Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User conduct

    [edit]
    OP blocked for WP:NOTHERE and sockpuppetry. Northern Moonlight 05:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am writing to formally report the disruptive behavior exhibited by user during the ongoing RFC process. Despite the warning, they continues to undermine the purpose of the RFC by repeatedly closing the discussion: they has repeteadly derailed the RFC and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. Preventing consensus. they has actively worked to prevent the community from reaching a wider consensus by monopolizing the discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints. Gagging the procedure: their actions have effectively stifled the RFC process, preventing the community from having a fair and open discussion. I urge you to take immediate action to address this issue and ensure that the RFC can proceed in a productive and respectful manner. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, seriously: I should've been far less impulsive, and more willing to listen to the type of editor that can pick up all this lingo and knowledge of site procedure over the course of 30 edits made in less than a day. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for acknowledging your error. The Request for Comments has been reopened, and additional secondary sources have been incorporated. I invite you to participate in the renewed discussion. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Remsense ‥ 论 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say someone's irony detector needs to be taken in for recalibration, but ChatGPT doesn't do irony. EEng 04:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I closed it again. The consensus here seems to be that it was a good close, and it certainly is not appropriate to reopen it and change the question being asked after editors have already replied to it. Meters (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or trying once more to cite WP:MEDPOP, while not addressing WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Remsense ‥ 论 07:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Meters Thank you for bringing the oversight in the question to my attention. I should have included a reference to the secondary source in the discussion.
    I respectfully request that you reconsider your inadvertent reversal. It appears to be hindering open discussion on the talk page. Please allow the community to thoroughly explore alternative perspectives on this matter. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're hindering the discussion by not engaging with the points of site procedure and policy communicated to you by literally everyone who has engaged with you so far. You're not entitled to discussion on your terms alone, and there's no particular reason we care about "alternative perspectives" if you can't make a case for them like everybody else.Remsense ‥ 论 08:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {ec} "Inadvertent"? There was nothing inadvertent about my revert of your edit. It's bizarre that you interpreted Remsense's comment as justification to reopen the RFC, it was inappropriate for you to reopen that RFC (let alone for the second time), and it was even more inappropriate for you to change the wording of the rfc after it was already replied to. Nemov's comment about a WP:BOOMARANG is looking better and better. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attended to 1. modified RfC by changing the query 2. including the supplementary material and being prepared to include further supplementary materials till you cease gagging the process 3. and using every available method to allay the worries of any participating editors . DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this ANI notice filed for the User conduct is not working. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As is clearly stated at the top of the page, the filer should expect scrutiny applied to their behavior as well. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a good RFC close to me. The RFC was malformed (see WP:RFCNEUTRAL) and the outcome of the discussion was obvious to anyone but you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a practice point for me to remember to state explicitly that the RfC was malformed next time. Remsense ‥ 论 19:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am writing to formally request the restoration of the Request for Comments (RFC) that I initiated regarding a content dispute and user conduct with @Remsense. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue through Talk Page discussions and the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (ANI), I have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution.
    Unfortunately, due to my current travel schedule, I am unable to devote the necessary time to further escalate this matter at present. However, I intend to follow up on this issue as soon as possible upon my return.
    In the meantime, I kindly request that you and the concerned editors reconsider your stance and engage in a constructive dialogue through the RFC process. I believe that open communication and a willingness to participate are essential for resolving disputes and maintaining a collaborative editing environment.
    I have secondary sources to support my claim, and I would like the opportunity to properly present the RFC. I believe that the RFC process is a valuable tool for resolving disputes and ensuring that WP:NPOV are followed.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request that the administrators intervene to ensure that the RFC is restored and that a fair and equitable resolution is reached.DwilfaStudwell (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatant use of a Large language model shows lack of respect for the people you're addressing. You don't even seem to be giving it sensible instructions ("Thank you for your attention to this matter.") Stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    While it's frustrating to respond to, I am sympathetic to people who might have limited comfort writing in English and might be apprehensive about it, or think the LLM or machine translation is smarter than it is. Remsense ‥ 论 12:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one agrees with your premises. This is not a failing of the system. Remsense ‥ 论 10:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not about system; its about you. You are abusing the system DwilfaStudwell (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading the RFC, it is pretty evident that even a new RFC (even with more sources) wouldn't yield any different result. Remsense isn't abusing the system, your RFC was soundly rejected and the responses on it explain pretty well why it was. R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done things like close RFCs where I was pretty sure I was right and someone else disagreed. As such, I got reverted and life goes on. That isn't happening here, because no one else agrees with your premises. Remsense ‥ 论 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, that GPT 4 has a lot more spirit than 3.5. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a WP:BOOMARANG situation. Very strange that DwilfaStudwell's fourth edit was to template warning an experienced user. Now this user is opening up a discussion here. This doesn't seem like a editor who is here to improve the project or work well with others. Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry @DwilfaStudwell, but that looks like a good close. You'll have to accept that you're outside consensus on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You really ought to be WAY less combative if you want to collaborate with other people. If things worked like your template warnings would lead us to believe there would be very few editors left that didn't get blocked. This isn't the way to go. – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is too much here that is strongly suggestive of WP:NOTHERE and the response[1] to questions about other accounts does not inspire confidence. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remsense, my question to you is why did you close this RFC after one day? RFCs typically last at least one week or longer. And I don't think 3 editors' opinion merits a SNOW close after just one day. I think our understanding of SNOW has gotten way out of whack, it's used too often when there is just a small group of editors who agree when it is supposed to be used for a tidal wave of Keeps, not just 3 editors. That's a "consensus" that could easily change with a few more participants and 1 day is not long enough for editors to even discover that the RFC is going on. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition to the opinions already expressed, the RFC's question was clearly both out of scope for the article, and a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If any of the those three points were not the case, I wouldn't have closed it. Any RFC that had a chance would require rewriting—as their attempt to do so in reopening shows. I have no compunctions about it being a SNOW close if I'm to trust my own faculties, and I feel that's been vindicated by the fact that no one has challenged the close on its merits—as opposed to challenging it on procedural grounds as you're doing here (and are completely within your rights to do, of course). That it seemed appropriate to do after only a day is a function of just how weak the RFC's premise was. Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was watching this as it happened, and it's my understanding the RFC was closed within two hours. In @Remsense's defense it followed closely on an earlier discussion with @Bon courage, a vigorous but fruitless attempt to impress on @DwilfaStudwell that their use of sources violated medical referencing and fringe content rules. Oblivy (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If my logic is satisfactory here: if a single other editor was to indicate they would've done anything but oppose in that RfC, then I was totally in the wrong to close it, and would naturally more seriously reconsider my future calculus with this incident in mind. Remsense ‥ 论 12:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I started writing a discussion point asking whether the frequency with which this issue arises (and is shot down) on Turmeric suggests a need to acknowledge the health claims without suggesting they are accepted. I didn't post it because (a) things quickly turned to whether curcumin = turmeric, an argument I didn't (and don't) understand, and (b) it was hard to frame it in a way that gave due weight to medref/profringe. Then the discussion got closed, and things turned into a revert war over the close.
      To your point, @Remsense I doubt I'd ever have gotten to the point of agreeing with the RFC (whatever it was supposed to mean). There were good reasons to believe that conversation wouldn't go anywhere, but closing the discussion guaranteed it wouldn't. Oblivy (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can at least promise I've gotten enough constructive feedback here that I won't find it necessary to close anything this quickly in the future. Remsense ‥ 论 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the good spirit to acknowledge your shortfall. @Remsense.
      Now lets all participate in the RfC DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean you got some finger-wagging for taking a step to try and improve the running of the Project with an action that actually has strong WP:CONSENSUS? Yup, classic WP:ANI. Bon courage (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bon courage I appreciate your suggestion for improving the RfC (if you have any). Lets talk and give the RfC a Chance. Thanks DwilfaStudwell (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why did you not answer the questions about other accounts that admins asked you on your Talk page? I don't see any point in a RfC until and unless some prior source-based discussion has taken place to determine what issues might be discussed. But first I would like to see the WP:SOCKing suspicions cleared up. Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey, I would just prefer that I both do an obviously correct close and not leave anyone with anything they would think to wring their hands over, if at all possible. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember, no good deed goes unpunished! Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @DwilfaStudwell: Stop reopening that RFC in Talk:Turmeric. This is at least the third time you have done so. That was a badly defective RFC. As you have already been told, you were asking to include content about health benefits of turmeric in Turmeric based on sources that discussed curcumin, not tumeric. If you want to include any of that material then it would go in curcumin, not in turmeric, and only if the sources met WP:MEDRS. Meters (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This argument about a "small group" of "three editors" reaching a consensus was raised in the debate above. and without granting RfC more than a day to live, the agreement might have been altered. There should be more editors involved in the conversation. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone pull a Remsense here and close this given there's no reason for it to be obliquely about me, please? Remsense ‥ 论 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you're always rushing to close things Here [2] and here [3]. Is there something wrong with you? @Remsense DwilfaStudwell (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things: arthritis, liver disease, major depression, and a pretty crummy memory. Plus, I'm pretty sure I've recently come down with either melanoma or colorectal cancer, if not both. Any advice? Remsense ‥ 论 08:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I've found helps a lot is to buy a 250g packet of powdered turmeric, use it a couple of times, then just leave it on the shelf above the sink so that you can stare at it occasionally while washing the dishes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inappropriate blocks and WP:BITE by Graham87

    [edit]

    After the recent thread about Graham87 (talk · contribs) overzealously blocking a user based on "vibes", I saw a thread on his talkpage where Liz had questioned an indef of MarcArchives00 (talk · contribs) he had made back in February 2024. I checked and it seemed to be a completely unfounded block based on "padding his edit count" by doing the tutorial that we show to new users plus a deleted stub Draft:Nur (influencer) that looked promotion-ish but hardly worth a block without discussion. I lifted the block and left a message on Graham's talkpage, then went back and checked all his blocks from September 2024.

    There ended up being a total of 4 user blocks that I ended up lifting. Two were probably okay but not needed anymore; the block of Flight709 (talk · contribs) looked especially unwarranted, as well as 8 IP blocks that were anywhere from 1-10 years that I shortened because I felt them excessive. There were several more that I thought were questionable but within reasonable admin discretion, so I left those alone. Graham87's response[4] acknowledges some of them were excessive, but comes across as deeply suspicious of new/anonymous editors with an immediate WP:BITE reflex, so I think it needs to be brought to the community for review. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not offering to do it, but what exactly is it that you are asking the community to do? Talk to him? – 2804:F1...05:9F62 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a prelude to an ARBR request (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Wordsmith). After reading through Graham87's talk page, the previous ANI thread, and the WPO thread, I would support such. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping that there would be some introspection so it wouldn't be necessary to go to WP:RFAR; part of me still hopes for it. Given the response, either Graham's sense of when to block is far outside community norms or mine is so I'm not sure it can be avoided one way or another. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they’re being less BITEy per User talk:12.25.163.113. I hope it continues and, on second thought, was hasty with my earlier comment. I don’t want to see him deysysopped, but the community doesn’t have the power to decide whether or not someone has used the tools fairly. When there’s reasonable arguments to be made for either side, I do support escalation. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rationale provided here for some of the blocks is remarkably childish. "I raised it to five years because they complained that three years was too long". I hate spammy editors as much as anyone but the block of MarcArchives00 was an utter abuse of power. It also appears Graham87 blindly reverted every single contribution by Flight709. This included restoring an unreliable, deprecated source. They blocked Flight709 for editing "far too quickly, recklessly, and suspiciously" and then abused Flight709 as "completely untrustworthy and are not welcome here". How is this not plain and simple abuse of admin power? The block of StattoSteven was beyond completely unreasonable - look at their contributions before being indefinitely blocked (per WP:INDEF, intended for "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and disappointingly the unblock request was twice declined (first by 331dot on the basis they had engaged in overlinking in their first edits and hadn't been on here in a while and didn't immediately request an unblock). What's the point of the unblock process if such an obviously inappropriate block is allowed to stand? AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will endeavour to use more warnings than blocks from now on where feasible (it can be harder for IP and especially IPV6 users ... and in my experience many warnings are ignored, but that could be confirmation bias) ... and I'd forgotten there was a separate section of the blocking policy about indefinite blocks. Also, I'll copy something I wrote at Wikipediocracy re IP school blocks: I check the last school year's contributions of an IP range before I block them and if a significant portion of their edits are tagged as reverted (a relatively new feature), I block them ... and sometimes find unreverted vandalism that way. Usually for the ones I've blocked like 90% of their edits are vandalism to either articles or talk pages and the other 10% are either silly but harmless replies to their user talk page or updates to their school's article (which are sometimes good, sometimes not). A lot of pages are on my watchlist because of vandalism, often from school IP's, that has gone unreverted for a while. Graham87 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to weigh in here in either direction as I closed the prior thread but I'm not sure what another ANI achieves when these are about blocks that happened before the prior thread. Were you hoping Graham would go through their past blocks and reassess? If you think it merits tool removal, it needs ArbComm anyway so this step appears unnecessary. Star Mississippi 00:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The previous thread (which I didn't participate in) was about a single bad block. Every admin makes an occasional mistake, I've made plenty. My digging showed that it looks to be a much larger issue, but realistically Arbcom is not going to accept a case, admonish, or yank the bit unless the community has agreed there's a problem it can't solve through normal means. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for lifting that block, The Wordsmith. I came across them when I deleted that draft and they had such a brief contribution history, I didn't see anything blockable. As for sanctions, in my limited experiences, cases like this are posted on WP:AN, not WP:ANI. You might consider moving this case to that noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've skimmed through all of the accounts blocked by Graham87 over the last six months. I only took a brief look, and many of them are routine, but a few stood out. I ask that an uninvolved admin review the blocks of Lisabofita, Imtisig, and Ainguyen9 to determine whether they were appropriate. I also ask that the appeal by Sigmaxalpha be evaluated on a procedural basis, as Graham87 reviewed himself and revoked talk page access. One other general note, I noticed that Graham87 has used the phrases "your editing pattern is highly suspicious" and "you are not welcome here" toward multiple editors whom he blocked for relatively mild infractions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deemed an editing pattern highly suspicious when it seemed like an editor was trying to get to autoconfirmed/extended-confirmed (perhaps for nefarious purposes) using minor edits to pad their edit count. My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that phrase in the future. Graham87 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The @Sigmaxalpha: block + unblock request denial + TP revocation looks absolutely horrendous on the surface. We have yet another case of blocking someone off of "a ... really weird feeling" and "because [their] attitude is incompatible with writing an encyclopedia" when the user was apparently being receptive of advice and I don't see anything in their recent contributions to warrant such a quick block, especially since they ceased editing mainspace after the "really weird feeling" comment.
    I'd also say that, with this being a new editor, that Graham87 really ought to have known better than to interpret them tagging him in their unblock request as "specifically ask[ing] that *I* review my own block and that you don't want a review from other administrators (contrary to the purpose of the unblock template)" (bolding mine). Honestly, that is mind-boggling how someone would come to that conclusion. Support another admin unblocking and restoring TPA post-haste though it's likely too late with that editor. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone and done the unblock and we'll see what happens. The Indian entrepreneur bit of their user page (the combination of the two, because it seems to be a hotspot of paid editing) plus their tendency to make very minor edits like this one (which is how I found them ... and isn't in any sort of tutorial) set off alarm bells. I knew that asking for me to review their unblock request probably wasn't what they meant but by then their general evasiveness was getting to me. And they did promise a paid editing disclosure in the end. Graham87 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked Imtisig as the reasoning for the block wasn't particularly strong to begin with and the user acknowledged their wrongdoing (pl) and agreed not to repeat it (sadly, no one looked at that unblock request within a reasonable timeframe). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For a further look, I pulled up recent ANI posts involving Graham87's admin actions. There have been several of varying merit, but the most relevant one was in May 2022, which was closed as There is a general agreement that, for some time now, there have been intermittent issues with Graham87's use of the block tool, and of issues with WP:INVOLVED. Graham87 has been admonished for doing so, and has agreed to work harder in the future to abide by the restrictions on admins using their tools in disputes where they could be considered substantially involved. At this point, no formal sanctions are enacted, without prejudice to opening a new case some time in the future should problems of this nature persist. This has only further convinced me that every time an ANI discussion is closed without action, it's tacit permission to continue whatever behavior was being scrutinized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only possible "action" here is to take this to ArbCom, no? Seems they'd be likely to accept an WP:ADMINCOND case if some form of recidivism exists. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't have confidence in this admin at all, unfortunately. Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but this is way, way beyond that. It is active, repeated and ongoing abuse of admin tools. I think an apology by Graham87 to some of the inappropriately blocked editors such as StattoSteven would have been an start of acknowledging that was has happened is unacceptable. At the absolute bare minimum, Graham87 should no longer be blocking editors or reviewing unblock requests. AusLondonder (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral on whether anything ought to be done about Graham87, but I do want to suggest that the current state of the unblock request list perhaps aggravates this type of thing. You have a relatively small number of admins taking on an extremely large workload that -- let's be honest -- consists of a large proportion of bad faith editors who are freuently abusive and/or lie. It's much easier for someone to WP:AGF when they just come in to review a single editor's appeal on a request than it is for an admin who has just spent hours dealing with UPEs, angry failed autobiographers, and vandals. If there are admins who have the ability and time to provide assistance here, I'd urge them to consider reviewing more unblock requests. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an excuse nor does it explain the initial block of an editor like StattoSteven. AusLondonder (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, but it can be a symptom of a larger problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoffeeCrumbs: Having attempted to deal with the oldest of the appeals a few weeks ago, which was extremely time consuming and led to a quick burnout, I want to say that I saw many of your comments at the appeals and found them thoughtful and helpful. So thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 16:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to be at least mildly helpful when I can be. I figure any question that I or another editor can field is one less thing to deal with for you or Yamla or 331dot or any of the others. I know what a workload it is for you and the others. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do a lot of SPI work, so I completely understand how difficult it can be to maintain a good attitude when dealing with the worst of the worst. Still doesn't excuse this. I often close SPI cases without action even when my instincts tell me they're a sock, because I can't prove it. Even for UPE, it often can be hard to distinguish a paid editor from somebody who just wants to write an article on a musician or influencer they like. That's why the SPI backlog is so long. Still, it's better to let a sockpuppet or COI go than it is to block legitimate editors who are trying to learn. We do need a lot more admins to handle various backlogs, but driving out newbies before they can gain experience is only going to make the problem worse in the long run. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here from the Wikipediocracy thread, where I've weighed in a few times and so for transparency's sake, I should join the conversation here, too. Speaking as a former admin and also just as a long-time editor ... I appreciate Graham87's working to protect the encyclopaedia. As it used to say somewhere and may still do, Wikipedia is not a utopian social experiment. Vandals exist. Point-of-view pushers and promotional editors exist. Well-meaning doofuses can do a lot of damage, and that includes newbies and people lacking the competence to edit for whatever reason, and also people fixated on "correcting" the English of articles. Admins are made admins in large part for their cluefulness in identifying all of those problems and figuring out how to deal with them. What's largely happened in this case, I think (I disagree with Graham87 about school IPs) is that his use of the blocking tool has indeed diverged from community expectations, as The Wordsmith suggests. It's become abusive at times. With an added problem that he isn't good at explaining to the user in plain English what they've been doing wrong (far from the only admin with that issue, but our PAGS can be counter-intuitive and our jargon can be hard to understand, and admins should be explicators first, and it's always best to avoid the block. And I see both in the discussion above and in the user talk examples cited here and at Wikipediocracy, Graham87 getting frustrated. And trying again and again in the same vein of comment.
    I think we can avoid bothering ArbCom. My recommendations:
    • Graham87, stop blocking people (except for the most obvious and nasty vandals) and recalibrate your sense of blocking policy and its implementation. Maybe choose 2 or 3 admins active in blocking (and not checkusers or other special cases) and analyse their blocks in recent months: what do they do in different kinds of cases, how rapidly do they block, when do they use indef, how long are their blocks on IPs. Some of your comments, here and elsewhere, indicate you study editors who you think might be promotional, and schools that produce problematic edits. Step back from blocking and instead turn that analytical focus on current blocking practice for a while. You've drifted from best practice.
    • When you resume blocking, always watchlist the blockee's user page (or maintain a separate list of user pages to check every day). It's courteous, I think most admins do it, and for whatever reasons, a large percentage of people don't follow the instructions for filing an unblock request using the template that puts their page in the category. And anyone can make a mistake; with the best will in the world, an admin will sometimes make a block that, after reading what the blockee has to say, they decide to reverse.
    • You've been promising to be nicer, but also try to be clearer. In particular, explain more from the start, and change tacks if the person isn't getting it. That could include linking to simpler explanations like WP:42 about new articles, suggesting they ask at the Teahouse, using short-term protection rather than repeatedly reverting, or asking at a noticeboard or on another admin's user talk (or, dare I suggest it, on Discord/IRC/e-mail) if you are at wit's end over something that seems, for example, like promotionalism. (And personally I think you're overly suspicious of new editors who show clue or even familiarity with the rules or the mark-up. Sometimes they're long-term IP editors, people using some WMF gizmo, retired professors, computer professionals, or simply geniuses ... but I'm known for my naïveté.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All good advice. To respond to it in order:
    It's good that we have a handy-dandy list of admins by number of blocks in the last month and I think studying the ones around my position (#40 for now) seems like the best approach ... and seeing how many people do indeed come back after a block (zero on a quick check of blocks by Paul Erik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    OK, I'll watchlist talk pages of people I do block (not always possible for IP ranges though, obviously). Sometimes I do find their requests when checking contributions.
    OK, all good alternatives to blocking. Short-term semi-protection has seemed to work so far at a recent edit-warring case I filed (my first one ever) so I'll keep in mind options like that in the future.
    A short aside re school blocks: I started blocking schools more aggressively after noticing that some IP's would have gaps of years in ther contributions, and figuring out that was due to long-term range blocks by other admins ... so I emulated and perhaps overextended those. Graham87 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Yngvadottir's analysis is (as usual) pretty spot-on and gives a useful framework for how to move forward. The third bullet point is especially critical; the biting, suspicion of anyone making mistakes or anyone editing without mistakes, and blocking as a first resort are the core of the issue. If the problem stops with a commitment to assuming good faith and trying alternatives before blocking, that's the most important thing. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Graham87, you didn't step back from blocking sufficiently, or do a thorough enough evaluation of current practice. You blocked Robbandstra earlier today as a DUCK sock of Skatevortex, who you had previously blocked for disruptive editing. (Actually you'd failed to block them until today although you'd put the block notice on their user talk; judging by that page, the main concerns with their editing were misreferencing and ENGVAR violations.) You filed the SPI only after blocking Robbanstra, and although a checkuser judges the match "likely" on both technical and behavioural grounds, Izno has pointed out that neither account edited after August 12. Both are dubious blocks, especially the sock block on a hunch of a no longer active account that you believe to be the same person as another account you blocked. I said "except for the most obvious and nasty vandals"; these aren't that. Both accounts are relatively new - started in April, 95 and 93 edits - and I see the "newcomer task" tag on at least one edit. Not enough effort to explain things on their talk pages, IMO. At the very least, there was no urgency to block Robbandstra; you should have filed the SPI first and waited for its result. Stop blocking; instead, file at noticeboards and consult with other admins.
    Are any of you admins up for forming a small pool of consultants that Graham87 can ask about cases where he would like to block? There's been a little conversation on his user talk; maybe for the privacy of the suspects, an off-wiki private chatroom would be better going forward? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he's still blocking editors while the ANI discussion is ongoing is the end of the WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd learnt well at the last ANI in 2022 that blocks shouldn't be done long after the fact ... bubt I thought it didn't matter so much for WP:DUCK cases, especially when they're as obvious as those ones. We're not allowed to have user watchlists and many articles aren't properly watched ... but I'll keep that in mind and will endeavour to consult more. Graham87 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham, you talk a great talk about change but I find your promises to be vague and impossible to track to see if there is any improvement. Sure, you can "consult more" but if you are doing no consulting now, that means that hesitating to enforce one questionable block on a new editor could be considered "more" at least compared to zero times. I think you just need to holster your blocking gun and not do any blocking unless it is active vandalism. Don't block, in advance of a Checkuser, based on suspicions of sockpuppetry because, if you are wrong, and you have been wrong, the consequences are terrible. A bad block prevents an editor from participating on this project and blocking should only be done in serious cases, not trivial ones. You are depriving them of the ability to participate here, that is a severe consequence when you are blocking based on "vibes". The editor should be actively disrupting the project RIGHT NOW to warrant a block, not based on behavior from months ago that you think is suspicions or because you don't like the way they phrased their unblock request. Seriously, if these "quick draw" blocks continue, I can see this case being taken to ARBCOM so right now, I think you are being extended some ROPE. I hope this is all sinking in as serious concerns and you are not just saying things that you think people want to hear. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: OK, from now on any block I make will be based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate (excluding the couple of long-term IP vandal editing patterns where I intimately know their modus operandi and am often the first admin on the scene , such as the boy band vandal and JohnLickor372), and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist). If I come across a situation I've never encountered before, I won't use blocking as a first resort and will try to think about other solutions or explanations before resorting to blocking. I've started this sort of thread before, but a while back. Graham87 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wrong before but I've also been right; this edit on my watchlist led to my contributions to this SPI and, much more recently, this edit led to this global block request. But I get the sense that from now on investigating should come waaaaaay before blocking should I ever encounter cases like that, not the other way around. I well remember what happened to User:!!. Graham87 (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wrong before but I've also been right -- I think the point that people are trying to make is that this is really the wrong question to be asking. The consequences of being wrong and biting a new user are much worse than the consequences of being right and having to clean up a bit of extra vandalism. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a really crazy thing to think ... vandalism degrades the experience of readers, so we should minimise it whenever possible? But it also attracts editors, who *try* to remove it, with varying levels of success ...
    Anyway, on tonight's watchlist check (which was my craziest since this particular iteration of the ANI opened), I did consciously try to change my approach.
    • I encountered Special:Contributions/2804:248:F6C7:4300::/64, an IPV6 /64 ranange (so probably used by just one person) that has made six problematic edits in the last two days. I for one find this one particularly bizarre and may well have blocked on the strength of that edit previously, despite that range not receiving a single warning. But I didn't ... I gave them one, and we'll see what happens (though honestly I'm kinda cynical that it'll make much difference, partly because it's an IPV6).
    • FacrFinderW has had a litany of issues in their short editing career, including copyright violations, adding unsourced/unreliably sourced text, and English variety issues (perhaps from using an American English spell-checker, even though they may well be in India per some of their edits). I would have been tempted to indefinitely block them before as, frankly, not being suitable for editing here, but they seem to be editing in good faith so I sent them messages letting them know what they've done wrong and the fact that they're doing more harm than good here.
    • ThumannInsurance: I probably would have blocked a username like this no questions asked, but this time I gave them a warning.
    I hate to throw these editors under the bus, so to speak, but I can't think of another way to explain my thought process and how I'm trying to change it. I'll notify these editors in due course. Also see my ramblings at Yngvadottir's talk page. Graham87 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham87, I note that you haven't imposed any further blocks since Robbandstra. I think that's wise, whether or not it was attributable to my suggestion. I also see you trying templating and explanation. But you're still jumping to an assumption of bad faith too readily for my taste. One instance is above, where you defend your actions with respect to Skatevortex and Robbanstra by calling them "obvious" DUCKs. To you, maybe. But I'm still not sure Skatevortex's edits were bad enough to justify a block, and without that certainty, the DUCK test loses its force. It can be hard to balance protecting the encyclopaedia with being welcoming, but I repeat: you've got far out of line with community expectations. Specifically, I think you are overly ready to suspect sockpuppetry. (Granted, as you say, there are specific sockmasters where you have expertise.) Stay out of the blocking and remind yourself to consider alternative explanations to socking.

    I've shadowed your recent edits and here are some case study examples from me to go along with those above.

    @Yngvadottir: OK, pretty much all makes sense. I haven't been tempted to block anyone so far today (my time). Will reply to your three case studies:
    • Victoria Twat: There could well be a twist to the tale with that one. I found them (Victoria is an Australian state, so we can't assume their gender) because I was going to mention that I found this user due to having Vehicle registration plates of Western Australia on my watchlist and I was going to link to the reason it's there ... and then found this revert of mine on an editor called Victoria 2AT (which I'd completely forgotten about). See their block log; I'd blocked them as a sock because their edit reverted to a version by a previous account (which often but does not always indicate sockpuppetry and I think I would've gone through SPI now), then it was confirmed by a checkuser. So my next logical step is opening a SPI, which I've done.
      Fair enough, having read the refspam section of the guideline. But the spam guideline overall doesn't say that spam has to be repeated (but it notes that spam is worse when it is). If I were the lucky recipient of an individualised advance-fee scam email, I'd consider it spam as much as I would if I knew it was a bulk email to many people. The chance that particular edit was made in good faith is almost zero, given everything.
      Makes sense; thanks for the deep evaluation. I consider Skatevortex, Robbandstra, and TechScribeNY as basically the same person (or entity) in my head and I shouldn't have let that bleed through into my edit summary.I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't make head or tails of what that edit was supposed to accomplish though! I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest. Graham87 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.188.122

    [edit]

    65.102.188.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I and others have warned this IP numerous times. They vandalised past my 4th warning so I reported them at AIV but was directed to take the issue here. Their edits are varied but focus on horror film-related articles. They include incorrectly altering sortkeys, refactoring book ISBNs without hyphens (against WP:ISBNs), disrupting existing reference/footnotes, widespread superfluous and disruptive cosmetic edits which, among others, include removing spaces, proper punctuation (violations of WP:LQ), removing Wikiquote templates, Rotten Tomatoes templates, as well as TCMDb, AFI, stub sorting templates et al. Supported with no edit summaries. They are now edit warring to restore their desired versions. Given their far-reaching dedication I would not be surprised if this is an IP sock of a past persistent vandal. Οἶδα (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told at AIV this is not obvious vandalism. Except how are revisions like [5] and [6] not obvious vandalism? They will not stop. Οἶδα (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP has just restored their preferred infobox poster at Dracula (1931 English-language film) for the third time, after being given a warning for edit warring it yesterday. Belbury (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edits are not vandalism. Please do not call them that, see WP:VAND. In brief, "poop" is vandalism but changing a default category sort may be an incorrect good-faith edit. Also, Commons links are sometimes unhelpful and their presence needs at least a nod of discussion. However, the IP is making about a hundred edits a day but has never commented. Many of their edits have been reverted so I issued a partial block for three days to encourage them to start discussing their proposed changes. Let me know if it continues without consensus but please try to engage them in a discussion without templated warnings. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Johnuniq. Sorry for any imprecise language. I was going to start a non-templated discussion on their talk but noticed you have already done so. I already (as required) notified them of this ANI discussion. So I won't repeat all of my grievances listed here. But I will make mention of the specific issues with their most recent edits. Οἶδα (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have posted a lot of templated warnings on their talk page, they really do not need you repeating it all again. Post a regular talk page message, trying to connect with the editor rather than posting any more notices. The goal is to get this editor to communicate, not to scold them. But this can be challenging with IP editors due to few of them participating on talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the guidance Liz. But to be fair, this IP has never once posted an edit summary in their extensive nearly 1000 edit history nor did they respond to the first templated warning from Peaceray and if you noticed on their talk page Wafflewombat had already appealed to them to explain their edits. Not a peep since their block either. I understand reaching out (non-templated) and I often do, especially on conflict-specific article talk pages with pings. But I was not expecting much from this IP, and I'm still not going forward. Communication of their reasoning is clearly not of interest to them. I however completely expect them to resume their disruptive edits and edit warring upon the removal of their block. Οἶδα (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They have resumed their same old editing and engaged with none of the appeals for discussion. But none of this should be surprising when you probe the consistent nature of their cumulative 2200+ edits (minimum), and after repeated IPs and blocks. Johnuniq Liz You do not wish for me to leave any more templated notices. So what now? I would love nothing more than to engage with this editor to broach some of their less problematic edits[8] and completely stop to their blatantly controversial/disruptive edits[9]. Consensus is otherwise impossible. I do not believe another partial block, of which there have been at least 7 issued so far, is going to discourage this pattern. Οἶδα (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretend they are human (WP:HUMAN) and are trying to help (WP:AGF). Post a message identifying a couple of pages where you disagree with their edits and politely explain what the problem is. If there is a simple guideline, also post a link to that. Ask them to respond to your message or at article talk. Then, if they repeat that kind of edit without responding, ping me from their talk page so I can see they were given an opportunity to respond but continued. The explanation to the IP will also help someone like me work out what the problem is. If that has already happened, post a link here and ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: Thank you for responding. I believe I already did that on their talk page below your message User_talk:65.102.188.122#Administrators'_noticeboard_discussion_about_you. They immediately resumed their same editing after the partial block was lifted, responding to nothing I wrote. Οἶδα (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is impossible to post the kind of message that I had in mind in a section titled "Administrators' noticeboard discussion about you" featuring an ugly "you are blocked" template. I know it's difficult, but next time, please try to engage earlier without templates. However, I blocked the IP for three months. You might notice new IPs. Please try a couple of short and welcoming messages (do their edits have no redeeming features?). If problems persist after that, ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your judgement. I apologize that I did not create a second heading or develop that discussion earlier without templated warnings. I will make sure to assume extra good faith and provide welcoming messages. If not for them then for your sake as administrator and the expectations required of you. But this IP user's track record and previous IPs which were blocked by admins HJ Mitchell, Daniel Case, Spencer, Sasquatch and Ad Orientem leave me little to no expectation for an end to this behavior. Their edits are not totally without merit but are a soft and minor way to disrupt and do so persistently. The only edits they make which do not disrupt are usually changing capitalization of template names, which do not actually improve the articles they edit as they are "fixing" something not broken. But thanks anyway for the attention to this matter and I will likely be in touch because it is more likely a matter of 'when' and not 'if' they return with new IPs. Οἶδα (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well-meaning, but chronically disruptive, editing from TheNuggeteer

    [edit]
    TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) is topic-banned for six months from content assessment processes, broadly construed. This is explicitly noted to include: GA nominations and reviews; FA nominations and reviews; FL nominations and reviews; DYK nominations, reviews, and other participation; Peer review; and AfC/NPP. Where a 'contest of any kind' has any level of overlap (as per 'broadly construed') with any of these explicitly-included processes, this topic-ban extends to that contest. Daniel (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am here after every alternative means of intervention has been exhausted and with extreme disappointment that it has come to this. TheNuggeteer is a newer editor who has been getting involved in several content processes and some administrative tasks. While without a doubt approaching their work in good faith, they have consistently displayed a lack of competence in meeting community standards. They have received numerous warnings from numerous editors, most of which received no response, acknowledgment of error, or commitment to improvement. Below are the most recent of them.

    • September 7 discussion opened by Freedom4U, which discussed several problematic GAN reviews and nominations.
      • Freedom4U: "I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on [the GARC coordinator role]".
      • Drmies: "I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs" (message).
      • Rollinginhisgrave: "Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN" (message).
      • Thebiguglyalien: "I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet" (message).
    • September 14 Talk:Philippines at the 1928 Summer Olympics/GA1 quick-failed by Arconning.
    • September 15 discussion opened by Wizardman, asking to "slow down".
      • Wizardman: "you seem to be taking on more than you can chew", "not wanting to listen to the constructive criticism you are getting".
      • Asilvering: "I think you should step away from Good Articles entirely for now", "avoid all content review, contests, and editathons for a while" (message).
    • September 21 discussion opened by Mike Christie, asking "You've had some experienced editors telling you you need to slow down, but you seem to be ignoring them. Can you tell me why?"
    • September 22 discussion opened by myself, advising "that you immediately disengage from content quality–related processes on Wikipedia and focus your efforts elsewhere for some time", which I meant as a final warning.
    • September 27 Talk:A Boy Is a Gun/GA1 quick-failed by PSA, stating "You should hopefully know this by now, but you have to slow down".

    TheNuggeteer has been given every opportunity to receive guidance from more experienced editors, but shows no signs that they understand they are being disruptive, nor that they are taking steps to prevent it. I cannot in good conscience recommend an indefinite block against a good-faith editor, so I propose an indefinite topic ban from good article nominations and reviews, and possibly other content venues as well. (please Reply to icon mention me if you need my attention) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, I can accept a topic ban, this is scary on my part, but I probably deserved it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheNuggeteer I empathize with you when you say this is incredibly scary, because frankly, this forum generally is. Especially for people still new to some aspect of Wikipedia. What I would advise right now, before the heat gets intense and gets to you, is to step away from the site for a couple of days and allow your pending reviews to be claimed by someone else. You have already implied before that activities like reviews make you exhausted, and now seems like as good a time as any to take a break. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will not edit for a few days, but I will still watch from the sidelines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not sure I'd say you "deserved it", but you did have a lot of opportunities to get off this path, and you didn't take them. But it's going to be okay. Mostly what you've done is driven a bunch of people crazy, and we'll get over it. Let's find you something else to do. @Matticusmadness suggested copyediting, or maybe you could "adopt" some other backlog. How about de-stubbing? I see you're in WP:PHILIPPINES, and they have a whopping 10779 stubs that need expanding. You won't run out of those any time soon, and it will be good practice. -- asilvering (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I’ve left Nugget a Talk Page message ([10]) suggesting that they chip in here with what they like doing. With any luck, we can find them a backlog that they’ll enjoy, and can benefit the wiki. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 09:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love reviewing AFC articles, and I also like destubbing articles, though I didn't do much lately. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really want to revert the wikibreak template and review and de-stub articles. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead. No one's obligating you to keep any templates on your user page that you don't want to keep there. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support For me, I suggest two months or three. I definitely don't want it to be indefinite.
    🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A thought occurs. If you like doing GA Reviews, what else would be up your street, on-wiki? Let’s find Nugget something else to do, that they’ll like. Preferably something that is easier to pick up, and less damaging if it goes wrong. If it’s the “reading long things” aspect, the COPYEDIT drive Category:All articles needing copy edit still has a few days left. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 08:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see that most people are in agreement about a topic ban but I would also like to suggest that upon returning @TheNuggeteer does a review with a more experienced reviewer. I know co-reviews aren’t common with GA but I think this could be really helpful in the learning process. I did try to reach out with this idea but didn’t get much of a response. Either this or if they choose to do reviews after their ban someone checks over their first review back before final decisions are made. I know this creates extra work for others but personally I’m more than happy to take on this extra responsibility and I think it would be beneficial for everyone in involved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntentionallyDense, this is a reasonable idea, and I see Rollinginhisgrave has taken the initiative to take over some of the reviews. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 08:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    of course i am not happy to see it come to this board, but i have to corroborate the issues raised here. i'd support a 6-month restriction from content assessment (GAN, FAC, PR, etc). i want to emphasize to TheNuggeteer that everyone here wants the best for both you and the encyclopedia. de-stubbing sounds like a great way to continue contributing :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as an aside, i don't feel comfortable weighing in on a restriction on contest participation as a current coordinator of one (WP:DCWC). i mostly just want to encourage them to slow down and focus less on points or green circles and more on substantively improving articles without incentive. i also completely understand how nerve-wracking it can be to be taken to this board, and i appreciate the kindness shown here by everyone. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've recently seen some TheNuggeteer's contributions and warnings they received. I personally wanted to weigh in and recommend them to step away from what they've been doing at GAN, though I ultimately didn't because of the lack of responses at previous warnings. Despite everything they've done, I don't think that this user deserves an indefinite ban from GAN/FAC/FLC/PR/DYK. I'd support a 6 month restriction that sawyer proposed instead. TheNuggeteer should in the future address concerns and constructive criticism from other more experienced contributors instead of ignoring them. During this 6 month period (if approved), they could work on improving other parts of Wikipedia such as those that asilvering proposed. I feel like you've also received enough information on what things you should improve on from your GANs. The main concern seems to be the prose and the use of non-encyclopedic tone. As a side activity, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at our other (recently promoted) GAs and FAs, read the criteria more thoroughly, and learn how those articles were constructed. The restriction could possibly become indefinite if others conclude that you did not improve after your first temporary restriction. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A six-month restriction from content assessment processes, broadly construed seems appropriate; they're clearly well-intentioned and willing to work on improvement and I think will become a valuable contributor to the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mind is sufficiently convinced: I support a six-month topic ban from article quality assessment as well as related contests. A focus on other endeavors, like expanding stubs, is highly recommended. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 16:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a six-month ban too. I just don't understand why these things that were referenced above had to be said so often, why it had to come to this. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has been involved in this often the person in question wouldn’t be very communicative and often didn’t respond to talk page messages or would just not seem to take other advice on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have a peer review in the Simple English Wiki, you can see it here. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been watching this situation from a distance over the last week. At this time, I support a 6 month topic ban from participation in featured content assessment processes (e.g., DYK, GAN, FA, FL), broadly construed, at a minimum, based on the totality of what I have seen. Regardless of where TheNuggeteer chooses to work on Wikipedia moving forward, it is clear that they need to improve their communication with and ability to accept feedback from other editors when valid concerns are being raised. They seemingly ignored or did not pay serious attention to the issues that were raised on their talk page several times and the GAN talk page, and did not appear to take the feedback they were receiving on board. That is why this ultimately ended up at ANI. If this persists, I'm afraid we might end up back here again at some point in the future. In addition to temporarily stepping away from featured content processes, it is my hope that TheNuggeteer also uses this opportunity to make constructive changes in their approach to communicating with other editors and responding to their concerns. MaterialsPsych (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 6 month topic ban from content assessment. I also think that TheNuggeteer needs to address their lack of communication with others as well as how they have seemingly ignored feedback from others. Their lack of communication is ultimately what led us here and I don’t feel that a topic ban will be sufficient without them improving this pattern of behaviour. Additionally I think they should do a co-review or at least have someone checking over their reviews if/when they return to the GA process. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to second @IntentionallyDense's point here. While I generally take care to avoid discussions regarding other editors' actions I felt compelled to speak here. The Nuggeteer was very poor about communicating with me and fellow WPTC editor IrishSurfer21 during a long GA review for the fairly short Tropical Storm Harold article and ignored discussion about their actions (as well as frequent pings by me) on both their own talk page and the aforementioned article's talk page. I believe something needs to be done to address their lack of communication with others and the issues it's causing. Finding out that I'm not the first editor who's had problems with their reviews and purposeful ignoring of others was disheartening. JayTee⛈️ 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Explicit topic bans

    [edit]

    Okay, it looks from the above that we have a general consensus that a six-month topic ban is in order. I do not think that a "broadly construed" topic ban is going to be helpful for this particular editor, so I think we ought to be very specific about which processes that TheNuggeteer should avoid for the next six months. Here is a list of everything that has been mentioned:

    • GA nominations and reviews
    • FA nominations and reviews
    • FL nominations and reviews
    • DYK nominations, reviews, and other participation
    • Peer review
    • AfC/NPP
    • Contests of any kind

    We have clear consensus for the first item. What about the others? I add AfC/NPP work here as I believe these are plausibly "article quality assessment, broadly construed", though they haven't been specifically mentioned here yet in the context of a topic ban. If I missed anything else, please let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with all of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ++1 Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +++1 IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Treating all the quality processes together is sensible. It would be good (regarding ultimate broadness) if the contest ban is noted as not including cooperative drives for content development (eg. destubbification) on Wikiprojects etc., where the Nuggeteer seems to have been an enthusiastic participant without causing the issues raised for quality reviews. CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in effect what this would mean is striking "contests of any kind" from the list above, since I can't think of any contests that aren't content development or any of the otherwise-listed review processes. Am I missing any? -- asilvering (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I can't participate in drives anymore? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That hasn't been decided yet. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    would a de-stubbing drive not count? or those unsourced article drives? i feel like those are perfectly fine. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally would be okay leaving out the contests part wince they wouldn't be allowed to participate in any contests involving good articles, where this editor has had issues with. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure they are, since I think they can encourage speed and sloppiness over attention to quality, which seems to me to be the underlying issue here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm somewhat ambivalent about lumping AfC/NPP into this topic ban, given that no really substantive issues were brought up with TheNuggeteer's participation in either of these areas on here, although there is at least one thread on their talk page that brings up an issue relating to NPP that appears to have been ignored/not addressed by TheNuggeteer. If we think that there are serious issues with their activity at AfC or NPP, I think it would be better to have a discussion about removing their NPP rights and/or AfC access, and that is something I would not be comfortable with supporting without more evidence. I'm also ambivalent about a topic ban from Contests of any kind, as that seems excessively broad, although I would be in favor of a topic ban from contests that involve participating in any of the other named areas (which should naturally follow from a topic ban in any of the other named areas anyways). So besides the last two items on the list (AfC/NPP and Contests of any kind), I'm in favor of the topic ban covering other named areas. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed with the contests restriction above, and I understand the concern about contests -- there's always a risk that editors motivated by contests might fail to do as thorough a job as needed. However, on reflection I think we don't have enough evidence to justify such a ban, even for a few months. I am also now wondering if it would it be a good idea to leave GA nominating out of the ban? Getting one's own articles reviewed is a good way to learn content quality norms, and nobody is obliged to do any reviewing of their articles, so maybe they would be picked up by those with an interest in mentoring. Perhaps with a limit of a small number of simultaneous nominations -- five? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, that sounds good to me on principle, but it's my understanding that they were also nominating a number of very unready articles, which does start to get somewhat vexatious. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reviewed every single comment, but the main threads seem to be about reviewing. I think a cap on nominations would address the issue of unready articles. Perhaps a cap of just one or two then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should make an exception to allow them to nominate GAs at this time. The whole point is that their participation at GA has been problematic and that they don't listen to feedback. Time off to learn how to contribute without worrying about formal review processes will give them a chance to learn to listen to feedback in an informal, no-pressure setting. Once they can show they've been able to do that, participating in things like DYK and GA will be more appropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with PMC here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AFC and NPP seem the most critical of the content processes mentioned, if an editor is unfamiliar with en.wiki content standards to the point of disruption, they are unlikely to be very familiar with AfC/NPP considerations. CMD (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis, I agree, though it's quite easy for AfC and NPP to simply remove the (pseudo)perm whether someone is topic-banned or not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Steven1991's continuing misleading edit summaries

    [edit]

    Steven:1991 continues to use misleading edit summaries, referencing substantive edits as "fixed grammar," as seen here. The User has been warned that this is misleading before. When I tried to inform them that this was not an acceptable edit summary, I was told that I was not assuming good faith and further accused of wiki lawyering, even after presenting evidence in the form of a diff.Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologized for the inaccuracies in the editing summaries. I promise that I would be more specific in future editing summaries to avoid misperceptions of them being "misleading", but I do hope that the phrasing of any reminders on my Talk page can be improved. Steven1991 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will withdraw this, but misleading edit summaries are disruptive by nature, and when someone warns you, its best not to accuse them of "wikilawyering" when they bring evidence to support a claim. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you don’t see it that way, but I would pay attention in the future. Steven1991 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention is to clean up the article, keeping relevant content as precise as possible, i.e. reducing redundancy, while adding content that can provide more information related to subsections with which it is associated. Steven1991 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven1991, writing false edit summaries is a form of disruptive editing, which can lead to blocks. Consider yourself warned, and always be truthful in your edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Steven1991 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The atrticle is a highly controversial subject and massibe deletion is a cleaar red flag. You have to be careful with edits. Ideally you have to split your edits in two: (A) remove redundancy (B) do additions and fixes. It is insanelyt difficult to track and verify in the article diffs what exactly was done. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cullen328, you may want to note that Steven1991 has already been warned on their page and also at ANI, by me, for deceptive edit summaries, and blocked for the same by Drmies. I'm not sure a warning is enough for repeating the offense so soon and so egregiously, especially not with the aggressive and accusatory way they removed Insanityclown1's warning. This is not collaborative editing. It may be time for another block, rather than yet another warning. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Bishonen, you are correct and I should have looked more deeply. I have blocked Steven1991 for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect sockpuppetry for block evasion: compare edits: 50.48.239.234 and Steven1991 in Antisemitic trope. --Altenmann >talk 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, the writing styles do seem to bear similarities. I hope I'm mistaken, but this does seem to be a duck. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Steven1991 resumed editing logged out with an IP address to evade their block and also created the sockpuppet User:Zerpatidal. I have handed out blocks all around and semi-protected Antisemitic trope. Steven1991 is now indefinitely blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Cullen328 handled it. Was hoping for a happy ending to this but I guess this is the way the chips fell. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no happy endings for liars, block evaders and sock masters. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here for ease of reference that CU did not find convincing evidence of socking, and the old 72-hour block has been restored. The warning to avoid deceptive edit summaries stands. As a side note, Steven, this is an example of why misleading edit summaries are a bad idea; it erodes the community's faith in you, and makes it easy to believe the worst. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if it’s a big deal at this point but user has been deleting unsuccessful block appeals in contravention of Wikipedia policy. I welcome your input on this Cullen328.Insanityclown1 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the sudden (un-)ban (*note that the IP is still blocked as a LOUTSOCK of the editor's) is very concerning. In reality, the Rochester IP is almost certainly part of a different LTA case.[11] I don't know about the other account involved, but this is all a fair bit negligent. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor not retracting aspersions

    [edit]

    Crashed greek told another editor that "You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased in favor of Abdali of Afghanistan over Marathas of India."[12] I told him to retract this statement because it violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Instead of complying with the request, he went to engage in wikilawyering.[13] Ratnahastin (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given Crashed greek a firm warning against this type of behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has been blocked for a week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Peacocking by SPA at Fernando Garibay

    [edit]

    SPA Themiromusic (talk · contribs) has been virtually the only editor of Fernando Garibay. Currently edit warring with Bourne Ballin (talk · contribs), who has been fruitlessly trying to remove some of the peacock-ery. I just removed some myself. But the SPA is persistent, even removing a peacock tag somebody added ten days ago. I think this article and the SPA could benefit from some administrator attention. -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I previously reported this user at the edit warring board as well. These edits are clearly not in good faith. 162 etc. (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikeblas replacing incomplete citations with citation needed tags

    [edit]

    Mikeblas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to routinely remove incomplete citations and replace them with {{cn}} tags. For example, in this Sep 28 edit, Mikeblas replaced {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} with {{cn}}. In this case, the "Penslar 2017" incomplete citation was a simple error: it's Penslar 2023, not Penslar 2017. Penslar 2023 was already listed in the references section of the article at the time Mikeblas removed the citation. But instead of fixing the mistake, or tagging it with {{full citation needed}}, or pointing it out on the article's talk page, Mikeblas deleted the incomplete citation and replaced it with {{cn}}. Mikeblas made similar edits at the same article: 2, 3, 4, 5, and recently at other articles: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

    This is a problem because (1) the statement was not unsourced, it's simply that the {{sfn}} had the wrong year and thus didn't correctly link to the reference in the references section, (2) for any other editor seeking to fix the broken {{sfn}}, including bots that "rescue" these incomplete citations or orphaned ref names, it becomes much harder to find the correct citation and repair it if we remove the incomplete citation altogether, and (3) an incomplete citation is still of more value to a reader than no citation at all. Mikeblas knows that orphaned refs can be fixed by going into the article history, as evidenced by this comment and this edit summary (and apparently many others like it; Mikeblas sometimes rescues the citations rather than removing them).

    Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit), two (edit), three (edit), four (edit) times in 2024 (I didn't look further back than 2024). I posted a fifth complaint on Mikeblas's talk page a couple of days ago at User talk:Mikeblas#September 2024. I suggested if he didn't want to fix the broken citations, he tag them with {{full citation needed}} instead. He did not agree.

    I checked his contribs today and saw that he did this again here and here. Without doubt, Mikeblas has done more good volunteer work on Wikipedia than I will ever do. But I think he's damaging articles by removing incomplete references and replacing them with {{cn}}. He clearly thinks what he's doing is right. What say the community: cool or not cool? Levivich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the talk page here and some of the related links, it's not clear: how am I meant to respond to this? Maybe not at all? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I didn't have a problem with Mikeblas' action. The responsibility of editors adding citations is to make sure they work properly. It's easy enough to add a cn tag and easily enough removed or reverted with a proper cite. Andre🚐 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: I'd strongly disagree. How are editors supposed to know that cn means there was a citation which might be easily fixable but it was removed? Simple answer is they won't. So they're not going to look through the history to find this possibly easily fixable citation. They're going to have to find it again, or another citation instead of just fixing this potentially easily fixable citation. Even if they did know there was a potentially easily fixable citation, looking through the history to find this is far more difficult than just fixing the citation in situ. Your comment might make sense if mikeblas was adding the cn tag while leaving the flawed citation although some other tag might be better than cn. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) To put it a different way, what's the advantage of removing the potentially fixable citation and replace it with a tag? Readers looking at the article should be able to recognise there's a problem when it's tagged as suggested by Folly Mox below, or frankly even with the cn tag. I don't know if you can even say it's "clearer" with the cn tag without the flawed citation. Yes it might be less confusing why there's a cn tag but seems to be a citation. OTOH, readers might believe there never was a citation and this is more likely to be just nonsense rather than there was but it was broken so perhaps this is more likely to be true. And if the flawed citation remains and they are confused so want to check, when they try to access the citation, they'll encounter the problem and so better understand what the problem is. (Which could be reduced by using a better tag like those suggested by Folly Mox.) If an editor wants to fix the citation, if it's tagged better as suggested by Folly Mox, it's easier for them to find such problems although again even with the cn tag it's still marked as something they need to look into the same way when the citation was removed. But now with the flawed citation remaining, they can then decide whether it's worth fixing the citation or just finding a replacement. If they find a replacement and chose to remove the flawed citation that's fine then but they at least had the choice. If they fix it, their work was presumably made easier by the citation remaining. If the citation is just removed, as I mentioned above they don't really have a choice. I mean they could look through the history perhaps because they're wondering who added that detail so they can ask them, but more likely they just won't bother, as I think most don't. So instead only thing they can do is find a citation anew. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only advantage I can think of is that it's a quick way to clear a citation-error maintenance category. Actually repairing the citation would take significantly longer, and tagging it with {{fcn}} would not clear the error. Personally, I don't think the benefit of clearing the maintenance category outweighs the harm of removing the incomplete citation.
    On a related note, it's a truism on Wikipedia that most article content that doesn't have a citation or is tagged {{cn}} is actually correct. I wonder if that's because the content used to have citations but the citations were removed. I worry about how many citations we've lost this way. Levivich (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason is because if an editor sees something uncited that they feel is clearly wrong or which no citation could possibly exist for, they're more likely to just remove it. When I tag something with {{cn}} it's usually because I believe a citation might exist; if I'm reasonably sure none exists then I'll just delete the uncited text instead. This dynamic would tend to bias CN-tagged stuff towards things that are citeable. To your first point, I wonder if there is a technical solution to this. Could {{full citation needed}} be given an argument that could allow it to wrap a partial citation so it no longer shows up as an error? (And would that even be desirable?) --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As {{fcn}} templates get left unfixed for decades, at least if the error is tracked it might get fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a whole thing typed out here then realised I was just repeating all the points Nil Einne made above. So +1 to all that. Folly Mox (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +2, then. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikeblas: Best way to respond would be to recognise you should have responded to the concerns earlier, but made a mistake and did not, but you're going to now and change what you're doing going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to Levivich several times on my talk page. I was reading up on how to take the matter to WP:THIRD when they said they were not really interested in an extended debate about this, so I thought they were no longer going to pursue the matter. Instead, they escalated it here. It sounds like you're saying there's no room for my side of the story, and no way for me to clarify some of the substantive misrepresentations, misconceptions, and assumptions being made here and on my talk page, including repeated accusations of vandalism, disruption, and dishonesty. Is that the right takeaway? What about clarifying questions about what to specifically do going forward? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikeblas is right about this part. The other day, when I saw the edits on my watchlist, I thought WTF? and assumed it was some new editor making a newbie mistake. When I looked at Mikeblas's userpage and read "admin, 19 years 2 months old, with 78,854 edits", I thought WTF?!, and looked at his recent contribs to see if this was a one-off or a regular thing. When I found six more examples at six different articles just in the past week, I thought WTF?!?. Then I looked at his user talk page archives to see if anyone had raised this issue with him before and found multiple examples in the past year including a template from another admin, so by the time I started writing my message to him, I was at "WTF?!?!", and that's not a good place to start a conversation. Starting at "WTF?!?!" was not going to be effective. Looking back, I realize I should have taken a minute in between reading and writing, and I apologize to Mikeblas for coming in so hot, that wasn't cool of me. Sorry. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate your apology if it weren't for its condescending and self-aggrandizing tone. No editor should ever be subject to the kind of treatment you have shown me in this process. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    mikeblas, there's space for your side of the story. I doubt people will change their minds about this sort of activity, but I recognise everyone in this thread so far as being a respectful adult, and I'm interested in hearing your clarifications. Folly Mox (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll post something soon. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikeblas: Sorry I assumed someone had already told you when they approached you. You need to stop doing what you are doing right away. If possible you should try and revert any cases where you've done this. Going forward, instead of removing a broken citation, please tag it with some appropriate tag, probably {{incomplete citation}} or {{full citation needed}} so someone else can fix it in the future. Alternatively you can try and fix it yourself. If you're unsure what tag to use, feel free to seek help at WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. However using the wrong tag isn't such a big deal, provided you do not remove the broken citation. Although if someone approaches you and says "you used this tag {{abc}}, you really should use {{xyz}} instead", do take their advice on board. If you feel their suggestion on which tag to use is incorrect feel free to discuss it with them and if you're still unsure, feel free to use WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk for further clarification. Generally speaking is a bad idea to ignore advice unless you're sure it's wrong according to our norms, and going by your confusion here, I do think your understanding of our norms is limited so I'd strongly suggest you never ignore advice until you've come to better understand our norms; hence why I'd suggest you seek further advice from others if you think you've been given bad advice rather than just ignore it. Although just to repeat, I wouldn't be so worried if the issue was you were using a less suitable template even after someone had suggested an alternative. The main concern is you removing broken citations, potentially making cleanup of these problems far more difficult. If for some reason you're unwilling to keep such broken citations when doing such work, then your only option is to cease doing such cleanup work point blank instead of removing the citations. If even that isn't something you can do, then the only real option I can see is for you to cease editing all together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to further explain, it's not such a big deal if an inexperienced editor ignores advice or concerns raised about their editing because they wrongly think it's incorrect or they don't understand it, and so continue to make mistakes. But as editors gain experience, we expect them to start to learn for themselves when something they've been told is incorrect or unhelpful and so they can ignore the advice given; and when it's not. Likewise if an editor doesn't understand something it starts to become incumbent on them to recognise this. This doesn't mean they automatically know what to do. They may need to read the relevant policies and guidelines or seek further feedback such as in the manners I suggested. In your case, since multiple people have approached you on this, if you were an experienced editor it would be very concerning that you just ignored those concerns and advice since it was correct. But if you're not experienced, then just take this as part of learning to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking further, I'd only count the User:Joseph2302 (two (edit) example as the same thing (replacing a potentially fixable ref with a cn) so it's more accurate to say "two people" than multiple. However Levivich's approach in particular, was IMO clear enough on the specific issue of replacing broken citations with cn, even if they were more aggressive than needed be, so it was really time to either change or at least seek further feedback if you felt Levivich was wrong (which they weren't).

    I don't think it'd necessarily count the User:Elinruby example (one (relevant edit)) as even wrong since deciding to accept Elinruby's judgment that the source was unreliable and so remove anything referenced to it seems acceptable.

    The User:GiantSnowman example (four (edit)), well I don't think that should have been removed however removing the entire thing is a little different from replacing a potentially fixable reference with a cn tag since if you have strong doubts it's correct, it's might be okay to remove it even if it's possible there is a reference when you can't even be sure the reference is reliable.

    The User:Kimen8 (three (edit)) is a little different but also potentially the most concerning. @Mikeblas:, I can see there were other references for every sentence hence I guess why you didn't add a cn tag [14]. But did you verify every single detail given there was supported by at least one other reference that you didn't remove?

    Because it's very common someone might write "Nil Einne is widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and has been banned multiple times from the English Wikipedia. ref A, ref B". But ref A might only support Nil Einne being widely regarded as the stupidest Wikipedian of all time and ref B might only support Nil Einne being banned multiple times. So if an editor removes ref A but leaves ref B, suddenly we end up with a situation where only part of the sentence is support by a reference when the whole sentence was sourced before.

    So unless you verified every detail was in another reference already cited, just removing the pmid19584973 was even more problematic. Potentially you changed an article from one where every single detail in that those sentences were supported by a reference to one where they weren't. Further since there are references there, people are going to assume that every single detail is referenced when perhaps some aren't. No editor is likely ever know this even needs to be fixed until someone tries to verify the detail in the future. At the very least you should have added the {{verificationneeded}} tag so editors know there is a possible problem although as per the cn example, that still isn't the correct course.

    Instead just tag the broken reference and leave it be. You cannot assume pinging whoever added it is sufficient. They might miss the ping, ignore it, (suddenly?) become inactive, forget about it, not understand it, not care, or whatever. As you've said every editor is responsible for their edits and so this means if you're removing a citation no matter if it was broken because another editor made a mistake, it's you're responsibility to ensure you aren't make the article far, far worse by doing do.

    Note that pmid19584973 was surely trivially fixable. Logically this must mean the article with the PMID (PubMed ID) which is [15] which unsurprisingly has a title strongly suggesting it was the intended reference. So personally, even if every detail was in some other ref, I would not have removed it. However if you verified every single detail was supported by another ref, then it's a fair enough judgment call to condense refs so we can leave that example aside. Although you really should have said you did so in the edit summary to prevent another editor checking out the history seeing it, getting concerned and spending their time redoing your effort of verifying every detail.

    Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Have not been following this but in the example above where I am mentioned, I removed Jewish Virtual Library because it was (and still is) my understanding that this source was deprecated in an RfC because it cites Wikipedia. I have only quickly looked at the mention, but I would have left the claim and added a cn tag if I was fairly certain the claim was accurate, but being left uncited because I removed Jewish Virtual Library, and could not for reasons of time or whatever immediately find another source.
    It looks like the issue here is replacing incomplete but valid citations with cn tags. I personally think that this should be avoided in most cases, and that the citation should be fixed if possible. If this is not possible for reasons of bandwidth or time or whatever, I think it would be better to leave an incomplete but valid citation alone than to remove it. I hope this comment is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    on looking further, I do not think that the example where i am mentioned is an instance of what the OP seems to think it is.
    The reference should *not* have been rescued, assuming I was correct to remove it in the first place, which I think I was. The only device I have access to right now is mobile, and my complaint on his talk page says that the table will not display on my phone, so I cannot double-check, but it sounds like a bot restored a reference that should not have been restored and mikeblas removed it again. According to me, that was the right thing to do. Finding another reference might have been better, but I had noticed the reference problem as an incidental finding while doing something else, and the same may have been true for him. My complaint on his talk page was not that he removed the reference. I simply had an issue with the tone of his notification, but patroller notifications do tend to come across as patronizing, and I would not say that his was unusually so.
    Bottom line, I would like to disassociate myself from this complaint and do not think my issue is a good example of what is being alleged here Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for chiming in, Elinruby. Indeed, at least a few of the examples given were not accurately described by the OP and this is one of them. I am sorry that you were caught up in this mess and completely understand your desire to distance yourself from it. I do very much appreciate you having the courage to point out that the reports made here aren't completely trustworthy. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the 15 diffs in my OP is not a diff of you removing a <ref> or {{sfn}}? Levivich (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is replied to in full just above in this thread you are replying to. The diff in Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least one (relevant edit) is not a complaint about "this". It was indeed a complaint, but not about what you say, and I would have told you so had you asked me about it Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And answered even more broadly by Nil Einne's analysis of Levivich's examples, also above. I'll be WP:BOLD and post my own analysis of their claims:
    one: Elinruby explained themselves directly, above.
    two: This user did say that they wished I fixed the reference instead of just adding a template, but didn't say it was wrong not to do so. In my response to them, I explained that I couldn't fix their reference name and what I had done to try. Sure: I just missed it. But since I pinged them about the error, they were able to immediately make a fix. Point is, tho, this writer indicated they were upset about being pinged and didn't offer specific and prescriptive advice of not replacing broken footnotes or using some specific tag instead of {{cn}}.
    three: This user simply asks how they can spot their own errors -- Is there a way to tell that it was never defined ...?. Super constructive and very positive: they turned down the free fish and now have a new lure for their tackle box. They do not ask me to change anything about my editing style.
    four: This user posted {{uw-vandalism2}} but didn't explain why when I responded to them. With no explanation, I figured they were just upset that I reverted their unreferenced edit and lashed out.
    Thus, none of these users prescriptively indicated that I should be doing something else, and didn't direct me to any Wikipedia policy or essay or even template documentation about handling broken footnotes in some different way. Because of Levivich's representation of these posts and my edits here, other participants are working under their false implication that I don't try to find a fix before doing so. And have started telling me that I have competency issues and doubting my responsiveness to feedback.
    Hopefully, this sheds some light on why I don't think Levivich's reports are completely trustworthy. -- mikeblas (talk) mikeblas (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to this point, I do not agree with the way my interaction with Mikeblas is being represented here and do not have an issue with his behaviour in that instance. I took a huge amount of grief for trying to address some Jan Grabowski's more valid criticism from people who had uncritically read him, then found me editing in the area and ascribed responsibility to me for what I was trying to fix. With some distance on these events, I would say that I identified a genuine issue with the article but because of the table format did not completely remedy it everywhere in the article because I did not see all instances of it, it looks like. Which Mikeblas fixed, it seems. So again, I do not appreciate my complaint on his talk page being used against him in this way, since in retrospect I think I was unnecessarily defensive and more hostile than I like to remember. I apologize for that. I do not think the interaction should have been depicted as it has, and believe that Mikeblas reacted quite well considering. Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your very kind words. They're very meaningful to me, and a ray of light in this difficult event. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, I can use {{fcn}} to mark broken footnotes going forward, and will work to clarify the documentation so that others know that template is appropriate for that usage. And a majority of the changes I made are already "fixed" by the editors I pinged to notify them of the problem at hand. But I'm still wondering how to address the misinformation and uncivil accusations posted here and on my talk page. Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a hard time telling who you were replying to, but is Why do you seem to be ignoring that question? a general question, or specifically to one person?
    If it's a general question, and you believe someone has intentionally posted misinformation and made unsupported accusations on your talk, you can bring that to AN or ANI. I'd recommend starting a new section so that this one can be archived promptly. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm responding to Nil Einne. Sorry -- I thought that would be made clear by using the "Reply" link under one of their comments. Is that not the way replies are meant to work? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the way it works! The problem is the indent that I had to try to follow up thread to see which post you were replying to, and when it's that many intervening posts it can be hard to figure out. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, got it. Indeed, my vision is quite poor and using this interface is very difficult -- particularly when the discussions become incredibly giant. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Mikeblas, I don't want to pile on here, but in addition to rescuing or tagging instead of removing, it would be helpful if you'd be aware of where you're working. The edits that ended up with you here -- which is a good thing, it's good you're getting this advice here -- were at an article that is the locus of ongoing intense drama over...wait for it...sourcing. :D If you land on a page that is within a CTOP while in the course of doing what you believe is routine maintenance, it's never a bad idea to take at least a quick look at the talk. The drama there doesn't need anything to fan the flames, and it's likely made the drama here more than you were expecting, too. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in terms of that article... those errors were caused by someone recently rewriting or adding new additions to large portions of the article. That user should not have put so many broken sfns because it is making it hard to follow along, check their work, check the quotes and the page numbers, and generally have the page still be working and not throwing a bunch of harv errors. They are a pretty new user so maybe that's why. However, it shows that maybe they were being a bit hasty. Could Mikeblas have instead, looked at the bibliography and fixed the cites himself? That would be better, but I think the original user causing the broken cites had a responsibility to know that. Even now there are at least 4 broken citations that still haven't been cleaned up. Andre🚐 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has done a not insubstantial amount of work fixing others' citations, including gnoming Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, I would say that replacing a nonfunctional shortened footnote with a {{cn}} tag instead of the more correct {{incomplete citation}} or {{full citation needed}}, or even the less worse {{verify source}} or null action— this is mondo not cool. Like patching a hole in a garment by tearing the hole wider. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Around ⅓ of no-target errors are trivially fixed using a source already cited in the article: usually the problem is a typo in the year, forgetting to use a custom |ref= parameter, or one pipe too few in the template call. A further ⅓ are easily fixed by looking at related articles linked in the same section as the broken footnote (often in a hatnore) whence text has been copypasted. The remainder are usually cited fully somewhere unexpected, but findable using Special:Search, but some require checking offsite. Folly Mox (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikeblas, I am in complete agreement with Levivich, Folly Mox and Nil Einne on this matter. Please take on board the feedback that you have been given. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly analogous to removing uncited but clearly citable material per WP:BURDEN—if it is clear an edit (1) makes the article worse for readers and (2) makes the article harder for other editors to improve in the future, then it is an indefensibly bad edit, regardless of what policies an editor thinks they can point to. Remsense ‥ 论 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that seems entirely contrary to WP:BURDEN. How would you clarify the wording at that policy in order to make your interpretation clearer? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broken citations to legitimate sources should be fixed, not removed. Removing them just makes it harder for other editors to fix the problem. It's much easier to correct a typo or other minor problem than it is to dig through the page history or try and find a source from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed thousands of no target errors, and would be happy for editors to take them more seriously. A short form reference without anything defining what it means is worse than no reference, as it fools readers into believing it is a valid reference. Saying that, removing the reference should be a last resort after all other avenues of correction have been tried (of which there are many), including trying to find a different source to replace it entirely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with everyone above that Mikeblas' behavior is a net negative compared to the status quo before he touches these articles. Mike, if you're not going to understand the issue when multiple editors are repeatedly telling you something over the course of years, that's a competence issue on your part. If you can't practice better discretion, then stop doing those edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make my question more specific: how does this process work? What else is needed here? How much roasting is enough? -- mikeblas (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote on your talk page before raising this at ANI:

    What I'm looking for here is for you to commit to not doing this again in the future, and to fix the ones you already did (including diffs # 6-11 and any others you can fix).

    I can't speak for anyone else, but that's still what I'm looking for here. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss this comment? Or are you subtly saying you deserve more than that? By my inspection, the problems you've reported have already been fixed, and mostly by the editors who created the referencing errors in the first place. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted 17 problematic diffs. I checked before I wrote the above comment, and I just checked again: they are not all fixed. Please go through them and ensure they are all fixed. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide your specific list of "problematic diffs". -- mikeblas (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already linked in the OP. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see diffs numbered 2 through 11, so there are ten. You're asking for seventeen. Sorry -- this leaves some confusion for me in what it is you are demanding. I'm sure you have the list handy since you're able to check it so rapidly, so if you could just post it that would be helpful. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are all 17 of your article edit diffs I posted in the OP:

    ... in this Sep 28 edit ... 2, 3, 4, 5, and recently at other articles: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... relevant edit ... edit ... edit ...edit ... he did this again here and here.

    I don't know which of those have been fixed, but I'm sure that the ones where your edit is still the current revision have not been fixed. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That's helpful. I'll chip away at it today. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please cross "relevant edit" off the list. As discussed above, Jewish Virtual Library is not a valid source and he was correct to remove it. Elinruby (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. Levivich (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Mikeblas/Levich's list. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by diffs #6-11, as there's nothing to fix. These are undefined refnames that cause an error message, unless it's possible to find a recent reference that was removed they should be replaced with citation needed tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They should not be replaced by a citation needed tag, that's sort of the point here. They should either be repaired, left alone, or tagged with {{fcn}}. Gosh, AD, please don't tell me you've been replacing incomplete refs with cn tags, too? Levivich (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no full citation, so fcn would be inappropriate. This is just an error stating that the citation details are missing completely. If editors don't want there errors to be replaced with citation needed tags they shouldn't add errors to articles.
    These are not the same as incomplete short form references, that gives some idea of what might complete them. If there isn't a matching reference that has recently been removed these could be literally anything.
    Please dear god tell me you haven't been adding error messages to articles thinking they are valid references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean, There is no full citation, so fcn would be inappropriate.? {{fcn}} is short for {{full citation needed}}, it's specifically for use when there is no full citation. A full citation is needed. And no, it could not "literally be anything." Take a look at this edit, for example: Special:Diff/1216711110 with an undefined ref name. Do you know what citation that is? Yes, of course we all do.
    And another thing you're very wrong about: these errors aren't created because people are "adding errors," that's ridiculous AD. You're highly experienced, you know how these come about: somebody adds a complete reference, then later somebody else removes something including the full reference definition, without moving the full reference to another instance of the ref name being called. That's why these undefined ref names can be recovered from article history, and we have bots that do this. That's why removing them is bad.
    Seriously, do not remove undefined ref names, please. This is kind of a big deal because it makes articles much worse to remove undefined ref names or incomplete sfn's. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know how these come about, the way you give is but a small subsection of them. Most of which are fixed automatically by Anomiebot. If you want to know how to fix them see my edit between creating an account and sometime around May 2022 when I cleared the historical back log of them.
    Undefined refnames that can not be fixed should be replaced with citation needed tags, if only because as this very thread proves it actual causes people to pay attention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this edit: Special:Diff/1216711110. Is that an undefined refname that cannot be fixed? I don't think any of my examples are undefined refnames that cannot be fixed. I think in each and every single case, if you dig in the history, you'll find what that undefined ref was. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes when the refname is "pmid19584973" it can be easily fixed, but how about the much more common ":0", "auto" or "ReferenceA". As I've repeatedly said, they should be fixed if possible, and if your not going to try you should leave them alone, but they can be replaced with citation needed tags if they can't be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any of the diffs you mentioned, #6-#11, ":0", "auto", or "ReferenceA"? (Do you think I'm dumb enough to bring this to ANI if the refs were ":0", "auto", etc.?) And anyway, if you look at the article history, you can find even a ":0" ref. It's just a matter of finding the revision before the reference was removed. Levivich (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No but I see "term", "MCUphase6" and "BBC Iran", so nondescript names seem more the norm than a PMID. And no not all missing references can be found in the article history, or sometimes anywhere. Not all of these errors are created by removing a reference, and most of the ones creacted that way are fixed by Anomiebot.
    I think we're getting off topic. mikeblas shouldn't remove these unless they have tried to fix them, but I stand by replacing them with CN tags if they can't be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I agree with you about that: try to find it and if you can't find it, then cn it. Although... "MCUPhase6" is a reference to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six, so that's an example where, if you leave the refname, at least it gives me some indication of what reference I'm looking for (one about MCU Phase 6). Similarly, "BBC: Iran" at least tells me the source is BBC Iran (although it doesn't tell me which article). These are examples where {{fcn}}, rather than removal, would be helpful. It gives the next person something to go on. "Term", however, is too generic to be helpful. If MCUPhase6 and BBC: Iran were removed and replaced with cn, it'd at least be helpful to post on the talk page, "I removed these undefined ref names..." Levivich (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the PMID example shows a problem, the others don't show that they haven't tried to fix them first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this observation, and your other comments. Despite the sentiment built here, I do go out of my way to try to find suitable references. Sometimes I miss, and sometimes I make mistakes. But more often than not (who knows what the quantitative answer is), I can find something that works. When I can't, I've either reverted the change entirely (per WP:BURDEN) or replaced the broken reference with {{cn}} or {{cn span}}. When I do so, I ping the editor who made the change causing the error, and they very often fix the issue. And quite promptly.
    Scraping away all the anger, derision, inflated claims, and harmful accusations, the issue just comes down to: what should be done with broken footnotes when an editor finds them? I don't think anyone disagrees that an attempt at a replacement should be made. But what if a fix wasn't found with reasonable effort? Since the {{fcn}} doesn't mention this usage in its documentation, I'm surprised there's this informal consensus about using it. Is there other guidance (policy, RFCs, ...) that support that practice? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of Template:Full citation needed is This template is an alternative to [citation needed], for the cases where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified in enough detail. This seems to describe the current situation perfectly. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I'm wasting my time saying so, but I disagree. By my read, that text doesn't describe a broken footnote. It describes an incomplete citation. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "{{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}}" is a case where a reference is alluded to, or given in part, but not specified in enough detail. "Penslar," "2017," and "Staging Zionism" are all parts of a citation. Similarly, "<ref name="pmid19584973"/>" is a reference given in part: "pmid" and "19584973" are parts of a citation. But I doubt anyone will object if you want to expand on the template instructions to say that it includes broken footnotes. And @Mikeblas, please don't ping me in your edit summaries for your correction edits, that is not necessary or helpful, thanks. Levivich (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 5 Zionism ones (the first five in the OP) definitely show that they haven't tried to fix them first. They even posted on the talk page at Talk:Zionism#Referencing problems, I have cleaned up several referencing problems in this article. Yet the source they removed: Penslar, Shimoni, Masalha, etc., they are listed on the same talk page. IMO, not enough effort at finding the citation before removing the sfn. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the undefined short forms in that article are fixed, rather than having this discussion. Short forms without definition give the false impression that content is properly sourced when it isn't, and it is on the editor adding the content to do it properly. That editor are creating such errors in such an article at a time like this is a reason for those editors to be brought here, rather than the editor pointing them out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree. First, those are sourced. A citation like "Masalha 2016" is still a citation. It's incomplete, but it doesn't make the statement unsourced. And somebody removing that and replacing it with "cn" is not "pointing out" errors, but rather, making the whole situation much worse. Somebody who is in the middle of an article rewrite and adds some broken citations does not deserve to be brought to ANI. Somebody who replaces incomplete citations with CN habitually and refuses to stop when asked, does deserve to be brought to ANI. We really need to all be on the same page that like this and this are never supposed to happen. One of the reasons is because those kinds of edits make it harder to fix the problem! We need to all be rowing in the same direction: towards improving the article, not un-improving it. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than waste time with this thread I've fixed what I can and have asked the editor who added the broken references to add the required cites. This is what should have happened first rather than this mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has fixed ten of thousands of such errors, the idea that such edits are always a net negative is just wrong. Especially in high profile articles have a much citation needed tags lead to the issue being corrected much faster than fcn, as in within days rather than languishing in the article for decades. If the end goal is to improve the encyclopedia I would have {{Full citation needed}} deleted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like this and this do not improve the encyclopedia; in both of those cases, the page was better before the edit than it was after the edit; those edits should not have been made. Levivich (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the initial framing of this report was a little unfair to mikeblas. I could have done a better diligence and checked more of the diffs, but describing only the removal of a broken {{sfn}} where the source was already listed in the article, while leaving out mention that a lot of the removals were undefined refnames that didn't obviously refer to sources already cited in the articles— that was also pretty not cool.
    Fixed a few of the affected articles. Folly Mox (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one involving Jewish Virtual Library was also pretty far from being what was represented. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Folly Mox: leaving out mention that a lot of the removals were undefined refnames? I didn't leave out mention of that, the OP mentions orphaned ref names and orphaned refs. The pmid example I and others have brought up multiple times--the most egregious one IMO--was an orphaned ref name. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably didn't use the clearest phrases I could just above, since I was hurrying to get to work on time. I mistook "orphaned refs" to refer to broken shortened footnotes (I ageee technically AnomieBot uses this term to refer specifically to undefined refnames), and I probably should have used description for mention. Anyway we've all agreed that these edits are disimprovements, and I wish mikeblas's own explanation hadn't been eaten by oversight. Folly Mox (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of his content appears to have been oversighted, just the diffs that included oversightable material by other editors that was removed. As stated below, it was a misunderstanding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote responses to the claim that Other editors have complained to Mikeblas about this on his UTP at least [...] four times, showing that those instances did not clearly ask me to stop doing what I was doing, nor did they offer prescriptive advice about what to do instead. This demonstrates that the claims in the opening post are at least somewhat inflated.
    An un-discussed issue here is the difference between a citation (as used here: remove incomplete citations) and a "footnote" or a "reference" (wihch to me is a link to a citation). I believe that in no cases involved here did I remove any citation of any sort, and instead removed only broken footnotes -- either {{sfn}}s or <ref> tags that referred to undefined references. Again, this is counter to the accusations in the opening post.
    If editors are meant not to remove broken references and replace them with some variant of {{fact}} tag, that's fine, and I've already indicated I would comply with that going forward. But if that the case, the decision should be codified. That would make me happy, as it would mean this arduous process produced some meaningful and positive outcome. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably not being very cool either, blaming other people for my own misunderstandings and not even communicating clearly myself. Sorry mikeblas and Levivich both. Folly Mox (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're one of the few people here seeking depth and balance, and I greatly, sincerely appreciate that. It's the coolest. Even if you tripped over your keyboard, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to look into this issue beyond the superficial. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I again ask for procedural help here. I've implemented the demands of Levivich as seen here (or more directly here). And I've committed to using {{fcn}} to mark broken footnotes going forward. What else must be done to consider this issue resolved? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please do not resign over this. As it is source verification is very fraught, especially in contentious topics, and will become even lonelier if people are driven out for doing it. I have not in investigated, but I give great weight to AD's opinion that some of the other examples were not erroneous either. I have not investigated enough to say that no errors were committed at all, but I don't think that should be the standard for.adminship and losing someone who is at least trying to do the right thing would deeply sadden when the incentives are already so stacked against trying to get the facts right on difficult topics. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elsewhere in this thread, I refute Levivich's claim that four other users complained about this. (I can't link directly to that, since it was suppressed.) The premise set by those questionable claims seeded a belief that I wasn't listening to feedback offered to me and significantly biased the conversation against me. No surprise -- the very structure of ANI biases toward the aggressor.
    The tone of Levivich's introduction here further sets up the belief that I wildly replaced citations that I thought were broken with {{cn}} tags, or similar (like {{cn span}}). I do replace broken footnotes with fact tags, and only after I make an effort to fix them. Sometimes, my effort is Herculean and correct. Sometimes, I make mistakes. Sometimes I'm impatient, sometimes I miss possible candidates. Usually (far more often than not) though, I think I do the right thing.
    In Levivich's flagship example at the Zionism article, they say that I replaced {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} with {{cn}}. And I sure did! But this is not replacing an incomplete citation, and is not a simple error.
    Why? There's an important point here: I think that "reference" or "footnote" means a footnote. The "[15]" part. A citation is the actual meat of the citation: an author, a link, a page number, a title. The real citation of the published fact. A footnote is broken when it references no citation: when we have something like {{sfn|Penslar|2017|loc=Staging Zionism}} and no citation that matches, there's a visible error in the references section of the article.
    Unfortunately, that still leaves the "[15]" superscript. To a casual reader, then, the text still looks like it is supported with a reference and therefore trustworthy. But it's not. The public puts a high amount of trust in Wikipedia, so much so that citations are often not verified. Just the presence of the footnote number infers that trust, and I think it shouldn't. That's why I think an explicit "[citation needed]" superscript is safer than a footnote number that doesn't lead to an actual citation.
    In that example, the Penslar|2017 footnote was used three times. Beyond WP:COMPETENCE and WP:BURDEN, the editor who placed it didn't check their work and left it there. In fact, the article had twelve footnotes which were broken for different reasons: no target, multiple targets, undefined altogether. Were this fix so simple, why weren't the people tending to the article taking care of it, or the others?
    And simple it wasn't. The article had *three* similar citations for an author named "Penslar":
    • Penslar, Derek J., "Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism", in Israeli Historical Revisionism: From Left to Right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp. 85–98
    • Penslar, Derek, Israel in History: The Jewish State in Comparative Perspective, Taylor & Francis, 2007, p. 56.
    • Penslar, Derek J. (2023). Zionism: An Emotional State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7611-4.
    These citations are all adequately complete so I'd never consider using {{fcn}} for them. I never removed or replaced any one of them -- just the footnote, which matched none of these three. Was one of these three intended? Or maybe some other work published by Penslar in 2017? Or maybe some other work published in 2017 by some other author? Only the editor who added that footnote knows. So I replaced two of the footnotes with {{cn span}}. And removed one, since it was correctly supported by some other footnote. I did not remove a citation, as Levivich claims. And when I made that edit, I pinged the editor who added that footnote so they knew what I did to try to fix the problem they had created.
    Turns out, that referencing error was introduced a few days eailer than my change. Where is Levivich's unbridled outrage for that change? After all, didn't it also make the article worse, and harder to fix?
    Anyway, the rest of his examples are similar. (Except the one where he didn't consider that I was following policy to remove a bad source, as listed at WP:RSP.) Maybe I missed a more obvious source that I just didn't see, maybe I could've dug into something more thoroughly. But I only replaced broken footnotes and didn't delete any citations. Maybe I misspelled "Pansler" and didn't find the "Penslar" texts I was hunting.
    While my work isn't perfect, the tone that Levivich established here -- and flame that he subsequently fanned -- is that I don't make an effort to find replacements. That's objectively not true: I chase down edits, fix problems left behind by AnomieBOT and Visual Editor, and untangle constructs involving definitions passed through layers of templates, transclusions, and excerpts. I've fixed broken references, resurrected dead links, sorted out typos, sorted out duplicate definitions, and more.
    Another errant notion in this thread is that it's hard to find and fix errors once I've made these changes. Why didn't Levivich notice that I ping editors (who aren't anonymous) when I replace their broken footnotes with maintenance tags? Those editors aren't surprised somewhere down the line: they're pinged immediately with the change. They were already shown their errors by the red error messages shown in the {{references}} section after their change went live, but now they've got a second indication to follow. In fact, the posts on my talk page that Levivich linked to mention my pings!
    But this is all fluff.
    The very core issue here is borne from differing definitions of what a "citation" and a "reference" and a "footnote" are: what should be done for broken references? There was some talk here agreeing with me, in that explicit "[citation needed]" markers are safer than dead "[15]" footnotes. I don't think that anything is made more difficult when something broken is removed and replaced with a marker as anyone who knows how to use the editing tools knows how to recover the diffs.
    But maybe other people think differently. I don't know of any policy or previous consensus about the issue, and for sure Levivich themselves didn't point us to any. So at the heart of it Levivich is asking me to conform to his preferred style rather than to conform to widely-accepted policy or convention. What obligates me to do that? Just him yelling at me, and accusing me of disruption and vandalism and threatening me with bans?
    In other words, Levivich is demonstrating that they're unwilling to consider any other opinion than their own. I don't agree with Levivich's opinion, but I don't think it is unreasonable. It's quite clear that Levivich thinks my opinion is unreasonable and is unwavering obstinate about that. How can someone find common ground with another that's so entrenched in their own?
    That issue, about what do do with broken 'footnotes (not citations) as a best practice, is an issue this ANI might have productively solved.
    At Levivich's repeated demand, I still agree to abide by the promise to not remove broken footnotes and instead augment them with {{fcn}}, even though I think its use would be incongruous. And, again at Levivich's repeated demand, I executed on replacing the referencing errors in the articles that weren't already properly fixed, even though I felt like replacing referencing errors into articles -- something I've spent thousands of edits fixing -- felt completely counter-productive.
    I don't know how things are meant to proceed here, but I think now it's time for my own demands, responding in kind. Levivich should:
    • Renounce and correct the false and bloated accusations they made on my talk page.
    • Review and explain the reasoning for the faulty examples they gave of my previously being told to correct this issue.
    • Commit to seeking compromise by always listening to the other side, considering it earnestly, in his future interactions.
    • Write and sponsor an RfC for the practice they've demanded of me (and presumably every other editor) to codify it for all to come.
    I don't think many would disagree with me that the ANI environment is flying goat rodeo. I don't think it produces productive consensus and instead is based on the duress established by the threat of castigation. Or the social pressure against dissent and questioning. Throughout this process, I felt that any question I asked would be used against me. If you think that this process does not entertain diversity in approach or thought, and does not foster evolution, then your views align with mine. In this experience, I learned that this non-process does not build trust or seek truth. I find it utterly unfair, significantly biasing for the aggressor rather than giving equal voice to the defendant. What good could become of mob-driven reviews where gang tackles like this are institutionally normalized?
    I regret that my work on Wikipedia caused me to be involved in it, and am sorry that people who have shown me kindness and support have had to spend time and effort on it. If Levivich can execute on those requests, then I think we can all say something positive has come of this arduous and embarrassing event. Can we salvage just this one?
    Until then, this user's treatment of me (and others), their overly-aggressive approach and refusal to pursue compromise or understanding, and Wikipedia's harboring of their behaviour through this frenzied free-for-all has -- at least for the foreseeable future -- intimidated me from contributing anything. It's just not worth the risk or effort, it's not safe.
    Thank you for hearing my side of the issue. While I still don't know what puts this not-process to an end, I'm looking forward to the closure of this matter. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can just about guarantee you that saying that you're doing everything right and someone else has to do a lengthy 4-part mea culpa is absolutely not the way to end this quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a surprising comment! Never said I was doing "everything right", at all. Explicitly stated quite the opposite, in fact. Seems like a disingenuous read, but I can understand that given the severe bias here. I've just expressed my reasoning for doing what I did, which has not previously been examined here. Is there really no room for that?
    In the above post I said I'd abide by the editing changes, and I've already done the fixes. Third or fourth time I've pointed that out -- still no response. Why, after the huge rush to open the issue in the first place?
    If Levivich gets away with his distorted narrative and abusive posts, that's fine: I already know Wikipedia implicitly condones that behaviour, no surprise. I still comply, and we can close the issue. I've imposed no conditions on my compliance. OTOH, it would be a shame if that happened. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    given the severe bias here
    This is why you're getting pushback. Just declaring the entire community here as "biased" is a self-fullfilling prophecy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know what? I'm coming in here for fun to add my two cents. Let's just go with should auld acquaintance be forgot, and start this thing back over radically.
    @Mikeblas, please do a quick bit of skimming over a ref when it seems to be not correct, before removing it outright.
    @Levivich, please assume that things are right, and don't operate on the basis that an edit made that is not right is automatically wrong.
    A discussion of content removal has turned into a civility dispute EIGHT MILLION MILES LONG. This should not be happening. Boys, it's time to turn the slinky of dispute back into a simple ring that gets to the root.
    not an Admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust(Talk) 22:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a lot of good faith all around could be useful. I think Mikeblas is suitably chastened, looking to learn, and next time he'll do a skim or use a different, more specific template. Andre🚐 22:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not. This portion was a misunderstanding, now cleared up, and is devolving into unproductive bickering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I see that my two most recent contributions here appear to have been suppressed. I've not received any notification about or explanation for that. One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. But why the lack of transparency? (Please see [16] and [17].) -- mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the page's history, a number of unrelated posts were caught up in a suppression of possible outing (in a different thread). Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Often suppression is done without explanation for privacy reasons. Valereee (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One was a post that I made in my defense -- so my only takeaway is that is not actually allowed and was summarily removed. I would not expect to read such a comment from an advanced rights holder. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even admins can't see "suppressed" diffs. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But they should know how suppression works: even non-admins can see that your comments were not summarily removed, they're still on this page. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're gas-lighting again: telling me what I do or "should" know isn't productive or WP:CIVIL. While I did eventually find my changes were intact, I've never before come across suppressed edits and certainly am not aware of any other edit I've made being suppressed. Again: I've been forced to participate in a process that's very serious, but for which I discover no documentation about how I should (must, could) participate. That leaves me feeling tremendous trepidation -- particularly in light of your tremendous anger and aggression -- and I hope you can find some empathy for that. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time in 21 years you've ever come across suppressed edits? Levivich (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Is this the first time you've ever met someone who didn't know everything? [18] But maybe it would be more productive to consider my repeated plea for help and guidance. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Create a template - inability to use edit summaries

    [edit]

    Editor user:Create a template has a very low percentage of using edit summaries when editing pages. Per WP:FIES, "According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page." User Create a template does neither.

    Examples of particularly large edits which lack a summary are [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. At the time of this notice, zero of their most recent 100 edit contributions have had edit summaries.

    User Create a template has been contacted by three different users on their talk page to politely ask them to use edit summaries. Instead of making any behavioral changes or replying to these attempts to educate, User Create a template deleted all these comments in the following three locations: [25], [26], [27]. They proceeded to immediately make more edits without an edit summary, including [28], [29], [30], [31]. At this point we are running into a WP:CIR issue. I would like an admin to ask Create a template to increase their usage of edit summaries from about 10% to an acceptable number, perhaps 80%, over an appropriate time period. This will dramatically help other users who are interested in editing the same topics, which generally include speculative fiction literature. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz

    I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, and it's not because I've done anything disruptive to pages. They arrogantly demand to be heard, believe that their way is always best, and edit war if we deviate in preferences of what should be said. I give summaries when my edits are getting reverted or when there's a good-faith confusion about something. Other than that, I don't bother with explaining because the edits are all pretty self-evident. This is especially when the edits are smaller. My history speaks for itself that every edit I make is good-faith and constructive, even the longer ones, so if people are seeing me over and over and noticing that I haven't done anything very wrong with the content, then I don't see why I need to . And the more I get bombarded with demands, the less I want to hear them out anyway, since I've never made a bad-faith edit or an edit that's completely unsupporrted by refs or at least a basic google search. also i make complex edits in which many different improvement are made; writing a summary of those is annoying, taxing, time-consuming, and could be inaccurate or not complete. What am I supposed to do in those situations, just talk bout the most major thing?

    I also view the report as an aggrievance of not being listened to, rather than anything practical. Shouldn't those boards be for people who are causing chaos on the website? which I clearly am not.

    If I need to give supplementary rationale for every or almost all edit going forward, and banned if i don't comply, then that annoys though doesn't surprised me, and I may be amenable. This talk of sanctions and official notice over such a low-priority complaint is ridiculous and from my standpoint unwarranted, though given all of wikipedia's user rules I expected something dumb like this to happen every few weeks.

    Create a template (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Create a template, if you do not like other editors (remembering that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit) then maybe Wikipedia's collaborative model is not for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Create a template, I resemble that remark! Seriously though, this is a massive collaborative enterprise, a little tolerance of your fellow editors, please. And while I also tend to make big sweeping holistic edits and therefore sympathise with the challenge of summing up everything I did, it's basic politeness as well as self-protection to explain a bit of what you did and why. Your edit summary usage is 11.6%, 9.3% for major edits. That's awfully low. On the other hand ... not long ago I was involved in a section on this noticeboard concerning an editor who also rarely uses edit summaries (as well as misusing the minor flag), and there was disagreement about the need for edit summaries. The closing statement includes the sentence: All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. That may partly have been because that editor took on board the advice to start using edit summaries and to turn on a reminder widget. Create a template, will you undertake to try to craft an edit summary, maybe with a lot of abbrevs about ce, refs, rem'd and + like some of mine, especially for your big edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    should not shall, so I won't do it most times, though if you all want me to, if it's one of these I'll do it, large edits of 800+ bytes, major reorganziation of the page, potentially cont ones, reversions, special cases. is that reasonable?
    I will never go up to 80%, it's not happening. LOL. Create a template (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine. But it is concerning that Create a template did not respond in any form to recurring notices about their behavior. I believe they should assume more good faith in other editors and at least give very brief responses to address others' concerns. Aintabli (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aintabli, re: I thought rare usage of edit summaries wasn't something ANI-worthy based on a response I got for a similar report of mine., it depends. If you'd like to leave a link on my talk, I'll take a look. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to be left alone. most of the time I can do my edits without people getting in the way or complaining about anything. I ref well most of the time and know how to organize and opt the pages I work on.
    it was not worthy of this, you are right. the reporter is angry that I didn't pay attention to what he had to say, it was partly motivated by ego.
    in order to avoid this in the future maybe i'll just provide a bare though substantive respond Create a template (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand the desire, ultimately Wikipedia is not yours. It is sometimes required that editors communicate with one another, because we are accountable to the community for our actions. You are not entitled to total quietude because you trust your own judgment. Remsense ‥ 论 09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this was about edit summaries, though. it had nothing to do with content. what I was saying is that I make it so that most of the time people don't have to complain about anything that I've done in terms of content. so when someone does finally complain and it has nothing to do with content, I'm like "I'm going to ignore this". I'll avoid saying it's "justified" or whatever.
    I am entitled to not respond, though I have no control over if someone with the pwoer to restricts my acct Create a template (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, I just hope you understand that as others aren't living in your head with you, they would often like to share your level of confidence in the changes you're making. Edit summaries are often very effective in transplanting understanding from one user's head to another's. Remsense ‥ 论 09:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Create a template, maybe it would help you to understand that when you don't include an edit summary, you may be wasting other editors' time. That's because editors see an edit on their watch list with no edit summary and feel like they need to go check it. Sometimes multiple editors will go check it. If you'd included an edit summary, they might instead look at the diff and think "Sounds about right."
    As a general concept, edit summaries are just as important as edits. And, yes, complex edits need them, too. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. When I make a complex edit, I might use the edit summary "reorg sections, rem trivia, exp + ref". But even for tiny little edits, leaving an edit summary will help prevent other editors from wasting their time checking your edits.
    Does that help at all? Valereee (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An example that I saw recently play out on my watchlist was when an editor removed a sentence without an edit summary. Another editor reverted the unexplained blanking. The first editor removed the sentence again, but this time used an edit summary explaining that it was a duplicate sentence. Time would have been saved if they'd done that initially. Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For both editors, too. Cat, think about the amount of time you feel like you're wasting here in this discussion. Edit summaries can prevent a repeat. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah. this was definitely a waste of time having to def and worry about potential conseq. though I'm not going to do it most times. I'm thinking of other solutions, like using my page and article pages to organize and communicate my updates instead. the edits that I do are uniform across hundreds of articles. the goal is to standardize every relevant page, explaining the same edits 1000x is not happening. Create a template (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Create a template: if you're making the same updates to many articles, you can just use the same summary for each of them. You don't need to type out a unique summary for each edit, so long as it applies to all of them. "Standardize to XYZ, see <link to explanation>" is a fine edit summary. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, though I completely disagree with "edit summaries are just as important as edits". there's no way that can be true. sure, it can save others time, so I'll acknowledge that, though the crucial thing is editing accurately
    the example you gave can work in the future. I'll try during the large or major submis. Create a template (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my mind, the crucial thing is consensus, through which editors can collaborate to build the encyclopedia. Accuracy as such can be collectively assured if we communicate enough to explain to one another what we're doing and why. Remsense ‥ 论 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries are documentation, so other editors can easily see what you did and why. That makes them just as important as the edits themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Create a template, if an article you're editing is on the watchlist of 20 people, and 8 of them have visited recent edits, that likely means those 8 people came to check those edits.
    If you make an edit that takes you three minutes to research because you had to check the source, and the actual edit takes you three seconds to make, and you leave that edit without an edit summary -- something like corrected per source which might take you another three seconds -- and those 8 people come along behind you and need to do that same three minutes of research, you have wasted 24 minutes of other editors' time in order to save yourself the three seconds of writing the edit summary. So you've spent 3 minutes and 3 seconds instead of 3 minutes 6 seconds, and you've potentially caused the waste of 24 minutes of other editors' time in order to save yourself 3 seconds. If the number of editors who have visited recent edits is 200, that timewasting expands. And that's assuming they came in and decided to guess that you were making the change per the source and immediately went and read it; if they have to ping you to ask about your reasoning, then read your response, that's going to waste even more time. For both/all of you.
    That is why edit summaries are just as important as edits. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no history for the most part because I do not like other editors. I have only ever had bad interactions with most editors, or 90% of the time, respectfully, there's a common denominator here ... sawyer * he/they * talk 11:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's true that edit summaries aren't explicitly required, WP:UNRESPONSIVE DOES require you to explain your edits. Be helpful: explain your changes. (Emphasis original.) If you leave a talk page post, that works as well, even if edit summaries are preferred. Per Valereee above, the edit summaries (or other means of explaining your edits) are part of using all volunteer time effectively. I understand this is not what you want, Create a template, but this is a collaborative project. WP:NOTHERE point number six, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, is grounds for a block. I can't stand crowds, so I don't go to music concerts. If you won't or can't stomach working with other editors, this is not the project for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    The user GregoryWAndrews (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edited the article about themselves to remove content they don’t like despite WP:COI, even possibly using using another account and IPs to do so when advised to use the talk page due to the COI. This user also removes sections with cited WP:RS and replaces them with sources which either do not actually state what he claims they do in his edits, or links to his own company website. The user has also now threatened WP:LEGAL action on my talk page here. Thanks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't cease and desist I will pursue this through legal channels is a clear legal threat. WP:DOLT may also apply.
    1. Our article says he claimed that paedophile rings were operating within Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. He objects on your talk page that he did not say "paedophile rings" and so far as I can tell, our sources don't say he did either.
    2. Our article says Andrews gave the same evidence to the NT coroner in 2005 ("the same" being that paedophile rings were operating...). This only cites a WP:PRIMARY source, the coroner's report, and I've been unable to find any mention it that Andrews told the coroner that paedophile rings were operating.
    3. Our article says His allegations, later found to be false and unsupported by evidence. This is a strong statement that really should be supported by more than a single source which says "His comments were later found to be false, but the damage had already been done" without saying who found the allegations to be false.[32]
    NebY (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I amended the article based on what you said:
    • I corrected the "paedophile rings" allegation to what he was actually sourced as saying.
    • I also removed the mention of "same evidence" to the NT coroner.
    • I added who found his allegations to be false, provided additional sources, added more detailed findings from the Little Children Are Sacred Report, and updated existing sources with quotes or page numbers.
    R0paire-wiki (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I know only that it's a complex subject, what with the controversial government actions that followed, and I imagine this article - like any other - could be improved, but that does look better to me. NebY (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His legal threat and potential socking is concerning. Might it be worth opening an SPI to clear up the latter suspicion? QwertyForest (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an SPI, but has yet to have a clerk look into it. R0paire-wiki (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GregoryWAndrews is now blocked per WP:NLT. QwertyForest (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NelsonWilson1976 has been confirmed to GregoryWAndrews and both are now Checkuser blocked. The IP is stale. QwertyForest (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    This ("if you threaten me again, expect a visit from my legal council") is a pretty clear legal threat, particularly combined with the aspersions of threat making (where none occurred, as far as I can see). In any case, they seem to be reigniting an issue they had with the user from December last year which itself involved personal attacks such as "You have an attitude problem". All pretty unsavory stuff. SerialNumber54129 14:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Justice is swift in these parts. Cheers, 331dot SerialNumber54129 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Serial Number 54129, what a weird, weird message. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: What, my message? Sorry! SerialNumber54129 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha no man, this one! ;) Drmies (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ Heh  :) yes! Starts off as an abject apology and ends up threatening to see them in court! Kind of a Schroedinger's apology or something, that. SerialNumber54129 19:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering their username, I can issue an apology on behalf of the Liliana Council if you want. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, LilianaUwU, we all know that was just one rogue element in the greater Liliana collective  :) SerialNumber54129 16:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She changed her name: “Raven LaRue FKA Liliana Cutrere“, so you’re ok. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Voyagerstype - repeated copyright violations, low quality contributions, and refusal to communicate

    [edit]

    User:Voyagerstype has accumulated a remarkable number of deletion and draftification notices, copyvio warnings, and pleas for them to answer other editors. All have fallen on deaf ears. A quick perusal of their talk page shows copyvio warnings from July, August, and most recently on September 19th, the latter of which was an article so blatantly plagiarized it was G12'd. As User:JarrahTree observed a month ago:

    It has now got to the point where editors are seeing you as a point of contact for draftifying new articles - which questions the notability or verifiability of a particular railway station - it appears that no one has offered you links to the state of the policies and practices in wikipedia in relation to railway stations and notability. You are now at a point where talk page silence, and lack of effort in clarifying railway stations as notable may well be at your disadvantage.

    I'm at a loss as to why they continue creating articles such as Rabila railway station. I'm not joking when I say the article verbatim reads "Very little is known of this station". But above all, they simply ignore any efforts to engage them on their talk page. Since they are either unable or unwilling to communicate, an indefinite block should be applied until such time that they change their mind. They seem to mean well, but we can't let someone go around adding copyvio. Best case scenario, they don't know what a talk page is (or they're on mobile and can't see it) and a block will allow them to learn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The only edits they've made to talk pages the entire time they've been here are to add wikiprojects and to contest a G12 (deleted edit: [33]). Accordingly, I've p-blocked them from mainspace and draftspace so we don't get any more copyvio while this is being sorted out. Other admins, feel free to reverse/update as needed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's a good block. Lets them answer here, but keeps them from disrupting while they're trying to figure out why they're blocked. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No tags on their edits that suggest Mobile edits. Can’t say I’d want to gamble on WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU this time, myself. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No gambling here. :) I just wanted to stop this before it got any worse, but I'll let someone who isn't the second-rookiest admin handle the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've subscribed to the last few sections on their user, but this is pretty much the same action I would have taken for someone who doesn't look ill-intentioned but isn't responding to concerns. You didn't overcorrect, you used the minimum restriction necessary to try to solve the problem. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack! I meant to reply under Trains’ bit. Sorry man! Self-Minnow’d. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking action. I've gone through some of this user's edits and found an alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources. Not sure if it's at the level of needing a CCI, but it's quite bad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "An alarming amount of blatant copying from online sources" sure sounds cci-worthy to me - unless it's so blatant that you can G12 everything, in which case, you can just do this yourself and save the CP clerks the time. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more along the lines of using many sources and copying a sentence or two from each one. Much more time consuming to verify. And not everything appears to have been copied, but enough that I'd have serious reservations about an unblock without a clear assurance this user understands copyright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CarnelianSun108

    [edit]

    User:Qalandar303 was indefinitely banned here January 2023. Some IP addresses made the same edits a few weeks ago and a range was blocked for 3 months here. As soon as the range was blocked, User:CarnelianSun108 came back from a 7 year hibernation and made the exact same edits. I requested a sock investigation here. The checkuser has been pending for two weeks and looks like it will take a few more weeks based on backlog. The user has continued making the same disruptive reverts and comments, including accusing me of working for the "Baha'i Internet Agency" and collaborating with the Israeli military:

    It is also interesting to note that you literally waited to revert once Israel attacked Lebanon. This needs to be noted far and wide in that the Bahai Internet Agency appears to be taking cues on how it vandalizes entries on Wikipedia from Israeli military strategies.[34]

    A one-month ban would be helpful to let the checkuser investigation to play out. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed user here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cuñado is lobbying and bullying because he cannot establish a sourced counter-narrative to the Subh-i-Azal entry. He is talking out of his backside. This person is literally vandalizing the entry and then comes complaining wanting to ban users once called on their vandalism CarnelianSun108 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked CarnelianSun108 for a week for some really vile personal attacks and harassment at Talk:Subh-i-Azal. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now checkuser blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It took just over 24 hours and they came back as newly created User:John Eternity. The page being targeted is now semi-protected for 1 month. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sinclairian

    [edit]

    Pasting from attempt at Helpdesk. I've warned Sinclairian about the biased, inaccurate, and harmful edits they've been doing. These are on very niche topics that nobody's ever, ever going to notice. Like who's gonna actually check the source translation on the Arslan Tash amulets? Well, I did because the translation is so scrabblingly amateurish, (Also because I always look lately when I see that username on one of my watched articles) and the user's rendering of it actually had some "improvements" that might make the scholar look better or worse. The reader would think the translation has been accurately copied and pasted when that's not the case. The other translation's even worse by some scholar I don't know. Someone legitimate, I'm sure, but not good. I think questionable artifacts should be categorized as such and noted in the first paragraph, and translastions of questioned items and forgeries shouldn't be included for obvious reasons. Anyway, I think the user should be banned. Inaccurcies on minor Semitic languages that a dozen people know will stick around forever; the quietness of it means the ripples on public knowledge will spread with no end. Very subtly destructive stuff. Temerarius (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you elaborate a bit about the translation inaccuracy and show it in more detail? Andre🚐 00:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What, the user's poor conveyance of an S David Sperling 1982? It was what might have appeared to them as cleanup and clarifying what's on what line, but it's harmful, was changed without note that or why, and I get the impression the user knows a modern Semitic language and inappropriately extrapolates, with a heavy dose of "should". Or something, you can't know what's in someone's head. It's the pattern and the fact they weren't careful enough to back off right after I yelled at them about it, clearly not gonna change, I said this has to go to administration now.
    Temerarius (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried to discuss with the user already? Andre🚐 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh
    I really don't want to spend all night getting a headache looking at the posting history, but this is characteristic: user removed the famous Yehud coin with the "wheelchair" and the Soleb inscription from Yahweh. Some of the most universally agreed upon for earliest and most meaningful pieces of evidence of Yahweh. I mean, the coin's not that early. The Soleb inscription is still missing from that page. And, somebody apparently made a page for the coin and called it God on the Winged Wheel coin, and somebody called "Fraud monsoon" added this AI garbage as a supposed reconstruction. Ugh. Anyway, Sinclairian doesn't want to believe those are attestations of Yahweh for personal reasons, and is hurting Wikipedia for that bias.
    Temerarius (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence demonstrating that their reasons are personal and not rooted in site policy and reliable sources? Remsense ‥ 论 02:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not serious.
    Temerarius (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beg your pardon? Are they making arguments rooted in site policy, or are they dismissing site policy in their arguments, and instead arguing based in "personal reasons"? There should be examples demonstrating your point that you can show here. Otherwise, you're casting baseless aspersions. To be clear, if they're providing shoddy translations that is an issue, but if you're insinuating the reasons you need to justify that. Remsense ‥ 论 02:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, am I ever sorry I used the phrase "personal reasons." Pretend I didn't. Pretend I said "NPOV problems."
    Temerarius (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to nitpick: that's genuinely a clarification I appreciate. Remsense ‥ 论 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just think nobody will act on your report without diffs of attempting to resolve. Andre🚐 02:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, okay? Well, then let's wait on Nobody and see if they show.
    Temerarius (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to do here if you can't point to specific evidence that demonstrates the issues you're talking about. Remsense ‥ 论 02:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm gonna go crazy quick if that's how you do things around here. Get me some serious admins. This is the first time I've reported anybody; I'm not a dossier maker. My first complaint above is passing one's own translation off as a scholar's work. That's not against policy?
    Temerarius (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I asked you to elaborate. You just need more detail. or diffs. To add, I have concerns about this NPA violation by Sinclairian. But you need to give a report with diffs. You also need to notify the user of the report. Andre🚐 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a link to the edit where Sinclarian did it and explain to us how to know it was not a scholar's work? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://i.postimg.cc/rpM4NZHm/image.png
    Here's a screenshot of the edit
    and of the article it refers to
    https://i.postimg.cc/Qd2MxZ3d/image.png
    https://i.postimg.cc/sxsgZ1D0/image.png
    I didn't bother looking if the further parts became increasingly creative, it didn't seem necessary.
    Temerarius (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is the diff: Special:Diff/1248814929. And this is the reference for lines 19-29: https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:32262/datastreams/CONTENT/content. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single solitary edit you have ever made to this site has been a dumbfounding tapestry of OR, SYNTH, broken English, and profanity-laden rage at the slightest challenge or questioning. I have and will continue to ignore your rationale until you present a calm, legitimately grounded basis for a single supposed "improvement" you seek to make to any article on the site. I do not need to have "are you a fucking idiot" plastered on my talk whenever someone calls you out on your mistakes. Sinclairian (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...diffs? At this rate you're both heading for a trouting and a warning? Andre🚐 03:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! I see. You don't like me personally! Okay. That's fine, but why are you changing translations and transliterations to suit you?
    Temerarius (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can Sinclairian and Temerarius please stop editwarring? Andre🚐 03:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's also a callout for potential sockpuppeting on user's talk page from earlier this year. I agree that new people don't typically make 365 edits in their first 19 days. I know socks are frowned upon, it'd be worth looking into other username from same IP--or however you investigate them.
      Temerarius (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You'll need evidence and a specific user that is sockpuppeting, but vague ideas that they might be socking aren't evidence. WP:SPI is thataway. You can't handle that here. Andre🚐 03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A sockpuppet investigation starts with magically knowing who a user was before? I'm learning a lot today.
      Temerarius (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, SPI is not for fishing. You'd need to use a tool like the editor interaction analyzer and show they are a WP:DUCK ie a close match to another blocked or banned user. Andre🚐 03:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why fish when we can ask? We're all adults. User, is @Sinclairian your first account?
      Temerarius (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:AGF, mainly. See also WP:PRECOCIOUS Andre🚐 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want to distract attention from a separate issue, providing translations for dodgy artifacts and likely fakes. I think we should develop a policy discouraging it. We should categorize and mark prominently disputed items. Going back and forth on inevitable "issues" or "difficulties" in their inscriptions is big waste of good brain power. The Arslan Tash article is small potatoes, but it reflects a problem that'll come up again.
      Temerarius (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So that is really a content issue. The issue you want to focus on here is the behaviorial stuff. WP:CIVILITY, for one. Or if they are misrepresenting the sources, that is a problem. I think they should explain or rebut that point. No admins have commented on the thread yet, by the way. Andre🚐 03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point on civility, user is freely calling people dolts, idiots, and trash. The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated.
      Temerarius (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple people have told you this already, so I don't know how to convey to you that this is a serious demand and not simply a vague suggestion: stop saying stuff like this. At the talk page you opened a section called "ReConSTruCTioN" with the text What the fuck is this garbage?. Here you say "The insecurity of someone without an argument. The defensiveness of the defeated". You are beseeching people to volunteer to help you settle a dispute with another user. This does not help them do that. This actively prevents them from doing that, by creating other problems that they must deal with. For all of the complaining you're doing about people not being "serious" enough, you seem to be remarkably comfortable wasting their time by making silly hostile comments consisting solely of insults to other editors.
      Do not do this. Stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 09:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have enough of a policy against it, in that faithful translation is specifically excepted from being considered original research. I don't really feel we need a separate guideline saying "don't translate material from a language you don't speak". Remsense ‥ 论 04:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Temerarius, I'm an admin and you should listen to the advice you have been given. Here's how noticeboards like ANI work. You are concerned about an editor's behavior, you post a complaint giving specific examples (what we call "diffs" or edits) that illustrate the problems you are describing. An editor bringing a complaint always has to provide evidence so that interested editors can investigate and see if a problem genuinely exists. Complaints that are just narrative statments typically do not get much feedback or action taken on them often because it become one editor's word against another's. Also the editor bringing the complaint always has to inform the other editor that they have filed a case to give them the opportunity to respond. We see a lot of complaints brought to ANI that just go to the archives because necessary information is missing that would allow editors to evaluate the problem you believe exists. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest thing to a specific claim I'm seeing here is ... something about the translations on Arslan Tash amulets? I'm not entirely sure what. However, it was easy enough to find the diff in question and Temerarius is correct that the translations given in the cited sources aren't exactly the same as those in Sinclairian's edit. For instance, line 9 of AT1 in Sperling's translation reads "Eternal covenants were made for us." but in Sinclairian's edit the equivalent text spans lines 8-10 and reads "A cov- / -enant to u(s) was made, / eternal". It looks to me that Sinclairian has taken the Phoenecian text from those sources and provided their own translations? Which, unless there is any reason to believe that Sinclairian is deliberately mistranslating, is a content issue (should Wikipedia include translations of these texts and if so which ones) and not a conduct issue. That should be discussed on Talk:Arslan Tash amulets, which nobody is doing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Caeciliusinhorto and perhaps ping one of our resident linguists? User:TaivoLinguist? User:Florian Blaschke? User:Austronesier? Perhaps they could give some insight and point the discussion(once it starts) in the right direction? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sinclairian did attribute the text to the referenced author even though it is Sinclairian’s translation, so that’s at best sloppy editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's sloppy, but hopefully a curable issue. @Sinclairian, do you agree? If you're going to clean up the translations yourself that might be problematic if you attribute them to the expert. Wouldn't it be easier and cleaner to just use the expert's translation without improving it yourself? I mean, someone else mentioned that simple translations aren't considered original research, but translating an ancient language is not simple. Andre🚐 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is sanctionable. Daniel (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have an "interesting" User page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning to the issue of the translation, which as I read it was Temerarius' main point, the policy against original research explitly prefers published translations over Wikipedians' own translations: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. (The section is specifically about quotations from cited sources, but I would be very surprised if policy was more lenient about primary sources such as this text in the article about the text.) Moreover, in their edit Sinclairian cited the translation they added to the Sperling article: Per Sperling. followed by the reference. That's falsification. It fails WP:V and it's dishonest. They didn't misread a letter or two in copying Sperling's translation; they deliberately changed it (or they actually copied a different translation that was derived from Sperling's, and copied over the citation from their actual source; but the inclusion of the JSTOR link would suggest they were in fact looking at Sperling.) Pinging Caeciliusinhorto, Florian Blaschke, Andrevan because I disagree strongly with the views you've expressed on Sinclairian's edit—despite the dog's dinner Temerarius has made of this report. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, I don't know that I've expressed a view yet, Yngvadottir, for you to strongly disagree with. I was trying to get Sinclairian to clarify their intentions with that edit, which they may not realize is a good idea or something strongly recommended to do (clarify, I mean). Well, I'd say it's benefit of the doubt or a misunderstanding until proven otherwise, but I did try to ask Sinclairian. I'll note that prefers doesn't mean categorically mandates over the alternative, I did agree with @Rsjaffe that it is sloppy at best, and I also agree with you, assuming this is your point, that the "official" translation should be used when possible. For a new user, not understanding this could be excusable. To me, what's less excusable is the incivility, so I'm not sure why that's not really attracting a lot of attention. At any rate, as was pointed out, Temerarius also has some funny stuff they've written (to me, much less bad than calling someone a dolt or trash, but interesting) and they also failed to substantiate their report adequately at first. But, I agree with Remsense as well, a translation is not original research per se. The bottom line is, as Caeciliusinhorto says, the question of whether the translation is accurate or whether the original must be used is a content issue that belongs on Talk:Arslan Tash amulets, whereas any behavioral problems, such as WP:CIR, failures to communicate or gross personal attacks should be addressed here. Andre🚐 00:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your responses. I'm reading and absorbing them. I don't understand if @Liz above is telling me there's a problem with my user page. The profanity is to prevent it being rolled into AI datasets and output into sophist nothings of statistically unique phrases and citations so niche to be otherwise unknown in the open web. At the reweighting stage they--why am I explaining this? Is there a question about my page? About why I'm "interesting?"
    Temerarius (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Less your userpage and more the "What the fuck is this garbage" comment, though honestly, I kind of understand the strong reaction to that terrible AI-generated image. Andre🚐 00:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gezer calendar
    Tabnit sarcophagus
    The Arslan Tash amulet translation is a small matter on a minor artifact. But it was what made me report Sinclairian after seeing a pattern that made me sick to my stomach. He's an editor with a POV problem and the smarts to hide it. Nobody else is gonna notice because nobody but me edits so many pages in common so carefully. So the bigger problem is the harm to the community not to mention personally, me having to be on alert when I see user's name in the edit history, having to do careful and time consuming work like checking that translation source instead of contributing new things. That's the kind of thing that makes editing no longer fun.
    The bigger bigger problem isn't "phony" translations but phony artifacts. An item like the Gezer calendar is widely referred to, no authenticity concerns mentioned among the huge number of citations. It's enigmatic with many translations available, an array appropriate and edifying becuase it may be poetry with multiple meanings and sophisticated wordplay. (I could come up with a better example in terms of appearance; any amateur knows immediately the Tabnit sarcophagus is genuine: its ancient majesty is self-evident. The Gezer calendar isn't like that, it's small, ugly, and would be easy to fake. Scholarship wouldn't have left it without question if it had been from the market.)
    Anyways, then you look at the less cited and more questioned Praeneste fibula. Hoving talks about it being fake in a how-could-we-be-so-foolish tone.[1] Items like that with "Authenticity" subsections shouldn't be overlinked and shouldn't include translations at all. Look at all the air over the Duenos inscription. Would you want a translation section that long for fake items? Obviously a waste. The Arslan Tash amulets are ugly, amateurish, and egregious to the point of sadness. Wasted effort on them and tainting the pool of public knowledge, allowing the confusion to escape academic confinement, is even sadder.
    The Arslan Tash amulets, inscribed at two scales, look like they were whittled from petrified butter for the world's worst county fair. The forger doesn't know a k from an m or a d from an r--identical and open at the top--and accidentally includes a modern q and a modern shin. Look at table 1 to see what I mean.
    Disputed items should be categorized as such and treated differently from provenanced and unquestioned evidence. Our requirements to the public are maybe higher than academia's in some ways; their audience is presumed to have certain knowledge and a critical eye baked in. Almost any kind of paleographic evidence is so lonely and priceless that pushing modern misapprehensions into scholarship can have a huge effect creating lasting ignorance. So items like the amulets should not only not have Sinclairian's translation, they should have a warning and none.
    Temerarius (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I can't help but mention that totally nonsensical English translations like Sperling's and all of those of the amulets can be a clue there's a problem with the item itself. Good scholars with meaningless translations = bad artifact.
    Temerarius (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    once again, though, this is a content issue. You haven't really explained how Sinclarian adding these translations for the dubiously provenanced or possibly fake artifacts is pushing some kind of POV. The issue of possibly passing off his own translation as the scholarly translation is closer to being a problem. But all this discussion of how Wikipedia should handle fake artifacts isn't really helping elucidate that point. Andre🚐 02:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I have no idea whether I'm allowed to shoehorn this response in above, so I won't.) Andrevan, presenting one's own translation as being a published translation by a scholar is not a mere content issue. Contrary to its characterisation as such by Caeciliusinhorto—who maybe missed the reference preceding the text and translation? The reference—which is in the text and not just the footnote—cannot be taken to apply to the text alone. One conduct issue—Temerarius' incivility—does not justify ignoring the other, particularly since Sinclairian's directly affects the reader. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Sinclarian was the one being incivil in the original diff. Second, I did not say that presenting one's translation as being a published translation is a mere content issue, but Sinclarian hasn't done that in so many words, he simply included the transliteration and the translation and then cited the source, "per Sperling." It's conceivable that the "per Sperling" was the transliteration which he then re-translated, which again I agree is discouraged, but it's not at all clear that there is a behavioral issue with misrepresenting sources since it's ambiguous; technically, if a translation is explicitly not OR, I can see how he might say well he's still citing where he got it, and it doesn't say "the translation was done by Sperling" explicitly. Meanwhile, Temerarius is arguing that no article about a fake artifact should include the translation, which is indisputably a content issue, that is why I'm trying to steer him back to behavior, such as Sinclarian not communicating or collaborating. Caeciliusinhorto correctly explains that as yet there is still no thread on the talk about any of this. Andre🚐 04:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If what Sinclairian is intending to do is to pass off their original translation as Sperling's, then yes that is a conduct issue. My initial (possibly naively optimistic) reading of their edit was that their intention was to convey that the translation was of the text as edited by Sperling. If that's the case then the solution is to explain to them how to be clearer about attribution. (The fact that they have dropped out of this discussion without addressing this, despite Andrevan's ping above, doesn't inspire confidence however. They made several edits yesterday after they were pinged, so it's not as if they haven't been online.)
    Temerarius' view that articles about disputed or faked artefacts should not contain translations of their texts is a content issue. I'm not at all convinced that should be a general rule, and it certainly isn't currently. Edit warring on Arslan Tash amulets appears to have stopped, but if there is still dispute about whether a translation should be included (and whether it should be Sperling's translation, or an original translation of Sperling's edited text, or something else), that is also a content issue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Caeciliusinhorto. Andre🚐 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I apologize for not responding to the previous ping, the notifications had become so frequent that I stopped actually looking at their contents.
    As for the content of the edits – originally I had used Köllig's transcription and translations of both AT1 and AT2 – his work, however, was not only outdated, but entirely in German, which itself required translation. It seems the "personal flair", if you will, remained even after I found and then cited Sperling/Häberl/Belnap's English transcriptions and translations. That was an error on my part. Sinclairian (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding and clarifying. Does this mea culpa clear things up, satisfactorily, everyone? We're all going to be more careful in the future, more collegial, and discuss things on article talk. Righto? Andre🚐 21:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Andre, I still haven't learned why you're posting here, and so repeatedly. This would go smoother without your contributions. What is it that fires your interest up to pile on, yet doesn't move your curiosity enough to peruse Sinclairian's edit history?
    Temerarius (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Temerarius, the admins already advised you to listen to the advice I gave you regarding your report. Sinclairian has admitted their error here. Feel free to bring up new diffs. I already tried to throw you a bone about civility, but you seem unmoved. I'm an involved user based on the dispute you referenced above, preexisting edits on Yahweh and God on the Winged Wheel coin. Andre🚐 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I happened to be looking at the page, I remembered the user removing explanation of a word meaning priestess specifically of Yaho (Yahweh) on papyrus Amherst 63. The source was clear and explicit about this, and removing the religiously touchy part (tradition doesn't see priestesses of Yahweh; even the best that scholarship sometimes sees is temple prostitutes) was removing what's remarkable and relevant to scholars. The existence of the priestess of Yahweh is an important discovery that can put all kinds of evidence in a different light; its removal serves no good faith, serves no honest curiosity. It serves the sensitive constitution of the nervous traditionalist. Again this one is subtle enough to miss or confuse for copyediting. It's a huge tiny detail. It has no explanation or scholarly reasoning. It's feelings and a POV problem. The pattern continues with as I mentioned earlier the senseless removal of the universally-regarded-as-consequential Soleb inscription from the Yahweh page. The biased motivation is clear. The effect is whiteknighting for poor, defenseless tradition; -- O lonely hegemony!
    Temerarius (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're so insistent on shooting yourself in the foot, might I at least suggest downgrading to a caliber below high explosive? Sinclairian (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're treading very close to WP:NPA, Temerarius. I strongly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and try to work things out on the Talk page instead of continuing like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is explicit that the masculine form, khn, specifically refers to priests of Yaho; as far as I can make out it carefully avoids saying that khnh specifically refers to priestesses of Yaho. Maybe Sinclairian has an agenda but that diff is hardly compelling. On the other hand, Talk:Papyrus Amherst 63 gives another example of your own uncollegial behaviour. It doesn't matter how right you are: this is not acceptable behaviour. (Similarly, when you post on a well-trafficked board like ANI, anyone who is reading it might weigh in; complaining about Andrevan doing so and making vague aspersions that something "fires up [his] interest" is not going to make anyone look more sympathetically on you here.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta love how the prospect of me having an "agenda" is still somehow being legitimately contemplated given Temerarius' chronic lack of CIVILITY and AGF being exemplified in nearly every single reply and posting they've made in this report. Sinclairian (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hoving, Thomas (1996). False Impressions. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-81134-5.

    Meatpuppetry at AfD by Mellis

    [edit]
    AfD closed, problematic diffs removed from view. Star Mississippi 01:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Single-purpose editor Mellis has repeatedly recruited off-wiki help to prevent deletion of fringe health theories. The previous discovery of this was intentionally concealed as an "attack" by Mellis. After a new AfD, the same Reddit user ((Redacted)) posted the following:

    The proposal to delete the page needs help, many Wikipedia editors need to agree to the deletion in the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seed_oil_misinformation
    There are already many many editors very actively opposing deletion.

    (Redacted)

    — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's possible to connect a Wikipedia editor with an account on Reddit. I see evidence of canvassing but I don't see strong enough evidence of who is responsible for it or who (Redacted) is or if they edit on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say this advice given by User:GorillaWarfare last time this came up still applies [35]. Editors should not be publicly linking Mellis with any off-wiki accounts unless they have done so themselves per WP:Outing. Such things will need to be handled privately either via arbcom or by emailing some admin. However it's fine to link to and discuss that off-wiki canvassing has occurred and what to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Mellis’s edit notice of I removed all of my off-wiki references to this AFD as a fairly clear admission. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Digging up my Wikipedia edits from 2018 and resorting to WP:Harrassment are not appreciated, please be WP:Civil. ~ Mellis (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was your most recent AfD and at the time appeared in your most recent 20 or so edits on your contribution page as you did not edit much between 2018 and today. I did not go "digging" through your edit history, I was checking your contribution page to see who you notified of the AfD and happened to spot the edit summary. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you wrote and shared in an attempt to smear me was still WP:Harrassment. ~ Mellis (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not openly attack you on a talk page. I went directly to ANI for administrator involvement to keep it discreet, and they have made a determination. There's a vanished user and oversighted edits involved, so it is the purview of admins and I won't push it any further. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mellis, this is not harassment. Please stop defaulting back to that as your response to concerns raised. This is not "digging through your history" when it's in your last 100 edits - that is an absurd position to hold. Daniel (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The attempted WP:Outing was the WP:Harrassment. It has been addressed.~ Mellis (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Soliciting for buiness

    [edit]

    I had a DM on LinkedIn from someone offering to write wikipedia content for me. Statments incluide:

    1. I have more than 600 accounts with more than 4000 articles
    2. I am a wikipedia moderator
    3. Nope, I'm not an admin But close to
    4. (on being challenged). :You should be available to know auto patrol, Roll backer, new page reviewer position on Wikipedia
    5. I have been organizing seminar for Wikipedia because I'm also Wikipedia coordinator

    Refused to give any ID but claimed he had declared them all. Not sure if it worth a notice here so feel free to ignore. But if some wants to I have the LinkedIn ID captured. -----Snowded TALK 08:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Snowded, you are dealing with a scammer and a paid pathological liar. Please read WP:SCAM and make the appropriate reports. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's address the second point: Wikipedia does not have moderators. That statement alone shows that this is a liar. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that will make the report on WP:SCAM -----Snowded TALK 10:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia does not have moderators." Well, yes and no. NebY (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Maybe I should expand my statement a bit. Wikipedia has a moderation function, but anyone can volunteer to take part in it. There is no well-defined class of editors known as "moderators". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Keith-264 and Channel Dash

    [edit]

    Would someone please look at the behaviour of user Keith-264 on Channel Dash. They show an total unwillingness to work with other editors, therefore leaving problems in the article.

    This dispute started with[36]. I had added[37] new information to the article, but had had to take care to paraphrase the source (most of the key bit of the source, and the article text, is a list of ships, so there is not much one can change in paraphrasing). Keith-264 rewrote this addition (if you look at the article's edit history, they usually alter any addition by a different editor). This, inadvertently, introduced the words I had gone to particular trouble to not use. So, this is not a problem at this stage. However, when this choice of words was corrected, with an explanation[38], this was resisted[39], despite explanations on the talk page[40]. This has now ended up with threats and some name calling[41]. This dispute seems to be a ridiculous price to pay for trying to paraphrase a source.

    This is part of a pattern for Keith-264. As pointed out on the talk page[42][43], they have ignored two obvious spelling corrections offered by other editors (to be clear, not me in these first instances) and a very helpful rewrite of part of the lead by another editor. (We now learn from this edit[44] that Keith-264 has misunderstood a source on one of these cases. The ASV mentioned in this part of the article is the radar set in the aircraft. It is an electrical fuse that failed (no source is cited for this, but the story can be found in sources). Yet this latest edit on the subject makes clear that they believe that it was a Fuze. A little bit of discussion with with either of the two editors who raised this would have prevented this error being reinstated in the article several times.)

    As a postscript, I now see that Keith-264's habit of rewriting any contribution by someone else has introduced a misleading impression to the reader.[45] The words "the six Beaufort torpedo bombers that were available at RAF St Eval" have been altered to "the six Beaufort torpedo bombers from RAF St Eval". There were 9 Beauforts on detachment to St Eval, but 3 were out on other missions. So the word "available" has some importance. Nor were the aircraft "from St Eval", as they were on detachment there. I don't know if Keith-264 does this rewriting with or without the source to hand, but this habit may explain some weird errors in the article (latest candidate[46]).

    At a minimum, how do we get this article fixed when so many improvements/corrections get reverted or rephrased in a problematical way? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a content dispute, and Talk:Channel Dash is active. Administrator intervention isn't required. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. This is a case of WP:OWN with a certain amount of Wikipedia:Competence is required thrown in. The article talk page is clearly not a workable solution as explanations as to why things need to be fixed give rise to threats and name calling. Is there another solution, if not here? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ThoughtIdRetired has made some useful contributions to the article but does not take constructive criticism in the spirit that it is offered, has made an allegation against me of "inadvertent plagiarism" which can't exist but impugns my scholarship and good faith by association. It is a content dispute but his allegation of plagiarism, however fatuously worded, rankles. I suggest that he would benefit from being warned not to do it again. and shows a rather distressing tendency to dismiss some sources rather than integrate them into the narrative. He treats every edit I make as an attack on him rather than a basis for discussion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keith-264, when you're directly attacking people by calling them fatuous ignoramuses, I'm not sure what kind of spirit you're offering this criticism in, but it certainly doesn't sound very much like a basis for discussion. I'll add that you absolutely can inadvertently plagiarise from a source - this is a very common form of plagiarism! -- asilvering (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen, did you see this diff? [47] That's pretty bad. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's pretty bad, and you're correct that inadvertent plagiarism is possible. I'm reconsidering my position. Keith-264, you can't reject a plagiarism accusation sight unseen. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anzor.akaev

    [edit]

    Anzor.akaev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Vast majority of edits reverted [48], click here and then Ctrl + F "reverted"

    And for good reason, they're disruptive. Their talk page is full of warnings (I count 10 [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]) by four different users, including me. They managed to do that with only 53 edits thus far. Some examples of their disruptive editing;

    • They randomly reverted me twice at Uzbek language [60] [61], amongst other things restoring info not supported by WP:RS and in reality heavily contradicted by it per the talk page section [62] I made before making those edits, all which I mentioned in my edit summary.

    WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS (despite being told several times to refrain from it, eg by myself [63]):

    They have also been asked twice to take WP:TWA [65] [66], which they have ignored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And now they're removing sourced info at Tajiks [67], claiming that Richard Foltz is not "reliable" (he is), despite not even being cited there. They also reported me to the Swedish wiki but still wrote in English??? [68]. There are clear WP:CIR issues here. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they violated WP:3RR at Tajiks, doing their best to remove sourced information [69] [70] [71] [72]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded @Asilvering's p-block to sitewide, 31H Star Mississippi 01:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. And wow, the report on sv-wiki... -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Star Mississippi! HistoryofIran (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you're welcome. If this isn't resolved, please ping me if I'm online. Star Mississippi 03:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: Well, that didn't last long. Not sure if a SPI is needed or not; User:Uzbekistan.mod.wiki created their account on 3 October during Anzor.akaev's block, even editing on that day [73]. And today they've resumed Anzor.akaev's edit warring at the afromentioned Uzbek language [74]. And like Anzor.akaev, they're also editing in the Swedish Wiki [75]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the SPI and will defer to a CU there, but  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me so upgraded Anzor.akaev to a month and inDEFFed the new account. Thanks for flagging (again) @HistoryofIran Star Mississippi 01:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you for dealing with them again! HistoryofIran (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    See here [76] LizardJr8 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am morbidly curious what they even think the cause of action would be. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP for a month for making a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harmful editor making major caste-motivated changes to Indian biographical articles without any sources

    [edit]

    Hello, the user LubanaPB02 keeps making unsourced and POV-motivated edits to Indian biographical articles. I have warned them on their talk page (see: [77]) but they continue making problematic edits of this nature.

    They are removing sourced content to claim certain historical individuals belong to a different caste than what reliable sources agree upon. Why they are doing so, I do not know. I am not the only user who has reverted their edits.

    There is a pattern to their edits: They remove any claims that a historical figure belonged to the Jat caste and then they add a claim that they actually belonged to a different caste (without any source or based on their own opinion/reasoning).

    Examples of the problematic edits: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

    Also, see their blatant POV-loaded edit summaries, example: [84]

    They have done harm to the Wikipedia project, I hope that an admin may take appropriate action against them. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Caste warriors get no rope from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BottleOfChocolateMilk - WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

    [edit]
    Blocked for a month by Cullen328 Star Mississippi 19:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly failed to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL on the 2024 United States Senate election in Texas article. They have made three revisions falsely accusing me of making a "vandalous edit":

    This is also not the only example of BottleOfChocolateMilk failing to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in their edit summaries:

    Bluerules (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been watching this editor for a while, and he seems suspicious. He probably needs a topic ban for elections if general, but I'm unsure. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found him reverting warnings from his talk page, seen here. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with editors reverting warnings from their own talk page; it is explicitly allowed. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that this user has made 4 revisions to 2024 United States Senate election in Maine in a short period of time as well. They seem to be engaging in edit-warring across Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 16:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is clearly not taking these reports seriously (replying "lol" to both this topic and a warning from Namiba, and deleting warnings without acknowledgement) and has continued making personal attacks/bad faith assumptions in their edit summaries ("Reverting vandalism from sad individual who seems to have nothing better to do than to troll a dead man"). Bluerules (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yes, I blocked BottleOfChocolateMilk for one month for making false accusations of vandalism, edit warring, and failing to assume good faith of their fellow editors. I chose the duration because the disruption has to do with the US elections on November 5. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    persitent disruptive editing by ip editor

    [edit]

    IP editor 103.151.209.123 - appears to be the same person as previously warned user @Stats&Data: - persistently adding self-published and spurious data onto Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.

    Diffs of the editing in question: [88] [89] [90] [91] ...and so on and so forth. 15 such edits by my count. Same behaviour as @Stats&Data:, e.g.: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]. 31 such edits over the span of just under two months. User has been warned multiple times and advised not to insert self-published data to no avail: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] (full disclosure, last one was me).

    CipherRephic (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, the source is statsanddata.my.canva.site, I see why you think they're the same person. There's also this summary: "I predicted 2024 Uk ge with 94% accuracy which was highest then I do not know what is the issue in my content than other polls" – Special:Diff/1249261236. For reference the account said pretty much the same thing in Special:Diff/1239312774.
    Edit warring and LOUTSOCKing to add their own website/predictions to various election pages (well, logged out to do it to this page at least, but the account tried to push their predictions to multiple pages)... have I got everything? Seems pretty damning. – 2804:F1...A9:C75B (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed an RFP for 16RR edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    aye, that appears to be the long and short of it. CipherRephic (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible disruptive editting by User:Steven1991

    [edit]

    User exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and battleground behavior. Idk where else to go.

    • Article has significant issues of WP:OVERCITE as a result of citation inflation. First sentence has 8 different sources.
    • edits include usage of unreliable sources from facebook, medium, and self-published blogs and religious blogs
    • this edit by user includes a 5000 word deletion and significant content change with the only summary as Fixed grammar [102]
    • I did bold WP:TNT to previous version before all this fiasco[103] which immediately got reverted back.[104]
    • Got template warned by user for blanking on my talk page [[105]] even after discussion on talk page of the wikipedia article[106] and NPOVN [107]
    • Further discussion on talk page about issues is immediately shut down by user who reposts the same template warning 3 times on all my replies on the talk page of article [108]

    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't agree that the editor is NOTHERE; editor appears to be very much HERE to write and add content. You perhaps have a dispute, but you didn't post any discussion on the article talk before your TNT, which I would say is actually disruptive. Now this has been WP:FORUMSHOPped here from WP:NPOVN with not much of a basis since Steven1991 agreed to remove the unreliable sources in that discussion. Andre🚐 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's not quite a fair assessment to claim they reverted without discussion. I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN, a small discussion was had where rollback was suggested, I & @Bluethricecreamman agreed. They remarked as such on the talk page, then WP:BOLDLY made the change themselves.
    It's also inaccurate to call this forum shopping when I was the one who made a post regarding article issues, then Blue made this separate post here about Steven's conduct. Those are 2 separate issues that have both been brought to the appropriate forums respectively & I think it would be highly unfair to call Blue's conduct disruptive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I meant discussing it with the user in question. Discussing means more than just saying you're going to do something and doing it. Sounds like you reverted 100k of text, the editor was (justifiably) a bit annoyed, and then, after that discussion at NPOVN, they agreed to remove the unreliable source material and are already complying after agreeing to do so. It doesn't really seem that the discussion had concluded at NPOVN, that's what I mean by forumshopping it here, though you are correct that it was not the same person, so I apologize for being inexact there. Andre🚐 06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user reverted over 100,000+ bytes of my edits that I have made over the past few weeks to which I have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and effort. The user didn’t even discuss the issue with me on the Talk page, while I humbly acknowledge all of their concerns and have been removing all the sources not being considered as reliable. I have shown all the willingness to improve the article, but it seems they are doing this over some political disagreements and trying to get me ousted from the platform, which is totally unfair and making me think that it is a form of harassment instead. Steven1991 (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd advise you not to characterize other users' activities as vandalism or harassment. I understand you're feeling a bit annoyed but it will be ok. WP:NPA does include talking about editors' mental states or motivations. See also WP:AGF Andre🚐 06:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I started contributing edits last month – after a few years of break – as a hobby, but that these issues seem to have created a hostile environment for me. I only want to contribute just as anyone else does and I believe that this complaint is unfair to me when I have shown more than enough willingness to remove the disputed content as much as possible. I have the right to disagree with the user’s unilateral WP:TNT action when a substantial amount of the article’s content has my contributions. Steven1991 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have a right to do anything here, you do so at the pleasure of the community, whose knights are the admins. If you're at this board it's because someone else thinks you aren't following the norms adequately - while I also do not think their report has merit, don't give people a new reason to criticize your actions. You don't have a right to do anything, but you certainly can, within reason, discuss, make edits, and seek a consensus, and you might have to compromise or change things, WHICH YOU ARE, which is the important part. So, just take a deep breath, read a few wiki articles, like WP:COOL is a classic (or WP:KEEPCOOL), go take a walk or have a smoke or imbibe or whatever you do to relax, and then come back prepared to deal with constructive criticism on the article. You don't have a right to edit here - but, if you listen to what I'm saying, you may enjoy the privilege. Andre🚐 07:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the user reversed all of my edits, which I have taken almost a month to make, without discussing on the Talk page of the article. Even for the concerns raised by other users, I acknowledged very politely and promised to try my best to rewrite the content, including removing sources not being deemed reliable. I have done everything I could, but I simply have the perception that such complaint is being made over political disagreements rather than issues related to the article itself – it is not accusation to make a judgment based on personal observations and feelings. Steven1991 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have whatever perception, just don't talk about it! People are paranoid sometimes when they're upset. Or maybe gremlins. Regardless, just don't write it here, because it's against the rules and decorum. You have a right to remain silent. I agree with you that the TNT and this ANI report were not justified, since you're cooperative and trying your best, and I trust you'll take the advice to heart. But keep in mind that includes being studious of Wikipedia's norms of communication. Andre🚐 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't TNT, the article was not started from scratch. It was simply reverted to a more neutral version. If any useful edits were undone, they can be added back later, but right now the current article's state is worse then it was before. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a question to discuss at the article talk page, not here. This is about behavioral issues. It was charged that Steven1991 was NOTHERE and BATTLEGROUND. That charge rings false as he is clearly cooperative and has both the appetite and the ability to defend his edits, which appear to be good-faith improvements, with excessive citations. Now the 3 of you go back to the talk page and discuss. I'll join you there. If you want to show some maturity Bluethriceman could withdraw this meritless report. Andre🚐 07:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not disputing that my revert of 100,000 words added by a single user was not WP:BOLD.
    • Arguably, the addition of 100,000 characters and 400 sources over three weeks by a single author on a page that originally only had 200 sources is just as WP:BOLD. I think editor got away with it because nobody could review all the changes.
    My point in bringing this report is that I don't know where else to bring this and what next steps are.
    1) A relatively newbie editor has been rapid fire editting significant portions of articles since at least Sept 12, potentially contentious WP:ARBPIA,WP:ARBAP2 articles, without anyone noticing for a few weeks.
    2) Edits show significant signs of not full understanding of Wikipedia policies including reliable sourcing,WP:OVERCITE, copyeditting etc. Thats ok, newbies learn over time if given time but...
    3) Edits are at such volume and speed that it remains difficult to give advice or inspect. dozens of gigantic 300+ byte edits with no edit summary are all added in within short time periods, which makes inspection harder to figure out. the few that do may have misleading titles such as "grammar fix".
    4) There was approximately 400 added sources, and 100,000 added characters by Oct 3. Upon a bold attempt at reverting to previous version, given some discussion and reasoning on NPOVN, it gets reverted back which is fine, WP:BRD cycle, but then...
    5) Get template warned on my User talk page.
    6) Claims of vandalism, etc. are bandied about, and my replies on Talk page are answered with template warning three times in a row
    7) User continues to show significant defensiveness when advice is given, claims harrassment above. New edit summaries since this are mostly "removal of allegedly unreliable sourcing" or "removal of allegedly excessive citations"
    This is hardly a content dispute, and I never posted this as a content dispute.
    I saw some of the complaints about NPOV, but when I attempted the bold TNT reversion, the response back was significant defensiveness. WP:DONTBITE and all, but getting template warned by a newbie on my talk page, and on the article talk page, being accused of harrassmnet [109], and dealing with a newbie who was no WP:LISTENing to feedback and ploughing through with dozens of 100+ word edits per day makes it impossible to work on the article, and impossible for newbie to take real advice.
    Steven appeared to be showing WP:OWNING behavior, and current article has been tremendously unstable for past three weeks at least for anyone else wishing to edit the article.
    To Andre: I don't get what you are talking about with this complaint being "meritless". I am not withdrawing my report until an uninvolved admin provides next steps on how to proceed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me if you look at Steven1991's contribs he's been spending most of the day fixing the issues you pointed out. I suggest you collaborate constructively instead of arguing here. Andre🚐 01:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I choose which pages I want to edit on and will take a break from that page for now. I'm glad Steven seems to be fixing issues.
    Let others deal with the content, the overall behavior concerned me enough I want an uninvolved admin to take a look. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    speaking of Steven1991's contribs, i see them posting warnings on other users talk page, such as [110] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and I told him not to template the regulars on his talk page. Andre🚐 01:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the relevant users engaged in actions that appeared to be edit warring, one of them even personal attack on me and several other users. I guess it is important to look at the context? Steven1991 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You were specifically told to stop posting warnings on other's pages like this, by both Andre & @ScottishFinnishRadish. You need to stop picking fights as those warnings you keep leaving people are not only rude & unnecessary, but also easily be seen as a provocation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my warning was after them doing it. Andre🚐 01:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “picking fights”
    Sorry, is this an accusation? Steven1991 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven1991, it's not an accusation. You were understandably upset when all the edits you made were reverted. Now we are going to constructively engage to make good changes. Right? Maybe take a break and walk away for a bit and come back feeling less put-upon. I get it, I really do. This can be overwhelming for a new user and you're in a controversial area where you may not be familiar with the rules of engagement. That's why the best advice is 1) keep fixing the problems with the article constructively, but slow down so others can catch up, 2) don't take it personally when people criticize your edits, 3) focus on the content not the contributors. Andre🚐 02:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I am not quite new though. I have been on Wikipedia since the 2000s, but didn’t set up an account on English Wikipedia until 2018. I rarely edited until recently, so effectively, I need time to pick up the rules and expectations. Steven1991 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, same thing. You're new to all this editing. Read a bit of the rules. Andre🚐 02:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, showing up at an the talk page of an editor that you're in a dispute with to comment on a three month old warning is picking a fight. If this continues you'll be topic banned for battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can check again, I politely acknowledged almost every single suggestion and already removed most of the duplicate or “unreliable” sources from the article. The article is much cleaner than it was yesterday. I am still working on it and would need more time to sort that out. Also, you can’t claim that I am “defensive” just because I hold my ground on some of my edits and respond to comments that I find difficult agreeing with. For content disputes we are allowed to disagree. It is unfair to me when you label all responses in kind as “defensive” or interpret it as any signs of being “unwilling to listen”. Steven1991 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Artificialrights civility

    [edit]

    I want to be clear: I am not making this ANI over content disagreements. This is not the place to discuss content disagreements; this is report is solely about behavior.

    The user in question has been unnecessarily aggressive in discussions. They have a relatively new account and are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and style; both of these things are fine, but the issue is that they've immediately decided to edit controversial pages on World War II and get angry at people who disagree with their edits.

    Relevant talk threads: Talk:J. Mark Ramseyer, Talk:January 28 incident, Talk:Racism in Japan. They're unnecessarily combative in each of these threads. It's hampering discussion.

    Examples: [111] [112][113]

    This behavior is making it really hard to discuss content. Every comment is loaded with sarcasm, baiting statements, or even insults (although they're mostly indirect). Disagreement is a normal part of editing Wikipedia; it shouldn't be so hard to discuss things. No writing is immune to feedback, and getting immediately angry at feedback (even when you disagree with it) is not helpful.

    I don't know what kind of disciplinary action would be appropriate; at the very least could an admin reinforce that this kind of dialogue isn't helpful? seefooddiet (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe your response to me was very rude and provocative in the first place. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I only wish to discuss the content itself, but you, based on your own subjective inclinations, condescended to me and constantly making accusations against me personally rather than discussing the content itself and even directly claiming my edits are not worth taking serious therefore can be rolled back at will, which is annoying of course. I think your attitude and mentality has obstructed the peaceful discussion and dialogue on the content itself, as well as the way the other party responds.
    Btw I think it's normal to feel annoyed when you spend a lot of time and energy on certain contributions and then have somebody rolled back without a second thought and with very lame reasons, especially when the excuse seems involve clear double standard.

    Artificialrights (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear; this is the first response I gave to the user. My note about being skeptical is because I saw these edits, which I found alarming. I wasn't alone in feeling this way; 3-4 other users reverted this user's edits. You saying "subjective inclinations" is meaningless; all we have on Wikipedia are subjective analyses. Everything is a matter of perspective and is filtered through human narrators here. And alledging that I didn't discuss the content is patently false; I absolutely did in basically every comment I made.
    Btw I think it's normal to feel annoyed when you spend a lot of time and energy on certain contributions and then have somebody rolled back without a second thought and with very lame reasons, especially when the excuse seems involve clear double standard. Why would you double down on this kind of rhetoric on the ANI board? This is exaclty the kind of problematic behavior I reported you for. seefooddiet (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is the your first response, not that one. You assert that I violated the principle of neutrality without pointing out any specific issue (actually you didn't read it at all, as shown in the later conversation). It is arrogant and condescending. Put this aside,
    This edit should alarm any person without pre-existing propositions. Take a closer look for yourself to see how many unsourced assertions, factual errors, unexplained deletions, and biased, non-neutral language were added in this single edit. If you had people evaluate the two versions independently and in parallel, I think the results would be obvious. Let's be honest.
    Which "3-4 other users reverted this user's edit"? Don't make up disinformation, please. As for Ash-Gaar, we have talked in the talk page that this user's reason for reverting isn't convincing. You can't explain why, after I revised his (subjective) complaints about minor wordings and grammar issue, he still obstructed the addition of information about the scholar's own opinion on his own page. How could merely adding the live person's own opinion, be labeled as a tendentious edit? Even you would agree it is absurd.
    "You saying "subjective inclinations" is meaningless; all we have on Wikipedia are subjective analyses."
    So you finally acknowledge that certain users' retraction of new versions (that have improved neutrality or accuracy) can be regarded as a tendentious editing behavior based on its inherent biases? Since you admit every edit is subjective, it is meaningless to make generalised accusations like "tendentious" without talking about specific concrete issues. Artificialrights (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not condescending; I don't know why you're getting that reading from that. I am calling out objectively bad behavior; you're demanding that others fix your work and you clearly still don't own up to the fact that your writing has had POV issues and that you don't really understand Wikipedia policy. My tone was a reflection of me seeing your behavior elsewhere and judging that it was poor.
    I didn't have to provide evidence because Ash-Gaar did. Even though you fixed the POV issues later, that doesn't change the fact that they existed in the first place. Your edits having been reverted by other users is not misinformation, here's evidence: 12 and 3. What's absurd is your continuous rudeness.
    In basically every comment I've outlined why your behavior is rude. I don't have to repeat myself. Reading comprehension is on you, not me. Whether the final J. Mark Ramseyer edit should have been reverted is debatable, but what's clearly unacceptable is your behavior all along the way, even here. seefooddiet (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who's been tangentially involved in one of these discussions so far, I hope it comes off as intended when I say that both seefooddiet and Artificial rights clearly seem like they're trying to do the right things and make quality contributions in good faith. Just as much, I understand the reasons for frustration stated by both of them: Artificialrights is a bit newer and is still learning the ropes, and I see them trying to do that and apply policy more consciously in their contributions. As someone who reverts a lot and gets reverted a lot, I also understand it is not fun, and the realities is that communication surrounding reversions often doesn't leave all parties in a zen state of mind. That is to say, I do not want to come off as dismissive or patronizing when I say "everyone seems essentially fine and perfectly able to work together here"—I'm chiming in with the hope of perhaps disengaging future misunderstandings. Remsense ‥ 论 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the input and understand the intent; considering that the user still rejects the feedback about POV that was given [114] and only begrudgingly made it to get their edits through, all while insulting the parties involved along the way, makes me still feel skeptical about their behavior. seefooddiet (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally get why, as the tone was significantly harsher than I would expect. With that said, I feel like with the content question itself in mind, I see their reasons for a bit of confusion and consternation, and see their begrudgement nonetheless as fundamentally in good faith, and would likewise ask them to please take a breath next time, as we're all on the same team here. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did come off firm, although I don't think I was unfair or rude. I regret making a few mistakes in my feedback, but ultimately every other point of feedback I stand by. If the topics weren't so contentious, I probably wouldn't have been firm or gotten involved at all; this user made the choice to immediately jump to these topics while not understanding Wikipedia policy.
    Regardless, this kind of feedback will happen over and over on Wikipedia; it is a required experience of editing on the website. It is not acceptable to get so belligerent when running into disagreement. seefooddiet (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a perfectly cogent reflection. @Artificialrights, like I said above, I totally understand your situation as well and take you to be taking all this in stride—again, do not want to condescend here but editing is hard—and sometimes editing in certain areas can result in hackles being raised that wouldn't otherwise be for reasons that aren't anyone's fault. That is not at all to dissuade or discourage you: quite the contrary, we likewise always need more dedicated editors in these areas and you're already doing a lot right. Hopefully it's understandable how slightly sticky situations like these crop up, and that we're pretty well-suited to smooth this one out with that mutual understanding of good intentions. Is that alright with you? Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm alright with that. I have no problem with Seefooddiet as long as the user don't suggest something like "This page may need improvement but that one shouldn't be you". Artificialrights (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately I've never suggested anything like that. seefooddiet (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a general comment:
    I am not an admin but please refute the central issue you have with someone, and state what they need to do to fix it. Also avoid assuming things about others except WP:Good faith. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
    Not so general part of this comment:
    I do see some subtle word changes that are interesting by @Artificialrights. Apenguinlover(🐧!) 00:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done that in each of my comments; each of them has actionable feedback. seefooddiet (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And then, there are the not so subtle word choices... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am genuinely so stupid. I'll hide in the wikicave of shame. Apenguinlover(🐧!) 09:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Superastig posting references that don't line up with their edits

    [edit]

    User:Superastig has been posting information, along with references that don't line up with each other. The episode titles, the user has been adding in multiple articles don't match up with the references that the user also added. So, I'm wondering where is this user getting the episode titles.[115][116][117][118] The links I've posted are just recent examples, and there are plenty more in the past several months. I've already discussed this issue in their talk page and the editor said they would "try". Only for the user to continue the same habit. For the second time, I warned the user about this through their talkpage, the user then made this comment in their talkpage through their edit summary - "Make stricter rules. I'll not tolerate any hissyfit regarding episode titles in my talk page."[119] How is this okay? This breaks the rules of posting reliable sources, when the references added don't even match the content posted in Wikipedia articles.Hotwiki (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Superastig: also claimed that "no one dares to question their edits about episode titles" and they claimed that they know what they are doing.[120] Hotwiki (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. you should leave my edits as is than to waste your time arguing with me about it (21 August 2024)
    2. So, better leave my edits as is. Or else. (31 August 2024)
    3. I have the right to remove them (6 September 2024)
    4. calls editors who disagree throwing a hissy fit (1, 2), get the funk out (3), triggered (4)
    Did someone forget Wikipedia is a collaborative project? Northern Moonlight 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall them having been indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and WP:OWN last year [121] but they got unblocked on appeal [122]. Borgenland (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly anyone who uses "I know what I'm doing" as a justification for anything doesn't know what they are doing, and secondly recent editing by this user is nothing like what was promised in their block appeal. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You would hope someone blocked for ownership of content and incivility would avoid edit summaries like these [123] [124] [125]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be reblocked indefinitely. (Disclosure: was original blocking admin, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Looks familiar?) Daniel (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just indeffed them. Clear violation of their unblock conditions that they agreed to. They knew what they were doing, there's no ignorance excuse here. Completely incompatible with a collaborative editing project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hotwiki Getting back to the original complaint - on their talk page Superastig seems to be saying that they got the titles from unreliable sources like IMDB, but because they've gotten into trouble for citing unreliable sources in the past they've been adding fake citations to the other websites to disguise where the information has come from [126]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall Superastig getting their references from Imdb. Superastig was using Facebook links of GMA Network for their contributions in the past.[127][128] If I remember correctly, the issue about Superastig using facebook links as references for episode titles, was brought up by me in ANI. I think someone responded to my complaint and said "Facebook isn't the best source for Episode titles, but Facebook could be used". I didn't comment after that. I don't remember when Superastig started using gmanetwork.com as their source for episode titles. From my recollection, Superastig just stopped using Facebook. I also didn't know Superastig was using IMDb as a reference until their account was blocked. Hotwiki (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal-troll back again

    [edit]

    Regular readers will have seen several instances of a vandalising troll who targets my edits (and sometimes those of others). They are back again, this time as Diabolical Diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the same style of edits and the same edit summaries. If this little vandal could be blocked again and the edit summaries revdeled again, I would be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SchroCat Thanks for reporting. I see they reverted me edits and now they are blocked. Mehedi Abedin 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sher Singh 45 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk

    [edit]

    At Zamindar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Sher Singh 45 keeps edit warring and removing longstanding sourced content despite requests to discuss and seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page. [15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)], [06:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)], [17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)], [06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)]. Note WP:UNCIVIL comment in this edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    May be a sock of Truthfindervert, since their addition of Punjab - [129] was removed by another user, and hence possibly wanted to remove this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of sock status, they're obviously WP:NOTHERE, and I have indeffed them as such. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sig ma rehan

    [edit]

    Most probably part of a sock farm, adding "vote thief" to articles of living persons, clearly not here to contribute constructively. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by user @Jayanthkumar123 despite consensus achieved through RFC

    [edit]

    I am writing to bring to your attention an ongoing issue involving disruptive editing on the RRR article, specifically related to the inclusion of content regarding the reception by international filmmakers.

    The background is as follows:

    1. Consensus Achieved: Following extensive discussion, the community reached a consensus on including this content. This was determined after multiple levels of formal dispute resolution: Long discussions on talk page, 2 dispute resolution processes which user @Jayanthkumar123 refused to participate in. And then finally a month long RFC where a clear consensus was achieved.
    2. Disruptive Behavior: Despite the above formal processes resulting in a clear consensus for inclusion, User: @Jayanthkumar123 continues to remove the section repeatedly. I anticipated this behaviour and talked with the admin of RFC user @Robert McClenon and he advised specifically to reverse such a disruptive edit once and cite the RFC and if that doesn't work either then to raise a report here, which I'm now going ahead with. (Link of discussion with the admin: User talk:Robert McClenon#Closure for RRR RFC ) As mentioned earlier, user has evaded participating in 2 dispute resolutions so far and once RFC went against his position, has decided to completely ignore RFC. I kindly request administrative intervention in this matter. The user is deliberately ignoring Wikipedia procedures and making edits despite consensus being against him. Specifically, I seek a block for User: @Jayanthkumar123 to prevent further disruptive removals.

    SaibaK (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of removal [132], [133]. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute about the inclusion of a paragraph on "Reception by International Filmmakers" that is being complicated by conduct. The filing editor requested dispute resolution at DRN. I had to warn the filing editor not to refer to a content dispute as vandalism. The other editor did not participate in DRN. A Request for Comments was composed and published on whether to add the paragraph. The RFC ran for thirty days, and I closed it as having found that there was consensus to include the paragraph. My involvement had been as a neutral party, and I was neutral in closing the RFC. It appears that the filing party now has added the paragraph based on the RFC, and the other editor has reverted the inclusion of the paragraph, with an edit summary that they are reverting vandalism. Both editors have yelled vandalism to "win" this content dispute. On the one hand, a reasonable argument can be made that the comments of the international filmmakers should be merged into the "International Reception" section. On the other hand, User:Jayanthkumar123 has not been discussing the content dispute, and has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely block @Jayanthkumar123 from being able to edit the article as they continued with their behaviour without responding here or their talk page or the article's talk page, and also in hopes that they respond to the issue that have been brought up here. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WatersignKing and Nuerland

    [edit]

    @WatersignKing (previously known as Gatwech Gai) created an article named "Rol Naath". The article was put for deletion and then I made it clear that this editor clearly has an have an axe to grind as this term, Rol Naath, is used widely by separatist who advocate for a separate land for the Nuer people from South Sudan. I made that comment about "axe" because the original article looked like a fringe claim (maybe totally a hoax too) to bolster an ethnic group's land claims. If you look to the map in the original article and compare it to the on in Nuer people, that becomes clear as you look to the land in the west of South Sudan. See this video that comes as the top of the list when searching for the article title which exactly talk about ethnic separation. Plus, from this editor work at Nuer massacre, I really think they have an axe to grind and they are using self published books and primary sources, synthetic arguments, and editorialising to do that. This editor has refused to listen and accused everyone who is pointing to the problems with the way they operate, as "working for the genocidal government of South Sudan?", or some kind of conspiracy and has been warned for it but continued with the same behaviour when challenged. You can also look no further than the discussion below.

    This context is important as I will try to demonstrate that this editor is using Wikipedia to support a separatist movement and a fringe theory.

    After, the page was moved to Nuerland, a name that has credible sources as it was used during the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan occupation of Sudan and mentioned in many credible sources, and extensive editing to both Nuerland and Nuer massacre, I left the matter to that, after I also had discussed the matter with editor on his talk, see User talk:WatersignKing#June 2024

    Until this edit, which starts with "Rol Naath, a de facto autonomous state that was politically, socially, and economically independent until 1943 and officially became part of the Sudan political system in 1947, is now seeking to unilaterally separate and consequently dissolve that 1943 political union with South Sudan." the citation given is two YouTube videos from Nuer separatist, which does not meet WP:RS. The rest of the edit is pure synthtic, mixed with sentences like "When the world's supper powers were conquering other African countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Nuer carried out their own territorial conquest" etc. Below is a references analysis

    • 1st paragraph mentioned above with YouTube references 1 and 2
    • 2nd paragraph has the "When the world's super .. phrase referenced to a book review and an entire book with no page.
    • 3rd paragraph mentions "The Turkish who invaded Sudan in 1821 perceived the Nuerland as a sovereign state" with no inline reference, and checking the the reference at the end of the paragraph does no mention the word "Nuer" at all.
    • 4th paragraph mentions "It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland. the reference again does not support this claim and nothing there about Nuer at all. Also same paragraph it mentions "The British colonial administration in Sudan acknowledged that the Nuer country was an independent state" with no inline source, and the sources at the end does not mention any acknowledged that the Nuer country was an independent state excluding the entire book to was cited which I could not skim read.
    • 5th paragraph mentions "the Nuer political system was relatively strong" and "Fangak region functioned as parliament, the source is a comment from a Nuer Spokesmen who talks about Nuer Chiefs including Guek Ngundeng and his son. Nothing there about Parliament. Again total fabrication and by now you can get the general gist. In the same paragraph "The Ngundeng pyramid became a strong symbol of the Nuer people's" no inline source, and the source at the end of the paragraph does not support this claim at all.
    • 6th paragraph talks about the South Sudan struggle for independence and the "Nuer nation" sacrifice until it says "Years later, the Nuer believed that their sacrifices were overlooked.". No source at all. The paragraph ends with "The Nuer people and the Rol Naath authority seek to end the 1943 de jure agreement with South Sudan and return to the Nuerland political structure that existed before 1943." sourced to YouTube (same Nuer TV) and a [Human Rights Watch] report which does no support this sentence at all
    • last paragraph is the most amazing one, it says "The Rol Naath leadership believed that the unification of the Nuer people with other nations in Sudan and later South Sudan ultimately resulted in a disastrous union. It costs the Nuer their lives, culture and traditions, customs, resources, and way of life, and restoring Nuerland's sovereignty is the only way toward addressing all of their problems." and has two sources after the first sentence which do not say any thing about what the leaders believed. Both articles (1 and 2) about how Arab in the North forces their identity on the South, with the word "Nuer" used twice, once with Dinka for participation in the North government (out of the other tribes) and 2nd for statistics for that participation. The 2nd sentence is sourced to a YouTube video that does not meet WP:RS.

    I have removed this edit but it wad undone although I gave the editor clear warning about what their edit entail. From previous discussion, I do not think arguing with them will go any where, so this is why I came here to get a topic ban if possible given the neutrality problems (+ this) in any article that they created. Plus this extensive fake citation and not understanding WP:RS is worrying. Not to mention the earlier personal attacks (here and here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello there, I'm glad you started this discussion, I have been looking forward to it as there are really some behaviors from your end that have been bothering me.
    Starting from the article Rol Naath, when I created the article under title Rol Naath, it was nominated for deletion simply because the editor who nominated it could not find a credible source that could back up Rol Naath but could find many many credible sources that clearly back up Nuerland. I brought it to the editor's attention that Rol Naath is Nuer language name for their land which was simply translated to Nuerland in English, mostly in the work of British Anthropologist E.E. Pritchards who spent years in Nuerland in early 1930s and 1940s and wrote books like The Nuer, Nuer Religion etc. The editor suggested the named be changed to the English name which is Nuerland instead of Nuer language Rol Naath. The title was changed and Afterward the discussion was closed and it was agreed to keep the article. Your goal @FuzzyMagma was to completely wipe the Nuerland article off Wikipedian even though you know much about the Nuer people. You was against it and you didn't like that the Nuerland article was retained to remain on Wikipedia.
    Then again, you disputed the Nuer massacre original title Nuer genocide. After some discussion, we both agreed that the title should be changed to Nuer massacre because the Human Rights Watch didnot publicly recognise the December 15, 2013 Nuer massacre as a genocide. Instead of helping improving the Nuer massacre article at the time like any other Wikipedian would, you further went on and removed some contents from the article even though there are credible sources that support them. And for the second time, you used intimidation and threatening me that I will be blocked from the Wikipedia if i tried to improve the article. I begged you many time to just help like a normal Wikipedian in improving the article, something which you never did. Nevertheless, some other Wikipedian stepped in and helped improve the Article.
    I have been a Wikipedian for a long time now and I have successfully contributed to the Wikipedia positively. The articles that I've brought to Wikipedia are all doing well. I have never encountered any form of intimidation or threat from any other Wikipedian or administrators except you. Concerning the recent incident that you clearly started, this article Nuerland has been included in the list of List of active separatist movements in Africa. So I added Nuerland independence section that address the separatist movement in the Nuerland article and you happen to disagree with my research. Again, you opted to your aggressive approach and tried to completely delete the whole section instead of just making some changes in paragraphs that you disagreed with like any other Wikipedian. Each of those paragraphs are backed by credible sources. To address the "The rest of the edit is pure synthtic" claims that you made. this line "When the world's supper powers were conquering other African countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Nuer carried out their own territorial conquest" is cleared mentioned here in the Nuer Conquest, a whole book that talk about how the Nuer people expanded their territory [1]
    "It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland" This is also mentioned in both [2] and here [3] And the rests of the paragraphs were all referenced and each of those citations clearly backed up the paragraphs.
    I have been following and respecting all the Wikipedia rules and improving on some accordingly. I took some time to check your profile @FuzzyMagma and I can see that you have created too many articles about Sudan and most of those article do not have enough credible citations to back them. Some articles only have one citation and that is also very concerning.
    These User @FuzzyMagma ladies and gentleman has been trying to wipe out articles about ethnic groups in Southern Sudan region. He has always been trying to erase any content that show the Northern Sudanese marginalization of the Southerners which was the biggest reason why Sudan separated into two countries. Any documented incident that address the Arab Northerners Islamization of South is not about @FuzzyMagma, he needs to relax. And the same way that he publish articles about Northen Sudanese individuals, cities, towns and incidents is the same way that the Southerners who are now in their own country should be brought to Wikipedia as well. This Wikipedian @FuzzyMagma has been intimidating me for bring difference ethnic groups from South Sudan to Wikipedia. As a Wikipedian, our purpose is to improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place for our 70 millions reader, but @FuzzyMagma has been going against that purpose for a while now. There is no rule in Wikipedia that I have broken or misuse. @FuzzyMagma has misused some Wikipedia rules like blocking [[134]] in intimidated and threatening me. I urge the administrators and stewards to look into this matter, because @FuzzyMagma actions and approaches are very concerning and intimidating. WatersignKing (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WHa..huh? you are bringing the December 2013 Nuer massacre into this? I see a problem in your approach. You've said "This Wikipedian @FuzzyMagma has been intimidating me for bring difference [sic] ethnic groups from South Sudan to Wikipedia". That is a WP:ASPERSION, and it is patently unacceptable to be writing things like that about Magma without a link to a diff (or a series of them) to back your claim up that they'd said anything in that manner about you. @WatersignKing, you can't just add a YouTube video in as a ref for a contentious claim like that. You say Magma deleted "well cited" stuff on the Nuer article? I find it hard to believe your word on that given your standard of a reliable source being as little as a random YouTube video. Any of those were like to have been no more than fringe theories or movements cited from random YouTube accounts, given what you've added in your Rol Naath subsection of Nuerland. I'd love to be proven wrong, though, but I find it hard to believe that what you added in the massacre article was of anything bearing reliability.

    Also, WatersignKing, I have no idea where to start with policy about your following comment: "These User [sic] @FuzzyMagma ladies and gentleman has been trying to wipe out articles about ethnic groups in Southern Sudan region. He has always been trying to erase any content that show [sic] the Northern Sudanese marginalization of the Southerners which was the biggest reason why Sudan separated into two countries."
    Goodness gracious.
    not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust(Talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Watersign, I'm concerned about something I've discovered upon a look on your talk page. you added a bunch of non-free files that have since been deleted to the massacre article. None of which fell under fair use rationale. Do not do that, for copyright concerns. I did see that you'd added much book-cited content on the massacre article, so that much appears to be in your favour. None of which, surprisingly, seemed to be YouTube videos.
    not an admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit weird to accuse FuzzyMagma of incompetent sourcing when they've been helping me keep the Sudanese civil war (2023-present) and related pages readable and free of poorly-sourced content. Also ridiculous to complain about them creating too many articles on Sudan regardless of whether the sourcing accusations are true, but then again it may have been the way your counter-complaint was written which also raises more questions as to coherency. Borgenland (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borgenland, I mean, WatersignKing is clearly not versed in the English language at a coherent level anywhere close to native-speaking proficiency, and yes, their entire argument here reads like rocky road ice cream. however, this incoherency, while comical and only just sort of difficult to understand, bears no effect on the proper way to judge this. The proper way to judge this would be by the questionable value of their contributions. Of which there are a few things to be questioned.
    @WatersignKing, accusing a constructive editor–one whose merits have been advocated for here by another editor–of intimidation without explicit proof is another issue to deal with. And seriously, to WatersignKing, @-ing Magma seven times in your response was unnecessary. not an Admin, just bored and looking around. –BarntToust(Talk) 17:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, a 7x tagging does sound like WP:HOUND. Borgenland (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that is a good point, let's see the 7 tags:
    1. for personal attacks, not only me but another editor (here and here)
    2. for content removal when the discussion for a merge was on-going, see Talk:Juba Nuer Massacre#Merge proposal
    3. for article ownership, i.e., Nuer massacre, and before warning them I put all of the issues on the talk but they refused to engage, see Talk:Nuer massacre#Using the "Genocide" description, Talk:Nuer massacre#Duplicate information, Talk:Nuer massacre#Machar dismissal, and Talk:Nuer massacre#Machar announcing running for presidency. also other editors made the same comment, see here User talk:WatersignKing#Nuer massacre
    4. The last one was about this this edit, which as I explained at the beginning that it is totally fabricated
    5. The other tags are for uploading images to Wikipedia that does not fit the criteria, which have all been deleted. and if you look to the talk, I already explained what was the issue which btw was also on Commons but WatersginKing seems to ignore the issue and just repeat it. See User talk:WatersignKing in commons
    Just remember we edit around the same topics and frankly I do watch more than 2000 pages mostly around Sudan, and I do check any updates on these articles, approve drafts, an participate in their discussion.
    As for the recent personal attacks, I am not going to respond to that but @WatersignKing "Nuer | Encyclopedia.com" is not a reliable source, and you cannot cite an entire book, you need to provide a page. Actually you cited the book review and not the book itself.
    Lastly, Empire and the Nuer: sources on the pacification of the Southern Sudan, 1898-1930 was not used to support ""It was not until 1916 that the first patrol was sent to the Nuerland.", you used a different source that does not even contain the word "Nuer", so I am not sure what are you talking about or whether you think people here do not check! FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bonte, Pierre (January 1987). "Raymond C. Kelly, The Nuer Conquest: the structure and development of an expansionist system. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1985, 320 pp., 0 472 10064 5 hardback, 0-472 08056 3 paperback". Africa. 57 (1): 123–125. doi:10.2307/1160187. ISSN 1750-0184.
    2. ^ "Nuer | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2024-10-04.
    3. ^ Johnson, Douglas H., ed. (2016). Empire and the Nuer: sources on the pacification of the Southern Sudan, 1898-1930. Fontes historiae Africanae = Sources of African History (First ed.). Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-726588-8.

    Nothing to say about me really spambot

    [edit]

    As per m:NTSAMR, please can someone delete User:ZOSCarl62719 and block the account? IPs can't tag userpages for deletion. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fabulous! Thanks Rick! :-) 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth getting a steward to lock it if it's NTSAMR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible block evasion by 83.6.206.183

    [edit]

    I think Special:Contributions/83.6.206.183 matches pattern of editing of blocked Special:Contributions/Meellk. They are primarily edit warring regarding which system of government Poland is. IP user appears very shortly after named account has been blocked and continue same discussion that was started by named account. -- Svito3 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hieronymusharold's use of AI

    [edit]

    Hieronymusharold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created several AI-generated articles:

    Most have been draftified as unreferenced or deleted as outright hoaxes. I've warned them about these problems, but they have continued to create these articles without responding to me (or anyone else). I think they should be partially blocked from the article namespace, at least until they are willing to communicate. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P-block from mainspace applied. Star Mississippi 01:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Game$howFan

    [edit]

    The editor has made multiple edits to American game show winnings records that have broken the formatting of the all-time winnings table, not to mention introduced numerous inconsistencies. I'll admit I may have been a bit aggressive in going straight to a level 3 warning on their talk page, but a further attempt to reach out, in which I have multiple times tried to explain my reasoning for undoing their edits, has resulted in statements from them such as "it doesn't matter," "tuff nubs," "they can't be lied too," and "EAT MY SHORTS!!!!!" all while practically daring me to block and/or report them. While the user has not (yet) restored their version of the article, I'm afraid their complete inability to have a conversation without launching into childish behavior leaves me no choice but to bring this dispute here, as I do not believe my attempt to reach out has been met with good faith. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that @Game$howFan's account was created an hour before their first edit, and IP addresses making edits to the article date all the way back to August 25th (which is when @Bcschneider53 first got involved here), and also that Game$howFan even uses the same edit summary that this IP address does, I think there's solid enough ground to say that our friend here is very likely a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE to be constructive.
    A quick list of all IPs potentially belonging to Game$howFan:
    Sirocco745 (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first and third IP I believe are near certainties. I have serious doubts about the 2603 one, however, since one of their edits is the one that split Barinholtz's recent Millionaire winnings total, something Game$howFan has been insisting we not do despite the table doing the same thing for every other contestant whose winnings came as part of a team. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that they’ve now been to the Teahouse about this. [135] which is probably a smart move, actually. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64

    [edit]

    2603:8081:83F0:9B10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and /64 has previously been blocked on July 8th for 31h and September 3rd for a week, behaviour continued after block expired. /64 has been adding unsourced content related to the film adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for months. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User @Nooritahir734: on page Pashtuns.

    [edit]

    Persistent disruptive editing from this user via replacing sourced content with Britannica, a non-WP:RS Tertiary source -- as well as removing swathes of sourced content and then developing an edit war claiming it was unto me to discuss the edit(s) he made, and not unto him, which clearly is against WP:ONUS.

    Edits seen here replacing population figures which make no sense with hundred(s) of other correlated sources on the page especially the template right below it.

    [136] - "Please do not remove source material and replace it with false and unreliable" [137] - "rm false information and unreliable source (tribune.com.pk" He then updates the countries population figures here; [138] I revert him and then he re-reverts; [139] "Well, provide more reliable than Britannica, but now don't remove the information that is more reliable than the previous"

    I tell him to take his concerns to the talk-page per WP:ONUS, especially as Britannica is not WP:RS. - [140]

    He reverts again with whatever of an edit summary this is... [141]

    he is reverted by ANOTHER editor: [142]

    He again posts his revision(s): [143] - "You can also see the comments. Sourced content should not be removed. If you have better sources than the current source, add them but don't remove anything now. Or discuss on the talk page"

    I threaten to take this to ANI: [144]

    And again :/ : [145] [146] [147] Noorullah (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given this individual warnings; [148] and [149]
    and the ANI report warning: [150] Noorullah (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've also been reverted by another editor again: [151] Noorullah (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BRITANNICA, Britannica can absolutely be a useful source, but context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång There's numerous secondary sources on the page he replaces over with Britannica, secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources LIKE Britannica. Noorullah (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Move Protected Page Parshurama

    [edit]

    Moved to Protected for having image that was deleted due to copyright. A lot of info is pending to be updated. Kindly move to unprotected. Adbhonsle (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Adbhonsle Parashurama is the actual article, your link was to the redirect. I can't see any reason to unprotect it. You can always use the talk page. Others might disagree. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But reason to protect was image that violated copyright and not the content which is 99%. Kindly reconsider. Updating data via admin will severely affect the quality of article. Adbhonsle (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page protection had nothing to do with copyrighted images. The protection rationale was "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE", and the fairly long history of vandalism and other unconstructive edits backs it up. Liu1126 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No you're mistaken. The protection had nothing to do with any image or copyright. The protection reason is given here [152] "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE". Can you briefly summarise what sort of info you want to add? Edit: Also the article is only extended-confirmed so any extended confirmed editor could answer WP:edit requests that you might make. It does not require an admin to modify the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC) 14:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The correct venue would have been WP:RFPP, but like others have said, the article is extended-confirmed protected due to contentious editing on that article in the past, so changing protection levels is unlikely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm mistaken, since this is under CASTE sanctions (and yes it is logged), RFPP in the first instance isn't the best place for such a request. Instead, it would be best to ask User:RegentsPark first. If they object or otherwise don't respond, then you'd need to open a thread at WP:AN (not here). An admin who decides to reduce protection could do this themselves, but it would likely be easier for the editor wanting to reduce protection to start with RegentsPark which I think is the norm for such sanctions like with CTOP. AFAIK, unless RegentsPark agrees or has agreed somewhere that any admin may reduce this protection, either specifically or generally, no admin can unilaterally reduce the protection, and since this is community authorised you can't appeal to arbcom either; AN is the only venue. If someone asks RegentsPark and they are unwilling to reduce it themselves but agrees that any admin may reduce it if they feel it best, then it would be okay to just open a thread at RFPP. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Three years is a long time so it's worth trying to see if the disruption won't resume. So, unprotected. I've also commented on the protection on my talk page (here) RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible CIR case

    [edit]

    Background at User talk:Jeffreyerwin#Your email. I think this may be a case of competence is required. I started this conversation because they had emailed me to ask if I was currently a JW and that they were concerned that the "JW church" had written "extremely biased" content at Shroud of Turin (a topic that has almost no relevance to JW beliefs). I have tried the best that I can to help them understand our policies and guidelines, even if I'm very confused about why they reached out to me in the first place. The talk page thread I already linked has further details. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm doubtful that anything needs to be done. You gave good advice on how they could pursue the issue.[153] They haven't edited an article in 8 years and haven't edited an article talk page in 6 years, so it's not like they're disruptive. I suggest just waiting to see what they do going forward. (Personally, I think they're just enjoying having someone to argue their pet theory with.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, but it's very weird that they started this out with a personal email after eight years, when I have nothing to do with any of this. Given the language they're using (e.g. I should be ashamed), I don't have much faith in this point that they'll edit collaboratively. I don't plan to really engage with them after this point but I'm concerned that this behaviour will continue if nothing happens. I've also set my email settings to prevent them from sending me anymore. If this had happened to someone else, I would be seriously considering a block. But I'm way too involved in this situation already. I would appreciate other administrative perspectives on this. I was under the impression that I was already giving them more leeway than most would get in a situation like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR includes the ability to read sources and assess their reliability as one of the bullet points. It's been explained multiple times to this person (not just me) that you can't insert content about burial shrouds causing a neutron radiation event. At the very least, they're an SPA for their fringe views. But emailing me (again a random person that had nothing to do with this until this email) years after the fact to interrogate them about their religious beliefs really isn't okay. I'd argue that's disruptive in itself. I had the faint hope that maybe I could get them to see why all of this is pretty problematic, but it's fairly clear based on their responses that that's not going to happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Having read the talkpage exchange, I agree that this editor seems unlikely to become a positive asset, and that even if they were to take their concerns to the relevant talkpage, their contributions there would probably tend towards bad-faith and timewastey. I also low key agree with the above comments that the highest probability outcome is no further action from the editor in question. I don't think we currently have a consensus-based block rationale for "pretty obviously never going to be a productive member of the community", though I've seen that kind of block happen before. Folly Mox (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given there response to my gentle suggestion they take it to the Talk page instead of harassing Clovermoss was Sir, the charachterization of a legitimate bias complaint as "harassment" is, in itself, an indication of bias.[154], I'd say the user is WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked from editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Jeffreyerwin as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emiya1980 redux

    [edit]

    For the background, please see the recently archived discussion where Emiya1980 was formally warned by Cullen328 about their disruptive behavior around filing infobox-related RfCs, and informally warned by other editors and admins about their combative and uncivil interactions in those discussions, and their refusal to listen to multiple editors and admins all telling them the same thing about their behavior. As Daniel stated, a formal warning is pretty much a 'final chance' in terms of this editing issue, so while no blocks etc. have been placed, if it happens again the editor will very likely be blocked if it is brought back to this noticeboard with a link to this discussion.

    Editors were optimistic that this edit suggested Emiya1980 was slowly taking on the advice from the ANI discussion. Instead, after it became clear their position at Talk:World War II had no significant traction, they simply waited a week and initiated a "discussion" that is yet another RfC in everything but name only, claiming that this was perfectly fine, since it's not a formal RfC. They went on to falsely claim the previous consensus discussion had no consensus (because it wasn't formally closed), that editors who don't support their position are shrilly objecting, and that the issue wasn't settled. This is a classic, ongoing refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK situation from an editor who has been open about wanting to institute this change for a complete non-content reason: There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers.

    Infoboxes are already under WP:CTOPS, and persistent disruption around them (whether it's about images, or ordering of information, or disputes about categories, or whatever) seem to be more the locus of the problem here than the RfC aspect itself; additionally, it's clear that Emiya1980 is perfectly willing to engage in the RfC behavior without formally opening one. As was noted in the previous ANI discussion, Emiya1980 seems perfectly able to contribute positively elsewhere on WP, so a block seems punitive rather than preventative.

    I therefore propose a broadly-construed 6-month topic ban from infoboxes and infobox-related editing for Emiya1980, with the encouragement they spend their time productively on other things at enwiki. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – as someone at least moderately involved and also has strong opinions about infoboxes, I do wish that Emiya would've more quickly internalized the central point here: these things ultimately matter comparatively little, and it is more important for people to get along and be able to hash things out when it's agreed that there is a major problem. Sometimes one editor just empirically cares about specific things a lot more than everybody else does (guilty!)—and that care is not even wrong to have, at all—but it's important to respond accordingly to the expressed apathy and exhaustion of others (which likewise is their right) when the things you care about changing have highly visible ramifications or are adjacent to the existing work of others. Otherwise, disruption will ensue. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already stated, the current discussion in which I am involved is not an Rfc. Grandpallama's attempts to characterize it as one do not make it so.
    While I initially began the discussion with the intention of replacing Joseph Stalin with FDR at the top of a list with Allied leaders, I have since changed my position to ordering the leaders in a neutral order (alphabetical or chronological). At least three other editors have come out in support of adopting a more neutral ordering for the Allied leaders and two of the three have specifically expressed concern about arranging the list in a manner suggesting that Stalin was the most important leader of the Big Three. Therefore, this is not a concern unique to myself. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, just because you haven't labeled it as one doesn't mean it isn't an expression of the same issues people have tried to communicate to you. The conversation died down, which is very natural and should often be allowed to happen when there is no consensus unless some new argument is made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So pointing out that certain people are exploiting vagueness in the rules to silence me makes me guilty of Wikilawyering? Why don't you just come out and say that you're opting to ban me just because a select group of editors are annoyed by my editing? Emiya1980 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Emiya1980, this is a collaborative project and that comment of yours is not collaborative and indicates that you are not getting the message. Please be aware that further sanctions are possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing that to the total exclusion of engaging with what I was trying to communicate to you as if the distinction invalidated it is Wikilawyering, yes. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting aspersions is a way to fast track from a TBAN proposal to a sitewide block. Strongly recommend you strike that comment. Grandpallama (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as how I am unlikely to walk away from this thread without at least some limitations on my editing privileges, I want to offer a compromise. As opposed to a broad ban on any and all edits to Wikipedia's infoboxes, I ask for one final chance with regards to my probation subject to a few nonnegotiable conditions. Until the admins on this page feel differently, I will commit to abstain from pinging any editors, opening any Rfcs, participating in any discussions regarding the infobox of any page, and engaging in any further editing to World War II's infobox.
    Should I break this promise or do anything else that other editors view as disruptive to Wikipedia in the near future, I will accept whatever penalty that is handed down. In light of the positive contributions I have made to this project, I ask that the editors here please take this compromise into consideration before reaching a verdict. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough for me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that your prior warning to me was limited to Rfcs. It seems unfair that you are expanding it now to include my participation in discussions regarding the infobox. I also recall that I asked you for specifics regarding what was expected for me going forward and you refused to elaborate. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this offer came only after it was clear sanctions are likely to be imposed (rather than as a good-faith response to earlier concerns), the game-playing around the RfC-that-isn't-a-RfC, and the wikilawyering response to Cullen also makes me feel formal sanctions remain necessary over any informal, voluntary arrangement. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My beliefs have not changed. It is true I still think at least some of the arguments made against me here are unfair. However, when I say I will commit to not doing something, I mean it. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also point out that the WP:Canvassing Page specifically allows editors like myself to notify "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Both of the pings I engaged in on World War II's talk page fall under these exceptions. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should mention: this is in reply to @Nemov. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biohistorian15 This issue goes back several weeks and the editor was advised to stop pinging multiple projects. Pinging bio is perfectly reasonable and they agreed to stop spamming others, but they went right back to pinging multiple projects anyway. Just another example of that Emiya1980 says they'll change, then they go right back to problematic behavior. Nemov (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: If I recall, I said I would narrow down which projects I would ping. Not abandon the practice entirely. Conservativism is listed as a Wiki-project with an interest in Edward Heath. Therefore, it seemed permissible to post a notice there. For the record, this is the first time it has been brought to my attention that Wiki-projects are automatically notified of Rfcs pertaining to pages they have an interest in. If I would have known that, I wouldn't have wasted the time posting a notice on said projects. However, the fact is I did not. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Koar20104

    [edit]

    Koar20104 (talk · contribs) longtime creator of multiple fake wikipedia articles. Obviously WP:NOTHERE and a considerable disruption. --Altenmann >talk 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not look good. I would like to hear from the user; absent of this we have to assume that the articles are indeed hoaxes. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this block. Deliberately creating hoaxes on Wikipedia is reprehensible. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roman Spinner circumventing MOS

    [edit]

    User has been participating in numerous move discussions by intentionally forwarding opinions counter to both the overall Wikipedia MOS (MOS:DIACRITICS) and MOS:KO. They have openly admitted to doing this as a tactic to shift common practice in order to get the overall MOS shifted to be anti-diacritics [156]. Threads where they've engaged in this behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    Here's the issue: if you want to change either the main MOS or the MOS:KO, you should propose changes to them directly. Trying to circumvent the MOSes by making numerous posts is ineffective and blatantly underhanded. Even when this has been explained to the user over and over again, they've doubled down on doing it.

    Changing the MOS is not impossible; in fact we literally pushed a complete rewrite of MOS:KO a few days ago, where surprise surprise diacritics are asked for. I've even gotten practices that weren't common approved for the new MOS just because I had good arguments ready and took the proper channels for getting things approved. You don't need to underhandedly undermine common practice in order to get things approved; just have strong arguments and make a clean proposal once.

    I'm not sure what disciplinary action is appropriate. I don't know if they've been behaving poorly elsewhere. Maybe a topic ban on opposing the use of diacritics? seefooddiet (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think in the past they have been topic banned, but I do not remember for what. Also their behavior in RUSUKR discussions are substandard- they always take pro-Ukrainian position does not matter what, typically not providing any other arguments or "per topic starter" or "per excellent arguments of the topic starter" even if arguments are extremely poor), thus making an illusion of mass support. In the discussions where two-three votes typically determine the outcome this is disruptive. Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's true maybe a timed broader ban from discussions is appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Noting that only one of the diffs linked postdates the MOS:KO rewrite, and disagreeing with MOS aspects is totally fine, the boilerplate oppose Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English is wrong. English has two native diacritics. Also feels like some kinda cultural superiority / device only supports eight-bit ASCII thing. Folly Mox (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't quite right. Even before the rewrite, the MOS asked for the use of McCune–Reischauer, which fundamentally has diacritics. We just made the use of diacritics more explicit because of cases like these. seefooddiet (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1249614645"