Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	3	3	6
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	24	23	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 23 sockpuppet investigations
• 45 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 26 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 76 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Unban request for Wikiuser1314

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

---

Wikiuser1314 is banned by the community under WP:3X. They were initially blocked as a sock of WorldCreaterFighter who has a long-term abuse page, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. They claim to be unrelated, but admit a long string of sockpuppets. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. I solicited feedback from other checkusers on the cu mailing list but did not get a response. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia community! At first I want to apologize for my past mistakes. I want to face my past and work to regain the trust of the community. Quite some time has passed, and I fully understand my wrongdoings now. After waiting the mandatory six months since the block of this account, I sincerely ask for a WP:UNBAN process. – To better understand and summarize my past mistakes, I will try to exlpain how it started: my first account user:Satoshi Kondo (no access anymore), which initially got blocked because I stupidly created two other accounts at that time user:일성강 and user:Kumasojin 熊襲 simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those three accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being user:Vamlos). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side, such as being too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. – My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since late 2022, and with this account (Wikiuser1314), I learned a lot, not only here on Wikipedia, but also in real life. I improved myself, became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. In short, I got older and learned from my past. For that, please also take a look at my talk page and edits of this account (Wikiuser1314). – I really want to constructively and positively edit and contribute to the Wikipedia project, together with fellow Wikipedians, and according to the rules. I do not want to run away anymore and hope to get a chance to prove myself. I am ready to fully cooperate with the Wikipedia community to regain trust. I am also ready to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself and for further details if it is necessary. Thanks. Sincerely – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I then asked, Please list all of the accounts you've used. A good place to start is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter. I'm primarily interested in accounts you've used in the past year that we haven't listed there and primarily interested in accounts you claim do not belong to you. --Yamla (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla: Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: User:Banjardar, User:Bharat99x2, User:Kumasojin 熊襲, User:Kush3897, User:Ogbuago, User:SapmiSamo, User:WhiteTeaWiki, User:X Aterui x, User:일성강, User:突厥 哈萨克族, User:2001.4bc9.824.e0e4, User:AmurTiger18, User:AntiTuranism1908, User:Ape-huchi, User:Arario, User:Arkiat, User:AsadalEditor, User:AustronesianTaiwan, User:Azazmeh, User:Baikal13, User:BaiulyQz, User:Bayan Khagan, User:Benjamin Samasa?, User:Benji887, User:ChampaDroid, User:DeEnTranslator?, User:GanjDareh4, User:GoguryeoHistorian, User:Gyatso1, User:HainanTai, User:Heiwajima20Ip, User:HlaaluTW, User:Hmoob Yao, User:Jäkke34, User:JihoHone, User:KalifFR?, User:Kang Sung-Tae, User:KinhyaKing, User:KuroZetsu oho, User:KwestaPC, User:Lankaman20, User:LenguaEditar?, User:Lord Huynh, User:Magyarrider, User:Manasam98, User:Mandari9, User:Masamannamasam, User:MLx22, User:MomotaniSS, User:MomotaniYY, User:Nam Việt 18, User:OghurBushi, User:Quapaw, User:Rimisibaqwa, User:RobertoY20, User:Ruuchuu, User:Sakushain, User:Satoshi Kondo, User:Saxhleel, User:Shatuo, User:ShiroEmishi, User:Skaalra, User:Takeshima42, User:TAMILinJAPAN, User:TamizhUser, User:Tiberiussan, User:Tomislav22, User:TürkSamurai, User:Turukkaean, User:Whhu22, User:WikiEdit2204, User:Wikiworkbot2.0, and User:YonaguniFan.

—

The others in both lists are unrelated to me. (Not me:User:WorldCreaterFighter, User:ConspiracyThinkerPeople, User:Dddcg, User:DerekHistorian, User:DragoniteLeopard, User:Jinjin555, User:KnowledgeAndPeace, User:Lynch Kevin de León, User:TechnichalProblems, User:WorkingCatDog123, User:Adygeheipeople, User:BoxRec9, User:CantoneseMaster, User:ChowChowWong, User:Dan Capoccia, User:Deccodabo, User:DrKoraKora, User:Gailververgailqqq, User:HeichtiSmech, User:InternationalAffairs3, User:LemanderOrange, User:MasterChai, User:Namela123, User:OrenburgNative, User:OttoKhan, User:PeopleTaking11, User:Pinoy123xaaa, User:Robela2, User:Spiritclaymore, User:SushigirlJessice, User:TelephoneBaby, User:ToRespond, User:TurkicDelight, User:Verakhu, User:WayneMacleod1, and User:WuyueDNApeople. )

—

Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: User:Orange172212, User:Noble4c2, and User:Krause96. – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a lot of those data points. At some point when we get into the hundreds of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and policy supports this irrelevancy. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say never here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, Wikiuser1314 last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, Krause96 on 2023-08-02. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The user is blocked and thus unable to respond, but Special:Contributions/Wikiuser1314 gives us a pretty good idea of their interests. Once unblocked, their immediate plans are probably to finish off the draft in their sandbox that they were actively working on when their past caught up with them. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, support. this is a good unblock request, and I see no substantive complaints to their editing on the Wikiuser1314 account. They've decided to respect our rules by waiting patiently for a possible SO, and seem to show good faith in their contributions. I don't see much risk to giving them a chance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, User:Wikiuser1314, made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from continuing to positively contribute to the project. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A solid six-month wait and a strong value to future constructive contributions seem that the user will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Welcome back. The community might trust you again. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Socked for too long. Let him prove he can productively edit any sister wiki before requesting unblock here again. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Capitals00 here; there is a reasonable request, a substantial (and surely rather embarrassing) confession and, more to the point, why would we want to inflict upon a sister wiki a user whom we do not believe is reformed? ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons i mention above ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support given the user provided their history of accounts. Give them some rope. – The Grid (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Contributions by User:Wikiuser1314 have been valuable, including some very good synthethic graphs and maps (an example), with a good ability at incorporating feedback from other users. Past mistake are concerning, but I think he could be given a chance for a fresh start, in exchange for a firm promise not to ever engage in sockpupettery again. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Unban/unblock request for Albertpda

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

---

• Albertpda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda/Archive
• Pinging @Yamla: UTRS checkuser-in-residence.
• UTRS appeal #94970
• Appellant is globally locked, which will make participation by appellant slow and cumbersome.

Here then it is--

I acknowledge that I'm banned on the English Wikipedia and wish to request WP:UNBAN. Here is my request to appeal the ban and I would like someone to post it to the appropriate area: "I sincerely request to be unblocked for the first time as I haven't been unblocked before, and be given a chance to return to contribute to the community. I understand that in the past I have engaged in warring edit and using accounts to evade to continue editing after being blocked. After mustering sufficient knowledge and experience, I have come to terms with the rules and acknowledge that I must embrace a serene approach in editing and resort at all cost to discussion when disagreements arise. I will restrain myself to the one-revert rule and embrace discussion. I also understand that abusing multiple accounts only complicates the matter and I will not sockpuppet under any circumstances. I will be very appreciate if I get extra help as a startup to further immerse with the positive environment.

If unblocked, I would start editing in simple articles related to sports and geographical locations, as these type of articles generally lacks controversial segments so it would be easier to get used to the editing process. If disagreements arise, I have read and know how to use the WP:3O to soliciate third opinions for a consensus-reaching process. I also read and understand WP:DR, WP:MEDIATE, WP:RFC and other policies and will strictly resort to and abide by these when disagreements arise. I will ask questions whenever necessary.

After all, Wikipedia is an environment of collaborative editing and positive exchange. I now understand this well. We strike to construct a friendly environment. I learn to understand and respect other people's stances on matter. Warring edit counters this aspect and should be absolutely avoided in my mind. When I was first blocked I was a completely new editor to a new environment so I have yet to foster any experience and therefore engage in warring edit without knowing that contested edit must reach consensus. I now have read thoroughly the editing process and the policies to understand what I must abide by to create constructive and positive collaboration. I have never been unblocked, so it is worth it to give me a chance to prove that I will be a great contributor."

Carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• tentative and hope filled support unblock.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is it confirmed that there has been no sockpuppetry recently? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was hoping Yamla would pop in. He did not comment on this UTRS. {{checkuser needed}} to be certain. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  CU isn't much use here. The Albertpda account is  Stale, which would be expected as it's globally locked. I don't have CU access on UTRS and am not sure how that works but maybe that would be more helpful.

  I would be extremely hesitant to unblock this user even if CU comes up clear. The socking history is extensive and their edits are pretty much all disruptive, see the most recent sock listed at SPI for example. This doesn't seem like a situation where someone is trying to make valid contributions but keeps getting blocked for block evasion. I do not see the point in unblocking someone who's likely going to go around indiscriminately blanking articles. Spicy (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The CU data from the UTRS request shows that it is coming in from a spur.us confirmed residential proxy. The particular IP address range is hard-blocked on en.wiki. There's been no evasion from the IP address range, but that's a truism as it's been hard-blocked. Based on the UTRS CU evidence, I can't even be sure the UTRS is coming from Albertpda (but have no evidence it isn't). --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  change to support with 1 RR restriction for 1 year and single account restriction -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support per above. Given that the user has no recent sockpuppetry on any Wikimedia wiki, then the user might be unlocked soon. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm landing, with some hesitation, on oppose. I feel slightly guilty doing this because I cannot really articulate why, but I feel in my gut that unblocking would be a mistake. Something about the request… I don't know, it kinda feels like someone who knows what types of things they should say in an appeal but isn't exactly sincere. The fact that it can't meaningfully be demonstrated that he has repented of the sockpuppetry and disruption only exacerbates my concerns. I'm sorry. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I cannot rationally articulate my tentative support, so we are even. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reply to Compassionate727 carried over-

  "Thank you but you should or may have not also bring in the first two sentence that are not in the quotation marks, can you remove them from the request on the noticeboard, because it may make the request looks somewhat awkward. Can you kindly carry over my reply to Compassionate727 in the noticeboard as follows: Compassionate727, I'm really, really sincere about being unblocked. I really regret the edit warring I did and the subsequent block evasion. It's important to note that I have never been unblocked so why is giving someone a chance so hard? I can be easily blocked again if I infringe the rules again. Why would I take all this time to write the request and wait just to be insincere and blocked again? Anyone can mature greatly, please give me the opportunity to be positively productive. I first created my account 9 years ago. The primary reason for my block was because of edit warring. All the other accounts were blocked only because of block evasion. I addressed above how to avoid edit warring in the future, and especially I will restrict myself to the one-revert restriction. 9 years ago I was younger and not as clear headed. If you unblock me, you can either get a vandal that easily blocked after seconds (which is a very small risk) or a positive contributor who contribute positively for years (which is a very reasonable great positive exchange). I promise you with my hearts I will be on the latter side."

  Carried over by me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Noting Global lock has been down-graded to a global block. Hopefully, Albertpda can now edit his talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I disabled the global block locally. Hopefully, that fixed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Noting to hold the archival bot at bay that I'd hoped for greater participation. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the unblock statement says "If unblocked, I would start editing in simple articles related to sports and geographical locations, as these type of articles generally lacks controversial segments so it would be easier to get used to the editing process." I do not know about sports, but my interactions with this user (specifically various socks) were disruption in geographic articles. Someone saying a topic that they have created large numbers of sockpuppets to war in "generally lacks controversial segments" inspires no confidence. If they want to be unblocked, they should pledge to avoid this area that has clearly caused huge issues, not pledge to specifically go back to it. CMD (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  reply carried over

  @Chipmunkdavis:: I pledge to avoid editing in the area of geography for a period of a year while making at least 1000 good faith non-disruptive edits in other areas. I also pledge to be restricted to a one-revert restriction rule. May you accept it?

  reply carried over

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  A year and 1000 non-disruptive edits? It's not up to me to accept, but if an unblocking admin wants to take that on I won't stop them. CMD (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  reply carried over-

  @Chipmunkdavis: So may you support the appeal with the addition of this condition? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure if I would support the appeal, but as above an admin is welcome to disregard my oppose to the original request given the modifications. CMD (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• You know what, I'm convinced. I'll support if a one year 1RR restriction is imposed, and I'm neutral otherwise. No opinion on the TBAN from geography, I'd need to understand this user's history better than I do. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, they have put in the time to learn about the project and understand their mistakes. It seems that they've grown and matured; I believe they deserve a second chance. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support hold them to their word. You've got some rope...use it well. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Socked for too long. Let him prove he can productively edit any sister wiki before requesting unblock here again. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can't. Globally blocked. I disabled it locally so he could participate in this discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I'm an optimist. I'll support this, with a 1RR restriction for one year, and a 1 account restriction indefinitely (i.e. no WP:LEGITSOCKs). – bradv 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Null edit to hole the archive bot at bay. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK to close? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  objectively it looks liek the consensus is to unblock. Opposition points noted. Buffs (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Close Albertpda?

Would anyone like to close?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Deacon of Pndapetzim

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

---

Administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim has doubled-down on uncivil and canvassing behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna.

• When the article was AfD'd, they took it very personally, as indicated by their initial response on their talk page expressing exasperation and questioning the nominator's motives (diff).
• Posted this patronizing comment suggesting that non-historians shouldn't weigh in on historicity of the subject (deeply ironic not only because I am a historian, but because the nomination explicitly cited high-quality historiography to justify deletion)
• Canvassed Ealdgyth—who, according to AfD stats, had not !voted in an AfD for over a year and has only !voted five times in as many years—to counter a perceived conspiracy of deletionists (diff)
• When confronted about this uncivil behavior, they respond by deleting it as trolling (diff)

Deacon of Pndapetzim recently increased their participation on the project after an extended lull in contributions. I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti is evidently very unhappy that I informed Ealdgyth of the discussion and how Ealdgyth responded. Ealdgyth is as far as I'm aware the main editor on medieval English religious topics. Pbritti seems to have come here trying to escalate things & create drama following a threat to do so that he made on the discussion page. Also, if anyone wants to explain what canvassing actually is to this user please feel free. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Posting a non-neutral note seeking to affect the outcome of a discussion is canvassing per WP:INAPPNOTE. Your comments were also not very civil and anyone can participate in a discussion, notwithstanding whether they're professional historians. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Read 'It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation' That's what I intended to do and what I did. Not discussing this point any more, it's silly to suggest that one cannot inform other interested users and note their own concerns, esp. when the guideline page actually encourages it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

(Lest I be extremely hypocritical, I'll note that I saw this discussion mentioned in passing on Discord, but participated on my own accord without being asked :p) That's a very select quote from the canvassing policy, and ignores the context of the rest of the page. Ealdgyth is certainly an accomplished editor in the field, but you informed her and only her in a clearly biased way and urged her to participate on your side of the argument. There's miles between that and popping in with a "Hey, there's an AfD in your area of expertise" without commentary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What?! Selective? It's from the top of the page my friend, summarising the most important points. If you disagree with it, go try and have it removed, then and there I think you will learn what the actual consensus about the policy is. If you are successful, come back. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

From lower down the page: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. See also WP:VOTESTACKING: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibes here, getting a bit robotic as well. It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation Posting to Ealdgyth was not canvassing or vote stacking, Pbritti may not see it like that because of what Ealdgyth ended up saying but that doesn't change anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Quoting WP:AGF while question another editor's motivations for a reasonable AfD and then quoting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when nobody is convinced by your misinterpretation of policy. I change my recommended response to this from a formal warning to favoring thanking Deacon for their 16 years as admin and desysoping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins can't desysop another admin: that proposal needs to be handled by ArbCom or recall. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless there's a huge reform in their behavior, I think we're heading there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sad that you dislike me so much, but I can tell you one thing from being here 20 years, Pbritti, conflict forum escalation and grievance drama mongering will only take you so far and eventually bring you more trouble than it's worth. Only the Machiavellians & folk with no interest in content get on with people 100% of the time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop assuming anything about me. You have accused me of a number of things yet haven't provided evidence for any of it. I encourage you focus on your behavior and how you can adopt current policy/guidelines into your behavior on-project. Thank you for your years of content creation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) I'm going to repeat my comment I made at Deacon's talk page here "I have Deacon's talk page watchlisted, I was already aware of the AfD (I saw it in my morning reading of my watchlist over breakfast before Deacon posted on my talk page). I had planned to weigh in, but I had to feed farm animals and batten down the hatches this morning in front of a large storm headed my way." I'll further note I had noticed the prod notices and even before the AfD was filed, was predicting that one would be filed and had begun to look at the article during my overnight bout of insomnia (where, I also weighed in on Barkeep's talk page on a totally unrelated matter, thus confirming I was actually up at some ungodly hour of the morning), before Deacon posted on my talk page. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  You proved nothing except that you only intervened in this AfD once prompted. Rather humorously, you even mirrored Deacon's unusual !vote of Oppose (rather than a typical "Keep") further suggesting that your involvement is reliant on Deacon's prompting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  What I see from DoP: a mild mannered exasperated response to an AFD; the comment about 'historians' was not patronising; the 'canvass' message was just (just!) the right side of breaching CANVASS, but in any event the person who was targeted has said they were not actually canvassed; and I can totally understand why they removed your talk page post (which was patronising), but describing it as 'trolling' was inappropriate.

  All in all I'd politely suggest DoP take a deep breath in future when dealing with similar situations, but that's about it. GiantSnowman 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The comment about historians was absolutely patronizing and completely improper: an admin should not tell editors they can't participate in a deletion discussion because they're not specialists in a particular area. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  No-one should tell editors they shouldn't comment on a particular area, doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Posting templated 'warnings' on the pages of experienced users, it's patronising but trolling too surely, at least with a lower case 't'. What good can any experienced user reasonably expect except to arouse some sort of emotional reaction? Re the historian comment, no it has nothing to do with do not participate, it was a response to naive assertions about the historical issues relating to the talk. I did not act with any admin powers on that thread so I don't understand this obsession with me having the mop. I'm honest and sometimes tough in my approach to those things, I got my mop with that being a well established thing about me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  neither Pbritti nor i posted any templated warnings on your talk page - i don't generally do that, and prefer to use my own words when there's an issue, as i did in this case. i PRODed and nominated the article for deletion with WP:Twinkle, which automatically places notice templates on the creator's talk page. those are not warnings. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  More than that, I explicitly avoided a template and anny of those garish warning signs, even offering my appreciation for your return to content work in my personalized message. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did notice the offering of appreciation, but it was accompanied by the 'warning' header and more trollish stuff, and I felt you were trying to escalate conflict, so I removed it and I would also remove other such comments in future if I felt the same way, it's my talk page I'm entitled to do that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  What, exactly, was trollish? That seems like a pretty serious aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Deacon of Pndapetzim Policy expects that administrators lead by example, and they are expected to be role models for the community and to be civil at all times. Having the tools means that your words and behavior are scrutinized more because you have measurable "soft power" in discussions. While WP:NOBIGDEAL has been cited by numerous people participating in RfAs, uncivil behavior has led to admins being desysoped. Accusing someone of trolling in response to good-faith concerns about your behavior and editing their comments breaches basic policies and guidelines. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also the fact that the canvassed editor intended to participate anyways is irrelevant. DoP couldn't have know that when the message was posted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  She wasn't canvassed, why are you proceeding with that notion like it's some established fact? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't interpret his comment about historians as saying 'do not participate in the AFD'. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the statement speaks for itself: It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Evidently not. The deletion discussion wasn't about the notability of this specific saint, not the historicity; that issue was being raised in naive and unhelpful way, that's why I suggested the issue be avoided. Make sense? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  the crux of my argument is not about the historicity of the saint - that is simply one aspect i mentioned in the nomination. the crux of my argument is the lack of sources, i.e. non-notability. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The historians comment wasn't about the crux. Honestly, I think that's relatively clear, but I've clarified now in case there was any confusion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Especially patronizing, considering that sawyer777 (who nom'd) has worked diligently in the medieval saint subject area and has contributed FA- and GA-level content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• i said i would disengage until further prompted, and apparently here's my prompting.
  i nominated the article for deletion earlier today after my PROD was contested yesterday, and during the discussion (& on user talk pages) Deacon has made comments such as:

• "this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism" (diff)
• "The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more" (diff)
• "It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about." twice (diff, diff)
• "if you want to call yourself a historian" ... "I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important" (diff)
• "I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you" (diff)

i left Deacon a message regarding his conduct, and he both edited my comment and replied in the same diff (edit summary: "rm trolling & ugly format, resp"), which changed the meaning significantly by cutting out multiple sentences. i restored my comment and linked WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, and was reverted with the edit summary "rv, please don't troll or put ugly format on my talkpage. if you think your meaning has been changed remove the comment". that's not how this works. i am not imposing "deletionist maximalism" or "going for the kill" i just don't think this supposed saint is notable. speculating about my competence, accusing me of trolling, and editing my comments is creating a hostile editing environment. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

forgot one:

• "Regarding being a historian, I don't care if you're not a historian [...] I made the comment because you were saying nonsense things about something that is much more complex than you seemed to understand. Personally I think if one is editing articles on a project like this one should be [...] honest about where and how one can contribute competently." (diff)

i don't even know how to engage with this. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly inappropriate to edit another user's message, and it's even more inappropriate to accuse an editor of good standing, making a good faith edit, to be trolling. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is astonishingly poor behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the article (here), but I think that Deacon of Pndapetzim should probably re-calibrate back into the relative obscurity they have enjoyed for most of the past, err, 12 years. Community expectations of discourse, collegiality and communication may have moved on since then. SerialNumber54129 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the goal is here with this complaint. Is it to admonish Deacon of Pndapetzim and ask them to be more civil, to not give the appearance of canvassing or be condescending, to not accuse your fellow editors of trolling and to assume good faith on their part? Deacon of Pndapetzim, even if you don't agree with these charges, do not do those things in the future. None of us should behave in these ways and this complaint is a reminder of this to us all that even in the midst of a dispute, we need to treat each other with respect and civility.

If the goal is to de-sysop them, well, you would have to show a pattern of misconduct, Pbritti, and while some of the behavior cited here is inappropriate, for a regular editor or for an admin, I don't think you have shown misconduct beyond their reaction to this one AFD. Additionally, at most, if there was a lot of agreement with your position, there might be a recommendation to take this complaint to arbitration or to start a recall petition but so far, I don't see a groundswell of support here yet and I don't think either a request for arbitration or a recall effort would be successful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the focus is the civility, the implication that only historians should participate in that discussion, and the canvassing. At least that's my read of it. In my opinion, you do want complaints prior to recalls, so as to not appear to be jumping the gun and to give an admin a chance to grow and adjust based on feedback given. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

HMIJ summarizes my rationale for opening the AN. Without this posted to AN, there would be no formal acknowledgment of their inappropriate behavior. I think Deacon's persistent refusal to acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate here suggests their status as an admin should be changed. Above, I say that a reform in their behavior could prevent this step, but it should happen sooner than later. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also finding their inappropriate edit summaries (stating a genuine comment by an editor in good standing is trolling), and editing other user's comments to be very inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Josh, I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to shut down a discussion. That wasn't my intent. But I think it's helpful to know why a complaint is filed, what the goal of it is. If it is bringing to light misbehavior, I thought that had been accomplished early in this discussion. If the goal was seeking to de-sysop this administrator, then this is the wrong place for that discussion. But I do agree that, for arbitration, editors are advised to try other avenues for redress before opening an arbitration case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I definitely didn't view that as the intent of your message @Liz, especially given our past interactions I know better than to assume something like that from you. I just wanted to share my perspective on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is presumably targeted at getting consensus that obvious incivility and canvassing is in appropriate, and below community expectations. We shouldn't create the expectation that the next step after bringing to light misbehavior is recall. CMD (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I think the goal was articulated at the end of the initial post: I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have to concur Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments in the AfD fall below the collegial standards I think we should strive to maintain in discussions. Comments should be about the arguments, not the participants. (I do admit this might be easy for me to say from the sidelines, especially as someone who is more of a reader than someone who writes content.)

  Regarding the comment DoP sent to Ealdgyth, to me it clearly crosses the line into non-neutral. There's no reason not to say simply "As someone interested in and knowledgeable about the topic area, you might be interested in participating in this AfD"; arguments about the precedent and consequences of deletion can and should be made in the discussion itself.

  While I do offer my feedback in the hope DoP changes his approach, some of the back-and-forth discussion above doesn't necessarily seem to be benefiting anyone. Talking about RECALL also seems excessive at this time. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually think the discussion is at the right time, given the number of different issues that are evident conduct wise. RECALL may be premature, but you should start a discussion about someone's conduct before doing so, and this is the opportunity for DoP to adjust their behaviour appropriately. Unfortunately, their responses are falling quite short of WP:ADMINCOND at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel like there's a meme here

Wikipedia: Why are there so few admins, this is a crisis.

Also Wikipedia: That guy told someone about a discussion & someone felt attacked, they're an admin, get them to the stake.

I feel like defending myself had just been feeding the drama beast, I'll leave this be, please don't tag me in any posts unless it is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim Is this how you intend to respond when people raise questions about your conduct in future? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim I'm asking you again, since you have apparently chosen not to respond. Is this the way which you intend to conduct yourself when people raise questions about your behaviour in the future? This is a yes or no question. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether on wiki or in real life, perhaps you should consider taking criticism to heart and hearing people out instead of being dismissive @Deacon of Pndapetzim. Fwiw, part of the reason people believe there's not a need for more admins (a view I disagree with) is because so many old admins hold onto tools but don't utilize them, hence the misleading number of admins vs active admin numbers we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Without evaluating the whole thread, I will renew a concern I've expressed before about overbroad use of the anti-canvassing guideline. I understand the purpose of the guideline, but it should not be interpreted to prevent bringing a discussion to the attention of the people best able to comment knowledgeably. For comparison, I am a known authority on the author Rex Stout. If someone proposed deleting an article relating to Stout and I missed the AfD notice, I would like to be told about it; and if I then commented, I would not feel that either I or anyone else did anything wrong. Likewise, if an AfD concerns a disputed personage in medieval history, why would we want to disallow seeking input from a major contributor to our medieval history articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You do make a good point, but the biggest issue in this notification is the non-neutral way in which it was done. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

just speaking for myself, i have no issues per se with him notifying Ealdgyth - she is, as you say, a major contributor in the medieval history area (and someone i have a lot of respect for). the issue Pbritti and others have taken with the talk page message is the tone and content, especially the parts that say I'm pretty worried about the level and type of reasoning being used and the precedent potentially being added and The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more, including the many place-filler bishop articles we've created over the years. in my view, that clearly indicates an intent to bring a "friendly" editor to be backup in a debate, rather than a simple notification of a relevant discussion. it's a fine line, and i agree that it's not uncommon to see overzealousness with the anti-canvassing guideline, but i do think this crosses into problematic territory. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not have phrased the notification with words like "going for the kill," nor would I have made any reference to "trolling." However, much of what was said on the user talkpage could equally have been said in the deletion discussion itself, which the "canvassed" editor would have looked at anyway, so I don't see why the location of the comments should make a big difference. And a comment suggesting that "if A is deleted, then by that logic B, C, and D could be deleted on the same grounds, which would damage our coverage of such-and-such topic-area" is hardly outside the limits of normal XfD discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You're assuming that Deacon knew the canvassed editor would see the AfD anyway, which is contradicted by the mere fact that they posted that notice. This is exacerbated by the uncivil responses both before and after the canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually assuming that even if the canvassed editor might have missed the AfD notice to begin with, once it was mentioned to her, she would then have looked at the contents of the AFD discussion regardless of how the notice was phrased. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying this isn't canvassing because a non-neutral notice posted to a friendly editor's talk page might spur the friendly editor to look at the discussion and then get involved? That is canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I took Brad to be saying that this is ideally how the canvassing rules should be interpreted or rewritten (but please correct me if I'm wrong Brad). I'm agnostic on that point and could be persuaded either way, but as of this moment, I don't think the community interprets CANVAS this way. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) I understand your point, which has some validity under the guideline. But the point I'm making is that the effect of a "neutral" notification and a "non-neutral" notification, at least in this instance, would have been exactly the same, so whether or not the notice was "canvassing" strikes me as a peripheral aspect of the discussion. Put differently, if the editor posted "ABCD" in the notification, as opposed to posting "A" in the notification and "BCD" in the AfD itself, would that have changed the analysis? (And with that I may bow out of the discussion, lest I give too much attention to what I've just said should be a minor aspect of the thread.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this makes sense. I think I disagree with you on the idea that a neutral notice has the same effect as a non-neutral one (especially when it is only sent to a single friendly editor), but I can fully see why you might feel otherwise. Thanks for taking the time to rephrase that for me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of bringing to a noticeboard every example of someone getting upset that the article they've created is at AFD, but ... DoP is being so pointlessly aggressive, unfair, and patronizing here (and it's likely to end up being counter-productive to keeping the article), that I guess I can't really fault it too much. I suppose I'll say (a) DoP and his adversaries (for lack of a better word) should minimize contact outside the AFD, including here; and (b) if his aggression continues in the AFD, I'll just partially block him from participating there further. I've got it watchlisted now. The non-neutral canvassing, while not great, is less of a concern to me, both for reasons outlined by NYB, and because not every single policy violation needs to be admonished/punished. I know @Deacon of Pndapetzim: asked not to be pinged unnecessarily, but since I'm warning him that I might block him from the AFD, I guess I need to. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've created over 1000 articles, I don't actually mind if an article I created is deleted per se, esp. one that short, you're speculating inaccurately. The users in question were making historical points based on some serious misunderstandings, I could've spent more time explaining if I wasn't so busy earlier today (honestly thought it would be nipped in the bud earlier) and if I'd been nicer there wouldn't have been so much escalation on their part, but it's neither here not there as far as the Dachuna discussion is concerned. I'm not going to participate in that discussion any more because I have been threatened by yourself and based on your assessment above I don't trust you to be judicious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Further assumptions of bad faith, despite several comments encouraging others to assume good faith in the last day or so... Hey man im josh (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• New Proposal: A solid trouting Both of y'all take a fish and let's settle down. Make your point in the AfD regarding the article, not each other and move on. I'm not saying either of you do/don't have valid points, but it would serve everyone well to acknowledge they could behave better and back down. If not, I think a block is warranted per Floq. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure anybody but Deacon deserves a trouting in this situating.... but it was already essentially calmed down since the last response was ~8 days ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was referring to Deacon & Pbritti. If it's calmer than then, I'm fine with a smack of a light goldfish. Buffs (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  a) it's not really clear who "both of y'all" is referring to. i nominated the article for deletion and Pbritti started this thread. b) as josh already said, this has settled down. i've even taken the AfD off of my watchlist. c) i have made all of my points at the AfD about the article and its sourcing. i'd like to see what you're referring to. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then a trouting will serve it's purpose well. Let's grab some fish and move along...hell, you can even swing a trout my way. I'm sure I deserve it for something :-) Buffs (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Most active administrators

Just to remark that in the list of most active administrators of all times we now only have three four current human administrators, and one of those three has not edited for four months. No action yet required at this point, just FYI, since this is, well, Administrators' noticeboard. Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I see now that I did not express correctly what I wanted. Out of 10 most active administrators, 4 are humans who are currently administrators, one of these 4 is inactive.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• And Fastily has just resigned, so the backlogs will be piling up there as well soon. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, the four (I have now corrected myself) current human admins in the top ten are Explicit, Liz, Materialscientist, NawlinWiki, the latter one being inactive. We should be watching backlogs in speedy deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Fastily contributed a lot to reviewing PERM requests and FFD. We could honestly use quite a few more admins who were comfortable reviewing files and answering questions about their copyright status. I can only think of a handful of admins who work in this area of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Way back when I did some work in this area. I might return to it, but a way to watchlist the WP:FFD subpages as they are made would be helpful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FFD pages are per day, one would need to wacthlist once per day, but I would not know how to automatize this. Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested, Fastily handled most of the requests for rollback at WP:PERM/Rollback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

For a long time, Fastily handled PERMS virtually by himself. Recently, a few more admin bods have assisted with requests. I'm assuming it is a time consuming task as it requires looking at edits and assessing their merits and asking applicants questions. He did such a good job with PERMS and obviously had a good routine. He was polite but firm about asking applicants to do more work towards PERMS.

Hopefully someone will step into the void. Knitsey (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FastilyBot did a load of work too, hopefully someone else will take on some of its tasks. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems prudent to direct anyone interested in this to WP:BOTR#Replacing FastilyBot. WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just overly optimistic, but the CSD queue cratered since we got the admin election admins and hasn't gone up since. Seems fine, at least for now. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be a good idea for admins to go through a list of all the non-admins who are likely to pass an RfA and offer to nominate them (something admins should probably be doing anyway). That would be the most efficient way to address these admin backlogs. And apparently it needs to be clearer that requesting adminship means agreeing to WP:ADMINACCT; hopefully making that clear will limit the number of times that admins make appalling decisions, refuse to acknowledge them, get way too many chances, and then get recalled (current count: 2). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not, especially since these requests would tend to fall on deaf ears. (mine especially.) You have a fair number of people who would meet those requirements but are not interested in a Hell Week. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The recent admin election results, where only 1/3 of candidates were elected and only one had more than 80% support, seems to indicate there are a not-insignificant number of editors that outright do not want there to be more admins. Whether they simply have standards that don't match the actual pool of eligible candidates, or actually want fewer people with the mop, is not clear. We're going to have to have some kind of cultural change - either convincing those editors, or reaching consensus to overrule them - in order to have a larger and more sustainable number of admins.

(For the record, I voted about 60% support / 30% abstain / 10% oppose, and was estimating I would be on the more cynical side. The actual totals were 37% / 37% / 26%, for an average percentage of 58%.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the data could be analyzed in other ways. For instance, if I'm counting right, every candidate who had a nominator succeeded. That compares favorably to RfA. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that it was harder to have the confidence to vote "support" under the time limitations that come from reviewing 30+ candidates simultaneously. But still a good idea to let folks run in a group.North8000 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough data on which to base firm conclusion about the admin elections. If the experiment were re-done with some of the teething problems fixed, we would be on sturdier ground. I think the large candidate pool, while encouraging in some ways, made things more difficult but I think a re-run would have a naturally smaller pool, especially if it becomes a regular thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely believe some of the reason for the high number of candidates was pent-up demand. People who for the last five or ten years might have been interested, but not via RfA. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the election talk page at the time: I opposed a large number of candidates who I (probably) wouldn't have opposed in a normal RfA because I was concerned about the lack of scrutiny being applied in that election. Nobody else admitted it, but given how more than 600 people voted, I would be surprised if I was the only person. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The best candidates at both Ace and aelect only had 80% support. To me, this says that there is a -20% support penalty when using secret voting. I don't think the reason is particularly important. I think we should just work around this by lowering the pass threshold. The aelect candidates in the 60 to 70 range were good, and we should make it so that they can pass in the future. An RFC for this is in the pipeline. Stay tuned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What I suspect is more likely that if an RfA is at 95%+ Support, people don't bother to oppose, because (a) they know it's not going to make any difference, and (b) they'll probably get harangued for it by supporters. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There were candidates I opposed in the election that I wouldn't have opposed in an RFA for this exact reason. If you look at the voting trends it is abstains that trend down as support goes up, not opposes. That points to voters abstaining on candidates they didn't know or have time to check. There is no grounds for lower the pass mark. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• It's only going to get worse with RECALL in place. GiantSnowman 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Human administrators"? Aren't all administrators human? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay No, there are also a load of adminbots. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The two all-time most active administrators are actually bots. Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of them might also be dogs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: can you link to where you got that stats please? :) Also, just noting that quantity is not the same as quality. Many admin actions are very easy, especially deletions (hence admin bots, hence the ability of several admins to rack up six-figure log counts) but I agree the bus factor is concerning, even accounting for the long tail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The awful scoreboard. —Cryptic 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The one I am using is User:JamesR/AdminStats, there is a big table at the end which I sort by the total number of actions and count the position manually. Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  And, yes, sure, all metrics are imperfect, but usually they still provide some useful information. Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I knew about ADMINSTATS. I just don't tend to look at the table at the bottom because it takes too long to load on my computer! And yes, you're correct, there is still something useful we can glean from statistics but they should be taken with a pinch of salt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin stats only counts the times you did something, not the times you refused to block someone, delete a page that wasn't a problem etc. We're not robots. If anything saying no is more important. Secretlondon (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Admin actions aren't everything and it's difficult to quantify a number of tasks that some great admins work at. For example, the number of unblock requests that someone like 331dot declines or replies to prior to unblocking, or ARBCOM time spent writing significant text or analyzing long conversations and evidence, or the admins working at WP:CFDS to process category renaming requests. Never the less, there is some value in admin actions, it's just not the only way to evaluate someone's contributions and we should be mindful of that. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, too, Josh. I think of the time some admins spend talking to new editors or blocked editors, trying to explain Wikipedia's processes to them, and I think those are invaluable activities. But personal conversations, one-on-one discussions, are not quantified and don't have a "leaderboard". Or time spend on noticeboards or DRN or the Teahouse, working to resolve and deescalate disputes. Of course, many of these discussions are also done by editors, too, but I know some admins who will spend their time trying to guide confused or frustrated editors into being productive contributors and I think those actions are some of the most important that admins can take on because they can lead to more constructive editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin stats are a good way of determining how many (and which) admins are doing the high-volume, tedious, repetitive stuff. It takes a special workhorse of a person to do that stuff day-in and day-out for years. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon Topic Ban appeal

Six months ago (in May), I was topic banned from GENSEX topics due to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior surrounding said contentious topic. The closing admin was theleekycauldron (who has offered to "see me on the other side"), and the discussion to Tban me was here. As for how I have been editing since being topic banned, and how I plan on editing when my topic ban is lifted:

• Since being topic banned, I have made about 600-700 edits surrounding a large variety of topics, though the most common I think was media (tv, books, movies, games). In the very few content disputes I have been in since the topic ban (which were all very innocuous, with no disputes related to sourcing; only to minor things like phrasing), I have made sure to resolve the discussion collegially, rather than snapping back or adding the proposed edit to the page with minimal discussion (an old tendency to use one talk page comment as a cue to add an edit was cited as a problem with my editing, which I have fixed). If an edit was reverted, I made sure to discuss with the other party. I've mostly made sure to make my comments as concise as possible, though inevitably a few were long so as to properly address multiple points. Said discussions always ended both amicably and calmly, usually with both me and the other party thanking each other. I think this properly shows that I won't return to any sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• I have also made a decent amount of edits into the events leading to and after the 2024 US presidential election, such as the multiple assassination attempts against Trump, Biden's withdrawal, Harris becoming the Democratic candidate, and Trump's victory. I've been very productive in this area with little no problems. Post-1992 American politics is a separate contentious topic. I believe my problem-free edits about major recent events regarding American politics can show that I will not act in a tendentious manner assuming I do return to a different contentious topic such as GENSEX.

• Once my topic ban is lifted, I will continue following the WP:NEGOTIATE guidelines whenever I get into a content dispute, including anything related to GENSEX (which I have no immediate plans to return to, but would like to fully remove the topic ban from it so I don't have to second guess if a page is related to the topic or not). I will work with other editors for compromises, will refrain from POV pushing, and make sure a contested edit has an actual consensus before putting it through. Thanks, Unnamed anon (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Since my lack of immediate plans to return to GENSEX seems to be a major point against lifting it, I should explain that I mean that I'm only talking about pages fully dedicated to the topic. But I would like to no longer have to avoid pages that tangentially mention anything queer-related, as it has legitimately stopped me from continuing productive edits that I had made across related pages that don't mention anything GENSEX related. I was also reading through what I need to do to get back in the community's good graces, and here the late NosebagBear told an appellant do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way) and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? See my reply to Cullen below for the specific examples where my Tban has stopped me from making legitimately productive edits to pages I was unsure would breach the Tban.Unnamed anon (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I figure I should paste some of my most important commitments up here so they don't get lost. The full one is down in the "involved editors" section where I reply to Simonm223 (here for convenience), but to summarize the most important commitments up at the top:

1. I will refrain from using a single talk page comment as a cue to add an edit.
2. In a WP:COMPLICATEDTALK situation, or in other words I lack the full knowledge of a situation (such as when I wrongly thought 7 year olds were getting genital surgeries), I will stay out of the situation, or, if I am asked to reply back, will acknowledge my lack of knowledge.
3. If I even suspect that any comment of mine has a chilling effect on queer users or is otherwise disruptive, I will immediately stop, and likely strike the comment.
4. I will not introduce any less-than neutral language into GENSEX articles. If I suspect that an edit is less than neutral, I will stop, and likely revert or directly ask somebody else if my edit was non-neutral, or in some cases both.
5. I will no longer assume any lgbt editor of a conflict of interest in any situation.
6. In discussions, I will refrain from replying on every single reply that holds a different opinion. I'll acknowledge this is an exception right now because I want to prove that my views have changed and I won't repeat my alarming statements. But in normal discussions, I have learned that replying to every single opposing comment is disruptive and WP:BLUDGEON.

Obviously there's more commitments below, but for the sake of TLDR these are just the ones addressing my biggest past problems. I'd like to make it clear way up at the top that I know why I was in the wrong, and how I won't repeat my old disruption. Thanks, Unnamed anon (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Per WP:CTOP, this appeal will succeed if "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors" supports it.

• Support - The only way to know for sure if you're able to edit in this topic area? Is to give you that chance to prove that you're able to do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support relaxation to 1RR. Per Simonm223 and the commitments made there, and because I am satisfied the risk is limited. As for lifting it after 6 months to a year, I understand there's not much of a procedure for this but I'd be OK with deferring to the judgement of an individual admin, either the closer of this appeal or any uninvolved admin, instead of having another community appeal. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  At AE we've previously granted reductions that could be fully lifted by any uninvolved admin after a certain period of time. See for instance the case of 3Kingdoms. (No opinion on this case; just saying there's precedent.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was also thinking of the Princess of Ara case, where her topic ban was replaced by a 6 month 1RR restriction on the same subject. In my case, I'm fine with anywhere between 6 months to a year for my 1RR restriction; I just do not want to waste mine or anybody else's time on a second appeal. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  And I am aware that most contentious topics, including GENSEX, have a topic-wide 1RR, which I will abide by even after my own 1RR restriction expires. And I realize my past disruption is worth some extra caution for some extra time. But at a certain point, I'd like to no longer be under the extra scrutiny, and don't want to waste mine or anyone's time getting my name fully off of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I went looking for a comment I made a while back about unsafe people in this topic area and it turns out I was talking about Unnamed anon in their TBAN discussion, so I'll just repeat the important bits here: "An unsafe person (in context of discussions about marginalized communities) is not a bad person necessarily, but they are a person whose behaviour around queer spaces and topics raises doubts as to whether that person can be trusted not to do harm, whether through well-meaning ignorance or through intentional malice; we have seen examples of both from Unnamed anon." The incident from six months ago was not isolated, it was the final straw in a pattern of harmfully queerphobic POV editing going back several years (see the TBAN discussion for examples). The message we send when we keep letting demonstrably unsafe editors back around these sensitive topics is that marginalized editors should expect the same abuse here as they get on Twitter, and they won't: they'll just leave. Back to my earlier comment: "Unsafe persons have a chilling effect on queer persons and queer spaces; the minor benefit of one editor gnoming and copyediting BLPs in this space is very greatly outweighed by the potential for a known unsafe person to drive marginalized editors away from a sensitive topic." A person who had to have it explained to them that seven year old children are not getting gender reassignment surgery should not be anywhere near this topic on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Please read my commitment to not repeat the mistakes I made and to stop being an unsafe person. Specifically the WP:COMPLICATEDTALK part, where I promise that if I lack the full knowledge of a situation (such as when I wrongly thought 7 year olds were getting genital surgeries), I will stay out of the situation, or, if I am asked to reply back, will acknowledge my lack of knowledge. Per Simonm223, my past disruption shouldn't be entirely what guides us now (I'm disavowing all of my past queerphobic statements), and as both CambrianCrab and Serial Number 54129 have noted, I fully understand why I got the TBAN in the first place and know how to not repeat said mistakes. As mentioned earlier, I'm entirely open to my topic ban being reduced to blockable 1RR. I'd like to get back to copyediting without wasting time worrying if any edit breaches the Tban, and I will not make chilling effect nor malicious statements anymore. (Also, just FYI, the sections are split into involved and uninvolved users, so I'd like to recommend moving your comment under involved since you did participate in my Tban discussion, thanks). Unnamed anon (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that Ivanvector should be considered an involved party. SerialNumber54129 14:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell (by checking editor interaction and the same for my alt) the only significant interaction I've ever had with Unnamed anon was a description I gave of checkuser after they inquired about false positives ([1]) in context of the previous tban discussion, in which I also commented. If having commented in a sanction discussion at a community noticeboard makes one involved, then it follows everyone who has commented here is involved, and then what's the point of making the distinction? Either of you can feel free to move my comment and the subsequent replies if you feel strongly about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Sorry to be a dog with a bone. But re. ...in which I also commented; to clarify, I believe that when one calls an editor " a known unsafe person" and supports their topic banning; then they are very much involved in a discussion to remove that same topic ban. Also regarding, everyone who has commented here is involved, that's not wholly accurate. In fact, not one editor who has commented in this "Uninvolved editors" section also commented at Unnamed anon's TB discussion, let alone supported it. HTH! SerialNumber54129 10:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: so am I involved by virtue of having commented, or is it the specific nature of my comment that makes me involved? Just trying to follow your logic, I comment on a lot of ban discussions and don't want to cross lines. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129 explained it perfectly (thank you Serial; I appreciate you for helping me explain this): the people who commented anything substantial (including !votes) on my original topic ban proposal are involved. For example, I have never directly spoken with CambrianCrab (and btw, thanks for supporting relaxation to 1RR), but I think their comment being under involved is appropriate due to them !voting in my Tban. On the flipside, I think I have run into some of the people in the uninvolved users section on unrelated pages, but them being in this section is appropriate because they had nothing to do with my Tban discussion. I hope both of us have explained it clearly enough. With that being said, it might be confusing at this point to move your !vote to "involved" due to the 6 comments regarding it being in this section, and I think it'll be clear for the closing administrator who commented and who didn't on the proposal to Tban me. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cautiously support - I'd like to give you the chance to prove you can edit non-disruptively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that someone would want a GENSEX TBAN lifted so they can go about their normal life not editing GENSEX articles. It's so hard to avoid this topic area completely, unlike many other types of TBAN, because of how ubiquitous the subject is. I know this runs the risk of being too bespoke to be useful, but could we perhaps consider a remedy in line with the actual request? Something easy and unambiguous to follow? Like "TBAN on all articles tagged for WP:LGBTQ" or something. Sure, there are various ways a bad-faith actor could game a TBAN like this, but we're not considering TBANning someone here, we're considering releasing the TBAN. If we're at that stage, we're already operating on a higher level of trust than someone we're imposing a new TBAN on. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support relaxation to 1RR as well. "Broadly construed" IMHO is a bridge too far in too many of our ArbCom decisions. I can come up with a tangential link to just about anything for a topic ban that is "broadly construed". 1RR is an appropriate median step. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support asilvering's narrowing proposal (but not removal or reduction to 1RR). I don't believe that a TBAN for seriously problematic behavior that had gone on for years should be removed or reduced because of stuff Unnamed Anon has done in only the past six months. He was topic banned and not banned in general because his behavior in only that one topic area was problematic. As such, our only assurance that he won't be a problem in the future is that he hasn't violated the topic ban. But after only six months that's not a very strong signal.

However, I believe in general that GENSEX is too broad to constitute only one topic area and that it should be broken up. Given that, and given that Unnamed Anon's behavior was only problematic in a clearly defined subset of GENSEX, I'm fine with reducing the topic ban to that one area. Loki (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Thank you for supporting narrowing my TBAN down, though sadly Asilvering's proposal of "all pages tagged LGBTQ" may be a bit broad, and ultimately might not actually narrow anything at all (in fact it may actually make the TBAN more strict). Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Showcase, many of the good or featured articles tagged as LGBTQ are still only tangentially related. For example, some of the tangentially-related pages listed as LGBTQ related good articles include Undertale, Borderlands 2, Tracer (Overwatch), It's About Time! (Phineas and Ferb), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Keelin Winters, and Ben Daniels. I am interested in better documenting gameplay, plot, or acting/sports careers, of course without disrupting anything regarding sexuality of the characters and BLPs.

Under Asilverrings' proposal (and by the way, thank you for your sympathy for my situation; I really do appreciate it), I'm worried I would be barred from those types of pages now since some people might consider those as "tagged as LGBTQ". As such, unless there's another suggestion, I still think GENSEX 1RR would have the least gray area on what would count as a violation. That way, I no longer have to question which pages are off-limits for copyediting and gnoming, while 1RR would ultimately still serve any sort of TBAN's purpose of preventing edit warring, disruption, or any type of problematic behavior since then I can't revert back to my version if it's contested. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, to alleviate your concerns (which are completely understandable due to my years of past disruption that, in the past six months, I have realized how and I was in the wrong), and as additional assurance that I will not cause any more problems, you can read my comments on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania and Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida. Since I'm editing and behaving according to Wikipedia policies (in particular BRD, consensus, and civility) on a separate contentious topic (AMPOL), I hope that that's a stronger signal for you that I have finally figured out how to no longer disrupt contentious topics. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support relaxation to 1RR per ROPE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support relaxation to 1RR. The proposal by asilvering is interesting, but I think a lift to 1RR is a lot simpler and cleaner enforcement-wise. It also offers a more clear path back to good standing, should the user avoid disruption and edit warring for the next 6 months. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

• Oppose - This thread on your talk page from just over a month ago appears to indicate that you are still engaged in disruptive editing and not actually engaging in consensus building with other editors - "I'm sorry to have to say that your edits - even if made in good faith - are consistently poor and have become increasingly disruptive. You have been asked to make edits one by one, for discussion, but you have ignored that request, and the vast majority of your contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors." by @MichaelMaggs. Comments such as these that appear in a non-contentious topic area, do not bode well for what may happen in more contentious areas. As you said yourself, you don't actually plan to return to the topic banned WP:GENSEX area and the block for it appeared to have happened exactly 6 months ago, so maybe some more time is needed to show you are editing without disruption outside of contentious (or non-contentious as above) topics for 6 months and then come back and we can revisit this again. Almost 10% of your edits appear to have been reverted, many of which were after the CTOP ban from GENSEX in May, including some in the AMPOL area. Raladic (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Raladic: Please read further down in the thread, because I actually am participating in consensus building. I can see how you made that mistake from the first comment, but I really am trying to work on building consensuses with other users. MichaelMaggs replies Thank you for responding here. Following the suggestion of the IP editor, let's continue to work from where we are. Also read his talk page, where he gives further advice, he gives his reasoning, and I actually accept his reasoning and apply it to edits on another page. Thank you for letting me know what would be good practice in this situation. I noticed that the plot summary of Inside Out (2015 film) needed some cleanup, and although that page doesn't seem like it's under collaborative development, and decided to heed your advice by making multiple but more incremental edits. What had happened what that I misunderstood "one by one" as one edit total until another user comes in, rather than one change per edit, which I fixed after the latter discussion. Also, please read the second bullet point about my participation in events surrounding the election, which is a separate contentious topic where I have not been in any major disputes in. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your thanks and apologies happened after the user deemed it was necessary to come to your talk page and alert you to your disruption. When assessing a topic ban lift, we are looking at general conduct including disruption that is not recognized by the user in question by themself ahead of time. That's why I mentioned above, the best course of action is probably to come back in another several months of time where no user had to come to alert you to disruptive editing, since that was also part of the reason for the GENSEX ban. Raladic (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

About that And Then There Were None discussion, a third person reverted it back to a similar version to mine here. Reverts are simply a natural part of WP:BRD, and as I said in this very appeal, the discussion ended amicably and calmly. In fact, I specifically kept the discussion on my talk page as an example of me learning to work collegially, so it's disappointing to see only the negativity focused on. As for some of the other reverts, some were reverted back to my version by a third user, with this one I properly set up a discussion rather than edit warring, and many of the others were self-reverts (including to my own talk page) because I quickly realized I made a mistake. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: If you're focusing on one discussion that started negatively (but still ended positively), I'd like to highlight the discussions where my contributions were positive pretty much the whole way through. See my comments on Talk:Darkstalkers, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, and Talk:2024 United States presidential election. I would also be willing to lift the Tban and replace it with a 1RR restriction on GENSEX topics. Preferably one that expires in anywhere between six months to a year (that way I wouldn't need to ask again to be removed from the partial blacklist on the wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions list, as my username being there gives me a lot of stress), but if my appeal can only pass if it is replaced by an indefinite 1RR restriction specifically on GENSEX topics, so be it. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon, only one editor has weighed in yet on the prospect of lifting your topic ban. Wait until more admins have commented before offering counter-proposals. You need to be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up based on the ongoing discussions that happened since my initial vote above.

I appreciate UA's willingness to want to learn and if they truly have learnt the way to be respectful in this space, then that would be nice, but the fact that they are arguing here with long texts on every opposition still indicates a little bit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, even if it's trying to come from a good place.

So if there is a relaxation of the TBAN, I would like it to not just be in article space of 1RR, but also to extend somehow to the talk page space, given that the initial TBAN as well was also in large parts based on their arguing in talk - not sure how to practically impose that, but something along the lines of "discussions that appear to be WP:TENDENTIOUS or WP:BATTLEGROUND in the WP:GENSEX space will result in an immediate resumption of the tban", this can give them some WP:ROPE, but make it clear that this contentious space is hot enough, and we do not need resumption of such behavior in talk. Raladic (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am disclosing that I was the blocking adminstrator during the incident that ultimately led to the topic ban. In general, I oppose lifting topic bans when an editor asks for a topic ban to be lifted while simultaneously saying that they have no interest in or plans to edit in that topic area. In my opinion, such requests come off as disingenuous and are a waste of time of other editors who need to spend valuable volunteer time evaluating the appeal. Which brings to mind a comment I made on May 21, 2024 on the editor's talk page: The one thing that I will say now is that I am very concerned about this editor's tendency to waste other editors time. I feel the same today. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I guess I do owe an explanation for why I'm even asking for the Tban to be lifted (or loosened to 1RR). Like I said, I don't want to have to second-guess if any edit to certain pages would be a breach of my topic ban, even if said edit is entirely unrelated to anything GENSEX. To mind currently, four events led to this realization.

  1. I was adding redirects of full names for characters from Overwatch for those who were missing such redirects (i.e. I added the missing Brigitte Lindholm redirect for Brigitte (Overwatch)). One of the characters with a missing redirect, Zarya (Overwatch) (missing redirect Aleksandra Zaryanova), has the lede say Despite her sexuality not being explicitly discussed by Blizzard, many Western fans have viewed her as a lesbian, and said content takes up quite a bit of the reception section. I have no idea of creating the real name redirect on such a page would have been a breach of my topic ban, and in the long term it would save everyone's time, including my own, to just get the Tban lifted instead of needing to ask or second-guess if a minor edit is okay.
  2. The other was on Talk:Twitter, where a user invited others to Talk:StoneToss#Twitter or X regarding whether to call the site Twitter or X. I could productively contribute to the discussion there about what to call Twitter/X, as I had been doing on the main Twitter page, but StoneToss's article's lede mentions it including transphobic and homophobic views. I have no idea whether contributing to the Stonetoss talk page about Twitter, even if I wasn't going to comment about related to Stonetoss or their content at all, would be a breach of the Topic Ban.
  3. Liko (Pokémon) says that She has also been highlighted for her status as the series' first female main character, which is only partially true (there were plenty of previous female main characters), and I was considering changing "main character" to "protagonist". The page is completely unrelated to anything queer-related, but WP:GENSEX says that discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects, so even though misogyny was never something I have been on the hot seat for, I didn't want to risk breaking any terms of the Tban.
  4. In June, I was considering !voting keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrigan Aensland. However, at the time, said character had categories saying she was bisexual (which were recently removed by another user as unsourced), so I didn't know if commenting on that AfD would breach my topic ban. Even without that, part of the character's notability comes from fan-made pornography and sex appeal, so again, I didn't want to risk breaching my Topic Ban if non-queer sexualization applied to GENSEX.

  Unnamed anon (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• On the fence I remember the furor over the queerphobia essay and some of the statements Unnamed anon made at that time were alarming, to say the least. However bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative. With that in mind, as much as I was personally appalled by what they said then, this shouldn't be entirely what guides us now. I would like to know how they intend to respond if they find themselves in a similar situation in the future should their tban be ended. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Simonm223: Thank you for giving me a chance. If I find myself in a similar situation in the future, I will refrain from the following:

  1. grouping or stereotyping editors by their sexuality in a debate. Under no circumstances was that okay of me to do that.
  2. offensive statements such as sexual deviancy (which I had already disavowed back in May and still disavow). If I suspect a statement is offensive, I will stop, and either strike or ask if it's offensive.
  3. using a single talk page comment as a cue to add an edit. If you look at most discussions I have been a part of since the Tban, I have refrained from adding the edit to the page until there was a clear consensus.
  4. In a WP:COMPLICATEDTALK situation, or in other words I lack the full knowledge of a situation (such as when I wrongly thought 7 year olds were getting genital surgeries), i will stay out of the situation, or, if I am asked to reply back, will acknowledge my lack of knowledge.
  5. If I even suspect that any comment of mine has a chilling effect on queer users or is otherwise disruptive, I will immediately stop, and likely strike the comment.
  6. I will no longer assume any lgbt editor of a conflict of interest in any situation.
  7. To prevent any sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND coming up again, I will always assume good faith, and if another user's comment feels out-of-line, I will not snap back at all, and simply reply calmly
  8. I will not introduce any less-than neutral language into GENSEX articles. If I suspect that an edit is less than neutral, I will stop, and likely revert or directly ask somebody else if my edit was non-neutral, or in some cases both.
  9. If a gender or sexuality is under dispute for a BLP or a fictional character and I am somehow involved, I will not bring my own personal views into the discussion; I will simply look at the sources about the BLP/character and whatever comment I make will be based entirely off of said sources.
  10. In contexts of a trans character/BLP pre-transition using current pronouns/names, I will no longer state nor imply that it is history revisionism. Per MOS:GENDERID, these pages must use current names/pronouns aside from a single mention if notable.
  11. In discussions, I will refrain from replying on every single reply that holds a different opinion. I'll acknowledge this is an exception right now because I want to prove that my views have changed and I won't repeat my alarming statements. But in normal discussions, I have learned that replying to every single opposing comment is disruptive and WP:BLUDGEON. You can look at my comments on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania and Talk: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida as examples of me being productive in discussions.

  I hope I explained thoroughly how I have changed and will not repeat the mistakes, disruption, and chilling effect statements that led to my topic ban. If you have or anybody else have any more questions, feel free to ask. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  In light of the above commitment I would Support a relaxation of thd t-ban to a 1RR restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support relaxing the t-ban to a 1RR. While I see some comments from Unnamed anon that tread a little close to WP:TEXTWALL and WP:BLUDGEONING, I'm not seeing the attitude that caused me to support the t-ban back in May. Based on this response, I think UA gets what led to the t-ban, and has a good understanding of how to avoid repeating their mistakes. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Unnamed anon is probably thoroughly aware of my views on their approach, etc., a couple of years ago. but while it's a bit soon to lifting the restriction completely, a reduction to 1RR should stop edit-warring, and I don't see the belligerence or battleground behavior that was so prevalent back then. I think they've been working away diligently and avoiding major pitfalls. What more can we ask for—or expect? SerialNumber54129 13:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

New seemingly-related group of good-faith but deleterious West African copyeditors

Sorry if this is a bit hasty, but I've noticed a group of new editors that seem to have a good-faith interest in improving the site; unfortunately, almost all of their edits need to be reverted, and they do not respond to talk page communications. They seem to have registered around the same time and edit the same pages (e.g. Education in Africa, African art, Victor Ochei, Relationship Quality) making many of the same errors. One of them—Ekipnse1.0 (talk · contribs)—has already been blocked for disruptive editing, and their reply shows no understanding of why but does seemingly reveal they're working IRL with others in some manner.

This is a bit overwhelming to deal with, and I don't want to overreach in the clean-up here, but I need some help at bare minimum. Here are all the accounts I'm pretty sure are members, though there are likely more if there is indeed such a group:

• Akujobi Chimezie Blessed (talk · contribs): blocked 27 November (31 hours)
• Alexjos1858 (talk · contribs): 3 of their latest 4 edits reverted
• Breesamne (talk · contribs): p-blocked 27 November (1 week)
• Brown Stella (talk · contribs): blocked 26 November (1 week)
• Chrysolite123 (talk · contribs)
• Danielehisaiguokhian (talk · contribs): 6 of their latest 10 edits reverted
• Edifyhub (talk · contribs): warned for excessive linking yesterday
• Ekipnse1.0 (talk · contribs): blocked 24 November (31 hours)
• Egelan Solomon Lokidongoi (talk · contribs): only one edit, reverted
• Esther Adedoyin (talk · contribs) (not so sure, they registered earlier in February): blocked 28 November (1 month)
• Eyo Edem (talk · contribs): blocked 28 November (31 hours)
• FavourErusiac18 (talk · contribs): blocked 27 November (31 hours)
• Giddy001 (talk · contribs)
• Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk · contribs): blocked indef, reduced 29 November to 1 week
• Ogar peter Unimke (talk · contribs)
• OguikeRejoice21 (talk · contribs): latest 5 edits have been reverted
• Ojemba24 (talk · contribs): p-blocked 27 November (1 week)
• Olamide Sharon (talk · contribs): blocked 27 November (31 hours)
• Victoriautin2 (talk · contribs): 9 of their 10 latest edits reverted

Remsense ‥ 论 06:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Comments after the names added by Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC) )

@Remsense, you might want to notify WP:EDUN, in case this is related to some kind of class project. -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

According to UTRS appeal #97183, it's an Edit-a-thon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a group focusing on improving wikipedia articles from Nigeria. Our major area of edit is copyedit. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not know how to say this in the most polite way since I know everyone is trying to improve the site, but I have needed to revert almost all of the edits made by members of this group. Almost all of them are introducing errors of some kind. If I am being honest, I have to state plainly that this is not helping the site, but is in fact creating much more clean-up work for editors to do. I do not feel like I have the right to tell an edit-a-thon to stop, but it seems like this would be the ideal result for the wiki as it stands. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I second this. While some edits are a matter of English variety, many others just plain violate the WP:MOS, MOS:LINK, and other elements of the MOS, which must be fixed. I documented a few at User_talk:FavourErusiac18#November_2024, but anyone taking a look at the contributions of involved editors can see a clear pattern. Editor outreach is important, but the output has to at least be a net positive. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if these are mobile editors than WP:ICANTHEARYOU might apply to get them to engage with these concerns. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry: Wikipedia exists in many languages, including Hausa (link), Igbo (link), and Yoruba (link). If the people in your group lack the proficiency to copy-edit in English (which there is no shame in! I speak fluent French but can't easily copy-edit in it), perhaps they would be able to help more on one of those Wikipedias, which, besides, are in much greater need of new editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I perfectly understand your point. My group and I have discussed and we've realized where we went wrong. Some of the team members failed to consult our instructors (team leads) before publishing edits. Trust me, we are going to work to ensure this mistake is not repeated. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is discourage editors whose inclusion would make our community more diverse, so I hope my concerns are being taken in good faith here. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 08:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We truly appreciate your corrections, and we take your concerns to heart. Please accept our sincere apologies, and thank you very much for your understanding. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What I would also suggest is participants always reference our WP:Manual of Style, which is pretty easily searchable as well. Thank you for being receptive. Remsense ‥ 论 08:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry, if you are in a organizing position in this edit-a-thon, I must confess that seeing edits like this one makes me suspect the supervisors are themselves not adequately well-versed in English grammar and style to be able to contribute constructively. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What worries me is that they intend continuing to create problems until 2 December [2] - I really think this should be shut down now. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just spent time correcting egregious editing mistakes made by one of these editors, who is clearly not competent to be editing English WP. Their project here should be shut down immediately. Carlstak (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your observation. As I mentioned earlier, my team and I are strictly adhering to Wiki's guidelines to ensure that all edits we make are error-free. I can also assure you that all the editors on the team are proficient in the English language.

In regards to this, I humbly request that you explain some of the errors you have seen in our work/edits. This will also help us stay on the right track and prevent further complications.

Thank you so much for your concern and understanding. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit linked by Remsense adds "who is", which is unnecessary, and "way", also unnecessary and less formal. Changing "and" to "that is" shifted the subject of the later text in a way that changed the meaning of the sentence. CMD (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please just stop the unwanted edit-a-thon and save us all a lot of work? Apparently you have a team, but we don't see that team reverting the poor edits made by many people in this edit-a-thon, instead placing this burden on other editors here. The few improvements made through this project don't justify the large costs, and your assurances sound very hollow. Fram (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't need us to "explain some of the errors" you produced here, they should be rather obvious. Fram (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but while I know you intend to adhere to our guidelines, you simply are not doing so in practice. While the edits have gotten better, more are still errors for others to undo or clean up than are actual improvements. I really dislike the idea of dictating terms, but perhaps whatever group this is can call off the edit-a-thon for now, spend a bit of time studying our Manual of Style, and then maybe try again once all the participants feel they have a solid grasp of it. There are too many errors of diverse kinds for this endeavor to be viable, please understand that. Most of the participants' time is being wasted as well, since most of their edits have been reverted.Remsense ‥ 论 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry: I believe you that everyone is proficient in English. But proficiency is not the same thing as competence to copy-edit. Like I said, I am proficient in French—to the extent that you could drop me in the middle of France and forbid me from ever speaking English again, and I would be able to communicate perfectly... And yet, on the very rare occasions that I copy-edit the French Wikipedia, I do so very very cautiously, repeatedly checking their style guide, because I understand that my day-to-day proficiency doesn't make me a good copy-editor. Your participants are writing things like "In 1940s, the educational history started in Abeokuta". That is not proficient English. It's close enough to proficient English that, if it were a first draft of an article, it might not be an issue, but it's an issue when that's a change away from the previous "The 1940s were the start of educational history in Abeokuta" (which is problematic for other reasons, but at least better in relative terms). Please understand, this isn't purely an issue with English as a learned language, or a matter of any particular dialect of English. As someone who occasionally freelances as a copy-editor in English, I can tell you, I'd be out of work if not for the many native English speakers who don't know how to use commas, tenses, capital letters, etc. Still, I'll reiterate my suggestion that your participants may be better at copy-editing in other languages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say that I have also had to manually revert several good-faith-but-disruptive edits by some of these editors, and that I think something should be done to stop this group. Also: I suspect — in fact, I would even say that I am fairly confident about this — that some of the edits I reverted might have been AI suggestions.

@Nnamdi Kinghenry: look at the contributions of a user such as @Olamide Sharon. They are all good-faith, but pretty much all of them have had to be reverted (this is not immediately apparent from this user's list of contributions, because some of their edits have had to be reverted manually; but even then, looking at the proportion of "reverted" tags should tell you there is a problem). This is wasting everyone's time. Please make it stop. Malparti (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Do admins at least have the full list of users that are participating? I've collected like 30 more usernames here, all of which have checkered edit histories at best already. I can't even really post it here so people can patrol though, argh! What are we meant to do here, really? We're not an outfit set up to launder emotional labor to the ultimate benefit of Guinness World Records. Remsense ‥ 论 13:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not post the list of users, @Remsense? Seems like the easiest way to see if this effort is still damaging the encyclopaedia. qcne (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I quote you, "I have collected about 30 more usernames, all of which have checkered edit histories at best already." We are not even up to the number you just mentioned in my team. Now that you are saying you've spotted about 30 more usernames who have edit histories at their best already, it only explains the fact that anyone can make mistakes, especially on a platform like Wikipedia where there are strict guidelines that every editor must adhere to when making edits, no matter how small.

Sincerely, I feel really privileged to be part of this community. It's unfortunate that I've made mistakes that didn't go down well with other editors. But the thing is, I really think we should balance the energy when criticizing mistakes in an editor's edit and applauding them when they make outstanding edits.

I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands, of amateur editors here who make wrong edits daily. I don't totally frown upon this because learning comes with mistakes; these amateur editors won't learn how to make good edits without first making mistakes and being corrected with love and accordingly.

With all of that being said, I will continue to plead that my mistakes be pardoned. I have followed your comments here these past days and I have learned a lot, enough to make me do better in my edits. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"I will continue to plead that my mistakes be pardoned." Nnamdi Kinghenry, you keep begging for understanding and tolerance, yet you are not acknowledging the burden you and your editathon crew have imposed on other editors. This is selfish, to put it bluntly. Striving to win a place in the Guinness book of records is not in keeping with the requirement for editors to work on building an encyclopedia. Your egregious mistakes and those of your partners in your misguided project are a detriment to that goal. Enough is enough. Carlstak (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands, of amateur editors here who make wrong edits daily Yes. I don't want to guess at numbers, but if we look only at copyediting carried out as a "newcomer task", a pretty large proportion of those edits are problematic. As others have pointed out above, copyediting is hard, and the errors added by poor copyediting are not just minor grammar problems, but often involve changes in meaning – many of which probably go undetected. Many editors spend a lot of their time tracking and cleaning up such errors, and it is a frustrating task. Thus, seeing a large group of new, good-faith and enthusiastic editors committed to make lots of quick edits to get into the Guinness Book of Records, in a way that almost guarantees that the encyclopedia acquires a lot of errors, is very frustrating. Surely you can understand why people are pleading with you to advise the users you coordinate to stop copyediting? --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry, you say you have learned a lot, but I have yet to see a single editor from this editathon who has taken my advice and done literally anything other than copy editing. Whatever you have learned, it isn't the thing we're all trying so desperately to teach you. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry, you raise the idea of applauding them when they make outstanding edits, and I think that suggestion in this context illuminates the frustration happening on both sides right now: single copy-edits are never outstanding edits that get applauded. That is just one reason to stop copy-editing. On Wikipedia, an "edit" is the name for any kind of change that happens to an article: edit-a-thons usually focus on "editing" in the sense of creating and improving articles, not editing in the sense of copy-editing. The Guinness World Record holding edit-a-thon that you are trying to beat added almost 300 new articles to the Polish Wikipedia.

I have several times checked the contributions of this edit-a-thon because I want to give a barnstar award to those who make meaningful contributions. However, I continue to see only wasted potential. Please, Wikipedia is desperate for editors who know Nigerian languages and Nigerian history to add new information to our articles on these topics. Yakubu Itua is rated "high importance" by WikiProject Nigeria but it is a stub that cites no sources. If you found newspapers or textbooks that discussed him, especially some not written in English, and used that information to fact-check and expand this article, I at least would applaud. That kind of work really would expand the world's access to free knowledge, and build a better encyclopedia. It would be so much more worthwhile than dealing with random punctuation. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The Guinness World Record holding edit-a-thon that you are trying to beat added almost 300 new articles to the Polish Wikipedia. Phew. What a contrast. -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, please do post the list of users. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: @Asilvering: I can't find the comment that I was tagged in from my notifications now, as it dissapeared while I was typing this up, but can someone please explain why I was added to this list on the comment? I am from the east coast of the United States, have not edited any of the pages mentioned (I've only been editing the suggested pages that pop up), have not received any talk page communications that I'm aware of, am not aware of making any editing errors, and am most certainly not part of any West African groups of editors. Yes, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but I was not aware that I was doing so poorly to be included in this. I'm sorry, I'm just a little confused and this is my first foray in to trying to contribute to Wikipedia. What do I need to do from here?

Thesaltydispatcher (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thesaltydispatcher, you don't need to do anything, it's fine. Feel free to ignore this whole thread. I'll swing by your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the reply!

Thesaltydispatcher (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

List of new users, mostly probably innocent of anything, use with caution

I want to apologize, because I made the previous claim while collating. I've slept, read the replies, and gone back through it. Since I'm only working with account age, pages edited, and character of edits made, I decided I needed to filter out some names that either had too few edits, or otherwise were not likely enough. I'm only going to post 16 of my aforementioned 30, and I take full responsibility for dropping that higher figure on too preliminary a basis. Sorry. User:Avklion User:Enodgom User:GeorgeGeorge1984 User:HauberTheEditor User:JerryBeever User:Jfirebrace User:KeenEye4Detail User:Klingklang3 User:LaylaCares User:Lisagrace778 User:Mira Deamer User:MuhammedMustafaThePedian User:Ogar peter Unimke User:Palak11122 User:Sfbrtukggg User:Thesaltydispatcher Remsense ‥ 论 19:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Most of these look like normal newbies to me - do you mind if I hat this list? -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Please do. Like I said, making that claim before was far too preliminary, and I apologize. Remsense ‥ 论 19:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at things like this from today, I agree that this is yet another problematic Nigerian editing project and that it would be best if it was shut down and some of the editors warned and if necessary blocked per WP:CIR. Fram (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If any of the above accounts have been warned and continue to edit disruptively, let us know - I am happy to block to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 16:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry: You asked above for an explanation of some of the errors in your group's edits, so that you can improve them. The edit at Bangladeshi English literature by Edifyhub linked above by Fram begins with a change from is also now referred to to is referrers' to, a gross syntax error. The change from He is more remembered for his social reforms, but also contributed to to He was remembered for his social reforms, also contributed to breaks the syntax less seriously—"contributed" is left without a subject by breakage of the parallel structure—but reduces the meaning by removing "more" and changes it by implying he is no longer remembered. Not a matter of grammar or meaning but of protocol in quotation, the removal of the brackets from [h]e at the start of a quotation misrepresents the quote as not having been the start of a new sentence in the original. This copyedit degraded rather than improved the article. Furthermore, Fram could usefully have linked to the previous edit, by Alexjos1858. That edit began by confusing the syntax of the opening sentence, changing refers to the body of literary work written in the English language in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi diaspora to refers to the body of literary works written in English language, Bangladesh and Bangladeshi diaspora, where the omission of "the" is an error and the new comma is required to do altogether too much work; the change from "work" to "works" mentioned in the edit summary is more a matter of taste, but "body of work" is a fixed phrase so better left that way. The change from is a writer, translator and academic to is a writer, translator and an academic breaks grammatical parallelism. Most seriously, the edit introduced numerous subject–verb agreement errors: Early prominent Bengali writers in English includes; Modern writers of the Bangladeshi diaspora includes; The following lists shows; Notable works includes; ecstasies and frustrations engulfs; His works includes, Her pangs of separation adds; The contemporary Bangladeshi English writers ... who represents; diaspora generations who are living abroad and feels; the first-generation Bangladeshi immigrants who feels (the last one produced by pluralisation of the subject rather than sticking an -s on the verb, 2 instances of which the editor listed in their edit summary as if they thought it required for plural subjects). Overall, that was a very bad edit. (It did, however, fix one agreement error, changing the narrative of the stories entangle to the narrative of the stories entangles, add the missing indefinite article to still virgin, and remove an erroneous space between full stop/period and reference. Both editors missed 2 instances of Hindu college.) Both edits degraded the article and have now been reverted by Remsense; editors who introduce those kinds of errors, especially the agreement errors, should not be copyediting in English. In addition, Alexjos1858's edit is tagged "Newcomer task" and "Newcomer task: copyedit", but the only maintenance tag I see on the article relates to its referencing. Is this task force/editathon misinterpreting inclusion in the suggested tasks list as meaning the article needs copyediting? There's a specific category for that. "Copyediting" articles that haven't been flagged as needing it—and usually have been looked over by several editors with native or near-native English competency—is at best a wasted effort, and finding so many things to change in an article like that should have been a signal that maybe your group is doing copyediting wrong. This effort should be scrapped and rethought. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is the latest edit from the person leading this editathon. Little added value, and at least two clear errors (changing "In" to "n" and changing "the operation and the other" to "the operation, while and the other"). Enough already. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think copyediting is working here. We undeniably need more material on west African topics, perhaps focus on that rather than English corrections as people are not understanding the tone and are making things worse. Secretlondon (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Example: yesterday, 3 editors from this project descended on one article, resulting in an article which was clearly worse in many respects: [3]. This comes after all assurances that things would get stopped, improved, checked, ... Fram (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For some reason (to avoid scrutiny?) they have now switched from the newcomer tasks to editing other articles in the same vein. I already gave the example below of Kinghenry editing a featured article, but Akujobi Chimezie Blessed, Alexjos1858, FavourErusiac18, Giddy001, Ojemba24 and Olamide Sharon have all suddenly today started editing outside the newcomer tasks. I doubt it is an improvement to let these editors loose on articles like Literature, Guinness World Records or Jeff Bezos... Fram (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Mainspace block for Nnamdi Kinghenry

Can someone please mainspace block User:Nnamdi Kinghenry? After all the above, they now changed "The company also engages in the manufacturing, installation, wholesale, and retail of various types of electrical and mechanical equipment" into "The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment"[4]. Coupled with the copyvio warnings from Diannaa, and the problematic results when they try anything more than just copy-editing (e.g. this from yesterday), and we are left with a net negative. With a mainspace block, they can perhaps finally start with the projectspace edits to coordinate and improve this project they are leading. Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fram Also: to me, the edit summary "The text was refined for clarity, conciseness, and consistency. "Established" was replaced with "founded" for a more direct tone, and operations were described as "globally expanded" with an 8% market share for brevity. "Representing" was adjusted to "accounting for" to enhance flow. The second paragraph was streamlined by replacing "various types of" with "a wide range of" and improving specificity by changing "telecommunication equipment" to "telecommunication devices."" screams ChatGPT (or some other LLM)... Malparti (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Please @Asilvering, Is it wrong to use AI in writing edit summary? Once or twice, i think i have used AI to refine my edit summaries to make sure they are well constructed and readable for other editors.

I feel like there is nothing wrong with that. @Asilvering Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Using AI in edit summaries is discouraged as it might not know why you made specific changes, and doesn't always have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and of the Manual of Style. Using wording like "globally expanded" can sometimes add a promotional tone and isn't necessarily recommended, while switching "various types of" to "a wide range of" doesn't really "streamline" anything and only replaces an expression by a mildly more promotional synonym. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry, there's nothing about using AI to write an edit summary that is against the rules - to be honest, this is probably one of the least bad ways to use generative AI on Wikipedia. But along with what Chaotic Enby has said, the problem with using AI is that it makes you look incompetent. When other editors are already raising concerns about your ability to do copy-editing work, using AI is a really bad look. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add, now that I'm looking at everyone else's contributions to figure out if everyone involved needs a time out, these AI-generated summaries are really annoying. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry Using AI to improve phrasing / correct spelling mistakes in edit summaries is fine, although completely unnecessary: no one cares how beautifully edit summaries are written as long as they are clear. Moreover, I would assume that when you decide to change something in an article, you know exactly why and are be able to explain it without the need for an AI (which can only give a factual description of the changes and a guess as to what they try to achieve — something other editors could also come-up with simply by looking at the diff).

The problem is that, in the case of your group (where many of edits were "change for the sake of change" — or, as ChatGPT would put it "rewording of for clarity, conciseness, and structural consistency"), it also suggests that some of the edits themselves were done using AI. As, as a matter of fact, I'm convinced I came across a few instances where the editor simply pasted a paragraph in ChatGPT, asking it to correct mistakes and improve it; and then copied the output in Wikipedia.

Also: "Once or twice, i think i have used AI to refine my edit summaries" → I believe you are lying and that a few hours prior to writing this you had been using some AI to write way more more than two edit summaries; and same thing the day before that. So, unless I am mistaken, "Yes, I have used AI to refine my edit summaries several times" would have been a more honest reply. Being dishonest is not helping your cause. Malparti (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Pblocked. Sheesh. -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting that he's responded on his talk page, but I've encouraged him to participate in this thread and address the concerns of editors here. I have no objection to any other admin lifting this block if it's judged to no longer be necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fram. I understand your concern in ensuring all edits made on this space follows the standards. But i humbly do not see reasons why you made a reference on the edit i made on this article. Comparing the initial article to what i edited it to, one can see that there is nothing wrong with the edit. What i did there was simply copy editing.

Correct me if I'm wrong; "Copy editing encompasses a wide range of tasks. Copy editors not only correct spelling and grammar errors but also improve sentence structure, eliminate jargon, and ensure consistency in style and tone. They verify facts, conduct research to fill any knowledge gaps, and suggest changes to enhance clarity and impact". What i did in that article was carefully improving the sentence structure, ensuring consistency of the style and tone.

I feel it's rather too personal that you suggested my account to be mainspace blocked; all editors cannot have the same understanding about an article. I think is rather more ethical that you simply call my attention when you don't agree with my edits while we put heads together to come up with something better. We all have just one aim here; to contribute to improving wikipedia community

I humbly seek that you see reasons with me...

Thank you so much. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You changed a sentence to this: The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including telecommunication devices and home appliances. That is not grammatically correct English. It's one thing to make an error once in a while, everyone does. But if you do not understand what is wrong with that even after someone points out the edit as a problem, you should not be copy editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @MrOllie. I think i understand now the mistake.

Thank you. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie beat me to it: You are wrong. If you can't see what's wrong with: "The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including...", you should not be "copyediting" anything. You and your crew are messing up articles. Please cease and desist. Carlstak (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, they today tried their copy-editing skills with the featured article(!) Michael Jordan: this changed e.g. "Citing physical and mental exhaustion from basketball and superstardom, Jordan abruptly retired from basketball before the 1993–94 NBA season" to "In [[1993 NBA Finals|1993,]] citing physical and mental exhaustion from basketball and superstardom, Jordan retired before 1993–94 NBA season" (nowiki added by me to show the easter egg piping, including the comma within the link, linking to the final for no good reason at all as that was not when this happened: note also the missing "the" near the end). Fram (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nnamdi Kinghenry: If you have to use ChatGPT or something to ensure your edit summary is clear—when all it is is a summary of what you did—that in itself indicates you should not be copyediting articles for clarity. I wrote a lengthy comment above, laying out the English errors in two edits by different participants in your editathon. I see you continuing to thank people for explaining, here and on your talk page, but you have not said you understand that the grammar and syntax in the edits by the group are not good enough, and are not improvements but make the articles worse. I made the point that if an article is not tagged as needing copyedit, it probably doesn't need a copyedit anyway, and the fact that editors in your group—including you—see a need to make copyediting changes is a sign that your judgement of what is and is not good and clear English is poor. Since the disruption has continued and indeed has spread to articles recognised as among our best, the whole group should be p-blocked from article space, not just you. It's a pity, because en.wiki badly needs more articles on Nigerian topics, and more references to reliable sources in those we have. (Indeed both of those are needs not just in Nigerian topics.) But it does not need copyedits from people whose English is not up to the task.

I'm also disturbed by the middle paragraph of the passage at the top of User talk:Alexjos1858 (added by the editor on 29 October to start the page): I am always open to collaborate with you reading this. I will be breaking a Guinness World Record which is the longest Edit-a-thon Nigeria, next month. I'm going to work a lot for those days of marathon editing. Is that the reason for this editathon, attempting to break a Guinness World Record? If so, I object to en.wiki being disrupted as a quasi-sport. P-block the whole group, please. (In any case, Nnamdi Kinghenry has at least been engaging with us, albeit apparently via an LLM.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so the "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239 § Longest Edit-a-thon official Guinness World Record attempt on Wikipedia" question comes from the same group. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to engage in good faith so far, but if that's the real aim here that is an incredibly egregious waste of our time and that of the editors. Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the list blocking the worst offenders. So far I've observed that not all of them have been equally warned, so in some cases I'll just be leaving a final warning for now. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I leave it to you if you think Danielehisaiguokhian (OP of the above Teahouse post) should be part of the list. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352, thanks for the reminder. I've added them to the list and left a note on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering why was Nnamdi Kinghenry indef blocked from article space for some grammar mistakes? The only example given was the sentence The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including telecommunication devices and home appliances. which becomes correct if you remove an extra "and" or two. It doesn't look like these editors are being treated fairly. CyberIdris (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered reading any of the thread, rather than stuffing "some grammar mistakes" into Asilvering's mouth as the reason? Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered not being civil? I've read it. Why would an indef block ever be used toward a new editor acting in good faith? Nnamdi Kinghenry is demonstrating a desire to rectify any issues so it seems purely punitive.

It also looks like not everyone was blocked, and for those who were most of the blocks were temporary and narrowly scoped to pages, so I'm wondering why there's such a large discrepancy here. CyberIdris (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@CyberIdris, "indefinite" means "until you can convince an admin the block is no longer necessary". I stated as soon as I set it that I have no objection to any other admin lifting this block if it's judged to no longer be necessary. Honestly, I was expecting to be able to lift it myself within 24 hours or so, and left that message so that if I happened to be away or sleeping at the time, any other admin would feel able to end the block without waiting for a response from me. Instead, however, the whole rest of this thread happened, and editors are continuing to make disruptive edits. Since it no longer looks like it will be resolved quickly, I'll adjust the block from indefinite to a week instead, so that it will end automatically without need for an appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That sentence does not become correct by removing ands. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It does.

The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales, and retails a wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including telecommunication devices and home appliances. CyberIdris (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wholesales and retails with the senses they have here are not acceptable verbs to use in formal English, but I have a feeling you already knew that and are being egregiously WP:POINTy if not trolling outright. Remsense ‥ 论 00:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Things editathon participants can do that aren't copyediting

Okay. So you're blocked from editing or worried about being blocked from editing and you still want to take part in this editathon. If this describes you, I'm honestly pretty impressed with your persistence and I'd like you to keep editing. But I really, really do not want you to keep making copyedits that drive everyone else crazy. Here are some other things you can do:

• Edit a different language edition of Wikipedia. For example, we have Igbo Wikipedia, Hausa Wikipedia, and Yoruba Wikipedia.
• Expand some stubs. These are very short articles that could use some more information. Almost anything you add will be an improvement, so long as you remember to use reliable sources. There are over 7000 stub articles about Nigerian topics.
• Integrate articles on Nigerian topics into the rest of the encyclopedia. There are over 400 articles in this list because no other articles on Wikipedia link to them. Find an article that ought to link to one of these articles, and make a wikilink.
• Find citations for articles that don't have any. There are 165 articles on Nigerian topics that have no sources at all.
• Find citations for information that is lacking citations. There are over 1600 articles on Nigerian topics that need sources (click the link and scroll down a bit).

I'm sure other editors can give other suggestions, too. Just lay off the copy edits, please. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're blocked for 31 hours, please spend the time you'd have spent editing reading guides like WP:V and WP:RS. If you're blocked from mainspace, you can still engage on article talk pages and elsewhere in the project. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The notifications shows that we're both in same thought to improve articles on Wikipedia. But I'd like to draw your attention to something important. The idea of discouraging "good-faith editors" from the platform is alarming. I've hardly seen where editors are praised for contributing well. Its been from one criticism to another when they mistakenly do something wrong. I think editors at all levels need to be encouraged to do better as most experts were once there.

This is my observation honestly. We can do better. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We have offered plenty of constructive advice and guidance to editors attempting to improve the encyclopedia here. Frankly, your criticism is totally unwarranted. The edit-a-thon has produced a sizable mess, and we've been very patient so far. It should've been stopped or reconsidered earlier, and these are merely the minimum necessary measures we need to take to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That is the only reason why blocks are given, which you would know if you've consulted any of the links posted so far.

Given repeated warnings were given to editors beforehand and the competitive nature of why they are editing, it is totally expected that continued disruption would earn a temporary block, regardless of whether they were editing in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I understand your point. So, what's the way forward now? Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been many points of advice already offered to editors in this thread. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's okay. We'll work with it. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, yet another one states "my team are currently working on our mistakes" (and the previous message, "we made a few mistakes"), but is now threatening Remsense in a rather over the top fashion: "It was Remsense that defamed us and that is sacrilegious." and "If other experienced editors from those countries mentioned above sees this, Remsense won't find it funny again." This from an editor who has had countless of his recent edits reverted (not just the ones tagged as reverted, but also things like this or this or this dreadful one, changing "wire fence" to "wired fence" "because the tone there is a past tense."). This feels more and more like an elaborate group trolling us, instead of an actual effort to improve Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That feels pretty bad to read, and if there's any way I could've gone about this as not to offer even a modicum of possibility for people to interpret my statements this way, I wish I had done that. It was pretty clear the group was at least mainly Nigerian when I originally posted, but given it was possible some editors could've been from elsewhere I chose not to be specific out of ignorance, but I see how that was taken the wrong way. The last thing I would want to do is make a group of editors from an egregiously underrepresented region onwiki feel like they shouldn't be contributing. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense for what it's worth: I think you've been handling all of this remarkably well. I understand how you feel about risking discouraging editors from underrepresented regions on wiki to contribute, but here we are talking about a group of people whose main motivation seems to be using Wikipedia to break a Guinness World Record — so you have to put in balance {the possibility that some of these editors are going to stick around once they have obtained their medal} vs {the mess they created and the time they made everyone else waste to get this medal}. You've been extremely polite and helpful with these editors. If they get offended or put off contributing to Wikipedia, there was really nothing you could do about it. Cheers, Malparti (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I just feel everyone is just angry or there's a misunderstanding which is normal when dealing with humans. What I feel is, instead of just going about telling new editors or blocking them when they go against the rules right away, there should be a better way to address it. Because, majority of new editors are really genuine and becoming perfect at something, one has to make mistakes. I think experienced editors should serve as a guide and not threats to new editors. This way, new editors would feel at home and really contribute to this community.

They may read the Manual of style several times and not understand it. But when they put to work the little they've learnt and are corrected or guided, they'll get it better. We all learn things differently.

This is what I feel.

Please, let's make Wikipedia a better place. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, we have warned the editors repeatedly, but the issue is they are all at once continuing to make disruptive edits. Temporary blocks are the only way to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia in circumstances such as these. When there is an edit-a-thon, the incentive is to make edits quickly, which is the root of this entire problem. Remsense ‥ 论 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I declined to block all of you, like participants in this thread were asking for. Please do understand that the established editors who have raised the alarm here are feeling upset and harried, like I'm sure editathon participants have. Please, pick something other than copy editing - this isn't a task that English Wikipedia really needs done, to be perfectly honest - and try out the list of tasks I suggested at the top of this subheading. There are all kinds of things you can do here that we would really quite sincerely appreciate. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been "corrected or guided" countless times, but you don't "get it better". Just like from your colleagues in this discussion, we always get assurances of improvements, changes, learning, ... but everything continues as before. When you announced this edit-a-thon a month ago[5] you were "corrected and guided" by multiple editors: "Perhaps it would be wise to have the understanding first before attempting your task." "180 hours worth of edits like these will be a nightmare for other editors to put right!", "I would strongly suggest you forget about the Edit-a-thon and get a few thousand edits under your belt first." and "Please don't. Your contributions to date show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines". You replied "I'm really grateful to editors here, for helping me. Your suggestions are great and are helpful.", did nothing with any of the advice, and continued just like you wanted, with the disastrous results that were predicted. You are not interested in learning or taking advice. Fram (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A major problem here, I think, is that guidelines can be learned relatively quickly, but the problem here is in large part one of English grammar competency. That takes years and years. The only advice that will work in this regard is to avoid trying to make copy edits. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hand-on-heart time. You guys have not got the English skills to write at this level. However there are Wikipedias in Nigerian languages that would love your help. Or, as suggested above, you could do things like add wikilinks which don't require this standard of English. Secretlondon (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that since (it seems) we live in the same city, I would be willing to visit this place and give them some guidance, if they are willing. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans, they've been posting on Facebook ([6]), if you want to contact them there. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Not on social media but this is a starting point. Thank Asilvering. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 01:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added some indications of the widespread scale of the ongoing issues at the list of users at the start of this section. Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

This was already noted above

It looks like this distruptive editing is connected to this ongoing Guinness World Record attempt. May we begin to ask why this was not disclosed here, given that this discussion has been ongoing for quite some time? Shoerack (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC) It was mentioned above by Yngvadottir.-- Ponyobons mots 22:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Oh... Thank you. I didn’t see that. Shoerack (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban appeal of User:Baqiyah

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

---

The following is the appeal of Baqiyah, who is requesting that their 3X ban be removed. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mods!

First and foremost, I want to offer my sincere apologies for my past mistakes. I recognize the harm I caused, and I am committed to facing my actions and working to regain the trust of this community. It has been around eight months or so since I was last blocked, and during this time, I deeply reflected on my actions and fully understood the gravity of my past violations. I also took the time to further educate myself on the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia in order to never repeat any of the same mistakes again. After waiting more than the mandatory six-month period since my block, I am now requesting the opportunity to appeal my ban through the WP:UNBAN process.

To provide some context and clarity, I’d like to explain how things went wrong. I began editing with my main account, YousefSW07 , without a clear focus or understanding of Wikipedia's policies. My edits were indiscriminate, and I lacked knowledge about the topics I was editing. As a result, I made many mistakes, including engaging in edit wars and arguing with administrators, unaware that these actions were violations of community guidelines. When that account was blocked, I created S Molecular in an attempt to bypass the restrictions, stupidly thinking I could continue editing undetected. I engaged in more edit warring and was eventually banned and caught for sock puppetry. I now fully understand that I should not have done this whatsoever and there is no justification for what I did.

Instead of learning from my mistakes, I created several other accounts—Burhim, Lybcarian, Walgart, and FazeTK—thinking I could simply avoid violating the guidelines and escape detection. But I was wrong, and I was banned on all of these accounts as well. After a short period of time, I created Baqiyah, stupidly thinking that if I started fresh and followed the guidelines, I should be fine. I worked on creating new pages and made efforts to abide by the rules, but I was still a sockpuppet, I was then caught again, as I should have.

At this point, I took a break from editing and waited out the mandatory six-month period before appealing. Since then, I have spent additional time reflecting on the harm I caused and disciplining myself. I fully understand why I was banned multiple times, and I sincerely apologize for my actions and the disruption they caused to the community.

I now realize that true contribution to Wikipedia requires a commitment to the community's values (collaboration, transparency, and respect for policies). I am truly sorry for betraying those values in the past, and I am asking for the chance to prove that I can contribute constructively moving forward. I want to be an active, positive part of Wikipedia, working alongside other editors and adhering strictly to the rules. I also very much understand if there is any concern regarding my unban and am willing to answer any questions you may have.

I humbly ask for the opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute in a way that reflects the integrity and spirit of Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my appeal. Sincerely Baqiyah 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

They are  Confirmed to Syria4you and Skibidy rizz. So nope. Spicy (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was easy I guess. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousefsw07 is the SPI if you want to add that to the record. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

More like Ohio rizz. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Issue with reverting major vandalism

There has been vandalism on the Age of consent article by User:Nhwr, however it cannot be reverted since a url is one of the citations he removed is blocked. Please see the article and you will stright away see the vandalism. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the blacklisted source, reverted the edit, and warned Nhwr. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the edit in question was made by User:Nhwj, not User:Nhwr. The latter editor hasn't been active for many years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I warned Nhwj despite typing Nhwr above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I don't get it, Nhwj didn't remove the blacklisted source (you removed it), why was Terrainman's revert setting the blacklist off? – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

voorts reverted manually and removed the source when they restored the edit. Terrainman was not able to use undo/revert because of the blacklist. At least I think that's what happened, I don't see any filter log entries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I tried to revert as well but couldn't because of the blacklist, so I undid the edit and then manually removed the citation to faqs.org. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @ActivelyDisinterested has fixed the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, Nhwj's edit broke a reference, which turned the entire By Continents section (and more) into a reference error, this 'removed' the blacklist link (by transforming the part of the text where it was in into the error) which in turn made the algorithm think the revert was 'readding' it.

It now makes much more sense why Terrainman called it major vandalism, despite it looking like a small change. – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference in cases like this you can use rollback which ignores the blacklist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I initially tried using UltraViolet, which should have used rollback, but that didn't work. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, some UltraViolet edits are tagged (and presumably use) Undo, while some are tagged Rollback... No idea how it decides between the two, though it seems to show up in the edit summary as well. I mostly use Twinkle myself, and I don't think I've ever seen reverts made from that be tagged as Rollback instead of Undo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Determining consensus

Over nine months ago at Talk:Internet_celebrity#Splitting_article I proposed splitting Internet celebrity and Influencer with User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Influencer. No determination has been made. Should I seek administrator action or an WP:RFC or some other process? The topic has already been at WP:RM/TR ([7].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just at a glance, it isn't clear to me what admin actions you would be looking for. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can admin determine if there is a consensus to split? Can someone give me advice on the propriety of an RFC?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to point this out, this is nine months ago. Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily feel comfortable closing a discussion that old with any reliable measure of confidence in the outcome. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IMO you can probably WP:JUSTDOIT, since CommunityNotesContributor is the only other contributor to that sandbox article it's probably easier just to copy and paste it into mainspace and note that CommunityNotesContributor also made edits, with or without linking to the diffs. If anyone objects they can do the R and D parts of BRD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why a cut and paste would be better than a move that would preserve the history. The move would require an admin though since the target of the move is already a redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a page ban for Aearthrise

In under two years, Aearthrise (talk · contribs) has completely dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch-article, contributing over 75% of its content and making 80% of all edits [8][9]. During this period, his personal and professional conduct concerning this article has been highly problematic up to the present: Aearthrise has repeatedly disregarded WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV, shows clear signs of WP:OWN and has made repeated personal attacks and involved himself in edit-warring. Examples of this behavior includes a disregard for using reliable sources and showing bullying behavior [10][11][12] [13][14][15][16][17], pushing personal preferences (demanding a different font be used for the article), edit warring and making insulting remarks [18][19][20][21][22][23][24], spamming (RFC-)discussions with Ai-generated text, trying to remove alternative views and using unreliable and/or unsuitable sources [25][26][27] [28][29][30][31], including this survey [32] on the first 50 references added by Aearthrise, of which nearly half were found to be either untrustworthy, self published and/or more than a century old.

To put it very bluntly: this user is trying to turn a Wikipedia-article in to a personal page about his own claimed heritage [33]) and is trying to shape this heritage to his own preferences. Users who doubt him or disagree, are either spammed or bullied into submission, or ignored altogether.

In June 2024, I alerted the admins to much of this behavior (see here), but this request was quickly spammed with text; and although other users did get involved and confirmed Aearthrise's behavior as being highly problematic, no formal action was taken. Despite this, Aearthrise subsequently left the article alone for some time; which essentially froze the conflict. Recently however, Aearthrise has resumed editing the article and immediately started removing all of the cite- and request-for-sources-tags that had been added previously to his remaining and highly dubious sources [34], is once again trying to include wording like "German Pennsylvania" [35] (an article he previously created, which then got deleted for being OR [36]) [37], adding OR [38] and by adding images taken from news sites and uploaded (by Aearthrise himself) to Wikimedia Commons under a false public domain-license.[39]. In other words: he's again repeating his disruptive and damaging MO.

He has been repeatedly asked to stop his behavior [40][41][42]; but simply refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy, instead insisting that his outdated/unreliable sources are fine and that others should 'prove him wrong' [43][44].

In the previous request for intervention here, @SnowFire: made a very poignant analyses of Aearthrise's behavior [45] which he ended with the following remark: "If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning. If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order. But I'm hoping that isn't necessary.".

In light of all that happened a few months ago and all that's seemingly about to repeat itself, I'd like to now formally request for this page ban.

In my opinion this page ban doesn't need to be permanent, but long enough for (the sources involved with) this article to be thoroughly examined by other users without them being harassed, bullied or spammed while doing so: the pattern of toxicity which has surrounded this article for the past two years, needs to be broken. I kindly ask the admins here to intervene. Vlaemink (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for one week while this is evaluated further. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Voorts. Unfortunately Vlaemink has been trying to bully me by threatening to complain to administration to get his way. I've told him that he is abusing of the Administration notification system, as he has tried to get me banned from the page before.

He claimed then that I am doing WP:OWN, but he had no evidence to show that, and indeed I stepped from the article for a half year. Especially now, this is a baseless accusation.

He is now trying to ban me again because he claims that sources that have an older publish date are automatically unreliable, which responded that it's not the case and that reliable sources are those can be verified, and that he should read WP:AGEMATTERS to understand what categories are time sensitive.

Vlaemink recently removed content from the page from a source from the United States Government, claiming that it was WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and that it was unreliable, only based on the fact that it was published in 1883. I asked him is the United States Government an unreliable source? And he didn't respond.

The problem here is a lack of willingness to cooperate or to understand the policies of Wikipedia better.

Anyhow, you can read the whole history on Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch, and you can see what has happened over time. Aearthrise (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: could you please condense this down into about one paragraph, preferably with diffs bulleted and a brief explanation as to how each diff is problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Aerthrise's edits at California Cantonese (formerly Chinese Americans in the California gold rush) are also extremely problematic. I have never heard of this term, and none of the sources added use it. Google Scholar has 12 hits for the phrase, and most are splices (... and the news of the Gold Rush of California. Cantonese communities later memorized this large wave of migration). This seems to be either incompetence or synthesis. This is similar to earlier edits (note an AFD from June) and they have no other edits; if no suitable explanation is forthcoming the action should be an indef block and not just a pageban. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for Aerthrise to respond here and for Vlaemink to condense their complaint before I take any action, but another admin should obviously feel free to take any action they see fit. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still looking at the Pennsylvania Dutch article; the two easiest-to-understand complaints (that Aearthrise has made a lot of edits, and that some of the sources are over a century old) are not problematic on their own. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are five citations for California Cantonese:

"Using the Words that Were Theirs Dialect, Accented Speech and Languages Other Than English in Asian American and American Indian Literature, Barbara Downs Hodne, 1995, pg.18": Through the narrator's perspective, we see California Cantonese as defining a complex and disjunctive linguistic identity.

"The Story Behind the Dish Classic American Foods, Mark McWilliams, 2012, pg.142": ...the cookies growth from Japanese traditions; another confidently asserts that they are a "true California Cantonese tradition".

"Departing Tong-Shaan: The Organization and Operation of Cantonese Overseas Emigration to America (1850-1900)

Volume 4 The Gum-Shaan Chronicles: The Early History of Cantonese-Chinese America, 1850-1900, Douglas W. Lee, PhD, 2024, pg.301": ...Hakka totals, while small, remained somewhat consistent, even as their "market share" declined steadily in the period 1860-1889. The slight change in this group's numbers over the decades is generally insignificant because its totals remained the smallest in nineteenth-century California's Cantonese community.

"California Magazine - Volume 7, Issues 1-4, University of California, 1982, pg. 91": California's Cantonese considered anything outside of Canton as North. Aearthrise (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Assignment Peking, Issues 1-4, Edward S. Aarons, 1989, pg. 33": She spoke unnaturally, in English. "I can only speak California Cantonese..."

The California Cantoense name is more recent, as historically this community was usually called "California Chinese", but recent immigration since the reopening of China in the 1970's has made the term also include recent Mandarin speakers, who don't represent the scope of the article. For that reason the more specific was chosen for the sake of clarity. Aearthrise (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Also this speech from Walsh90210 about California Cantonese has nothing to do with the complaint Vlaemink is launching now, so lets focus on that instead of opening a separate can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because any problems are not isolated to a single article. That said, there is already a very long discussion about this at Talk:California#California name header, where several other editors have pointed out these issues. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This charge from Vlaemink is isolated to a single article, Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with any other articles. You're saying it does, but that's just an opinion. We should stay on track with the issue at hand, not open another can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct is at issue here, and your edits regarding other ethnic groups are relevant to your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That's about an ethnic group, not claiming a language exists. Secretlondon (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page archives, I see a few possible concerns from the past 18 months at Pennsylvania Dutch:

• Aearthrise wants certain quotes to be in the Fraktur font. No other editor has supported this, and I do not see any recent edit-warring on the issue.
• There are disagreements on how to explain that "Dutch" has a shared etymology with "Deutsch". This is a normal part of the editing process; if any Vlaemink's behavior here is more problematic.
• Poor use of sourcing. This might be where there is a pattern of problematic editing. But the use of quotes from 19th century diaries, etc. isn't necessarily problematic, and Aearthrise doesn't seem hostile towards replacing content sourced to defunct blogs etc.

Overall, the behavior at Pennsylvania Dutch should be cause for increased scrutiny (and the edit-warring justifies the temporary protection), but I don't see the case for an indef-block based solely on behavior at that article. I am more concerned about the tendentious behavior related to California Cantonese than any diff I have seen at Pennsylvania Dutch. If there are specific diffs I missed among the 38 diffs listed from the past 18 months which are relevant, somebody (ideally Vlaemink) should identify them. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this summary Walsh90210; as for the Fraktur font, it has already been removed, as we've come to a consensus on the talk page through an RFC post. Aearthrise (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

---

My findings:

• Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and dismissive attitude toward other editors appears to be part of a long-term pattern of behavior (see this discussion from August 2023 and this discussion from March 2024).
• Some examples of Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, casting of aspersions, and personalizing disputes with Vlaemink:
  • Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn (the whole purpose of Wikipedia), and is evident based on all of the thin arguments you've proposed. (19 June 2024)
  • This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego. (20 June 2024)
  • Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system. (26 November 2024)
• Aearthrise has bludgeoned this ongoing discussion and exhibited an IDHT attitude towards editors who have told him that consensus for his addition is not developing.
• In terms of content, I'm concerned that Aearthrise thinks that self-published books (Special:Diff/1230587470) and websites (Special:Diff/1230718720) are reliable sources. I'm also concerned with their conflation of historical research and writing (Special:Diff/1259009121), which does value original research of primary sources, with writing an encyclopedic article that summarizes the secondary historical literature.

I am formally warning Aearthrise that this method of communicating with others is not acceptable. I also think a one-way indefinite IBAN toward Vlaemink would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your summary voorts.

I don't understand the terminology "IDHT attitude" nor "IBAN", if that means what you call "bludgeoning" (giving an answer to most responses), but I try to do everything in the best interests of Wikipedia readers, i.e. to give the best quality articles.

I don't believe self-published books are reliable, as I mentioned about Yorgey's book, "I agree that Yorgey's book should be paired with another quote". It was a personal memoir published from a Pennsylvania Dutchman who lived and faced discrimination during World War 2, and unfortunately has passed away, and I found his memoirs to be a relevant view for the article.

I don't believe random websites are reliable sources either; I do however attempt to get as many as possible sources to give information to an article- 99% being peer reviewed books (from Google Books) pertinent to the article.

I understand the importance of reliablity, I also understand the importance of cooperation, and I do cooperate with any community consensus.

Again I thank you for the effort you put into this investigation, and I wish you all the best voorts. Aearthrise (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Aearthrise, you've had an account on Wikipedia for 11 years now. You don't have to be familiar with every policy or guideline acronym but you should know how to look them up: WP:IDNHT and WP:IBAN will inform you of what is being referred to.

Instead of attacking Vlaemink, did you have a response to all of the diffs/edits he shared in his report on your editing? It would help you if you could respond to any of these personal insults he noted in his complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

About the "diffs that he added, is that he's dredging old posts from early June and July; there was already a consensus we came to on on the older Admin talk page where he reported me earlier.

I have tried to work very calmly and peacefully with Vlaemink ever since July, and I don't see how any of our new interactions could be considered "toxic". I left the article for him, for half a year, and as soon as I returned to start editing, he didn't want to cooperate at all, and has reverted content on sole basis that it was from older publication date.

I don't think that it's right that the older diffs are being repeated here, as if this continued behavior since then, it's not.

I made a pledge to be kinder and not bring ego into the discussions. I used to get frustrated and angry, and all of those diffs that Vlaemink has added are from that older time before July.

As for the sentence "Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system.", this is in regards to repeatedly claiming that a source from the US government was WP:OR and unreliable only because it had an older publishing date 1883.

The quote was The High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal, a weekly German newspaper, was founded by Joseph Crellius as early as 1743...., as this was being added for a citation about the High Dutch Pennsylvania being an early newspaper from 1743 on the Pennsylvania Dutch page.

This is in direct response to an earlier attempt to reason and cooperate with him:

This is social history, and the social history doesn't change like physics or an applied science. Indeed, the older sources are the best for this culture, as its cultural height was written about mostly before World War 1 and 2.

Sources don't need to be contemporary to be valid. They only need to be true, so you need to prove that they're untrue or unreliable; just making a claim from them having an older publication date is not a valid reason to say they're unreliable.

I recommend you read WP:AGE MATTERS to understand what categories are time-sensitive.

He didn't want to listen to it, and instead acted belligerently, threatening me with complaining to administration for even speaking to him about why sources from older publications in this case are fine.

I let him know that firmly, but not in disrepectful way- and I explained exactly how I interpreted his actions.

Now he has complained to the administration, and he's trying very hard to get me banned from editing a page that I have contributed greatly to; all I care about is providing a good article, and if he can help me in that, I am more than grateful for it. Aearthrise (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: Thank you for adding the WPs Liz, I appreciate it. Espescially with WP:IDHT, I see that when I do try answer every response, it could be seen as hearing but not listening.

I'll work on that, and again I thank you. Aearthrise (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I said my piece in the previous discussion. I hope that people do not overly fault Vlaemink for long ANI posts. Just because someone is long-winded doesn't mean they are "wrong", and when I investigated the last time I found that Vlaemink was largely correct in everything they brought up. I remain concerned that Aearthrise's style of analysis and citation is simply not in keeping with Wikipedia expectations, in addition to the attitude and conduct issues. I will hesitantly suggest that Wikisource (for transcribing old books) and Wikibooks (for publishing "heritage" style history works) may be worth an investigation as an alternate place to apply this zeal for the kind of stuff that Aearthrise is interested in? But at the end of the day, if Aearthrise is on Wikipedia, he needs to comply with Wikipedia standards, which means using stuff like old historical documents very carefully, and working collaboratively with others. (Disclaimer: I have not closely examined Aerathrise's more recent conduct, so the above should be taken as related to Vlaemink's previous report + a few diffs from above. I could be convinced if someone wants to argue a deeper dive says otherwise.) SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hello again SnowFire, it's good to hear from you; I hope you've been well. I appreciate what you did for me back in July.

  You helped get over a big ego problem after that period, and I took a break from Wikipedia to breathe and get connected with the world.

  Your last message indeed touched me very much:

  I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action. Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO. I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least some admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses.

  You helped me see the light here:

  Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess.

  A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger.

  Frustration and anger shouldn't be present in article management, and I still hold to that. Perhaps I do make a lot of responses out of habit, but they're not out of anger nor frustration anymore, and I thank you for helping me to get to that understanding.

  That whole ordeal earlier this year meant a lot more to me than you can imagine. Aearthrise (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since another editor got accused of being long winded, I will try my best to be concise. Aearthrise's behavior at Talk: California#California name header has been bizarre, aggressive and incomprehensible. The editor has gotten the notion in their head that there is a non-existent ethnic group in California called the "California Cantonese" and a non-existent language also called "California Cantonese". The fact is that Cantonese immigrants and their descendants in California are not a separate group from similar Cantonese communities in Nevada, New York, New England or British Columbia. Although a search of the entire internet yields a few occasions when the words "California" and "Cantonese" exist side by side, the concept of "California Cantonese" as a distinct ethnic group or language exists only in Aearthrise's mind but not in the scholarly literature. It is synthesis that this editor bludgeoned ad nauseum at Talk:California in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, I know you're frustrated, but this culture is indeed notable to California, and it is distinct from Cantonese in Modern China.

Historically this culture has been called "California Chinese", but in recent times this term has also evolved to include foreign Chinese, the majority being Mandarin Speakers, muddying the terms meaning. California Cantonese also exists as a term, and is more specific to this historic ethnicity.

Here are some citations for this ethnicity under the "California Chinese" name:

• 25 Events That Shaped Asian American History: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic, Lan Dong, 2019, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, pg. 52:

"By 1868, many California Chinese had left mining areas in favor of the railroad construction, and more were needed to fulfill labor demands. Most of the Chinese laborers hail from impoverished Cantonese areas, primarily Sunwui and Toishan in the Sze Yup area."

• From Canton to California: The Epic of Chinese Immigration, Corinne K. Hoexter, 1976, Four Winds Press, pg. 15:

...Chinese students. Moreover, he had the ability, unusual for an American, to speak the Cantonese dialect spoken by most California Chinese.

• Trees in Paradise: A California History, Jared Farmer, 2013, W. W. Norton & Company, pg. 258:

...California's Chinese came from a subtropical region (Guangdong Province) with a long history of citriculture, they knew more about oranges than most colonists, who started their orchards in ignorance.

• Labor Immigration under Capitalism: Asian Workers in the United States Before World War II, Lucie Cheng, Edna Bonacich, 2023, University of California Press, pg. 224, pg. 226:

...most of them in turn came from Guangdong province. Largescale Chinese emigration to the United States began shortly after the California gold rush started in 1849...

The overwhelming majority of the California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region...

• California Folklore Quarterly, Volume 7, 1948, University of California Press, pg. 123:

A Chinese Roman Catholic priest had been imported to San Francisco, and Kip often met him on the street. However, his work was unsuccessful, for he spoke a different dialect from the Cantonese majority.

• California: An Illustrated History, Robert Joseph Chandler, 2004, Hippocrene Books, pg. 51:

California's Chinese came from southern China, around Canton.

• Agriculture and Rural Connections in the Pacific, Lei Guang, 2017, Routledge, pg. 35:

The majority of California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region, with four rural districts around Canton accounting for the largest number of emigrants in the 19th century. Aearthrise (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Aearthrise, your technique in the California dispute is to search, search, search until you find the word "California" next to either "Cantonese" or "Chinese", and then engage in impermissible synthesis to claim that California Cantonese is an ethnic group native to California and that California Cantonese is a distinct language native to California. That's called cherrypicking. To make your case, you repeatedly link to California Cantonese, which was a mundane student written article about Chinese immigrants during the California gold rush until you radically edited it one week ago to transform it into a tool for your pet theory, which is shared by no scholars of the history of the settlement of Chinese immigrants in California. You have made 69 edits to that article since November 20 to push your point of view and create a debating tool. You have concocted this notion out of passing mentions rather than significant coverage by academic experts, and you try to bully and intimidate any editor who disagrees with you. It is time for that behavior to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet described some of your behavior on California Cantonese as a Massive misrepresentation of sources. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can only confirm that Aearthrise used the exact same M.O. on Pennsylvania Dutch: copied google-searches or ChatGPT-generated lists which mention a certain word combination, which are then put forward as supporting a personal POV. To question or disagree is to be bullied, demeaned or intimated. Vlaemink (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I never added ChatGPT information to an article Vlaemink, that's not true at all. What you're referring to is an interaction between an anonymous and I in June where I showed 5 citations where Elon Musk mentions his Pennsylvania Dutch heritage.

I tried to make a point of how easy it was to verify that information showing that a quick search on Google would show him the same being first 5 citations on Google, that it's a true statement.

None of the citations were ever used, except for the Forbes citation which is a reliable source and verified to be accurate.

Anyhow, I have already turned a new leaf in my interaction style after the discussion since July and your older complaint, and I don't bring ego into my responses. Aearthrise (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't bullied you or have been hostile Cullen328, i've only spoken to you with normal language. You say i've bullied and intimidated you, but you don't have any proof for that and are leaning on Vlaemink's statements. Aearthrise (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking that US Chinese would be the same as those in China is an odd one. It doesn't mean that there is any specific about Cantonese speakers in California. Secretlondon (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Per your request I've tried to condense the problem into one paragraph and provide some context/examples for the diffs mentioned above. Please let me know if you feel this matter is too big for the Administrators Noticeboard and should maybe be taken to the Arbitration Committee instead.

The problem: Aearthrise's use of older material or share of total editing aren't problematic in and of themselves, but they are incredibly toxic and damaging to the article within the broader context. He doesn't use an older source incidentally, he uses these constantly; often with falsified publishing dates. When people (rightly) question his personal views and/or sources, he resorts to demeaning comments, spamming talk pages with what appear to be Ai-generated 'citations' (examples of which can be found in the discussion above), ignores Wikipedia policy and habitually resorts edit warring; driving away users who could have substantially improved this already niche-article. He's been doing this for about 2 years, basically unopposed until June of this year, when his behavior was called out. Instead of changing his ways, as many users implored him to do, he stopped editing the article for several months, only to return over the past days and continuing his disruptive and harmful MO as if nothing happened. Other users have pointed out his behavior isn't limited to the Pennsylvania Dutch article, but this is my primary concern and I would request that he be banned from editing this article; either permanently or at least until the article's reliability (as it is now) can be thoroughly evaluated, without Aearthrise being able to edit-war or spam other users while this is going on.

Diffs and examples:

Problematic use of (unreliable, outdated and/or primary) sources, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

47thPennVols (talk · contribs) expresses her concern about 5 sources that Aearthrise has provided, explaining that the publisher of some of these sources (Stackpole Books) are not considered to meet Wikipedia quality standards and going on to cite an academic review of one of the sources, which explicitly stated that it contained ″numerous errors″, ″interpretive and rhetorical overstatements″ and needed ″to be handled with care″ [46]. Aearthrise's reply is ″You are continually waffling and nitpicking, but you have not yet provided ONE source for your claim. I've already provided 5 sources both historic and recent that demonstrate the usage of Dutchman in regards to the Pennsylvania Dutch community″, i.e. displaying incivility and completely ignoring the serious issues raised. 47thPennVols asks to Aearthrise to stop edit-warring and being uncivil and repeats the problems (irrelevance, self publication, age) with the sources Aearthrise has provided, concluding that despite all the evidence provided, Aearthrise remains unwilling to consider any perspective on the matter other than his own.[47] Aearthrise's reply is: ″Your "perspective", i.e. original research, is invalid; the only citation you've provided is a weak Dictionary.com entry that is not at all related to the Pennsylvania Dutch. There is nothing to "agree to disagree"- you have not provided sufficient proof for your claim, and your attempts to remove "Pennsylvania Dutchman" from this article are completely unjustified. I shall roll back your last edit.″ [48] After this, 47thPennVols makes one final attempt to change the article, which Aearthrise reverts. He then added to the talk page: ″You undid my reversion of your post claiming "Ther term "Dutchman" is considered to be a slur by many in the Pennsylvania Dutch community"; either produce reasonable evidence of your claim now, or I shall revert it again.″ [49], after which 47thPennVols (understandably) abandons her attempts to improve the article. In a NPOV-dispute concerning the etymology of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″, there seem to be two main trains of thought. Both views have reputable academic publications behind them and are widespread among scholars and per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented in the article, as they had been prior to Aearthrise involvement. Aearthrise opposed this, considering one view to be ″the truth″ [50] and the other nonsense and again and again [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] removed the alternative view from the article. An RfC was made to resolve the matter, which Aearthrise subsequently spammed, thereby deterring other participants.[56][57][58][59][60][61] In June, an extensive and thorough survey was made of the first 50 sources listed in the article [62], which showed that almost half of the sources listed were either outdated (we're talking over a century, sometimes over 150 years old), personal webpages, sources copied form existing articles (but now read/checked, and not supportive of claims made), (defunct) tourists websites or autobiographies. In most cases, the publication dates of the sources provided had been changed to make them seem far more recent. [63]. As a result of this, an unreliable-sources-template was added to the article.[64] In the subsequent report to the AN, numerous users voiced their deep concern about Aearthrise's behavior and use of sources:[65][66][67][68] Later in June, a made up article "German Pennsylvania" (created by Aearthrise)was deleted for being WP:Synth/WP:OR.[69]

Making uncivil, derogatory and demeaning remarks.

Theodore Christopher (talk · contribs) expresses his concerns about the relevance and reliability of a long bilingual quote (longer than the section its in) that Aearthrise wants to be in article. Additionally Aearthrise insists that this quote should use the Fraktur font (𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰), which is not only unnessary but goes against Wikipedias manual of style. Aearthrise subsequently barrages Theodore Christophe with derogatory and uncivil remarks: ″Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain the question with this response.″ [70] ″You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought.″ [71] ″Your inability to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather.″ [72] ″Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, you who don't even speak the language nor know our cultural traits.″ [73] ″As I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much.″ [74] ″Lastly, your (...) quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message.″[75] ″Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense (...)″ [76] Theodore Christophers edit were repeatedly reverted by Aearthrise and he (once again, regrettably but understandably) stopped engaging with the article. When I joined this discussion some time later and wrote I fully supported Theodore Christophers changes and argumentation, this too was ignored or waved away and edits reverted multiple times. Directed at me, Vlaemink (talk · contribs): ″This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego.″ [77] ″Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn″ [78] ″You deleted my responsse here earlier for making a discussion here, but yet, as a hypocrite, you started a discussion here yourself!″ [79] ″You are hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.″ [80] Directed at an anonymous IP: ″It takes a "special" person to ignore the citation that's already present on the article, and a lazy person to not take it upon himself to make quick a google search. [81]

Immediately resuming problematic behavior after Wiki-pause.

The very first thing that Aearthrise does after returning to this article after several months is to remove the unreliable-sources-template: [82]. Marked as a 'minor' edit, he provided the following rationale: Removed tags: ″Previous editor posted multiple unreliable citations tags, saying claiming citations were "outdated"; months later, after discussion on talk page, still hasn't proven how the citations our outdated.″ — thereby showing the exact same ″Sources/Wikipedia policy doesn't matter, you need to convince me″-attitude as before. He then commenced to removing all of the individual cite- and request-for-sources-tags and tried to re-add information which had previously been removed for lacking reliable and valid sources.[83]. He again tried to include wording like "German Pennsylvania" [84] despite this being previously deleted for being OR [85]. He tried adding images again taken from news sites and uploaded (by Aearthrise himself) to Wikimedia Commons under a false public domain-license.[86] On the talk page, his replies to urgent requests to stop edit-warring and stop (re)-adding untrustworthy material, were met with the same dismissive attitude and stubborn defense of using problematic sources.[87][88]

Thank you for your trouble.Vlaemink (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your first two columns are just a dredging of content from earlier June and July; they're not pertinent to this discussion, because these have already been discussed on a separate complaint that you made.

I haven't been rude to you or made a comment that demeans you at all, but you're acting like I did. I've only tried to reason with you about the type of content included on the page, of which you have said that only "proper, contemporary" sources are reliable and allowed.

I've tried to speak to you about why that's not accurate for the Pennsylvania Dutch article's topic.

Under the third column, you're making many different accusations:

• I removed the unreliable tag citations, because you were guarding them under the premise of only "proper, contemporary" sources, claiming that all the older publications were unreliable without proving it; it is not problematic to use sources from older publications, as long as they are reliable and truthful, like the US Government from 1883 citation that I added. I recommend you read WP:AGEMATTERS to know what categories are time sensitive.
• You claim I tried to include the word "German Pennsylvania", but following the page logs for November, that's easily refuted, so this not a valid accusation at all.
• You're talking about licenses now, and I could use help if you see it could be improved; this is from 1931 Sunday Newspaper.
• For the fourth point, you are talking about my responses to you, firstly of you saying I started an edit war, which is false. Secondly, that you launched a smear campaign against me in the attempt to ban me from editing the article earlier this year. That was wrong of you, because you weren't doing it because of behavior, but because you weren't getting your way on the article.

This can be seen by the fact that I only made a reversion with a complete explanation on November 22, the second time, when you returned, you were very hostile with me on November 26th saying:

You are [not] removing the unreliable sources tag until reliable sources are provided. You are also not going to add WP:OR by "corroborating" your preferred theories by adding primary sources instead of reliable scientific literature. - This is you calling the sentence "such as one of the oldest German newspapers in Pennsylvania being the High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal in 1743.", cited with an 1883 publication from the US Government as WP:OR, which is incorrect, unless you're saying that the US Government is an unreliable source.

and

You can call my insistence to adhere to Wikipedia policy "threats" all you want, it is not going to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources you've tried to add to this article and are now trying to pass as reliable by removing source-tags, are not acceptable. You can huff and puff all you want, it's not going to work. Revert my restoring of the cite- and source-tags again and you will be reported. - Again, you didn't prove that any of the sources you called outdated and unreliable were unreliable other than saying that they have an older publication date. If they are unreliable, then they should be removed; you have had half a year to show that the sources were unreliable, which I asked you to do.

Your actions here, and especially writing "Page ban for Aearthrise" show your motivation to get me banned, and you're trying very hard with the administrators to do that. Aearthrise (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My request for a page ban is not meant as a 'witch hunt', as you've tried to frame it, but a last resort to safeguard the integrity and reliability of this article. Your edit-history consistently shows a blatant disregard for core tenets of Wikipedia as well uncivil or even bullying interaction with Wikipedians who disagree with you. The reasons why my request includes many of your statements and actions from the past two years, instead of merely the past few days is, I hope, obvious: to show both a history and a pattern. A pattern, which you have just now resumed without any noticeable changes. In fact, in mere days you've been involved in two conflicts: this one, which has been going on intermittently for two years now, and a new one concerning "Cantonese Californians" — both showing the same pattern of abusive behavior and highly questionable use of sources.

The fact that some of the content has already been listed in my request for admin intervention in June is of little consequence as that request did not end in admin intervention. Instead you spammed the request, got a lot of negative feedback and then basically left Wikipedia for several months; after which the conflict seemed frozen and the request got archived: it is only logical for this second request to pick up where you left off. I'm confident the admins involved will see the logic in this as well, and I am hoping the combined total is cause enough for a lasting solution on this issue. Vlaemink (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ban from article space

Thank you, Vlaemink, for filing this report. The proposed page ban is not enough to solve the problem, I'm afraid. A ban on article space is in order because of the extensive misrepresentation and many falsehoods purveyed by Aearthrise in article space. The California Cantonese article is a case in point, in which Aearthrise decided unilaterally that Chinese-heritage people speaking Cantonese in California were an ethnic group somehow differentiated from the same ethnic types who speak Mandarin or any of the minor languages of China. Aearthrise transformed the article from a history of Cantonese-speaking people in California to a mish-mash of Chinese settlement in California, based on the ethnic group infobox, using sources that may or may not mix in Mandarin-speaking Chinese, and may or may not include other US states. The topic is now a total violation of WP:SYNTH. In particular, I saw Aearthrise insist that an irrelevant book cite was appropriate,[89] followed by Aearthrise adding another irrelevant cite four minutes later as a purely defensive reaction,[90] followed in the next hour by Aearthrise replacing both of these with an older teaching aid text which finally supported the text and provided some context.[91] I don't think Aearthrise should be deciding for our readers what is true. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say a narrower topic ban from ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed, is more appropriate. Nobody has raised issues with Aearthrise's other areas of editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, please don't do that; I've spent 11 years on Wikipedia and I've made great contributions.

I've created many beautiful, well-sourced articles for peoples who were completely unheard of, or only mentioned in passing on other articles: Alaskan Creole people, Alabama Creole people, Saint-Domingue Creoles.

I've improved the quality of articles massively with very constructive contributions: Pennsylvania Dutch seen here; Louisiana Creole people, seen here.

I don't believe I deserve to be banned from working on ethnicities, or nationalities, as that's what I've spent time, effort, and love to help build on Wikipedia, helping teach about the beautiful peoples of our world.

I ask that you please don't ban me from working on Wikipedia articles with ethnicities. Aearthrise (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I support indef from article space per everyone else. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet I didn't decide that this was a separate culture, but it's clearly shown if you look into the sources for this people, and they've established themselves with the cultural traits of 1.Being the original descendants of California Gold Rush Miners from Canton, and 2. Being Cantonese and pertaining to the culture shared in California, but also where China becomes closed off to America, which later Modern Mandarin Chinese that came in the 1970s were different.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=California_Cantonese&diff=1259637668&oldid=1259599862%7C You started with deleting the whole article based but only mentioning the Charlotte article. You said the Charlotte article was misuse and "about Chinese people born in California leaving to go "home" to China in the 1900s after suffering racism", which I reverted because you had deleted not only what was with the citation, but everything else on the page.

I then shared what I cited from the Charlotte book on the discussion, and I was nothing but cordial with you on the talk page Talk:California Cantonese#Misuse of reference book by Charlotte Brooks.

Then you removed the sentence "In recent times, many Cantonese speaking immigrants from Modern China (e.g. Macau, Guangzhou (Canton City), and Hong Kong) have also settled in California." Which, is true. Hong Kong and China major sources of recent Cantonese migration in California.

You said I added another citation, as "a defensive" reaction, but I simply misread the citation, which I explained to you with the statement "Reverting back, this is the third reversion and the limit for reversions; "templeuniversitypress" source specifically mentions the recent peoples who came to California, and names the Cantonese Cities Guangzhou, Macau, and Hong Kong. Read discussion response", as this aligns with WP:3RR.

I read the citation again fully and I acknowledged that it was talking about a specific case of migrants counted in the membership of the Chinese Fellowship Church, and after that I got another source which said exactly where recent immigrants came from. Here is the acknowledgement.

"Followed in the next hour by Aearthrise replacing both of these with an older teaching aid text which finally supported the text and provided some context." This is exactly how Wikipedia should function: making constructive edits to give the best quality article. Aearthrise (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The defensive maneuver you made was to add a book reference four minutes after you reverted me. There is no book in the world that you could read in four minutes to find support for your notional topic. The pages of the book you cited talk about Chinese-heritage members of a particular East Coast US church, as polled in 1976 and 1995. A table on page 343 shows that these are not California Chinese, nor are they primarily Cantonese speakers. The sole connection to your notional topic was a quote by the author on page 344 citing a 1994 paper by Bernard P. Wong titled "Hong Kong Immigrants in San Francisco". The basic idea being expressed was that American chinatowns were initially using the Taishanese language, then they transitioned to Cantonese, eventually changing to mainly Mandarin-speaking, but there are still other languages spoken by ethnic Chinese in American chinatowns. None of this was about California in particular. Your reactionary edit was a travesty, made too quickly in anger. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet, I acknowledge that I misread the table on page 343 as having to do with the entire immigration from Modern China between 1976-1995, but it was only speaking about the immigrants of the specific church.

I thank you for your help in getting that source settled, and I don't have any bad feelings towards you.

I like when the fruits of cooperation can lead to a better quality article like this, especially when dealing with sources. Nobody can do everything alone. Aearthrise (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting that you would use a phrase like ″the fruit of cooperation″ to qualify the interaction that Binksternet just described.Vlaemink (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The meaning fruit of cooperation is a better quality article. Binksternet helped me in that, and we made constructive progress on the article. Aearthrise (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef Aearthrise says he hasn't made hostile comments to Cullen328, but on Monday he said You are not being honest now, and you're reaching for straws.. If he can't recognize that is hostile, he is incapable of being part of this project. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Walsh90210, "You are not being honest now, and you're reaching for straws..." was a direct response to him saying The Manual of Style is not irrelevant and this is not a key fact. "California Cantonese" is not a language. Cantonese is, but it is not a native language in California. I am not obligated to study those other cases, but those names are probably inappropriate for those infoboxes too. Most importantly, you do not have consensus for your proposed change, which is required., because he said that I was saying MOS was irrelevant, which I wasn't; I was talking about his argument saying it's not a native language because it's not from an indigenous tribe, but I rebutted by saying "native" didn't mean "native American" in that case.

  If you consider this hostile language, then I apologize for it Cullen328, and I'm sorry if I offended you were offended by it.

  My intention wasn't to offend you with saying it, but rather to point to out and I don't seek to offend people on Wikipedia. Aearthrise (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support for a topic ban concerning languages, nationalities & ethnic groups indefinite block from article space as just proposed by Voorts (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs). A long term pattern of disruptive and harmful editing over multiple articles has now been clearly identified and needs to stop. I have no confidence in his current apologies and promises of betterment: he did exactly the same when he was reported back in June, and continued his previous M.O. regardless. Vlaemink (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've changed my stance based on recent edits (i.e. today) on New Netherlander. Here, Aearthrise (re)added a 1887-source (which does not even contain the wording it's supposed to support)[92] and a made-up Dutch translation of "New Netherlanders", which he tries to provide a reference for by adding a book on the integration of Jews in the Netherlands between 1814 and 1851 (transl. "New Dutch: the integration of Jews in the Netherlands 1814-1851)[93]. I'm now convinced this user should no longer be allowed to edit the article space, the risks that this user brings with him when it comes to the use of sources, the addition of OR/synth and NPOV are simply too big.Vlaemink (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Vlaemink, I understand that you dislike me, but I haven't attacked you in November, and you're acting like I did.

  I only reverted two posts on Pennsylvania Dutch over a course of 4 days; you were guarding the page, but your reasoning to delete content like the 1883 citation from the US Government I added was not valid.

  I tried to explain that to you by sharing the WP:AGEMATTERS, but all you said that you would complain to administation if I reverted the page again. That wasn't an edit war, which is described by WP:3RR, and now you're trying to get me banned from that page for challenging your saying that sources can only be reliable if they're contemporary to today.

  I want to cooperate with you, and i've tried to do that, but your hostile attitude to any change of idea on older publications has caused this new ordeal. Aearthrise (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite block from article space. If consensus for that outcome does not exist, then Support topic ban from ethnicities and languages and dialects, broadly construed. Voorts is very gracious in saying Nobody has raised issues with Aearthrise's other areas of editing but that is because this editor rarely if ever edits outside the topic area of ethnicity and language. It might be argued that their extensive editing to Confederate general P. G. T. Beauregard might be a counterexample but the fact of the matter is that Beauregard was a Louisiana Creole whose first language was Louisiana French. A large percentage of this editor's work is POV pushing about language and ethnicity, trying to promote population groups to the status of "native" ethnic groups and to promote accents, dialects and regional language variations to the status of "native" separate languages. This editor has demonstrated that they do not understand that synthesis is not permitted. They do not understand that the Neutral point of view does not permit them to cherrypick Google hits to advance their POV pushing agenda. They do not understand that edit warring is not limited to the brightline WP:3RR but is a far broader restriction. They understand nothing about building consensus and their usual attitude when anyone objects to their poor quality work amounts to "everyone else is wrong and I am right" although they refrain from saying that openly. Instead, that is revealed in how they bludgeon discussions, repeating weak points over and over, and refusing to engage with or refute the arguments of the editors who disagree. Instead, they insist that other editors misunderstand what is obviously true, and that their opponent's points have no merit. My personal experience is as a California resident for 52 years who has repeatedly visited urban and rural Chinese communities here, and researched and read and purchased books and done previous work on articles about Chinese immigrant communities in California such as Grace Quan and Frank Fat's. That shows that I take the topic area seriously. I do not claim an academic level of expertise, but I do have a functioning bullshit detector. And the trivial factoid that this editor tried to add to the infobox of an exceptionally important article California was bullshit for several substantive reasons that I and several other editors analyzed and debated at great length at Talk: California#California name header, where that editor made an astonishing 116 edits in short order in defense of adding that trivial factoid to the top of the California infobox, utterly bludgeoning the discussion and convincing no other editors except for a brand new IP making their first edit. Their attitude from beginning to end was "you are all wrong and misinformed and making weak arguments and only I am right". Just one example of the deep weakness of their argument is a quote that they have repeatedly put forward in support of the bizarre notion that "California Cantonese" is an actual language native to California: She spoke unnaturally, in English. "I can only speak California Cantonese.... Is this an article in an academic journal by a scholarly expert who argues that "California Cantonese" is an actual language? No. It is a fleeting comment by a random unidentified woman who does not speak English well, and is literally of zero value in making the case that "California Cantonese" is a language native to California. And to advance this spurious notion, Aearthrise heavily edited California Cantonese and Cantonese to shoehorn their pet theories into those articles as well. That is an attitude incompatible with a collaborative editing environment. That is not a new attitude for Aerthrise. Take a look at the conversation about Yankee that took place at this discussion in August 2023 and where Aearthrise makes similar bizarre and idiosyncratic arguments based on original research and synthesis that "Yankees" are an actual ethnic group when no scholars agree and the term has at least three distinct and contradictory meanings, none of which is an ethnic group. This discussion among several others shows that this editor is here only to advance their own highly idiosyncratic notions about ethnicity and language, as opposed to neutrally summarizing what the full range of high quality reliable sources say about these topics. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Another example of Aearthrise's misrepresentations is Kathryn Dyakanoff Seller. Before Aearthrise got their hands on the article, she was described as an Alaska Native educator and her ethnicity was descibed as Aleut. She was born in 1884. After Aearthrise was done with it, she is described as a Russian Creole educator. There are zero references to reliable sources that call her Russian Creole. Admittedly, Dyakanoff sounds like a Russian name and the Russians colonized Alaska until 1867, but a Russian name in Alaska at that time is not sufficient to call a person "Russian Creole". For example, R. Kelly has no known Irish ancestry. Maybe she had some Russian ancestry or maybe she didn't but that is not something that can be inferred from a name. We need an inconvenient thing called a "reference to a reliable source" to call somebody a "Russian Creole", but Aearthrise does not care. That editor does it anyway, and the seven references are identical before and after the POV pushing edit. To be clear, creole identities and dialects and languages and ethnic groups are a very real thing that should be documented on Wikipedia, but only based on neutral summaries of what reliable published sources say, not on what some individual Wikipedia editor infers from a name that "sounds Russian". Interestingly, there is a recent edit summary on that article (which is not a reliable source but possibly an indication of a problem) that says I am a family member, she identified as Aleut and there is no evidence that she was Russian. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328,

I didn't make that edit on that says she was a Russian Creole (terminology for people born in Alaska during the Russian Empire). If you follow the diffs, it was User:ChuckDabs who wrote it; I added that she was Alaskan Creole, but I admit, I was mistaken in it.

Thank you for bringing it up, and I've made the proper changes to the article. Aearthrise (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, should we reconsider using Dyahanoff's image to illustrate Alaskan Creole people? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, to be frank, I do not know, because Aearthrise created Alaskan Creole people on February 9, 2023 and is the author of over 90% of the content. Reliable sources seem to categorize the Creoles in Alaska as one of many population groups living there, specifically those of partial Russian and partial indigenous ancestry, which strikes me as right. Aearthrise claims that every Russian subject in Alaska pre-1867 was an Alaskan Creole, which seems off to me. To say that I do not trust Aearthrise's work is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, a 1944 journal article called The Russian Creoles of Alaska as a Marginal Group defines the group succinctly: The present Russian creoles in Alaska are the descendants of mixed marriages between Russians and Alaskan natives which occurred during the period of Russian rule in Alaska, The term "creole" was legally defined by the Russian authorities to mean the children of Russian fathers and the native women, and it was used in this sense in the Russian colonies. I do not see any major definitional changes in more recent sources identified by Google Scholar. Aearthrise's definition seems to be idiosyncratic and based on their original research. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz:, the terminology "Russian Creole (Kriol)" or Creole in general is used to describe diverse groups of people born from both colonial, migrant and indigenous ethnic origin. Whose genesis is within a period of colonial administration and continues to exist after that period. Please see Creole peoples and Louisiana Creole (Louisiana Creole is an creole group currently present in the Southern U.S.).

@Cullen328:, I know nothing about Kathryn Dyakanoff Seller. Perhaps her non-Anglicized birth name (Ekaterina Pelagiia Dyakanoff) is just an example of a Russification of native peoples' personal names by the previous Russian administration, this especially likely given she was only born 17 years after the Alaska Purchase.

Given that, I think it would be remiss to remove the Cyrillic spelling of her name as it was likely spelled that way by her Aleut or Kriol parents (Nikifor and Pelagia Dyakanoff) in 1884.

(source: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/kathryn_d_seller.pdf)

Also, though not a source we use on Wikipedia, a privately managed Geni account for Kathryn Seller's family lists her great-grandfather Vasilii Diakanov (Dyakanoff) as born in mainland Russia. I would wager that she is marginally an Alaskan Creole and mostly Aleut in extraction.

(source: https://www.geni.com/Vasilii-Diakanov/6000000022657577428?through=6000000022657432529)

Thus, if the majority of her make up Aleut and/or Alaskan Native, it is absolutely correct to call her an "Aleut" educator. I recommend a flag for this article for further review and for more sources.

This article is definitely not as cut and dry as "I am a family member, she identified as Aleut and there is no evidence that she was Russian.", I believe that family member is unaware of Kathryn's full ethnic origin.

Please keep me in the loop guys!

ChuckDabs (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

ChuckDabs, as I wrote previously, Maybe she had some Russian ancestry or maybe she didn't. I agree that the matter is not cut and dried. The problem is that Aearthrise and another editor made an assumption without relying on a reliable source, and that is a policy violation. As for the definition of "Creole", we cannot apply a definition from Louisiana to Alaska. I found a 1944 academic definition for Alaska. I would like to find out if that definition is contested or has evolved over the years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a very prolific editor, but having seen this topic by chance- when reading the P. G. T. Beauregard article in December 2022, after (what I now know to be) extensive editing on it throughout that year by Aerthrise, it struck me as "off" in some ways. The things I noted at the time were that the article was heavily dependent on one source- in places an uncomfortably close paraphrase of it (P.G.T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray by T. Harry Williams, a reliable but older work, published 1955), and that the article incorrectly claimed that Beauregard had endorsed Grant for president in 1868, and, bizarrely, claimed that Beauregard endorsed Grant while attributing to Beauregard a contemporary quote saying that Grant would "become the tool of designing politicians." (Cited to Williams; text added by Aearthrise in this diff.) On investigation I found that the actual book said just the opposite- that Beauregard loathed Grant and considered leaving the country in the wake of his victory; and the "tool of designing politicians" quote is actually taken from Williams's narrative text- it is not attributed to Beauregard in the book, and was not written until decades after his death. At that time I wasn't Wikipedia-savvy enough to track down who added it and in what context; I just fixed the error myself with reference to the cited book.

Now, two things strike me in the context of this thread. The first is that shortly before I found and fixed this error, Aearthrise got very aggressive with an IP editor who pointed the same error- their error- out on Talk:P. G. T. Beauregard, saying, in response to the IP's pointing out that the "designing politicians" text hardly sounds like an endorsement, You're irrationally imagining and inserting your own context considering he voted for Grant; the phrase "become the tool of designing politicians" is just Beauregard's way of saying that he will help bring change. Is English your first language?- doubling down on their misreading of the text (he didn't vote for Grant, the pseudo-quote is meant to be critical of Grant), instead of either consulting the book again or even acknowledging that the plain meaning of the text that was in the article is confused. The second thing is that the Beauregard article had (and still has) a subsection titled "Treatment by Anglo-Americans due to his Creole heritage," which fits the pattern noted above of motivated ethnicity-related editing, and is shaky in its own right- it's entirely sourced to Williams's book, it seems to be assembled from separate incidents in the biography where Beauregard can be portrayed as having experienced discrimination based on his background, and if the subject is in fact due for coverage in the article, it probably isn't due for coverage at such length (eg it's much longer than the brief coverage of his wife and children immediately above it). These issues themselves are obviously fairly old, but they definitely fit the apparently ongoing patterns laid out above. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

having quietly read through this whole thing, and the plainly retaliatory post below (#Review of Vlaemink's actions), i'm really not impressed with Aearthrise's attitude and behavior. our ethnicity articles are consistently some of the messiest, most bloated with OR/SYNTH/etc, and most poorly-written articles on the project, and Aearthrise is contributing to that with their consistent bizarre POV pushing at the expense of reliable sourcing and verifiability. what Yspaddadenpenkawr points out regarding the Beauregard article should be the final straw. support ban from articlespace and a topic ban from ethnicity, per Cullen328 in particular. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban from article space. If Aearthrise wants to, he can politely and collaboratively suggest sources of interest on talk pages, but it seems best to leave it to others to judge their suitability. In general, Wikipedia is very reluctant to ban users for bad content, but there comes a point where it's unavoidable. Aearthrise, I believe you that you're acting in good faith, but the conclusions you are drawing from weak sources just aren't merited. I hope you don't lose your taste for free content, but I will again humbly suggest something like Wikisource as a place to transcribe old documents or the like. There are ways to contribute here, but it's clear that your judgment in historical matters does not match the expectations of the community. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose ban from article space, but Support topic ban from ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed. I get that Aearthrise doesn't appear to have contributed outside this topic, but that's the exact reason why I oppose the broader ban: there is no evidence either in support of or against a ban outside of the topic area. Even Cullen328's thorough and excellent argument admits that the only potential example of editing outside the topic area really isn't outside of it.

Banning them from article space functionally means they won't have the opportunity to demonstrate how they edit outside the topic. I'd rather the community impose a sanction that gives them the opportunity to do so, while also putting a stop to the damage being done in the topic area.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Banning them from article space functionally means they won't have the opportunity to demonstrate how they edit outside the topic. They can use edit-requests. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hence the word "functionally". Submitting an edit request is asking someone else to edit on your behalf. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz, while this conversation continues, Aerthrise has resumed editing the problematic California Cantonese article, making 48 edits within a four hour period. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have issues with restraint and moderation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought I would spot check one of those edits, at random I chose this one about the Californian Cantonese style of architecture[94]. The reference is for Understanding Ordinary Landscapes pages 81–84, which usefully is available via Google books[95]. It doesn't discuss any Californian Cantonese style of architecture, it is about Chinatowns in general in the US and Canada. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That is typical of the type of unacceptable original research that Aearthrise routinely engages in, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect that User:98.174.88.181 might be loutsocking. I'm not sure if it's okay to say that here – if not, any admin may revert and revdel. Toadspike [Talk] 08:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Review of Vlaemink's actions

Vlaemink has made repeated behavior of threatening to complain to administration to solve content dispute issues.

At the same time, he has been challenging me to make an administration complaint myself, but I didn't feel that it was right to abuse the administration system to solve disputes.

However, Vlaemink has made a new complaint against me recently, and is asking me to be banned from an article, Pennsylvania Dutch claiming that I was doing edit warring, but has not shown proof of that other than bringing up points from June and July that weren't pertinent to the discussion.

Recently on New Netherlander, Vlaemink removed the infobox and a citation saying what he believed was "definite", that people born in New Netherland weren't an ethnic group, and that the their Native_Name in the infobox was never used (i've since added a citation that proves otherwise) and he is continuing to say that only contemporary sources are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.

I mentioned to him several times that a source isn't unreliable just for being published at an older date, and that he should read WP:AGEMATTERS to see what kind of categories are time-sensitive.

I don't know what more I can do now.

I don't want him to face problems, like he is trying to do with me, but his editing style is disruptive and his attitude is increasingly hostile for no reason. Thank you. Aearthrise (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an extension of #Requesting a page ban for Aearthrise, so you should probably include it as a subheader of that. CMD (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Under no circumstances whatsoever have I threatened you. What I definitely have done, is warn you multiple times that I would ask for admins to intervene if you continued to ignore Wikipedia-policy and disruptive editing — which you chose to ignore.

• The term "edit warring" entails more than breaking the 3RR; something which Cullen328 (talk · contribs) recently pointed out.[96]
• As for the New Netherlander-article; here I removed a 1887-source, added by you, which did not contain the wording it claimed to support [97] and removed a supposedly Dutch translation, also added by you, which was plainly wrong. Instead of backing down, you then added a reference about the integration of Jews in the Netherlands between 1814 and 1851;[98] in support of your translation. I consider this highly problematic, because it shows that you are both willing to add translations in a language you clearly do not understand (in Dutch adjectives are conjugated, "New Netherlanders" is translated as "Nieuw-Nederlanders", "Nieuwe Nederlanders" is simply a term for recent immigrants in the Netherlands) and willing to add invalid references to such "translations" in order to push your personal POV and/or preferences.

I'm very sorry to say this, but your latest comments here are clearly just another an attempt to re-frame your current predicament as a witch-hunt or personal vendetta. This is not the case: everything mentioned here, and not just by me, concerns your problematic behavior and use of sources — which you've consistently displayed for over (at least) 2 years. Vlaemink (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a retaliatory filing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for a decision

Though I want to emphasize that I am fully aware that being an administrator is voluntary and fully understand any reluctance or wariness to work through everything that has been written here, I feel that (with the possible exception of the recent suspicion of sock puppetry [99]) the discussion above has run its course. I would therefore kindly like to ask an administrator to make a decision in this complicated and long-running case; as Aearthrise has only been ramping up his edits over the past few days. Vlaemink (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE unban appeal

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

---

DIVINE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is considered banned by the community because they unsucessfully appealed their block to the community. They are appealing this ban:

I am requesting the unblocking administrator or the community to unblock me because I have understood the cause of my blockage. Why did I get blocked, and how would I have dealt with the situation calmly without providing legal threats already resolved long before, yeah more than six months if I recall it might be seven. I accepted that I was paid to vote for [AFD] and I revealed it myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked I supplied information to concerned users and someone who claims to be an invisible administrator which I had submitted evidence long back to administrators.

In the period, I get blocked, I haven't used multiple IDs nor have I edited from any IP or any new ID i.e. CU can verify this humble request first before anyone reviews my unblocking request because, in the past, I have faced many failed SPI requests against me.

Within a pperiod of Six months after getting blocked, I have contributed to SimpleWiki which is kind of similar to Enwiki and I believe I have improved my English skills by learning and contributing via simple English.

To make this request short:

1) I understand why I was blocked and I will avoid those mistakes again and will only submit WP:BLP via WP:DRAFT and will follow further to get unblock from Mainspace WP:BLP in the future. 2) I won't vote in AFD for an additional Six months and request to community later 3) I love Wikipedia thus I have been here for 10 years and I still want to make an effective contribution and help Wikipedia as an individual volunteer once again 4)I have never doxed anyone's identity, but I was the victim of doxing before from few Nepali administrators which I will keep confidential and I have proof of how they misused their power.

Thankyou for considering this request :) DIVINE 08:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

They are active at Simple English Wikipedia (courtesy link to their simplewiki contribs), and PhilKnight found no CU evidence of evasion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am of two minds for this request. The previous appeal was a non-starter, and this one cannot be as easily dismissed; it has been six months per the standard offer and they have made positive contributions to a sister project. DIVINE's simplewiki contributions are alright, but they are almost exclusively using Twinkle to nominate things for quick deletion (the simplewiki equivalent of CSD). By my count, there are 17 bluelinks in their simple QD log, out of 261 nominations, which is an error rate of ~6.5%. Those would not be amazing numbers at enwiki; not sure about simplewiki.
  However, I am not seeing a lot which demonstrates their ability to communicate effectively, which brings me back to this block appeal. It is not the best appeal I have read, and I think that we need to see something better from someone blocked in part due to English proficiency issues. I find a time-limited topic ban from AFD to be wholly insufficient to address the UPE concerns (taking bribes to !vote a specific way is a massive no-no). I am not going to stand in the way of an appeal which comes with an indefinite topic ban from all XfDs, broadly construed; a six month AFD topic ban is a nonstarter and the fact that this was the offer from DIVINE is a reason to reject this appeal. Same thing with a only-BLP-via-draftspace restriction; I think we should be looking at an indefinite BLP topic ban, broadly construed. The "never doxed anyone's identity" appears to refer a comment of theirs which was partially suppressed.
  I think on balance I recommend declining; the limited fluency is a real issue for engaging productively at enwiki. I think that simplewiki is a great place for DIVINE to contribute, considering their limited fluency in English, and I would encourage DIVINE to continue to contribute there. If this appeal is to be accepted, I think it should come with:
  1. An indefinite topic ban from BLPs, broadly construed
  2. An indefinite topic ban from XfD, broadly construed
  3. An indefinite topic ban from editing topics with which DIVINE has a COI
• But again, I think that considering the limited language fluency we should not spend more of our most previous resource – volunteer time – trying to coax DIVINE to edit within the rules. I am not sure we can get enough benefit to make it worthwhile. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say six months of ban is enough time for reflection on how to edit Wikipedia better; if he returns to producing poor content, then of course a new ban would be in order.

I lean on giving him a chance, accepting the reinstatement of his account. He can prove his better English through his new edits. Aearthrise (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Ivanvector as the blocking admin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm left wondering what an "invisible administrator" is. I think HouseBlaster's restrictions are reasonable if consensus is that an appeal is granted. As for me, I didn't know about the UPE on AFDs but I remember when DIVINE was originally indefinitely blocked, they went wild and several of their talk page comments had to be oversighted. We have to ensure they have the temperament to edit on the project where disputes are very common.

Also, given their unsavory connection with AFDs, I think they should stay away from CSD-tagging completely because I don't trust their sense of what articles and pages should be deleted. I know our admins review all tagged articles but given the previous COI, I think their primary activity shouldn't be page deletion. Maybe improving articles, copy editing or vandal fighting would be more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline Appellant has not adequately addressed the UPE concerns and I cannot support even with proposed restrictions on deletion matters and BLP. We could never be sure of their conflicts of interest.. Their best fit is SIMPLEWIKI.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Adding per Spicy to decline rationale -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline along similar lines as DFO. The appeal fails to engage meaningfully with the history of UPE; the fact that DIVINE sometimes reports their competition does little to convince me that they themselves have actually come to terms with the fact that abusing Wikipedia for financial gain is extremely high up on the list of the most harmful things one can do to this project. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• From DIVINE's talk page:

  Reply to Deepfriendokra & Liz:

  To Okra, Yes, I was involved in multiple UPEs (three Wikipedia pages). I had done a few COI edits. When I am unblocked, I will declare all of the in my user page. But all I want is one more chance, and I want to change myself and my contributions to enwiki. If SimpleWiki is the best fit for me, then why not enwiki, where I have been contributing for 10 years?

  Keeping your hesitation and concern in my mind, I will effectively contribute in the future, and I need that chance. If you suspect or feel anything like if I am being involved in COI or anything again, then you always have the tools in your power to block me without any hesitation. Thank you.

  To Liz, I accept your suggestions and will follow those. I will focus on anti-vandalism. I was a rollbacker before, and I do have ideas regarding that. Thank you.

  For English proficiency, I can present my English test certificates. I won’t say that I’m the best in English, but my CEFR score is B2 level for now, including reading, writing, & listening. I do have good communication skills in speaking, which is not useful while editing.

  The previous issue with my English was there because that day I was kind of under the influence of beer, and I was sad that I got blocked. And I wrote “gibberish” whatever I could without checking again.

  If the community feels keeping me away from Wikipedia is the best solution. So be it, I will accept the consequences and decision of the community

  I will not have access to a computer for the next few days, so I would appreciate it if someone else could take over the responsibility for copying over responses :) Thanks, BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think that the "invisible administrator" comment refers to an unknown person who contacted DIVINE by email after they were blocked, and may have been trying to impersonate me. The edits that were oversighted were their own personal info if I remember right (I'm not an oversighter but there's some discussion in my email related to the impersonation incident). I don't think either of these things are a concern, nor do I think is their English proficiency - they're clearly comprehensible, and we have never required anyone to have university-level English to edit here. It's evident (they've admitted) that they've engaged in undisclosed paid editing and have feuded on-wiki with other UPE operations, and I feel kind of the same as DFO and Blablubbs about the appeal addressing these things but I'm not quite ready to go full decline. Is there a restriction we could unblock to instead? They were productive here and have been productive at simplewiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline unblock. The issues with this user weren't limited to UPE and legal threats (which are bad enough on their own) or poor English skills. I'd invite people reviewing this request to read some past ANI threads involving DIVINE, such as this one, which resulted in the revocation of their advanced permissions and a block for personal attacks. My long-standing impression of this user has been that they are not compatible with a collaborative environment, and I think that even some of the supportive comments above speak to this - if someone needs three topic bans to have a hope of making acceptable contributions, perhaps they should not be unblocked at all. It might make sense to forgive certain indiscretions if someone was regularly contributing high-quality content, but their contributions to simplewiki have been fairly scant and mostly consist of slapping speedy tags on things. Frankly this user has been a massive time sink, violated the terms of use, and abused others' trust, and nothing I have seen indicates that they will provide enough positive value to make up for it. Spicy (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Spicy Thank you for your comment on AN regarding my unblock request. When my permission was revoked due to my request regarding the 4th level warning. I requested to remove other permissions like rollback and PCR after that, as I am never a fan of PERMS; I keep them when I feel like I need them. In simplewiki, I slap with speedy deletion because I follow Wikipedia rules to slap because they create pages that are supposed to get deleted by me or any other reviewer that won’t change the fact. Additionally, I have created 70 pages. Helped more than 100 pages to add references on them and have fixed them. Have filed multiple SPIs with 100% accuracy if I believe and have fought against in anti-vandalism. Anyway, I don’t want to waste my time and yours writing this long essay.

  Let’s me break this down:

  1. The day I was blocked, my identity, my university, and even my professor's name were doxxed publicly in AN, and nobody cares, but I was blamed for doxxing another user's identity. And editors were praising another editor, calling them Sherlock.

  2. I am human, not a saint; i feel bad and i do have feelings too. Yes, I reacted every time. That’s why I am here requesting to get unblocked after 8 months, and I was punished with an indefinite block.

  3. What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions, but what I will accept is that I had some attitude problems, but I never meant to do personal attacks against someone.

  4. I have already mentioned that if you want to block me forever, there is no problem; I will accept that, and don’t think I came here to get unblocked after slapping multiple CSDs on SimpleWiki. I was editing there before getting blocked on EnWiki, but I came to seek one more chance.

  5. Wikipedia is an open community for all, and yes, of course there will be debates and arguments, but when I come to seek help in AN for getting a 4th level warning, it comes from nowhere towards me like an arrow that turned out into personal attacks.

  6. I have already submitted multiple unblock requests previously mentioning all of those things before; that’s why I didn’t add much into this fresh request, as I wanted to forget all of those and move forward with positive thoughts and positive attitudes.

  7. I feel like I was tricked; I got blocked by Ivanvector, but it wasn’t per community vote, but when I requested to get unblocked, it was passed to the community, and I got six months to appeal the block, and when I am requesting now, I am facing more brutal charges than before.

  Anyway Thankyou for your kind comment but we never encountered previously. DIVINE 21:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear here, Pppery cross-posted these comments from DIVINE's user talk page, they weren't added here by an IP or other account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline per Spicy and DIVINE's inadequate response. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Noting that the failure of disclosing COI had impacted the chances of welcoming back. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline. Saying "I love Wikipedia" in the same post that you're requesting an unblock after making legal threats and blatantly violating the TOU is not compelling. Neither is the attempt to spin the UPE as a positive (I revealed [the UPE] myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked). The response to Spicy's post is just bizarre, frankly – talking about feeling like they were "tricked" and making demands (What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions) is not a good response to Spicy's points, and does not inspire confidence in their ability to edit here constructively. Giraffer (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Giraffe, btw, I didn't demand I produce facts while everyone here was so concerned or confused with my csd tags.

  I presented useful contributions and facts about simplewiki, and yes, I am being WP:BOLD. If you think I will beg for it, nah, never not a cup of my tea.

  What I knew was this was coming; my unblock request was ignored for 1 month and 18 days, while the Tulsi request was procedurally decided within two weeks.

  I also mentioned about getting tricked which is fact, so do you have any explanation about that?

  Can you go behind and check the previous AN where my identity was doxed?

  Does anyone of you have the ability or will to talk in that? No, you will never, because at first you blocked me for legal threats.

  Second, language fluency.

  Third, person behavior.

  Now you are being “mortuary archaeologists.”.

  I love Wikipedia and its not owned by you or anyone as it is owned by editors like you and me.

  I will be admin within 5 years. Note it down; I am leaving it here.

  I withdraw my unblock request here.

  I would like to thank @Ivanvector. I was worried if he would go with decline as he was blocking administrator, but I always admired him, and @Liz was always supportive, whatever my past or present was, as she always requested me not to add too much CSD tags on WP:ADV drafts, but I ignored her and moved on by slapping and cleaning.

  I will request to revoke all of my simplewiki rights today too.

  I know how well your CU works. Telling that I have never used multiple accounts though.

  Love you all, no hate. Peace, I don't want you to disturb me.

  For COI declaration, Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, KP Khanal, Prakash Bahadur Deuba, Tulsi Bhagat, Sangeeta Swechcha, and myself [100].

  am happy of who i am. Make Wikipedia better now it’s in your hands which never can.

  I love you all. Take care and peace.

  For UPE Pudgy Penguins, the founder of Pudgy and one listed on my profile. Happy Now?

  Take care. I would like to request you to ban me here permanently. ❤️ DIVINE 17:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT

• Teterev53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has moved several articles to WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, with clear disregard for article naming convention, even deleting our discussion about it and branding it as "nonsense". Once this was brought up to RM, they committed multiple WP:REDACT offenses in the discussion—which should not have been in that section to begin with—and started an edit war over it. Blatant disregard for all editorial procedure and etiquette. Mb2437 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• The articles move was correct. The name of the events are FIA Karting European Championship and FIA Karting World Championship per FIA and consistent with naming of FIA Formula 2 Championship, FIA Formula 3 Championship, FIA Sportscar Championship, FIA Electric GT Championship, FIA Formula 3 European Championship, FIA GT Championship, FIA GT3 European Championship etc. The event logo features the word FIA. The lead of the article say its a FIA event. Also the disrespectful user three times removed my words from my text after his complete lie about "dozens of article title" [101] [102] [103] Also a very strange words about talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, the policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Teterev53 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is literally proving my point that you are disregarding article naming procedure and WP:REDACTing your responses to change the course of the conversation; those names are not consistent with naming convention, as proven in both prior conversations. Your aim is to change dozens of article titles, as you continued to move articles (Karting World Championship) after I opened the discussion with you, and there are dozens of articles which fit your repertoire. It is not "disrespectful" for someone to disagree with you, Wikipedia is a collaborative project fuelled by conversation and debate. Mb2437 (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This disrespectful user again repeated his complete lie about "dozens of article title". Only 2 or 3 pages in a question, not 12. Teterev53 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Aiming to move" does not mean "has moved"; you're clearly not reading my words. Mb2437 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This user say he is know about my aim. CRYSTALBALL clearly. Teterev53 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have you glanced at WP:CRYSTALBALL before invoking it here, or? Remsense ‥ 论 07:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mean (in a figurative sense) about that user' words about my aim. Its not about wiki-rule. Teterev53 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of course you may remove comments from your talk page, but that does not mean you can ignore the contents of the conversation and simply brand it as "nonsense" when a user confronts you with clear policy. Mb2437 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would support reverting the moves and initiating a move discussion. The situation that Teterev53 moved the pages, some without summary, without discussion and is contested is not appropriate in my view. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BOLDMOVE, autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply (all applied). Also the reason of move and the prooflinks were listed in this edits. [104] [105] What is not appropriate exactly? Teterev53 (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    What you said all are applied is It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. That one objected the move after you moved the pages yourself. Also you provided the link to one, not the other two which you moved without summary. Also wp:OFFICIALNAME is an essay as opposed to wp:commonname which is policy that is based on reliable sources. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    The page which was moved without summary were a technical fault (missclick), and the link was provided in a next edit on a page when discovered. here Teterev53 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    And why do you think that a common name here is a variant without FIA? All secondary sources say FIA in the title. For example: [106] [107] [108] Teterev53 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is not a space for a move discussion, please read WP:CONCISE. Mb2437 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I don't ask you what I should write here. Teterev53 (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      I can confirm that the titles confirm policy per commonname and consistency, but the objection of another editor is concerning. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      I work extensively on motorsport articles, and they are not confirmed by consistency: World Sportscar Championship, World Rally Championship, World Rally-Raid Championship, Formula E, European Rally Championship, Asia-Pacific Rally Championship, Middle East Rally Championship, African Rally Championship, European Drag Racing Championship, Formula One, are a few examples of many. There is no disambiguation needed, and it being known simply as the "Karting European Championship" is also confirmed in secondary sources.[109][110][111][112][113] The user is manufacturing points to suit his argument. Mb2437 (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      Most sources listed in the article (and modern news outlets) say a FIA Karting in the title: [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] etc Teterev53 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) While it's true WP:BOLDMOVE states that users may boldly move pages, it's also states that such moves can be reverted. In this case, it seems prudent for the person wanting to move the page to follow WP:PCM and start a RM discussion. This can be done for a single page or multiple pages if necessary. Arguing about something that's essentially equivalent to a content dispute doesn't really require administrator intervention to resolve, but continuing to argue back and forth about it may lead to someone posting something that could lead to an administrator stepping in and taking some action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I have reverted the moves to the three specified pages as an uninvolved page mover following a request to WP:RMTR. Teterev53, please open a requested move discussion regarding the matter. The technical requests section of the requested moves page is not the place to have such a discussion, nor is the administrator's noticeboard. If you need assistance with this process, please see WP:RSPM for instructions on opening a move request. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second that. Edit warring will not fix the problem you perceive. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegations online that some bank is contacting its customers over modifying its Wikipedia entry

Whatever the heck this is: https://www.reddit.com/r/bunq/comments/1h1qzi0/bunqs_head_of_corporate_affairs_messaging_me_for/ (https://archive.is/qWHIZ). This seems extremely bad to me, if true.

Someone linked this in the 'scord. The user, here, is @Snarkyalyx:, who can provide further detail. jp×g🗯️ 16:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

They have told me they are compiling a big post of all the stuff they've heard from the bank. jp×g🗯️ 16:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting previous discussion of the topic at Talk:Bunq#The subject of this article (bunq) has identified and contacted me outside of Wikipedia (through the bunq banking app helpdesk) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My account was never explicitly threatened. Their tone was very suspicious, but bunq's customer support has assured me "my money is safe". They're still investigating and I haven't heard back about any stances yet. Snarkyalyx (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Amended title. jp×g🗯️ 16:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. I closed the original discussion that User:JPxG started on this topic at WP:ANI because it was not, and still is not, "an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem". I also suggested that "WP:AN might be interested though". It is good that JPxG has taken my advice and moved it here. It is curious, however, that they ever considered it to be an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem... even after User:snarkyalx informed them that, actually, no "explicit" threats were made. Indeed, this whole affaire is a nothingburger of bargain bucket proportions: nothing has actually happened, and more to the point, there would appear to be nothing that either Wikipedia administrators nor the community can actually do about it. Serial Number 54129 17:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do have to say that some suspicious stuff is still going on as I don't believe bunq will just move on from this based on their communication and some other stuff. Also, a sockpuppet investigation regarding one of the alleged paid editors is still ongoing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pridemanty Snarkyalyx (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Between the likely undisclosed paid editing on Bunq and the fact that someone at the company went out of their way to find a user who reverted them outside of Wikipedia, even if no explicit threats were made, this is still an incident that merits investigation rather than a "nothingburger". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is being investigated. This is good. SerialNumber54129 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Another reason why "Incidents" is such a poor name for that board. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• As far as the issue in the title Allegations online that some bank is contacting its customers over modifying its Wikipedia entry goes: The affair is concerning, but mainly from the standpoint of snaryalyx's personal privacy (and I'd probably report to a European financial supervisory authority if I were them). It's got nothing to do with us otherwise. Any promotional content on the article can be dealt with in the usual ways, although personally I think the tagbombing in Special:Permalink/1258373131 is problematic and also rather dubious (when an article's prose is largely controversies, it's debatable whether it's really {{advert}} - maybe more like {{anti-advert}}). I also think some of those controversy subsections are (were?) undue. But all of this can be dealt with through the usual editing process and use of content noticeboards like WP:COIN - it's not an AN or ANI issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. And SPI, as mentioned above. SerialNumber54129 14:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  It also appears further evidence has been sent to ARBCOM, I would hope and expect that if it is at all compelling they will revoke EC from the paid editor and probably block them as well. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Rangeblock Calculator

Does anyone know of a convenient tool for calculating rangeblocks? I had been using Fastily's. Unfortunately they have retired and disabled their calculator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Source code is at https://github.com/fastily/ftools so someone could adopt it and publish it to a new location. Raladic (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The same thing was asked at the Teahouse today. Is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Alternative to range block calculator any help? Deor (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was extremely helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a similar tool inspired by Fastily's code, and I will publish it shortly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

{{blockcalc}} works in a sandbox. Put {{blockcalc|1= ...wikitext with IPs... }} in a sandbox and preview the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Phab request filed but will probably take a while. For the CUs among us, there's one at the bottom of Special:CheckUser (which realistically could be split off to its own special page, the JavaScript is at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser/+/refs/heads/master/modules/ext.checkUser/cidr/cidr.js). DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 02:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

https://galaxybots.toolforge.org/iprangecalculator – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Or just use NativeForeigner's tool[120]? It works fine. Bishonen | tålk 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC).

Whatever gets decided, it should be added to Special:Block. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, since this thread is no longer very active, I went to Special:Block to add NativeForeigner's tool, only to find I can't edit a "Special" page. Would somebody who can do that like to add either NF's or some other tool mentioned above? There should surely be something that works there as soon as possible. If some other alternative is then preferred here, it can easily be changed. Well, not easily, apparently, but you know what I mean. Bishonen | tålk 02:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen, the content at the top of the page can be edited at MediaWiki:Blockiptext, which transcludes {{Sensitive IP addresses}}. The link provided by DreamRimmer is on Toolforge too, perhaps a bit better privacy-wise than someone else's domain, so I added that one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I use {{IP range calculator}} which works quite well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pontential vandalism by Fray7 on Wikipedia's Zagreb page

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

---

Hello,

There’s a potential vandalism by the username of Fray7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been changing the population of Zagreb. I’ve noticed that from weeks ago when they decided to change population, even though with all references related to Zagreb's population are accurate. Knowing that they are the user with overall 8 edits, makes it look like that. I’ve notify the user on their talk page. I posted a diff with link to the example that has been going on for weeks. [121]

Thank you for you understanding. SatelliteChange (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

SatelliteChange keeps reverting my edits and changing the Zagreb metro population from his Wikipedia account and 3 other IP addressess to an incorrect, random number of 1,217,150. The source for and next to the metro population clearly states that the Zagreb agglomeration is home to 1,086,528 inhabitants (page 6 of the sourced PDF), not 1,217,150. Fray7 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue that should be discussed at Talk:Zagreb. I note that the figure of 1,086,528 is from the 2011 census. Maybe the 2021 census shows something different. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Create Page

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

---

Could the page Youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ be created? it's the URL for the Rickroll music video and I want to redirect it to Rickrolling. MouseCursor (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yo Drmies, CU time. SerialNumber54129 18:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Close review: WP:ANI#Overzealous blocking by User:ToBeFree

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

---

I closed the mentioned ANI thread due to the filing editor being blocked for sockpuppetry. A few minutes later Voorts comes to my talk page and asks me to revert my closure. I believe that I was right, however I am coming here to get a second opinion. If it be that the comunity does not endorse my closure, than I will revert it. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really sure you need to post these here as a matter of course. There's no reason you need to profess that you will revert your closure upon request: if an admin actually disagrees with the thread being closed, I'm sure they would reopen it themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This close review is unnecessary. I asked you to self-revert because generally non-admins shouldn't clerk AN or AN/I, and then responded with what I think SOCKSTRIKE says. I wasn't planning to unilaterally revert your close or bring a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Aside from that, there are plenty of reasons to keep a thread open when it's opened by a sock: to report more socking to the same thread, to discuss the editor's conduct, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If the idea of the closure was to deny recognition or to minimize the impact of the block evasion, that doesn't work if there is a disagreement about it, and it completely fails if it results in a discussion on another noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In fairness it was my idea to take it here. At any rate I have reverted NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Whatever the heck this is

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

---

see User:Ghadi21 and User talk: Ghadi21- they have placed/ attempted to place a block notif on their own pages? Maybe a non issue but thought it important enough to mention here. Sandcat555 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sandcat555 Perhaps they're testing and just need a pointer to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings Mach61 07:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 May be a silly question but are you certain they aren't actually a sock of someone else, given those are their only two edits? Sandcat555 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sandcat555 Eh, my own first edit was pretty weird, unless there's a specific sockpuppeteer known to do this I see no reason to to assume good faith Mach61 08:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 Alright then. Guess it's nothing Sandcat555 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

MrSchimpf

Has reverted many of my helpful edits that fall in line with Wikipedia policy and style. For example, changing the phrase "passed away" to died, which falls in line with MOS:EUPHEMISM. I don't want to risk getting into edit wars/3RR. I feel these edits were valid and improved the articles. Megainek (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@MrSchimpf: Can you expand a bit upon your decision to use rollback in these three edits? Were you perhaps reading the diffs backwards, or did you intend to use rollback here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Those were unintended rollbacks and should be restored and I certainly do apologize for that; there's no issue with that and I have now self-reverted myself seeing those edits as I went through reverting edits made against the advice of several editors. However, the reporter (who I feel has no case for AN at all) has been urged several times through the last year to stop arguing that WP:NPOV somehow applies to the neutral terms 'short-lived' and 'long-running' to describe the longevity of television series (which is very common in the fields of television writing and criticism), and had both @Premeditated Chaos: and @Tamzin: advise them of such last year.

They chose to not hear that, not respond and continued further until I came upon them again on Early Today removing mentions about the NBC soap Another World being long-running, and a short-lived version of Today known as Early Today being such, and reverted another mention when I came upon PMC and Tamzin's talk page warning to them, saying that most readers would not think forty years would be 'long-running' and somehow a WP:PEACOCK term.

As they had never responded to those concerns, I reminded them that a warning to a talk page does not expire and expected them to adjust. Instead, they reverted me back, called me a vandal, and asserted that those two longtime admins somehow do not understand the Manual of Style. In the course of their new edits, I found this edit somehow asserting the removal of 'stereotyping' when it merely noted the producers produced specific and known comedy content and again warned them to stop, and a talk page message warning that they were now being disruptive. As the editor refuses to discuss their edits outside of edit summaries and ran right to here rather than another proper venue such as 3RR, I feel the report outside my mistaken rollback is spurious, and do wish the editor would communicate outside boilerplates. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see the revert was mistaken, as I was also confused what the issue was there. As to "long-running", yes, I stand by what I said last year: Megainek, you need consensus at WT:MOSWTW or similar in order to driveby-remove that term, which on its face does not seem peacocky to me and at least two others now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me add my support for perfectly commonplace phrases like "long-running" and "short-lived" with regards to TV series. So, that's at least four editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reiterating that I still feel "long-running" (and etc) is a perfectly reasonable phrase. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"Passed away"->"died"? Okay, that I have no problem with provided that you aren't modifying quotes. But I concur with Tamzin, PMC, and Cullen328 as a fourth administrator that changing "short-lived" or "long-running" in the context of television series is ridiculous and not supported by MOS:EUPHEMISM. EUPHEMISM doesn't cover industry terms and industry terms like these most definitely aren't puffery. I would urge you to stand down rather than continue on this edit war. If you believe that those terms are covered, then start a formal RfC. But until there is RfC consensus in favour of your position, you must stop this behaviour, Megainek. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Handling of pages requested by sockpuppets

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

---

Hello,

Recently, over 350 redirects were created at WP:AFC/R. These redirects were requested, unknown to the several reviewers involved (including myself), by socks of TotalTruthTeller24. When these socks were discovered, admins @Hey man im josh and @Ponyo went to work deleting these redirects as WP:G5. While I'm not calling into question the judgement of the admins previously mentioned as they did what precedent would dictate, I think the community should review this methodology of handling cases such as this.

Technically, the guidelines surrounding G5 are not clear about whether it can apply to pages created at banned/blocked user's request. It states that pages must "have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions." However, I think most editors would agree that the act of creating a page (regardless of who's idea it was) is a substantial contribution.

The purpose of AfC as I understand it is to provide a method for editors to have their pages (including redirects and categories) screened by someone else. WP:AFC states that, "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page". Its use by blocked users is actually consistent with AfCs purpose, as it's currently written. Personally, I don't have a problem if a blocked editor wants to be constructive by going through channels that allow their work to be scrutinized and affirmed by another editor. Maybe this should actually be permitted and even encouraged to provide a way for banned/blocked editors to turn to being constructive instead of vandalizing, becoming a method for proving good intention as a result.

At its simplest, a contribution is either constructive or it's not. In this case, these redirects were found to be valid and constructive by several independent editors who spent combined hours accepting the requests. These redirects were deleted not because they were created by a banned or blocked user, but because they were the idea of a banned or blocked user. As this was a deletion of (many) otherwise constructive contributions, it seems only destructive to Wikipedia. As I've stated before, it seems more like "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face".

I have heard the argument that this blanket handling of AfC related requests by blocked users discourages socks because it doesn't give them what they want. The first part doesn't seem to translate to reality, serial sock users like TTT24 have not been dissuaded. On the second point, if what a blocked user wants is the same thing as what everyone else wants (to build Wikipedia), why not allow it to happen? Nobody has yet addressed the logical hole that I or any other editor could simply go back and create redirects on our own and they would suddenly be acceptable. In fact, if it wasn't explicitly stated that the redirects were as a result of an AfC/R request, would that also make them acceptable?

So, the logical proposal is to stop deleting pages created as a result of a request by a sock. If someone catches the request beforehand, deny it for being a sock. But, once the redirects are created, they shouldn't be touched unless invalid for some other reason. Regardless of whether the above (or something else) is agreed to, G5 should be clarified as to whether it does or does not apply to such cases.

Garsh (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well this feels premature given we were having what I thought to be a constructive conversation and we were waiting on @Ponyo to chime in. I did not initially go to work doing so for what it's worth. I had noticed Ponyo doing so and I helped them complete the task, including hundreds of redirects I myself created (361 to be exact).

These were edits on behalf of a blocked user who was evading a block. A user who has done so for quite a long time. Now by bringing it here we're feeding the troll instead of actually finishing the conversation we started, so that sucks, but I guess we're giving them that acknowledgement now.

To allow that at WP:AFC/R simply encourages them to continue to create accounts, make requests, rinse and repeat, making their block effectively worthless and encouraging the sock puppetry. I didn't start the deletion spree, but I did contribute to it when I realized Ponyo was going to go ahead and delete all of the redirects that were requested.

Edits on behalf of blocked users are not permitted. I'm not sure why we should make an exception that encourages that behaviour. Though, at the end of the day, I'm most ashamed that I contributed and actually created hundreds of redirects for a sock that I'm actually already familiar with. Regardless of what's decided at this discussion, which again, entirely premature in the midst of an ongoing conversation which was waiting on Ponyo, I want those 361 redirects I created to stay deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting it was exactly 4 hours between your post on my talk page and when you came here. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I’m not accusing either of you of doing anything wrong. This is simply addressing an issue that we have run into repeatedly at AFC/R for months. Garsh (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting a similar conversation about whether an AfC acceptance invalidates G5 is happening here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 26#2024 Northeastern United States wildfires so some resolution in this area is definitely needed. (Will cross post there so all aware I'm cross linking) Star Mississippi 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:AFC states that, "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page".

Not blocked or banned editors. Common sense is expected when reading these things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We delete stuff that is the result of block evasion. This is not somplicated. If any user in good standing sees utility in some of these redirects they can recreate them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Is accepting a redirect request not an endorsement of its utility? Garsh (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really? It's more a statement that there's no reason that the redirect shouldn't exist. However, if it was created by a banned editor, that's a good reason why it shouldn't exist. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think this should be a broader discussion, perhaps to happen on WT:CSD about CSD G5 taggings and deletions rather than focusing this attention on two admins who were acting in good faith. As an aside, in my admin work though, I have noticed with CSD G5s, that it is almost always article and draft creations that are tagged for deletions while talk pages and redirects are not tagged. I don't think there is a specific policy guiding this but I have just been aware of this when looking at the page creations of a recently blocked sockpuppet. But this seems like a discussion to have about implementing Wikipedia policy, not a behavioral issue and this issue sure wasn't allowed to have much discussion time before appearing here.

I'm feeling a bit bad about this myself as it seems like this complaint that arose out of a simple comment I made a few hours ago on Josh's User talk page. I didn't think it would so quickly escalate to appearing on the AN noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused about the proper venue for this. If so, I do sincerely apologize. I have clarified again and again that I am not calling the administrators’ conduct into question. Both are good admins who I appreciate very much. I only mentioned them because it was relevant to the background. This is intended to be a policy discussion. Garsh (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If that were the case, then this should, ideally, have been discussed at WT:CSD. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We delete pages that survived AFD if it's later discovered that all the substantial edits were by a banned user. AFC reviewers are directed to accept if they think the page merely would probably survive a deletion discussion, so that's very plainly a lower bar. In the case of AFC/R, the substance is the identification of the redirects' titles and targets, and that the redirects were created directly by the reviewer rather than moved from draftspace is a technicality.

Yes, you can go ahead and recreate these redirects, so long as the changes are productive and [you] have independent reasons for making such edits. Just like someone can take responsibility for other G5-deleted content, so long as they don't mind being blocked if that content turns out to be copyright infringement or deliberate but (presumably) subtle vandalism. —Cryptic 23:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors who are evading a block or ban are acting in bad faith, if they want to contribute bin good faith they should make an appeal. Giving them a way to work around their block isn't a good idea, and will only encourage them to continue in the wrong way.

Any editor can take responsibility for a reverted edit and put the edit back into an article, in the same way any editor I'm good standing should be able to adopt any redirects or articles they create. Although they then are responsible for making sure any content is properly policy compliant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So since we all seem to agree that 1) this was inadvertently brought to the wrong venue (should be WT:CSD); and 2) that this is a policy question that merits additional visibility, and not reflective of a conduct issue; is there any objection to closing this section out and transferring this discussion to WT:CSD?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well that’s rather embarrassing, apologies @Hey man im josh and @Ponyo. Garsh (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions

I have decided to formalize, as a personal policy, a practice of generally refusing to moderate or close discussions where my actions with respect to those discussions are solicited by a discussion participant, for reasons that I have explained in the essay that I have just written, Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions. In a nutshell, I feel that whenever a discussion participant asks a specific administrator to intervene in the discussion, that creates the appearance that the requested administrator is expected to act in favor of the editor making the solicitation. I am more than happy to randomly select pending discussions on notice boards to close, but well henceforth decline to close the discussion where a participant asks for my closure. BD2412 T 03:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if something like this already exists, please point me to it and I will redirect my essay there. I was unable to find an existing project-space page delineating this concept. BD2412 T 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I kinda hate it when I get randomly asked to action something and I often just ignore it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page there with some thoughts. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor possibly gaming the system

Can an admin have a look at this user's edits? With this account over 30 days old I suspect they may be deliberately trying to get to 500 edits with their low effort contributions, though I'm not what their intentions will be once they "achieve" that target. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 08:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Abminor, you have to notify the editor of this discussion. There are notices everywhere on this page and on the edit notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I've done that now. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Assembly theory is EC protected. Maybe that is their destination. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, they are clearly gaming the system. Just a series of 1 byte edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They are at 411 edits. I've let them know that extended confirmed status will be removed if they continue with these meaningless edits. In fact, even if they get to 500 edits soon, we should consider removing this status until they achieved 500 meaningful edits to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Assembly theory is a mess - two sets of competing sock accounts, one with WP:COI in favor and the other connected to a paid editing farm boosting blog posts by critics. I cleaned up the worst of the blog stuff from the article and got called a vandal by JulioISalazarG for my trouble. Article could certainly use more watchlisting. MrOllie (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions that set forth different approaches to improving the Committee's workflow and handling of its nonpublic work. Comments are welcome at the motions page. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow

Request for Admin Assistance with Adani Group Article

Hello,

I would like to request administrative assistance with the Adani Group article. Currently, the introduction includes detailed allegations and controversies (e.g., stock manipulation, political corruption, and other issues), which I believe would be more appropriately placed in the "Controversy" section.

This placement would align with Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD guidelines, which recommend summarizing neutral information in the lead and placing contentious details in dedicated sections.

I have initiated a discussion on the Talk page: [Relocation of Allegations to the Controversy Section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adani_Group#Relocation_of_Allegations_to_the_Controversy_Section). However, additional input or intervention from an administrator would be greatly appreciated to ensure neutrality and proper structuring.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hello, JESUS,

Admins usually do not get involved with article content disputes, we address behavioral issues and policy violations. It sounds like you are doing the right thing in starting an article talk page discussion. I hope you get some good participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, for the clarification. I appreciate your advice and will continue to engage with other editors on the Talk page to gather input and work towards a consensus. I’m hopeful that we can come to an agreement that ensures the article remains balanced and neutral.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Using AI-generated text, like you have here and on that talk page, is not constructive to discussion. I hope you will consider engaging in that discussion yourself rather than relying on external tools. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 08:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Thadeus. I’d like to clarify that all the contributions I’ve made on the Talk page and here are entirely my own. I prefer to communicate formally on Wikipedia to ensure clarity and professionalism in discussions. My intention is solely to engage constructively and ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

If there’s any specific issue with the way I’ve phrased something, please let me know, and I’ll be happy to address it.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet

The IP blocked in this discussion is now sockpuppeting as 180.74.217.97 to continue their disruptive edits. MB2437 14:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anyone else on Special:Contributions/180.74.192.0/19, so I blocked that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. While I reached out to some people directly, I'm very open to hearing from anyone who wants to fill out the feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)