveals their true colours, it's usually best to not give them excuses to point to when they do start to explode. But you can value that advice as you wish: your tone was just a little impatient at the very worst, and my overall impression of you and your conduct in this matter is very high, let me hasten to assure you.

Getting back to the matter of potential socking, my feeling is that this editor is probably unlikely to be your CMT SPA: this editor was bothered by the prospect of saying in Wikivoice that the gospels are unlikely to have been authored by the apostles and their associates, so I can't imagine they are strong advocate for the theory that Jesus never existed even as a historical figure--those positions would seem to be in tension. Still, given Dennis' immediate threat to sock and disrupt the second they realized they couldn't talk their way out of this, I would say it would not shock me if this was their first rodeo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

About Ralphellis: his socks weren't promoting CMT in any obvious way, and they decided they like Ancient scholars more than modern scholars. So to speak, he was scratching his left ear with the right hand. He tried to hammer some points he thought were useful in the long run, there was no apparent connection to CMT. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on how recently DennisRoddyy was created and the threat of future socking, I think a CU might be called for here. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise, Ralphellis wanted to win the debate through inserting apparently insignificant details in lots of articles. To those who did not know his arguments, those details were innocuous. His master move would have then been: "Why do you try to remove my POV? 30 Wikipedia articles support it." And he could win such argument only if WP:OR of Ancient scholars is allowed. So, he wanted Ancient scholars be recognized as WP:RS, but for different reasons than the Church. So, yeah, DennisRoddy wanted that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist. But why would an agnostic want that? For different reasons than the Church. If he did not cast his lot with Ancient scholars, it is hard to understand why he picked such side upon the authorship of this gospel. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Chronic POV in contentious topics by one editor

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

---

DaTruestEva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been notified multiple times of the nonconstructive nature of some of their edits (see multiple sections here: [117]), at earliest due to repeated unexplained content removal ([118], [119], and [120]; all October 2019 and on the same page regarding the same content). No edit summaries.

More importantly they have repeatedly inserted unsourced blatant POV content in contentious topic areas. Diffs: [121] (January 2023), [122] (March 2023), [123] (March 2023; after which they received a notice against disruptive editing), [124] (April 2023; after which they received a notice about MOS:GENDERID + a separate one on gender/sexuality as a contentious topic area on their talk page – again see [125]), and finally [126] (two days ago, which I reverted today after it went unnoticed). Again, no edit summaries. Looks like a pattern. VintageVernacular (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:DaTruestEva#Indefinite block. El_C 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Sundayclose

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

---

Sundayclose keeps restoring questionably sourced and potentially WP:BLP-sensitive content, keeps demanding consensus for exclusion of content (in an obvious violation of WP:ONUS, which I have pointed out to them several times and which they have ignored), keeps restoring WP:FORUM posts on talk pages, and refuses to engage in talk page discussions:

• "If you disagree, get consensus on the talk page" after I reverted content in a WP:BLP sourced to an opinion talk show of unclear reliability and WP:DUEness
• "Wait for consensus on the talk page"
• "If you disagree, wait for consensus here" (this is the only time they've engaged on the talk page)
• [127] demanding that I restore said potentially BLP-sensitive, questionably sourced content, for which there exists no consensus, and threatening to report me otherwise
• "You are not the sole decider of which comments are about improving the article" after I deleted a driveby WP:FORUM post accusing other editors of canvassing and conspiring to drum up "kangaroo consensus" and promote a "narrative"
• "Get consensus for removal of this content" after I deleted a section sourced to an opinion article written by the subject of the Wikipedia article (a WP:PRIMARY source in this case), and a self-published blog post by Matt Taibbi responding to the opinion article

93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: this IP editor looks a lot like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP again. Strong arguments in edit summaries, tending / preferring to revert edits over discussing them on a talk page, and removing warning templates from their user talk page, usually showing a strong dislike for them (check out the edit summary of this edit!).

Either way, you've been reverted by multiple editors now, so it is on you to form a consensus in favour of your edits. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not BKFIP. But I agree that I was more aggressive than I should have been (though it's kind of hard to be patient when someone blatantly, repeatedly violates WP:ONUS and potentially WP:BLP even after you point it out to them). I've been editing for several months now and never been blocked.

Where have I been reverted by multiple editors? On Ben Collins (reporter), only Sundayclose has reverted me. On James Kirchick, only he and User:Adakiko have reverted me, but Adakiko was just a good faith vandalism patroller who took a hasty look at the edit and, not knowing the context under it, thought I was a driveby vandal deleting stuff for no reason. He has not otherwise engaged in the dispute and did not restore the content again. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

AP 499D25, I see that you have restored the content on Ben Collins (reporter), urging me to "see latest message on talk page". However, given that both Firefangledfeathers and Muboshgu agree with me that the content is WP:UNDUE, the consensus (at least right now) is obviously in my favor. Why did you restore it then? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Untamed1910 also disagrees with your edit on James Kirchick.

In response to the edit on Ben Collins (reporter), I misread it, sorry. But my edit was made before the comment by Firefangledfeathers. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Untamed1910's argument is essentially the same as Sundayclose's: "gain consensus for exclusion". But that's not how Wikipedia works, as WP:ONUS clearly and succinctly explains. They have not brought up any arguments for why a primary opinion article and a self-published blog post are due for inclusion. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not same argument Untamed1910 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Then what argument it is? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I do not get a strong BKFIP vibe from the OP. No comment on the merits of this report. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If I compare the edits and edit summaries of the OP to the previously blocked IP addresses listed in this talk thread, things look very similar between the two I'd say. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sundayclose, AP 499D25, might I request you to consider that the IP is editing productively, and we might gain by hearing them out? May I also request 93.72.49.123 to be more collegial in edit summaries and discussions, and to be conversant with 3RR issues when it comes to content disputes? There is nothing else that is going to come off this report right now, but a strong advise to all parties, per above. Thanks, Lourdes 06:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have struck out my BKFIP accusations above, sorry about that 93.72.49.123. And next time, I will give the editor some time to discuss and to try and settle things before jumping to conclusions. The main thing here is that no one has actually violated 3RR, and most of us are aware of / participating in talk page discussions.

By the way, User:Binksternet has sided with the IP editor's edits on James Kirchick, so there's that. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No offense taken. I can certainly see some similarity between my behavior and BKFIP's. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Transfer data to Russia

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

---

A user created the page Шталаг XVIII-D in the wrong wikipedia. Next some Russians noticed that and asked to transfer the page into ru:Шталаг XVIII-D. Unfortunately, the page Шталаг XVIII-D is already deleted. Would you mind temporarily restoring it and transferring it to Russia? 129.194.85.132 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user,

I understand your concern, and I believe that WP:Teahouse will assist you better than this page. I have put your request at the teahouse: see Wikipedia:Teahouse#From_AN/I:_An_IP_user_needs_assistance_to_access_the_content_of_a_deleted_page.

Cheers, TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Mister Conservative

Mister Conservative is repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles having been warned no less than four times for it, and refusing to communicate with other editors.

• On July 1st, Mister Conservative added a "potential candidate" to the election page and to the Senate elections page, without any source. I left them talk page message 1, asking them to cite sources for these things.

• No more than two hours later, they made two (one, two) additions to the Montana senate election page, as well as this edit to the Senate elections page. At this point, with another user having warned them for this, I left talk page message two.

• On July 13th, Mister Conservative again added "potential candidates" to other Senate races: Massachusetts and Michigan. At this stage, I left talk page message three, asking them once again to add sources for these additions.

• On August 9th, Mister Conservative once again added a "potential candidate" to the page for New York's senate race.

Mister Conservative's edits are certainly not vandalism and I do believe the user is contributing in good faith, but after three attempts to reach out from me and one from another user, including the "citing sources" guideline, there has been no response and the repeated additions of unsourced content has continued, and I feel I'm left with no choice but to go to ANI. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I hate to reply to my own messages but since there's been no responses since, I'm returning to note that since I made this report, the user has engaged on talk pages for articles no less than four times, indicating they know how to use talk pages but are simply choosing to ignore requests to add sources. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

IP user and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin look at this user's contributions and decide what to do about this? It's basically 100% extremely disruptive behavior that seems to be designed just to be argumentative and attack other users.

jps (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Given a 72 hour block. There's an edit I have revdel'd that was worthy alone in my opinion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Might need some more revdels (up until this revision). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Article Rebecca Bradley (justice) edits

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

I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd

208.87.236.201 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll just slink of – See WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (Corollary 1). EEng 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You missed spellcheks my post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? BD2412 T 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. Joyous! Noise! 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article (Mike Lawler) or their article otherwise gets media coverage (Emily St. John Mandel). But a single news cycle of attention does not WP:DUE make, especially on a BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "JD", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Genre warring only account User:AgentKozak

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

---

(Update: User has since been blocked so this can be closed) --FMSky (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, WP:GWAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AgentKozak This user has never made an edit that wasnt adding the genre glam metal to articles. will edit war if reverted and will delete talk page warnings without addressing the issue--FMSky (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Not true, I have made several different edits.

I have made several edits. Please see these edits I made here for example: Do Ya Do Ya (Wanna Please Me)

Draft:KingOfTheHill - Wikipedia

This article I have written above is also awaiting review and is certainly not just "adding the genre glam metal" AgentKozak (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

also makes up his own rules and completely disregards guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lynch_Mob_(album) --FMSky (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Which rules are those?

I want examples. AgentKozak (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not just one where we disagree. I want a firm 'rule' I have made up. Seems to be a lot presumption here AgentKozak (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EXPLICITGENRE

--FMSky (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Show me how that applies because I am struggling to see how those match that specific article AgentKozak (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats because you haven't read them --FMSky (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know you watch what I read. AgentKozak (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia (round 2)

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

---

• Thebloodline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I initially reported this user in January (report here). They were initially blocked for a week, and that was extended after they engaged in sockpuppetry.

Since then their editing hasn't become any more constructive. Today they made a rather bizarre page move[128]. When I questioned them on why they did it, they replied with "I want to abuse".[129] After this they made a string of edits that introduced deliberate factual errors to an article (the article their account is named after, in fact).[130] While I was writing this report they in fact added more nonsense.[131]

I actually suspect this user is the same as 190.219.215.124 and Anthonytd20, both of whom make very similar edits to the same article.

At the absolute best, they have severe WP:CIR issues. In reality I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia (the talk page of Anthonytd20 should be telling). — Czello ^(music) 19:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

More article move vandalism[132] — Czello ^(music) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. I don't need to see more. No comment on the sockpuppetry thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Anthonytd20 vandalising the article at the same time I would say is evident they're the same person[133] — Czello ^(music) 19:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, they're independently blocked now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks — Czello ^(music) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Carlitos760 and PAOK FC

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

---

Carlitos760 has made around 150 edits to PAOK FC in the last few days. A lot of them have been littered with problems, including but not limited to: violations of MOS:HEADER e.g. [134] (reverting my fix of this), mass linking to the dab page Greek, general poor spelling/grammar, adding and re-adding unsourced lists of fans e.g. [135], creating the Notable former football players section as a random list that isn't wikified.

Version before: [136], Version after their edits, and before I started a cleanup: [137] (I can't be expected to trawl through hundreds of diffs to find the worst offending edits)

I have tried contacting them to slow down on their talkpage, and they were also pinged on a discussion about this: WT:FOOTY#PAOK FC, but they're WP:NOTLISTENING (or possibly aren't aware their talkpage exists). Can they be partially blocked from PAOK FC until such a time as they speak to us, so we can work to resolve the mess that the article has become? If they don't edit this article and make it mostly worse, then a cleanup can be done to fix some of the underlying issues that they've introduced. It doesn't look like they've made lots of edits to other articles, so a partial block seems better than a full WP:CIR block to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed their edits and yes,  Done, for 1 week. Note the partial block only covers PAOK FC itself and not articles like PAOK FC in European football. WaggersTALK 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Pikachu 9988

User:Pikachu 9988 has been warned multiple times on their Talk page to not edit war (which is filled with a multitude of such warnings) by admins, experienced editors and the like. Even multiple DS sanctions have been alerted to the user but they persist with no meaningful engagement on Talk page discussions or anywhere else (even WP:ES are either non-existent or not meaningful). See for e.g. Chola dynasty where a meaningful current discussion exists and is ongoing on the Talk page with multiple participants but the user in their usual WP:Battleground mentality continues to edit war and restore dubious edits (the edit warring on this article alone by the user goes back months with different editors).

Editing restrictions look necessary till the user shows they understand their wrongful conduct. Till now WP:NOTHERE is very apparent. Gotitbro (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call this an all-CTOPs% speedrun yet (they seem to be limited to WP:ARBIPA and WP:GS/CASTE, and that's only because those two so heavily overlap), but the refusal to engage is a massive problem. Over 300 edits, only two of them are to talk pages other than their own, and even then those edits are from two months ago. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

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

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – Wiped the article of a pro-democracy Vietnamese party, justifying some of the removals because of broken links.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – Whitewashed Human rights in Vietnam, removing reliable sources because they disagree with them.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – Removed sourced information from Human experimentation in North Korea, citing the source's Wikipedia page to say that it's unreliable.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – Deleted unsourced information, but only the portion that documented North Korean atrocities, leaving the rest of the unsourced content there. This followed a similar edit to that article regarding China and the Soviet Union.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – A WP:COATRACK edit to criticize Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector, on the article of someone she was once interviewed by.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – Promoted Holodomor denial on the article of a Holodomor denier and the subsequent talk page discussion.
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – Deleted sourced information about political executions in Cuba because it was sourced by an offline book and the publisher's webpage didn't verify the information.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Deleted information about government oppression of LGBT people in Cuba because the source had no page number.
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – Deleted sourced information about human rights in communism because they felt that the information wasn't right.

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

Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on David Ivon Jones so I'm sorry it ended up like this.

I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being Trevor Carter and Billy Strachan. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.

Let's have a look at these cases individually.

• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the Việt Tân wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by Ngo Dinh Diem. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for Voice of America, since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider Russia today a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
• Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
• Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for The Black Book of Communism is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
• Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
• Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated (Donald Trump Jr. Kanye West, etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in The Washington Post (see here) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
• Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
• Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – I was read Ronald Grigor Suny's work Red Flag Unfurled (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide". I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and R. W. Davies, don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by Anne Applebaum at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
• Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – A sentence in the wikipedia page for Cuba claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
• Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
• Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{page needed}} is for. Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.

I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{page needed}} or {{verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. Folly Mox (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely assuming it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{page needed}} or {{verify source}} in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at WP:RSP) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather editorial independence that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks editorial independence from the Russian government and it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content. - just to be clear, the cited text refers to South Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The yeonjwaje bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding Special:Diff/1169763206, while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a WP:RS, certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people want to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion here. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible off-wiki coordination

Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) 80.47.149.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) I reported this to AIV but I thought I might as well come here. This seems like a couple of kids using Wikipedia as social media or intentionally trying to draw attention (which they have done, so all power to them). See User talk:80.47.149.26 for what I'm talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

A portion of that IP page has been suppressed, the behavior, etc in general can still be evaluated here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there's any off-wiki coordination, just a very questionable choice of who to befriend. @Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit:. Please do not use Wikipedia as a social network. If you do so again in the future, you may be blocked from editing. Just focus on improving articles. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

From talk page subjects and IP whois, 80.47.149.26 looks to be evading an active month-long block on 89.243.205.200 (talk · contribs · logs). Belbury (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the new IP address, removed some misuse of User talk:Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit for chat unrelated to work for Wikipedia, semi-protected that talk page, and left a note there explaining to Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit that a talk page is only for discussions related to work for the encyclopaedia. I hope that those steps may go somewhere towards conveying the message to the IP editor. (I am usually very reluctant to apply any kind of protection to a user talk page, but in this case there have never been any edits to the page by any other non-autoconfirmed editor, so the risk of collateral damage is tiny.) JBW (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that this is also block-evasion by Dont block me pls i beg u. JBW (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• ...and it now seems by Bosko.the.kawaii.cartoon.character too. JBW (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

2607:FB91:20E4:82AC:AC39:C218:9AB2:90E

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

---

2607:FB91:20E4:82AC:AC39:C218:9AB2:90E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't know what this IP address is doing. Either this user is in the wrong site or just trying to seek attention in the page Mushoku Tensei. Just look at this revision for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mushoku_Tensei&diff=prev&oldid=1170579622

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

Hot Wheels

I am, unusually, prepared to be wrong about this but…

New editor D45678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is determined to add information about Mattel offering NFTs of Hot Wheels to the main article on the subject, a related disambiguation page and a draft they wrote.

Ordinarily I’d just revert then report to the appropriate noticeboard for smiting, but they do seem to be trying to be cooperative with their edits, reinstating them each time in more concise ways with slightly less advertising, although still with the spam links.

I have lost perspective on this (and know nothing about the subject to start with) so fear I’m accidentally slow-motion edit warring with them.

Can I have someone better than me at this look at this? Slapping me down is just as preferable as anything else btw. — Trey Maturin™ 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If they're writing primarily about the Nasty Fucking Thievery then WP:GS/CRYPTO applies to their edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say G11 and indef, but I'm like, way past the point of being reasonable when it comes to crypto spam. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. See User talk:D45678#Partial blocks where I explained to them that they may still continue editing the draft, so long as they answer the disclosure @User talk:D45678#Managing a conflict of interest. Also, NFT promo in 2023? Okay! El_C 11:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the Amanda Abbington article

Over the last week there has been persistent disruptive editing on the Amanda Abbington article, incorrectly changing her date of birth from 1972 to 1974.

A reference in The Guardian from 2022 states that Abbington was 50 last year. A reference this year in 2023 from Digital Spy states she is 51 this year. So according to the sources, her date of birth cannot be 1974.

A request for page protection due to persistent disruptive editing was recently declined. I'd be grateful for an admin to take a further look at the disruptive editing. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

81.107.204.16 had already been given a day off for this, and then comes right back? Guess we will try a week this time. Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The year was still wrong in the infobox, which is all many readers see. On a hunch, I used Commons to navigate to the Wikidata item, and found it also had 1974. I've changed that but was unsuccessful in replacing the bad sources listed, which are credited to Italian Wikipedia; I left our block of sources on the Wikidata talk page, but I doubt anyone looks at those, and my removal of the bad refs didn't stick. Someone who can handle the Wikidata interface should replace the sources there, preferably someone who is in the UK or can fake it well enough to see the first cited ref, on BBC iPlayer. Or this will keep happening. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The iPlayer link is no good as a reference as it will expire and be removed after a month (i.e. on 4 September). Black Kite (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotional disruption at multiple Texas university articles

Mostly involving one local IP range. Persistent removal of most recent sourced data in favor of older or made-up content, primarily to promote attendance numbers at University of North Texas and University of Texas at Arlington. Restoration of correct content, page protection and possibly user sanctions requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Also Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Numbers at UNT appear to have been first falsified in this July edit [138]. Not sure how to return to last stable version, given all the intervening edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours (/64). I dunno, IP. Painstakingly? El_C 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Problematic behavior focusing on Ottoman warfare articles

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

---

I would like to raise the behavior of Germanicus44 (talk · contribs) as an issue that could merit a block. The user was created only recently and immediately went about editing figures to reflect a more "pro-Ottoman" view of various battles. User has been warned about edit warring and has been reverted across the board for removing cited facts, or simply switching numbers out to a version more favorable to the Ottoman side.

My view is that Germanicus does not seem to be capable of using sources properly. In these two edits,[139] the citations are either untracable or simply crudely copy-pasted from the article at Turkish Wikipedia. Hattendorf & King is a good source, but it doesn't actually provide any figures. It simply says that Preveza was one of several important battles.

In the Battle of Preveza, I've noted that the article has been extremely skewed with purely fantastic figures of losses that are intended to present the battle as a triumphant Ottoman victory. Established historians describe the battle as more of a stalemate with large forces involved but with little actual fighting and only minor losses. I've summarized my point regarding this on the article's talkpage.

I suspect there's a concerted effort aiming to glorify Ottoman military prowess during the 16th century (as if it wasn't impressive already), and to present any contradictory sources as "Christian propaganda" or whatever. Not sure if Germanicus is one of several problematic users or simply the latest incarnation of Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) (who I was confronted with at galley through Mercresis (talk · contribs)). Peter ^Isotalo 07:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I'm wondering about a possible connection to blocked user Adakaibe (talk · contribs), whose old edits they're now reverting. I'm also looking at a nest of similar accounts editing at articles like this [140]. If it's not sock or meat activity, it could be an organized school assignment, but there's much damage in its wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Adding Starheroine (talk · contribs). Same issue, continuing to overlink after being warned and acknowledging the issue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• And Ayyuha Sideeq (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Please block Starheroine (talk · contribs). Mass disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Block me for what. Did you go through the articles I edited? Kindly go through them again. And don't be judgemental. Starheroine (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    2601... no there are no edits by Starheroine in the page few days that are problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there's much still on the table that is problematic, EvergreenFir, as at Christians Against Poverty, where overlinking is in play, but even more so WP:ENGVAR. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's been a week since Ayyuha Sideeq edited. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Starheroine, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been WP:OVERLINKing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [141]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [142], a few didn't allow for WP:ENGVAR [143], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [144]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [145]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much Starheroine (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location Starheroine (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. Starheroine (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

IP editor English vs British

Howdy, Recently 51.6.6.209 (talk · contribs) has been changing the word British in the body and text of Wikipedia articles to English or Scottish etc.[146] Now IP editor 146.90.190.240 (talk · contribs) has joined in. In all of their edit summary's they are a bit abusive "English born and bred. when the home nations get their indepence back we will get our country back! no more of this vague 'British' nonsense": Special:Contributions/146.90.190.240. I left a Message on 51's talk page and have copied the same message on 146's.

51 does not want to engage in constructive conversation only to hurl abuse at the other editors User talk:51.6.6.209#August 2023.

I hope this is the right place to post about this/these individuals. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've encountered this IP recently, too. I was the one who initially reverted the edit that had the edit summary OP lists. Their response to me was To the editor clled Cello. You need to stay clear of English people you biggotted selfish hyprorite! Representing him as English IS impartiality! To call him British is vague and IS partial and anti English! This is a public site for editorial freedoms and you do not own this site! you are merely an equal contributor! Other articles have people represented as English so whay can't he!!! Dammit you blind fool!! Petty freak! Power hungry egotist!!!!,[147] and then again on their page.[148] (ignoring the fact I am English). They seem to be here to right great wrongs / have an axe to grind. — Czello ^(music) 09:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

They haven't edited for three days, so I've given them a final warning for incivility. I'll block them if they kick off again. Also, why is it that people with these types of views inevitably (a) can't spell and (b) overuse exclamation marks? Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, did you see the second IP has edited the same pages with similar edit summary's. Paulpat99 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one for a week. Calling other editors racist - not happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite They've been at this for a long time, They were doing the same thing as EnglishBornAndRaised way back in February. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I blocked someone for doing that a few months ago. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they're editing from a UK ISP with a lot of ranges, so rangeblocks aren't going to be any use here. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good candidate for an edit filter? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but we only really tend to do that for really persistent and disruptive vandals. I'll have a look, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A new IP has started with this non-sense 87.114.46.81 (talk · contribs). Paulpat99 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access

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

---

User talk:Metalforgeindia is promoting on the talk page while while block, please revoke talk page access. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 10:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User:M.Bitton

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

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

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

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

I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In the discussion that followed, first you said I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you changing your replies? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's for you to explain why you misrepresented the sources to push a political POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks this diff. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at WP:NPOV.[149] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to this document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).

  So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you please view this version as @M.Bitton is still being difficult. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I restored the reference in the second edit, I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No what you did was change it to but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You can't use those sources to say also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco as that's not what they say.

  It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the Political status of Western Sahara. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The status of WS is disputed, your using your POV (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Vyvagaba (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. Example 1, Example 2 to the extent some claim that the United Nations supports the occupying Power. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you changing the subject? :) Vyvagaba (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Note: the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco to two reliable sources[150][151] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I informed @M.Bitton several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. The latest example in my dispute, and another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals with the same "misrepresentation" show. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started following me to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see WP:VEXBYSTERANG), not just the user reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User Wikiboo02 - Casting aspersions

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

---

I want to draw administrator attention to the Millenials talk page where the user @Wikiboo02: is casting aspersions about my participation in the recent consensus building process. Please see his recent comment and take the appropriate action:

[152]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This user has previously reported another user involved in the Millennial article dispute for seemingly objecting to his edits. Now it’s my turn but what I’m doing is just conveying what this user is actually doing to other users involved. This user is trying to get the Millennial article locked from further editing after one-sidedly pushing a version with barely no consensus to change the article. This user also makes it seem as if there’s a much stronger consensus than there actually is which I had to point out. In addition, this user considers my objections as threats to the “consensus” and asks me to show good faith and this was before I commented. I feel like something is wrong. Wikiboo02 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - that dispute was settled with both parties on better terms and no further action. In actual fact the user you are referring to supports the recent change. Many thanks. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See the recent edit war on the page - I was asked to engage in the consensus process - I did. That is unlike anything you have attempted to do on the page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Other user’s lack interest in the dispute and with only four people voting, one of them you and another one it looks like you asked them for help. You also ignored pinging certain users that were involved early on. You did a Be Bold so you should expect that it might get reverted or edited and not seek administrator’s help to lock the section. I have yet to engage in an edit war or even make a single edit. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote, the options were limited and you’re doing an All of nothing which it isn’t. I’m merely proposing a minor change to the version and if no one objects to that change then I’m going to publish it. Consensus isn’t about numbers, it’s about finding things everyone can agree on. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no control over whether users want to participate or not or whether they lack interest - that is up to the people involved. I opened an RfC and have encouraged and invited all to participate. In actual fact the latest straw poll which you participated on was introduced by another user - not me. If people wished to participate no further that is not something I can control. You have questioned my participation in the consensus process - and only me - thereby casting aspersions. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, one can argue that you started by questioning my participation which you did by asking me to show good faith and also behind our backs asking administrators to lock the page because apparently my objection is a threat to the consensus. Consensus hasn’t been reached yet. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion - however, within the ANI you have highlighted it was made clear by the administrator overseeing that the latest straw poll which you participated on was perfectly reasonable and that I accepted in good faith. You are now questioning that straw poll which I didn't even make in the first place. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

'behind our backs'. This is casting an aspersion. It is perfectly reasonable to seek advice from other noticeboards. If the admins involved don't see an action as needed they will say so. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

By implying that there’s a threat to the consensus (which again you try to make seem stronger than it is) then that’s bad faith. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If you care to read the straw poll - which the administrator advised was perfectly reasonable - there was another user who made it perfectly clear that everyone has had enough time to respond. This user recommended that if version B was implemented they would have no objections. You were advised by this user to propose a tweaked variation of Version B and participate in another straw poll. So far, you have ignored this request and have called in to question my good faith efforts to engage in consensus. This is a rather strange take since you have made no effort to do a poll of your own nor propose to other editors - in detail - what exactly it is that you are proposing to do. Have you noticed that me and another editor have gone to great length to demonstrate our proposals to other editors over the last week and have them evaluated? Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

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

User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Gee that is terrible I hope he stops that is clearly WP:NOTHERE. 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Poochasaurus and unsourced BLPs

Poochasaurus (talk · contribs · logs) has been creating WP:BLPs with no references in mainspace. Editors have draftified some of these [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], PROD'd one [159], and deleted two as copyright infringement (B.K. Davis, Thomas L. Moser).

Editors have posted repeatedly on Poochasaurus's talk page, but Poochasaurus has continued to create unsourced BLPs. The first two notes, which pointed out the lack of sources as a problem, were left at 18:40, 6 August; Poochasaurus created seven unsourced BLPs after that.

Poochasaurus recreated one of the BLPs, Robert Sieck, after it was draftified (Draft:Robert Sieck).

This might be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. However, Poochasaurus ignored maintenance templates, editing a page with both a PROD notice and a BLP unsourced template without adding references: [160]. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing

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

Younusr Howlader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mariyachowdhury first moved the page View to Younusr Howlader. I moved the page back and nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with this, which I subsequently reverted. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to replace the entire page with a very promotional biography. After I nominated this for deletion for being promotional, they removed the promotional content, so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Burninated. —Cryptic 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cryptic @Nythar This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, Hridoy Islam was moved to Sakib Ahmed Tuhin and replaced with a biography of a different person, Alam Khan discography was moved to Atikur Rahman Mahi and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, Samirakhanmahibd). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism, Multiple accounts, self promotional advertising.

Hello Wikipedia administrators, and editors. I was checking some Wikipedia page and found that more than 20 accounts are being created by one person for self-promotion, attacking on other people pages and he is publishing stuff about himself on Simple Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, and Wikipedia pages. I have started SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EramZuko and reverted some of his edits on Operation Swift Retort (short film): Revision history - Wikipedia. I found that a person name Awais Shaukat is behind all this, and he claims to be a Wikipedia editor of Pakistan User:Avace Khan - Wikipedia. Upon checking I have been told that he is not an editor but disruptive showing himself as an editor. His few logos he made of himself, and his website were removed on commons, below are some of the edits which he is doing for himself and his company.

Haji Shaukat Ali Lohar - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision history of "PakistaniArt" (Q119331657) - Wikidata (heavy editing of his own knowledge panel here)

Revision history of "Awais Shaukat" (Q114905590) - Wikidata (He himself created his own Wikidata page)

Pakistani art - Wikipedia (He added his own name on this Wikipedia page and his website logo, self promotion)

Pakistani comics: Revision history - Wikipedia (Similar thing he did here)

Two more sock puppets did the AFD spam on this page Operation Swift Retort (short film): Revision history - Wikipedia usernames are Scudo_Lives_Once & Sigaur.

Total SPA I have found so far; EramZuko Jeero_Navid Avace_Khan MujtabaRedX Sigaur Scudo_Lives_Once Jio_Lohar_Jio and many others. Admins should investigate this and protect the community from vandalism.

NatRepo (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

4 users @EramZuko @Jeero Navid are same hence blocked, @Scudo_Lives_Once & @Sigaur are also same hence blocked. These 4 accounts are run by the same person name @Avace Khan NatRepo (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)