Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Concerns about Johnpacklambert's "corrections" of birth dates

Johnpacklambert appears to have been working his way through birth date categories for some time now. He goes through a category at a time and edits birth date categories if the text and category do not match. A few days ago I asked him about how he determined which of the dates was the correct one. His response was I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.. From this, I take him to be saying that he does no research other than looking at the article. He does not check what sources say. He does not do a Google search. He does not look at the history of page to see how the dates became different. I have asked him twice to confirm these assumptions, but he has ignored the question both times.

I will give the clearest example of the problem - Mr Lambert changed the birth date category for Julia Adler from 1897 to 1898 so it matched the text of the page. There is only one source used on that page. The source is an obituary which provides the birth date of "July 4, 1897". After I questioned him about this change (giving him the date in the source), Mr Lambert edited the date to "c. 1898".

I am concerned that Mr Lambert, with the best of intentions, has "corrected" many many birth date categories without taking the time to research the problem. He appears to trust Wikipedia text over the sources. What prompted me to finally report this here is that Mr Lambert has stopped replying to my questions on his talk page and has deliberately changed the way he edits birth date categories so that there is no edit summary showing the category change. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. The issue that is brought up above has since had people look into the text more and more sources have been added. I have tried to make sure that I am fully consulting the text of the article, and in multiple cases have reviewed the articles more indepth. I have tried to create discussion around topics in response to the issue as can be seen at [1]. Beatrix Bulstrode is an example of why insisting that someone do extra research to correct these problems is not reasonable. The article text makes it clear that the existing date was a transpostion error, she clearly was born in 1869 as the article says and not in 1896. The claim above that I have "stopped replying to questions on the talk page" is diningenous at best. The most recent ask on the talk page was about Eleanor Winthrop Young. After the question was asked on my talk page, I opened a discussion at Talk:Eleanor Winthrop Young which discusses the matter of when she may have been born. I maybe should have posted about that on my talk page to notify him of it. He further attacks me for doing a direct edit instead of using hot cat, and clearly is ignoring edits like the one I made on Beatrix Bulstrode where I explicitly state this was a correction of the birth year. With hot cat one does not have an easy option to explain the edit, so if I use the general edit I can explain the edits and somewhat anticipate the questions about them before they happen. I would also point out my previous attempts to explain the full issue, such as the case of Louise Little, where I explain why it has been changed to 1890s births, and he responds the way he does. I explain that I had gone to the touble of looking for more sources on Little's birth, and identify one I was able to find which justified the move to the 1890s birth category. When I initially found the article it had multiple statements in the text that said Little was born in 1894 and nothing that indicated any other year was the year of birth. When Polycarpa aurata asked about this, I dug further and was able to find the source, which I mentioned in my talk page and made the edits. His response was a set of questions you see there. I really could not find a good way to respond to those questions. So I figured that a response was not needed, especially since the issue at hand was what birth year Little should be categorized in, and based on the most recent New York Times source I think we can only place the article in the 1890s births category. Johnny Broderick the opening explicitly tells us that sources differ on the year of birth. From now on I will explictly make a note of changing the birth year in my edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Harry Caples is an example of having such an edit summary explaining what I am doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert After I tried to talk to you about your birth date changes, you stopped leaving edit summaries for those changes, correct? That makes it harder to see the birth date changes when looking at your edits. What was your intention when you changed how you made those edits? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • No that is not correct. Pretty much the only edit summaries I have made were after you brought this issue up. When one uses hotcat directly to make an edit there is no ability to make an edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      @Johnpacklambert From what I was seeing over the last few days, there was a consistent edit summary like "removed Category:1897 births; added Category:1879 births using HotCat". A couple of days ago, the edit summaries disappeared. That continued until today. For example, this edit changng a birth date with no edit summary. Why did you change how you edited birth date categories? Please bear in mind that edit summaries are not the issue here. I just want to understand why you changed your method of editing, because it had the side effect of making those types of edits harder to find. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if an editor were to go through every Category:Births in year page and change the cat to match the text, without checking any sources, it would be a net benefit to the project. If JPL is doing even an occasional source check, even better. Polycarpa aurata, if you intend to go through the cats and rigorously check all the date sources, I would counsel JPL to stop his work to avoid duplicating efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks to me to be simple good-faith and non-controversial editing. If there's a mistake, fix it. It seems that if there are mistakes it would be much less work to just fix it than to bring it up here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. Please don't do this. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as you well know. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid I come down on this side of the issue--though I will say that I do not doubt JPL's good faith here. If there is such a discrepancy, it means there must be an error somewhere along the line, and I am not convinced the text will always be more reliable. This process may in fact be hiding errors which should be rechecked and which would otherwise be plain to see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any disruptive, or bad fait, editing historically which may change birth dates etc (happens all the time) then 99.99% of the time it's in the text. I don't think I've ever seen such a bad actor alter the categories. While I don't condone using it, I'd say it's possible in many cases that the category is more likely to be correct as that would have likely been set up at the article creation and sourcing stage rather than the maintenance editing stage. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the intent of "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is with regards to being a source for other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure the spirit if that pertained to categories of the articles in which they are referencing. I could stand corrected if specific text states the intent of that statement also included categories. I think I'm in agreeance with @Firefangledfeathers and @Paulmcdonald here. --ARoseWolf 19:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -edited 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here (WP:People by year) states that categories should be added according to the date of birth and date of death in the article. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable in terms of sanctions for John Pack Lambert - synchronising categories with article text is a useful thing to do and the comments he has been leaving on talk pages suggest that he is putting some level of checking into his edits. There is also no requirement at all to perform category edits using hotcat.

I do, however, think that this is a case where the behaviour of the filer is worth looking at, and WP:BOOMERANG sanctions may be appropriate. In the 400 edits they have made to date they have spent a significant amount of time baselessly accusing other editors of disruption and conduct.

• In this AFD [2] Polycarpa aurata uses an unnecessarily combative tone and suggests that it's the fault of the other editors commenting there that no coverage except an interview cannot be found (is not notable because *you* can't find sources?). Later in the discussion they admit that they have made no effort to find sources themselves and imply the deletion is due to racial bias.
• This featured picture delisting nomination [3] was opened because of concerns about quality that were raised when the picture was scheduled to run on the main page [4]. Polycarpa aurata shows up, admits they have little knowledge of the process, and baselessly makes the accusation that the discussion was opened in bad faith to undermine another process [5].
• Here [6] they are criticised for taking an unnecessarily agnostic tone that implies bad faith in a discussion about a mass shooting [7].
• Here [8] They refer to another editor as "creepy" for adding information on a celebrity board member's involvement in a charity to an article.
• In this deletion review [9] they misrepresent an admin suggesting that they userfy a page as being unwilling to restore the page and refer to a couple hour delay for a response as I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying.
• In this discussion [10] an editor tries to reach a consensus as to whether an image is suitable to run on the main page. After a few messages the op lays out a numbered list of the positives and negatives of the image. Polycarpa aurata ignores the message for 4 days, then turns up to accuse the OP of starting the entire discussion in bad faith [11]. Before the image is run the OP starts another discussion on the main page talk page to try to get feedback [12]. Polycarpa aurata again shows up to claim that the entire discussion was stated in bad faith [13]. FWIW consensus was essentially unanimous that the image was OK to run.

Polycarpa aurata badly needs to stop accusing everyone and anyone they come into conflict with or disagree with of acting in bad faith or with misconduct. They also really need to reconsider the tone that they use in talk page messages, and avoid agnostic language that is simply going to inflame tensions. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've spent ages trying to understand your repeated use of the word "agnostic", and have come to the conclusion that you probably actually meant "antagonistic". Is that correct? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnostic behavior in hens. EEng 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe Mr Lambert is acting in good faith, but his actions are damaging the project. Please understand that I am not making an accusation - I am making a statement. Johnpacklambert is introducing new errors (category errors) which compound the errors in the text. He has been doing this for weeks, if not months. I do not know what percentage of his birth date edits have been problematic, but it was fairly easy for me to find the examples I left on his talk page. You are misinterpreting the guidance for categories. The text and categories should match, yes, but that doesn't mean one should mindlessly change the category to match the text without investigating how the error happened. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extremely poorly thought out boomerang request. You did a deep stalking and that was the worst you found? None of that is actionable or even terribly concerning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I looked at some of the birth date changes that Mr Lambert has been making this week. Does that count as a "deep stalking"? That doesn't even seem like a light stalking to me, but everything on Wikipedia seems to have its own meaning. Anyway, based in what I found, Mr Lambert has probably introduced dozens of new category errors into Wikipedia as he "corrected" birth categories. I think this is worth telling people about so that the errors can be identified and fixed, and so that Mr Lambert will stop introducing new errors. I'm not asking for him to be punished, just to stop, although it would be nice if he would acknowledge that he understands why this was wrong, so he doesn't do the same thing with some other category. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting slightly off topic... Identifying an issue with a specific edit and looking at the author's edit history to see if the issue is limited to one page is one thing, it is entirely another thing to trawl someone's edit history for any and all errors or conflicts in the hopes of using them to influence an unrelated noticeboard discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have not seen it so much in my run from 1927 births back, but back when I was reviewing articles from the 1300s or so, I saw 2 very common cases where those who had created the categories clearly did not understand what the article was saying. In one case there were articles with flourished dates. Another set of articles had the dates a ruler reigned in parenthesis and an editor had misinterpreted that to be the birth and death years. True the majority of rulers over time (as opposed to elected leaders) probably died in office, but very few were born the year their reign started. I have also found some articles in multiple bith year categories. Clearly people were not born in more than one year, so that is not right. As I said going forward I will be clear on what is going on with edit summaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert Edit summaries are not the issue. The issue is that you are not investigating *why* there is more than one birth date. You are blindly assuming that the text is correct and changing the category. You have not been checking sources already available from the page. You have not been looking at the page history to see when the error happened. You have not been trying to find the correct birth date. You are not correcting errors, you are just making two things match. Sometimes that will be fine, but in other cases it introduces a new error, as I have tried to show you on your talk page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I am very puzzled by some of the comments here. @Firefangledfeathers, Paulmcdonald, and ARoseWolf: If someone created a bot that went through pages and just changed the birth date category to match whatever birth date was in the text, would you be ok with that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a net benefit to the project. I'm not familiar enough with the bot policy to comment on that. My experience is that errors are generally caught and fixed in the article text, but that editors rarely update the categories to match. You have presumably checked many of JPL's category changes. Have you found that errors in greater than 50% of these edits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I only started looking at Mr Lambert's birth date edits this week, so I wouldn't want to guess at the error rate but I was able to find a half dozen examples. That doesn't mean that the others were correct, just less obviously wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A half dozen out of how many approximately? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The net number of changes on some birth year categories are in excess of 100. Some of these I process through in less than a week. So I am probably on average making over 100 edits related to birth-year categorization a week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, yes, I believe a bot that did this task would be with-in compliance with, at least, what is written in the guideline, however, bot policies would also apply and there may be additional restrictions or hurdles that might need be addressed before such a bot was created. --ARoseWolf 13:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That error rate is massive, were you aware that you were making so many screw ups before this thread was opened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged back here: I'm not sure what was confusing or puzzling about what I said. It was pretty straight forward. The statement in quotations was being used to push the case against Mr. Lambert's edits and a) I don't think it means what the ones using it think it means (the comment by the IP seems to suggest guidelines say Mr. Lambert's edits are in compliance) and, regardless, b) I'm questioning whether this is an urgent, chronic and intractable behavior issue or a just a content issue that should perhaps go to dispute resolution. No where in the guideline does it say you have to check the sources before adding a category. In fact, it can be assumed with relative certainty that the ones that added the categories initially did not check the sources for accuracy. Some might, some might not. But what is clear is that we are asking Mr. Lambert to take an extra step that is not written in the guideline or clearly defined anywhere else in policy for this specific task. While the OP may have a legitimate concern, their focus is in the wrong direction here. If they are so concerned with making sure that anyone adding or editing a category check sources to verify what is written in the article then they should be asking for the guideline to be changed. There is a proper venue for that. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Let met get this straight... there is a discrepancy between the birthdate listed in the text of an article and the birthdate category on the article. There is obviously something wrong in the article, whether it's the text, or the category, or both. No one disagrees with that. If it's left as is, the error remains in the article. An editor is making a good faith attempt to fix it. Now even if this correction is done randomly to match the category with the text or the text with the category, they'll be right 50% of the time (unless both are wrong). So, in the likely worst case scenario here, half of the articles are being corrected and now we're demanding that it should be 100% or none at all? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Response-we're not talking about a bot, we're talking about a person. per WP:BOTS, Wikipedia policy requires that bots be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this editor on John Pack Lambert's talk page; they were constantly repeating the question What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? despite it already having been answered with I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.

I don't know much about categorization policies, but it did come across as uncivil WP:BADGERing. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal To be honest, I found it hard to believe that someone could actually be doing what Mr Lambert was doing. I wanted to be sure that I understood the process he was following (ie not checking page history, not checking sources). When I raised questions about specific articles, Mr Lambert became argumentative about sources I offered instead of responding to my question about his process. So I stopped offering sources and just asked about process. When Mr Lambert stopped responding at all, I brought the issue here. If there is a more appropriate noticeboard for these types of things, please let me know. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

JPL, I think you should change your approach and here's why: what you're doing is like clearing a bug report without fixing the bug. If the text and category don't match, at least we are aware of a potential error. If you always match category to text, yes that's technically within policy, but it's not a good idea anyway.

Let's say half of the time the text is right and half the time the category is right. If you always match category to text, you'll never turn incorrect text into correct text, and that's good. But half the time you will have turned a correct category into an incorrect category. And 100% of the time, because you're matching them, you'll remove the evidence of a potential error (which is the mismatch).

So if there is incorrect text and correct category, if you do nothing, at least it's flagged as an error for potential follow up by someone else. But if you "clear" them all, you also clear all evidence of a potential error, half the time correcting the error, but half the time making it worse (change incorrect cat to correct cat) while also making it harder for anyone else to detect it (by removing the mismatch).

Instead of just changing the category to match the text without verifying the text, it should be flagged for further, manual, review. It's better to have a mismatch than to clear the mismatch without investigating it. Clearing the "there's a problem here" warning (mismatch of text and category) without actually investigating the problem, doesn't help, it hurts. What you're effectively doing by removing the mismatch but not actually investigating them is making sure no one else will even find any of these mismatches and know to check them in the future. Levivich^[block] 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you are asking Mr. Lambert to go above and beyond guideline and policy to meet a criteria not required of any other editor, whether when an article is created or after the fact. If you want guidelines or policies changed, which might actually have merit, then make the proper request. Don't put the cart before the horse. All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's the whole point of this thread "All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article" - how do you know which one is correct? Levivich's post is a brilliant explination of why just making that one change isn't the best thing to do. I think Template:Self-contradictory should be used on articles like this. The example on that template isn't a million miles away from these issues - change "the cause of death" to "YOB/YOD text doesn't match the category" or similar. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(You make me blush.) Yes, tagging with a template or otherwise applying a hidden maintenance category is a good example of the kind of adjustment of approach I had in mind. Tagging for follow up is better than just changing the category to match the text. Levivich^[block] 14:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You got that straight Rose: I don't want anyone to do anything that makes the project worse, even if--and I want to make this next part absolutely clear--even if it violates no rule. The important thing isn't that we comply with our own rules, the important thing is we build an encyclopedia, and clearing bug reports without fixing the bug doesn't help us do that, it hinders us--even if it's not against any rule, still a bad idea. Levivich^[block] 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of issues on this encyclopedia. We have articles that contain contradicting information. If making the project worse was the only criteria by which we built or maintained the encyclopedia then we would have far less articles because that is very subjective. Who gets to say something that fixes 50% of articles is hurting the encyclopedia? Maybe its perspective. That's why we have policy and guidelines. Out of the hundreds and thoudands of editors on Wikipedia we can get hundreds and thousands of opinions on what hurts and helps the encyclopedia. Your opinion that this particular action hurts is contradicted by those that say fixing 50% helps. Your view is no more or less important than theirs, the difference is policy and guideline. I still don't see this being a behavior issue so this AN/I is misplaced. -ARoseWolf 15:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Who gets to say... We do. The community. That's why we're talking about this here and now. And as one member of the community, I say that clearing error reports without fixing errors hurts the encyclopedia. You're welcome to disagree about that, but spare me the Wikipedia cliche "If you want guidelines or policies changed...", and spare me the insinuation that I need to change a policy or guideline if I want to hold an opinion. You may better persuade others by explaining why you don't think clearing the bug reports without fixing the bugs is a bad thing--I explained why I thought it was a bad thing--maybe try actually engaging with the substance of my argument instead of just expressing outrage at it? :-) Levivich^[block] 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, nobody is asking him to go "above and beyond" anything. It's more like asking him to refrain from doing something: please don't change categories to match text without checking for accuracy. One option available to him is to not do anything. Another option available is to tag the article somehow, rather than changing the category to match the text. Neither option is "going above and beyond" anything. No one is asking him to do more work, we're asking him to do the work differently, because the way he's doing it is making it harder for the rest of us. (We can't fix an incorrect birthdate if we don't know about it, after all.) Levivich^[block] 15:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a technical note but those saying "fixing 50% helps." are either speaking metaphorically or are factually incorrect. Thats just not how statistics works in this case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline and policy here are WP:RS and WP:V - WP:PBY is fine for adding a category if there isn't one, but it's not for correcting it. If Johnpacklambert isn't looking at what the sources say, he shouldn't be changing what the article text says (I'm using "article text" broadly here, to include the category). It's one thing if he looks at the history and sees that a seventeen-edit, now-blocked user changed one of the dates, and then undoes that; it's quite another if he just looks at the current version of the article and capriciously picks which one is right, even if he's always picking the same one. That's like "fixing" a copyright infringement by replacing random words with a thesaurus until the Earwig report's percentage match is "low enough". —Cryptic 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...which, by the way, is something people do that drives me nuts: using elegant variation to lower an Earwig score but not checking the source, and in the process risking turning plagiarism into a V or NPOV or even BLP error. Levivich^[block] 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't turn plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error; it turns plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error plus still plagiarism, and much harder-to-detect plagiarism at that. —Cryptic 15:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint makes no sense to me. What citation is there for the original categories? If an article says that someone was born in 1890, and I add Category:2004 births (cited to nothing because categories can't carry refs), is it just required to stay that way forever? Is it not much more likely that they were born in 1890 than, say, 1896, based on the article text? Sure, it would be nice for JPL to add citations for birth dates. It would also be nice if he turned every article he edited into a GA, but it would be asinine to complain about someone not doing this. I sometimes use AWB to fix typos; am I about to get my ass beat at ANI for doing that in uncited sections? I think not. The choice here is not between a cited birth year and an uncited birth year -- it's between an uncited category that disagrees with the article and an uncited category that agrees with the article. I cannot fathom any way in which this is a problem, other than the fact that JPL has been abrasive on unrelated parts of the project, which has (and should have) nothing to do with this. jp×g 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • If you're reading an article and you see a contradiction in it, it's an immediate indication that something is wrong and you should look closer instead of blindly trusting it - it could just as easily be the cited 1890 date that's erroneous, say, because it's uncorrected vandalism. (Yes, yes, I know, readers should always look closer instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia, but they don't. We've got research showing that only a third of a percent of page views click on any references.) —Cryptic 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Right -- but the problem is not with the categorization, it's with an erroneous birth date being on the page in the first place. Verifying the content of a page is a separate task from aligning its categories. If an article says someone was born in 1890, it may be the case that there's no citable basis to categorize them as an 1890 birth, but there is absolutely no basis to categorize them as an 1894 birth. One of these situations is obviously worse than the other. Sure, there's the off-chance that the other birth date was vandalism, and maybe the cats could be used to detect this vandalism, but "deliberately retain self-contradictory language in articles so that forensic searches can be done for vandalism" doesn't seem like a policy I have ever heard of. jp×g 18:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      Actually, vandals often change the article but not the category, so you should never adjust a category that contradicts the article without at least looking at the article history. —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nellie Casman

Here is an example of a birth date change made today by Mr Lambert. He changed the birth date category of Nellie Casman from 1896 births to 1890s births. The edit summary says he opening says 1896? for her birth year, saying it is less than clear, so we are probably safer saying she was born in the 1890s than committing to an exact year we cannot be sure of. The page has three sources, including an obituary in the New York Times. Each of those sources says that Nellie Casman was born in 1896. Why is Mr Lambert unsure of the date given by those three sources? If "we cannot be sure of" the year given by the three separate sources, how can Mr Lambert be sure that Casman was born in the 1890s and not the 1880s or 1900s? BY this point, I think it is safe to assume that Mr Lambert did not look at the sources at all, but made his guesses based on the question mark in the text. That question mark was added in 2018 by an IP editor. Why? I don't know and neither does Mr Lambert. I think we should go with what the sources say, not with an unexplained question mark. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am waiting to see if he mentions my edit to Victor Gerson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert If you mean me, I'm not a he. We can discuss Victor Gerson if you wish, but I would like to hear your explanation for the change you made to Nellie Casman. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment look folks, editng and research can be tough work even for simple data points like "year of birth" -- can we work to get it right without having a HUGE discussion here? There's no bad fath that I see, no policy violation, no copyvio, no legal issue... just editing and research. Working to align year of birth categories with the content of the article seems to me to be a good thing. If there's a discrepancy--oops, it's a mistake. WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix it, yes; fudge it, no. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald Mr Lambert, until I started this discussion, was doing no research at all. He was not working to get it right. That is the issue. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this discussion from this point forward. As noted below, there is no administrative action needed here--at least, none that I can spot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we find the discrepancy, after JPL changes the category to match the text? How does anyone ever know that there was a discrepancy? How does anyone fix it, after JPL???

Alternatives to what JPL is doing:

1. Tag it {{self-contradictory}} instead of mechanically changing the category to match the text
2. Mechanically change the category to match the text, but still tag it {{self-contradictory}} with a note saying "I mechanically changed the category to match the text, but there was a mismatch here, someone may want to follow up and make sure the text is correct"
3. Anything else that leaves an indication to future editors that there was a mismatch here that was corrected without being verified (so that someone else can verify it later if they want to), such as adding some other template or hidden maintenance category or message on the talk page or something.

This isn't really asking a lot. Levivich^[block] 15:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...what JPL is doing now is like showing up to the scene of a fire and resetting the fire alarm without actually putting out the fire, on the justification that half the time there isn't a real fire anyway, and people are saying "we should thank him for shutting off the alarm instead of demanding that he put out the fire, too!" Levivich^[block] 15:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not thanking Mr. Lambert for his edits here. I'm saying there is no violation of policy or guidelines. There is no administrator action needed which is what this thread is for. All categories are based on what is written in the text of the article or what we know about a subject based on what is written in the article. No matter whether its just after an article is written or years after the fact. Currently, we don't require those adding or editing categories to do a WP:BEFORE search of sources to verify the information is correct in the article before adding or editing a category. Should we? Idk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that in. Is Mr. Lambert's behavior here a violation of policy or guidelines and thereby disruptive or not. If the answer is yes then perhaps action should be proposed. Otherwise it's a content issue or application of content guidelines issue. --ARoseWolf 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Surely "do not introduce errors" is part of a policy or guideline? And "when someone shows you that you are introducing errors, stop doing it"? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Polycarpa aurata, Are you now changing your position that Mr. Lambert is acting in good faith? That could alter the purpose of this thread and we can then begin to discuss behavior issues as opposed to content issues which may be drowning out actual behavior issues here. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert I believe that Mr Lambert is acting with good intentions. I said as much when I made this report. I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page but his answers were not helpful and then he stopped answering at all, so I brought it here. I believe that he changed how he edits birth date categories to make it harder for me to find his changes, but I'm not really bothered by that. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANI is for asking admins to sanction someone. It's not. As the top of the page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". At least in the opinions of some editors (like me), mechanically changing mismatched categories to match the text is an urgent incident, and to because this has been ongoing and has been raised with the editor without resolution, it's also a chronic and intractable behavioral problem. Again, you may disagree that this is an urgent incident, or an incident at all, or that it's intractable, or that it's a behavioral problem at all... but that doesn't make this the wrong place to discuss whether one view (mine) or the other (yours) is right. That is the discussion happening right now, right here, and it's the right place. Levivich^[block] 17:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ermyntrude Harvey I have edited to move to the 1890s birth year category. The one source that is listed there that I could find online quickly does not give the birth year. The other sources either are not online or the link did not work. I figured since the category was 1896 but both statements of birth in the article were 1895, someone somewhere thought 1896 was correct. I am not sure where this was though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert I don't know why you are bringing this up here. More than one person has suggested marking these pages as "contradictory". Could you agree to do that and stop making guesses about birth dates? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • This is not a guess per se. We have people stating 1896 and 1895. Both are in the 1890s. There is nothing suggsting that the article would fall under any other range, and I have made a post on the talk page about this issue. It seems a reasonable set of actions to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert I thought we were supposed to be looking for sources stating facts? Without those, you are indeed guessing. Your guess may very well be right, but it is not based on sources. What is wrong with labeling the dates as contradictory? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Would you rather I removed the birth year category entirely at that point. Categories are supposed to flow from statments in the text which in turn flow from sources. Articles cannot be placed in categories otherwise. So Either I should remove the category as not being supported, or I should go to one that is supported. I think especially in this case in which it is clear that the date is based on the listed sources, I do not have easy access to those sources, that saying the birth was in the 1890s is reasonable until someone can fully review sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • Of course you are free to go remove the birth year category from the article on Harvey. I am not stopping you, and none of these edits involve anyone actually reverting an edit you did. So I really do not see why you brought it to ANI at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect, we are looking for what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Whether it is a fact or not is relative. A reader may read it and determine it is not a fact. That is their discretion. Wikipedia does not tell a reader what to believe is fact or not, nor do we present facts, per se. We make every attempt to verify and make sure what we are presenting is accurate based on what those sources say. Though I agree that we should not be guessing when it comes to content included in an article. That would apply to categories too. Keep in mind that a category is simply a navigational tool. Nothing more, nothing less. What does the article say? Theoretically that is what a category should navigate to. Should we add a template for inconsistent sources? I can go along with that given there is a clearly defined avenue to point editors to the use of the template. I will state this, WP:BLPCAT notes "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This could seem to infer that reliable sources within the article should be consulted along with the stated text when adding categories or editing existing ones. I think Mr. Lambert should consider all that is being brought up here and evaluate whether what he is doing falls in line with WP:BLPCAT or not. This would seemingly only apply to BLP's as I can tell so far. I haven't looked at others.--ARoseWolf 17:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cliff Henderson is a place where I 1-determined that the listed year at all places in the article did not agree with the category. 2-I checked sources. Only one listed a year of birth, that was the Western Reserve Historical Society Finding Aid. It listed the same year as the article. The other sources I checked did not tell us when Henderson was born. So I had the sum of the one source that mentioned his birth year and every statement in the article body, as opposed to a category that was only a year off. Based on this information I moved the article to the 1895 birth year category, and I believe explained what I did about as well as I could in an edit note. I am also going to add a note to the talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Victor Gerson

Mr Lambert would like me to discuss his edit to Victor Gerson, so I will. The page was created by MrArmstrong2 in June, 2019. Most of it is a barely re-worded copy of the main source. For example, the source says

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo (June, 1943, October 1943 and January 1944) and although some were arrested the group were able to continue its activities.

MrArmstrong2 wrote

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo in June and October 1943 and January 1944, after which some members were arrested, the group was able to continue its activities.

That sentence has since been broken up into two parts, separated by a list that does not appear in the main source and is likely cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Smallchief changed the birth date from 1896 to 1898 with an edit summary of "fixing birth date according to ref". The main source gives 1898 as the birth date, so I suspect Smallchief looked at it before making the change. A different source used on the page, this one from the UK National Archives, gives the birth date as 1896. Other reliable sources also have the 1896 birth date, including the 1978 book Six Faces of Courage by M. R. D. Foot, which devotes a chapter to Gerson.

If Mr Lambert looked at the first source in the reference list and confirmed that birth date given there matched the text of the Wikipedia page, that is all I would expect him to do. I have done more than that because I think it is worth my effort to illustrate that doing this right takes time. I found when the change to the dates was made, by whom, and why (thanks to the edit summary). That edit summary made me check more than one source. This is complicated by the fact that so much information easily available online has its origins in Wikipedia, so mistakes get propagated. Doing this right is a tedious exercise and not something that can be done at the Mr Lambert's speed. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are indeed some questionable and disruptive things that JPL has done on this project, but this really doesn't seem like one of them. If an article says something incorrect, that is a problem with the article, not with someone who is fixing a strictly technical error in the article (categories that do not align with article text). I don't understand what your alternative proposal is -- that somebody be categorized (with no citation) as being born in 1896 in an article that says they were born in 1898? Is there any circumstance in which this could possibly give useful information or benefit readers? jp×g

  If JPL goes around looking for these issues and is dealing with them not by finding out whether the article or the category is correct, but instead mechanically unifying them, that is potentially harmful and clearly something that should be stopped. Inconsistencies like this must alert us to the fact that there is a problem, and hiding that problem is worse than not touching it. —Kusma (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • • Categories aren't page content. They're subordinate to page content. If there are uncited birth year categories on a page, removing them does not require a burden of proof that they were born elsewhen. jp×g 18:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      If you notice that a page contradicts itself, you should investigate what the problem is before making an edit, or just tag it. You should not make an edit to resolve the contradiction without checking that you resolve it correctly. —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • I dont understand how this is potentially harmful. We can say that inconsistencies should alert us to a problem, but they dont, they dont even get noticed. As our policy stands right now, categories are meant to be supported by article content (WP:CAT says It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories). That being the case, if the category and the article mismatch the best thing to do would to check which is right, but IMO an acceptable thing to do is align the category with the text. Yes, there may be mistakes, but there are already mistakes in every single article that has this mismatch. nableezy - 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      In almost all cases the category has been aligned with article content in the past, and then the article content has changed but the category hasn't. For example because an unsourced edit (whether good faith or not) slipped past RC patrol. If you align the category without checking, at least {{fact}} tag the text supporting that category so others are alerted to it being potentially uncertain or inaccurate. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • • I agree in general, but I think the view that categories follow pages is totally acceptable, and that aligning the category to the page content on that basis is likewise acceptable. I dont really know what drives somebody to go through hundreds of pages in a category to check if the text aligns but not also spend the time checking if the text is accurate, but I dont think there is anything actually wrong with doing so if thats what you want to spend your time on. nableezy - 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

        I certainly won't complain about this edit by Johnpacklambert: he found a contradiction, mentioned it in the edit summary and made the category more fuzzy, then posted to the talk page. That's a decent way to deal with the issue. —Kusma (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I added the above discussion to the talk page in question. I have also moved it to 1890s births since there is no clear consensus it seems to which year this person was born in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Arthur J. Forrest

The birth year was originally given as 1896 (but 1 January is always suspicious). It was changed to 1895 (with a citation that I can't verify) by User talk:Grokett, who made other questioned changes. I haven't found any sources except for this nice contradiction: Findagrave says May 1, 1895 and shows a grave marked with 1896 as year of birth. Perhaps it is better to mark this kind of issues as self-contradictory than to sweep them under the rug? —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have copied this post to the article talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bringing this to resolution

So this doesn't go on forever, here is my suggestion: The problem, from a wikilawyer/policy perspective, is that JPL is engaged in WP:BOLD editing that turns out to be controversial. A significant number of editors disagree with it, though it seems an equally-significant number of editors agree. Of course there is nothing wrong with BOLD editing, but now that we know it's controversial, it should stop and consensus for the BOLD edits should be obtained before the BOLD edits continue. If JPL agrees to stop and seek consensus before continuing, I think that would be a fine outcome for this thread and it can be closed. Levivich^[block] 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a much better way to resolve this is for the person who brought the complaint to withdraw it as silly and pointless then telling someone to stop making the categories match the article text. One improves the encyclopedia, the other is a distraction. If people are concerned that the article text doesn't match the references then that's a good reason for them to organize an editing project and updating the articles they find with misrepresented sources. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't making sure that the text matches the references already a big part of the project? Maybe I just don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: and how are we meant to find these article to change them if the contradiction between the text and the category has been hidden by JPL? — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it improves the encyclopedia, as do others. That's how we know there isn't consensus for these BOLD edits. Levivich^[block] 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not an improvement to the encyclopedia to changing dates without consulting sources so that 50% of errors will be removed and 50% of errors will be propagated, with the previously clear pointer to the contradiction removed. It stops editors from identifying the contradiction and resolving it with higher accuracy. It is worse than just removing both dates. It should not be done.

There is no consensus from this discussion that these actions are appropriate. I have defended Johnpacklambert in the past, but I am disappointed that their current course of action shows quite bad judgement: I would urge you to divide your edit rate by 100 and instead check the given sources to fix the contradictions between the dates. Where unclear, don't touch it and move onto the next article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have since this was brought up consistently sought to either identify sources that will support a specific date, or to edit the article to reflect in its categorization that there is a dispute and have made notes making this clear in both my edits and oftne in the article talk page. I have responded to this and tried to make my edits even clearer and more openly identifiable. I think this is a reasonable approach, and find it disheartening that some are ignoring my change in approach and acting like it has not occured. In fact above Kusma identifies one of these edits I have done recently and says the whole thing is an improvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Robert Bitker is an example of my approach now. There was a disagreement between the article text and categorization. I search all the sources, and then did a google and google books search. None of this turned up anything other than Wikipedia mirrors and derivatives giving his birth year. So I have moved him to Category:Year of birth missing and explained exactly why in a detailed edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I agree this is a much better approach. Levivich^[block] 15:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert The page still has a year of birth - "He was born in Warsaw, Poland in 1895". And this isn't the date given in one of the sources used. That source says 1907. Is there a source that says 1895? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My previous review did not identify that source. As I said my review had found no sources that gave any year. If you are confident enough in this you can go in and edit it so that it says that he was born in 1907 in the article and put him in that category. My review of sources had not identified anything saying that. I guess I had not in depth reviewed all statements of birth year in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I have added him to 1907 births per the source above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is just another display of Lambert's superficialist editing, which does not improve Wikipedia at all. A review of easily available online sources gives us 2 different birthrates and 2 different deathdates. At least one editor has asserted that we are Frankensteining 2 different people with the same name. This calls for thoughtful review and discussion, not Lambert's wham bam thank you ma'am carelessness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.149.176.17 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really want to get into a discussion of page content here, but, yes, the IP is right when they suggest that more time and effort needs to be spent on these pages to determine if we have the birth dates right or if there are conflicting sources. That is one of the reasons why I would prefer that they be marked in some way so that editors who wish to can take the time to do it right. Not to pick on Mr Lambert, but if he didn't notice the birth date in the second sentence on the page, he's obviously not even taking the time to read over the text that's already there. He also missed the birth date in one of the sources used until I pointed it out here. I appreciate that he has changed how he is doing things, but the results haven't really improved because of his lack of care. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

MicoKovalevski part 2

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

I'm surprised nothing was done in the previous report [14]. Now this user has made another attack towards me: "From your username it is easily understandible that you are Iranian nationalist. Because of you, wikipedia is not the trusted source". They are obviously WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Juice3kh

Juice3kh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This users talk page is filled with warnings, and loads of his edits have been reverted. They also seem to have anti-Shia and pro-Sunni motives, as seen in the last 3 diffs out of the 4 disruptive diffs.

4 January 2022 Removed sourced mention of the bolded bit; "A large number of Zoroastrians converted to Islam to avoid discrimination and the effects of second-class citizenship in in the caliphates."

8 April 2022 Removed sourced information that mentions that Al-Nawbakhti explained and defended the Occultation against Shia doubters

14 June 2022 Removed sourced information that suggested that the "Sunni Revival may have resulted in the decline of scientific output in the Islamic world"

30 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Shia"

And last but not least, some typical WP:NPA remarks;

"By the looks of it, it seems like you are an extreme Iranian nationalist trying to hide history."

"The sources literally states what I wrote. Can you not read?"

"If anything it seems you are the biased one?"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye on Amber Heard/Heard v. Depp

GregKaye has a history of problematic editing with WP:BLP implications relating to Amber Heard and the Depp v. Heard trial. Among many other examples:

• 1. GregKaye wrote a lengthy post on Talk:Amber Heard entitled "How to really help Amber," in which he opined: "Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help. Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her. Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s. [...]"
• 2. GregKaye edited the Depp v. Heard article to read "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," though the sources cited in his edit clearly said the opposite: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."; "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct."; "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
• 3. GregKaye added thousands of bytes of unnecessary, salacious information to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, including a (lengthy) verbatim text exchange in which Johnny Depp disparaged Heard as a "50 cent stripper" who was "begging for total global humiliation," with no secondary sources. After these additions were challenged, GregKaye conceded that "I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies."
• 4. GregKaye falsely accused journalist Fran Hoepfner of lying (specifically referring to "commentary by Fran Hoepfner, a writer whose content is proven falacious (sic)"), all because he did not understand the difference between live chat and the YouTube comments section; he struck a small portion of his post after his error was pointed out, but even this was not the end to the saga (see bullet point six, below).
• 5. GregKaye diluted the findings of reputable fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes to the effect that Heard did not recite movie quotes or use cocaine during her sworn testimony with absurdly detailed in-text attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops (sic) is one of several journalists observing"). Furthermore, he changed the article text to read that the former accusation was "implausible" but not necessarily "false" or "disproven," contradicting the sources (see, e.g., PolitiFact's "False" rating). On the talk page, he explained that he did this because he saw a YouTube video with 8,000 views titled "Amber Heard mimicking Rihanna," which he found to be credible, and which informed his view that "Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying ... Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival." Moreover, he reiterated that his edits (and his talk page suggestion regarding Heard's testimony being likely "borrow(ed) from Rihanna") are based on things that he "heard of ... on social media."
• 6. Additionally, while GregKaye is usually careful to adhere to expected norms of civility and (as seen in some of the examples above) to at least partially walk-back especially controversial actions/statements when confronted, this veneer of civility falls apart on occasion. His edit summaries, even for copyedits and minor wording tweaks, routinely claim to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors (e.g., [15]). At one point, he appeared to suffer a breakdown and left the following edit summary: "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" On a related note, a few days after rescinding his accusation that Hoepfner's article "is proven falacious (sic)," GregKaye again referred to it as "provably fallacious nonsense," with no new evidence.
• 7. GregKaye's conduct has been a matter of acute concern to several editors active in the topic area, among them Gtoffoletto (e.g., [16]; [17]) and TrueHeartSusie3, who stopped editing the article in large part because of his behavior.

To be honest, I considered filing a report after just the first two examples, but instead I attempted to engage with GregKaye in good faith, reasoning that since he has the capacity for civility, it was possible to conclude that his desire to build a clean, well-written, and properly-formatted article would ultimately override his admittedly quite strong personal bias. Nevertheless, he has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and continues to prove me wrong; frankly, he does not seem to have the competence to sharply distinguish between his personal views, things that he saw on social media, and coverage in reliable sources. I am asking that GregKaye be topic banned from anything related to Amber Heard, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption and draining of volunteer resources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light.
  • For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [18] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I did say before on the talk page that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below. starship.paint (exalt)

quotes from sources inside - starship.paint (exalt)

WaPo - The outcome of the Johnny Depp defamation trial turned a bit of celebrity jurisprudence on its head — the long-standing conventional wisdom that it’s easier for a VIP to prevail with a libel claim in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The reason, according to legal experts, may simply boil down to the fact that Depp’s action in the U.K. — which he lost — happened to be decided by a judge, whereas his case in the United States was decided by a jury. [...] Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer ... Even though the Virginia case had a much higher standard to cross for Depp’s team, “that didn’t impact the outcome because essentially what you have got is a jury believing evidence that a British judge did not accept, so that’s where the difference lies here. Unusually, not in the different legal frameworks.”

Insider - Almost certainly the most significant difference between the two trials was who got to choose the winner. [...] While we can't know the details of what the jurors thought, Insider's Ashley Collman spoke with legal experts who said Heard failed to get the jury to believe her and that Depp's team successfully undermined her. Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said Heard appeared to be caught in a lie several times, such as when she described her interactions with the media. Rahmani also gave a lot of credit to Depp's personality in the trial: "The jurors loved him. The public loved him. Everyone on social media loved him." Depp's charisma likely had less influence on a professional judge like Nichol.

iNews But instead of shopping for a court in the UK, where defamation laws favour the plaintiff – the person bringing the case -he went shopping for something else: a jury that he could convince. That’s the key difference between the US and UK, and why Depp won his case.

Rather than a judge in Britain looking at the facts, the case went before a jury of seven people from Fairfax, Virginia – a location that wasn’t chosen by chance. Depp likely sued Heard over her Washington Post op-ed from 2018 in Virginia, where the newspaper’s servers are, because at the time it had weak protections against defamation lawsuits, known as anti-SLAPP.

Depp didn’t sue The Washington Post either, he sued Heard directly. Not that her legal team were shabby, but it would have been a very different story taking on the full force of a national newspaper and the deep pockets of its owner, Jeff Bezos ...

Another big difference between the UK and the US trial was that Depp was able to call various experts to bolster his case ...

It also meant the jury heard another key piece of evidence that was not aired in the UK – from two police officers who attended the scene in May 2016 after Heard claimed that Depp threw a phone at her ...

At the start of the trial Depp’s team briefed reporters that the part they were most relishing was that Depp would be able to tell his story more fully than in the UK. Rather than being asked pointed questions and giving limited answers, he could speak expansively about what effect this had on his life.

• • For #4 Greg’s assertion of content fallacious is not necessarily asserting “lying”, could be asserting a mistake. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #5, actually the original Wikipedia text (Widely-shared falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts … were disproven) could be interpreted as inaccurate, that’s why Greg made the change. Both Snopes and Politifact addressed that it was false that Heard quoted one specific film (Mr Ripley). However, Snopes also discussed different allegations that Heard quoted other films than Ripley, and Snopes stated that some social media users expanded the allegation to include lines from other movies as well … We reviewed several of these rumors and found the claim that Heard was “stealing” movie lines implausible. That’s where Greg got “implausible” from. Yet, Greg wrote the claim Heard stole movie lines, such as from the talented Mr Ripley, was implausible - which is itself inaccurate, and perhaps that is why TheTimesAreAChanging protested. This would be accurate: the claim Heard stole movie lines ... was implausible, but clearly the articles said that the Ripley allegation was false. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #7, that diff [19] you provided of TrueHeartSusie3 is quite offensive and incivil, Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins […] please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists. Further context, TrueHeartSusie3 isn't afraid to show her POV on the matter on her user page [20] - lauding an excellently written summary [21] which had the sub-headline How a washed-up movie star, men’s rights activists, and true-crime fans duped America. starship.paint (exalt)

Response:

• I am an editor that puts cards on the table, I go by my own name without embellishment and what you see is what you get. Outside of Wikipedia one of my first reactions was to challenge harsh contents against Amber Heard on social media in fear that she might suffer a similar fate as Caroline Flack who also publicly faced accusations of domestic abuse. TheTimesAreAChanging is adept in not providing fair diffs on issues, which I give here:[22] I don't want to justify that post but it finished: Example text My thought was that content might have been removed with a bias based on views on what might be best for Amber and I rashly flagged up what I thought was an opposing view. I don't keep track of all talk page additions but it's been pointed out that editors can have opinions and still edit according to WP:NPOV which is something I fight for.
• As previously explained. "... I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article.[23] It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from:
     "Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK."
  to read:
     "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]", while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
  I was late in addressing this particular but this was in context of TheTimesAreAChanging failure to provide a contextualised diff in an intro of the previous related thread and I was busy addressing the other bullet point issues presented (which were largely shown to be my corrections of previous POV bias in article content). I previously spoke[24] of going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" in a discussion on "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" These accusations perpetuate and still, as noted by the editor above, regarding "incidents [that] have been misrepresented".
• Yup, I admit when I'm wrong. That particular edit, if anything, made Depp look bad. It's hardly an indication of POV. The whole thing might have been sorted out a lot sooner if editors had pinged me to discussion instead of just talking about what I was trying to do. I suspect that this was part of an early attempt at WP:ROPE When finally getting notification, which came among TheTimesAreAChanging's other accusations, I added an edit[25] to the relevant page to give indication that I was "making some checks on the approach taken" which I did with appreciated response on the WikiProject Law talk page.
• Issues related to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker are discussed here
• The Wikipedia content presented had stated "falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven." As indicated in the discussion[26], confirming that statement would take WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. The way editors had presented the issue was as opinion and I mistakenly evoked those related rules. I made an edit with clear edit summary. It was reverted and we've now moved on to a more encyclopaedic solution.
• I've encountered lots of misleading content such as the above and worse. Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply.
  Again, in relation to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker, all this was covered here. In my reply I said, "(Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac")." I'm happy for my workings to be checked. Wikipedia certainly should research ensure that article contents are WP:NOTFALSE.
• Pinging select editors who have supported your views is not appreciated. Gtoffoletto harasses me pointedly and relentlessly as can be seen through talk pages as in example here.

The sheer level of spin in all the issues presented above displays clear POV bias and, if anything, it should be TheTimesAreAChanging facing the topic ban. GregKaye 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that TheTimesAreAChanging needs a topic ban. I assume good faith and think that TheTimesAreAChanging needs to describe issues more accurately. I wouldn't say the above by Gtoffoletto is harassment either. I just feel that there doesn't need to be a war here between any editors of this topic. My analysis of the above incidents of Greg: #1 is problematic and unneeded, #2 is a mistake of overreaching analysis and carelessness, #3 is a mistake of using only primary sources, #4 is a mistake of research, #5 is a mistake in writing (Ripley fragment), #6 'breakdown' is also problematic, as for #7 ... personally I feel that Gtoffoletto may have overreacted regarding this topic, from what I quoted above, TrueHeartSusie3 should assume more good faith (or, if she cannot, at least, not be incivil). Context, I acknowledge that TrueHeartSusie3 has been harassed by an IP over their editing in this topic. Overall, Greg has certainly made several mistakes, and it is up to the community to decide if these are worth a topic ban. Personally, the mistakes do cause concern and I would support a warning for Greg. He has to be much more careful going forward. starship.paint (exalt)

• Oppose any action against GregKaye. I've not contributed much to the Depp v Heard article, and don't believe I've edited it at all since the trial concluded, but the page has been on my watchlist since day 1. I've been following the talk page discussions the whole time, and I find nothing eggregious with GregKaye's contributions. He's made a couple of mistakes, but has apologised and corrected them as soon as they're pointed out.
  I concur with starship.paint's analysis that the diffs presented above don't exactly match up with the actual version of events once you click on them. I would've been more than happy to support a topic ban for GregKaye based on #6 alone. Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING#1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"GregKaye has never in any way 'routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors', or anything of the sort." In just the past month, we have seen edit summaries/comments from GregKaye including:

• 1. "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" (06/06/2022);
• 2. "The Broadcasting live should only have been relevant for the viewerships - unless editors are wanting to tenaciously (sic) suggest something without evidence." (06/08/22);
• 3. "Not sure why we're quoting Guardian journalist opinions but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. even per this cite, the case was always trial by jury. pls, pls cut the WP:Tendentious editing." (06/22/22);
• 4. "rmv: 'in the stream chat' from WP:Tendentious editorialising on claims NOT made in cited articles. The 'stream chat' at Sky News shows 'Comments are turned off.'" (06/23/22);
• 5. "WP:NOTOPINION 'Although some topics, ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.' (we'd at least need secondary refs to primary ref to journalistic opinion)" (06/24/22);
• 6. "chg to: 'the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults' editors keep misrepresenting content in citations." (06/29/22); and, of course,
• 7. "Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply." (07/02/22).

Others should evaluate the diffs above to make their own determination, but to my mind none of GregKaye's allegations of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or deliberate "misrepresentations" were properly predicated: #1 concerned text from a secondary source which accurately quoted The Sun's original article, as opposed to a later revised version (GregKaye replaced the secondary source with a link to the updated article on The Sun's website, implicitly conceding that the previous text flowed directly from the secondary source and was in no way "misrepresented" by any Wikipedia editor—if there was any "cherrypicking," it was by GregKaye himself, who did not like the coverage in secondary sources); #2 concerned text that simply noted the U.S. trial was "broadcast live" and that this "was a major difference between the two trials"; #3 involved GregKaye changing "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as 'trial by TikTok'" to "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into 'trial by TikTok'," which is a minor wording tweak, not a desperately-needed correction of an egregious distortion; #4 appears to have been another misunderstanding by GregKaye; #5 is civil on its face, but radically misconstrues policy to suggest that opinion sources are unusable unless they have been commented on by other opinion sources—an interpretation so novel that GregKaye once mused "there's a chance it may change the entirety of Wikipedia" itself—and implied that editors who refuse to accept this misinterpretation are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX behavior; #6 involved GregKaye changing "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the allegations against him had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'" to "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"; and #7 is probably not the tack that GregKaye should be taking in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing Amber Heard's mental state and "How can we best help Amber Heard"? That is not our concern. We build an encyclopedia by reporting reliable third party research, we do not play armchair psychiatrist on BLP articles. Full stop. Wikipedia isn't therapy for editors and it's not therapy for your favourite celebrity either. Darkknight2149 05:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Totally agree with Darkknight2149 above: Wikipedia isn't therapy. This is exactly the issue here unfortunately. I've been pinged several times in this discussion but I don't care enough to be dragged into this. I think this thread was just a matter of time as I've told Greg several times. A lot of time and energy has been wasted already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I did (mistakenly) discus Amber Heard's mental state. I was notified rapidly that I was incorrect to do so and I have been in agreement that I was wrong in my action from that point on. I made a good faith edit on something that I thought was for the good. I stand (and have stood) corrected that my actions did not conform to policy. It's not a mistake that I've repeated. It's certainly a valid question why we're discussing this now. GregKaye 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying you have made several mistakes and I agree you are improving over time. However this article is WP:BLP and does not allow such mistakes. Wikipedia must get the article right. and must Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is why my suggestion has always been to "slow down" and be extremely careful with your edits. You are still too WP:RECKLESS and making massive edits to the article several times a day. You can't make mistakes and just say "my bad". We can't afford those "mistakes" on a WP:BLP page. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Come on Gio. This was information that was certainly right in a Testimony in Depp v. Heard content and was certainly up for debate to remain in the main article and was something I raised in a talk page.
Your main article abuses, despite instruction in WP:BLP that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects", include adding content on wife beater even claiming consensus regarding a previous discussion with one policy based argument against inclusion and one subjective argument for. All issues had been previously covered but you still pushed "leading"[27] In just one defiance against MOS:INSTRUCT we "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions" and in claim of "the High Court in London rejecting [Depp's] claims" even though, as had been previously noted, Nicol had recognised that Depp had "proved the necessary elements of his cause of action". And you persist seeking to add your instructional "rejecting" again[28] this time under the supposed guise of "stating clearly that Depp lost the case". If you considered this necessary you could have said something like "Depp lost the [London case]" but, in context of the already stated findings of the judge, seems tangentially relevant to an article of Depp v. Heard. Your abuses of rules like MOS:INSTRUCT are huge[29] and don't seem to be by "mistake". You wanted to present select references to differences between the trials and, in example provided below, fought against inclusion of additional content providing WP:Balance. GregKaye 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Greg you have completely lost me. I have no idea of what you are referencing here and have not understood what you are complaining about. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Gio, this isn't the first time you've given a "didn't understand" response when others managed readily.[30]
You've a history of harrassment[31] and I suspect you know exactly what you're doing. It's just now you've also extended your harrassment to WP:BLP personalities. GregKaye 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging

The continued misrepresentations in talk page discussions and here in a waste of time to other editors and a source of distress for me. I appreciate previous comments made above:

• by starship.paint to say that "Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light."
• and by Homeostasis07 to say "Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING #1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging."

I mentioned going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" and this kind of thing is continuing on repeat. When getting notification of this discussion I dragged myself into giving a by no means complete rebuttal and then just had to get away. It's horrible. Old issues are continually dragged up and misrepresented. TheTimesAreAChanging, as far as I remember, has never addressed me directly other than as response where I was addressing TheTimes directly. In all (or near to) other cases, TheTimesAreAChanging, has limited this to talking about and disparaging me often with misrepresentation. The irony is not lost on me that its in relation to an article on a defamation trial that these activities have happened.

TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits here I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned. (My comments regarded misrepresentations in edits while having no idea in regard to a number of editors involved. My intention was to highlight the problem but not to specifically point fingers). So much heat was generated on the talk page that I felt the need to attempt cordial exchange with editors personally[32].

On the way to this I'd pinged TheTimesAreAChanging in a conciliation seeking edit[33] to explain "... I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit[34] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit[35] to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
The talk page subsection on "A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits"[36] has also been on the talk page at the end of TheTimesAreAChanging's accusation thread since 13:01, 16 June 2022. Here I'd stated that "I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article." Regardless of all this TheTimesAreAChanging persists in presenting the related accusation above.

TheTimesAreAChanging can insist that I withdraw accusations,[37] yet none of the accusations by TheTimesAreAChanging, even when full of misrepresentation, ever get withdrawn. GregKaye 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits ... I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned." The timeline of diffs presented above suggests otherwise. For example, GregKaye left the edit summary "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" a week before my first edit to the article. Unlike GregKaye, I presented evidence of a clear misrepresentation on the the talk page, which GregKaye (and every other user) accepted at the time; notably, GregKaye's explanation for the error ("I had a real brain fart and [repeatedly] mixed up the US and the UK") departs from Starship.paint's sympathetic evaluation above: "I did say before on the talk page that 'Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won.' Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this (sic) sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference between "tendentious" and "tenacious," but it's not obvious that GregKaye does (cf. the GregKaye diff above about "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence"). In any case, elementary logic would suggest, if GregKaye is claiming "that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries [after June 13] but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment," then there should be no uncivil edit summaries from GregKaye before the putative June 13 "provocation". Therefore, it is material that he was leaving uncivil edit summaries like "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" on June 6 and "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence" on June 8. Do you really want to play this silly "gotcha!" game or will you honestly acknowledge that such behavior is clearly unacceptable? (Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to people the internet dislikes, such as Amber Heard, and that civility and decorum are expected even on much more serious life-or-death topics such as those involving war crimes.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. He is using “tenacious” in its correct meaning, someone who won’t quit with their current behavior. Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction. Swearing is not inherently uncivil.

I’d ask why you’re trying to play a “gotcha” game with the dates in question, personally. Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• "He is using 'tenacious' in its correct meaning, someone who won't quit with their current behavior." A review of GregKaye's 281 edits to Depp v. Heard shows that his very first edit contesting inclusion of The Sun's "wife beater" quote already accused other editors of "wanting to tenaciously smear"; I am not aware of any previous reverts by other users (or of a concurrent talk page discussion), so the definition is not obviously applicable. (The TENACITY of the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it to from day one!) Sure, without the power to read minds there is no way to prove if this is actually another "Snoops" vs. Snopes situation, but "tenaciously smear" is a relatively uncommon formulation, compared to (say) "mendaciously smear". Regardless, I was giving GregKaye the benefit of the doubt that in a few of the diffs above he may have been raising (potentially valid) concerns about Tendentious editing (or WP:SOAPBOXing, as in edit summary #5) in the wrong forum (i.e., an edit summary)—which is a fairly routine, minor infraction that most of us have done on occasion, albeit not necessarily at the same frequency as GregKaye—rather than hurling insults or name-calling. If you think that he was just name-calling, then I won't contest that any further.
• "Swearing is not inherently uncivil." I agree! Now will you please address "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable"?
• "Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this." Any further disruptive editing will most likely be resolved in a different forum, but here's hoping that that will not be necessary! Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks at least for noting (my proud contribution of), "Found 281 edits by GregKaye on Depp v. Heard (14.12% of the total edits made to the page)" and noting my (actually slower than I would have liked) response to WP:BLP issue based on "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects"
  No it's not about "the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it" which is another of your misrepresentations but I'll continue to object to abuses of issues like MOS:INSTRUCT along with WP:DUE which have been more my issues.
• Yes, even when dealing with issues like misrepresentation of sources, naughty words may not be called for even if aimed at no one in particular.
• Your "Just drop this..." has never been something you've been willing to do. You're already on one violation of WP:FORUMSHOP and editors like starship.paint, Homeostasis07, Saucysalsa30 and myself will likely oppose you in other locations as well. If editors don't confront your abuses,[38] I have no reason to expect they that they won't continue.

GregKaye 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This what I've seen to be typical of the WP:Bludgeoning responses and interactions of TheTimesAreAChanging, repeating the same things over and over again. (I got the message the first time). It's reminiscent of the 970 word response[39] to the thread on edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" within which TheTimesAreAChanging still managed to target me in an off topic link. I'd encourage editors to visit Talk:Depp v. Heard and its archives and look up references to issues such as WP:Due/WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules like WP:OR and WP:Coatrack which I think give further context for this discussion. GregKaye 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye Commenting to point out this looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. A report was made against you on misrepresentations like other editors pointed out, presumably for the purpose of removing you from the discussion. However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links [40][41][42] including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here, and it would appear the report was made on you to deflect from this unbecoming activity regarding Depp_v._Heard. Unfortunately such engagement edit warring, WP:BLUDGEONING, engaging in ownership of articles especially those with lower edit activity like removing edits that defy a particular narrative being presented, removing edits proactively in spite of Talk page discussions, harassment, proactively reporting users when consensus or evidence is against them, and more, has been a common trend for years and is not exclusive to this case. The harassment and edit warring you point out are an ongoing example.

A few other easily visible recent examples

• An issue discussed was discussed on the Talk page and sorted out. An edit is made in line with that, and then TheTimesAreAChanging reverts that edit on the basis of personal opinion despite Talk discussion. [43]
• One of many instances of reverting an edit and removing a good source on loose basis on an article they "own", among others, and if you take a closer look, have driven a narrative on this article on the basis of a single 4-page controversial and refuted paper in contradiction to almost 30 years of data and academic study, including hundreds of studies, books, and other publications. It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and an ongoing example of WP:OWNERSHIP, tendentiousness [44]
• More reverts on personal opinion, which is the plurality of the editor's activity overall, often with a shaky editor note to "justify" removing sourced additions like "editing against consensus" when no such consensus exists, like recent edits on Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations and Khomeinism [45][46][47][48]
• but then will go ahead and edit articles on the basis of personal point-of-view such as [49]. When someone contests this, the response is edit warring like with Rusentaja and making ANI reports like this on GregKaye, or continued reverts of other editors like on the same Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations article linked above.

I'm not going to look through and link thousands of examples of this and other forms of editing behavior by the reporter here or point out other issues as this isn't the topic here. This is a sample of very recent times to point out what GregKaye is stating regarding the reporter of the ANI topic is not new editing behavior, to give context to why the ANI was created due to GregKaye's and Rusentaja's misdoing being not acquiescing to a user with an unfortunate track record of this type of editing, and to point out the accusations against GregKaye are being overblown.

A much better handling of this situation than engaging in edit warring against one user and witch hunting against another due to "losing" in a dispute is described here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

dialogue

TheTimesAreAChanging. I hope we can talk and, one way or another, get things resolved. You've repeatedly levelled a lot of accusations at me on issues that have been shown to contain misrepresentations of issues and that have variously been either explained or not repeated or both. These are issues that have been raised previously and they've been noted on repeat.

I hope you can give some consideration to the designation that, within Wikipedia, you've applied to yourself; specifically on the extents both to which you think other people can change with time and the extents to which your perceptions of situations can change in that time as well as to consider the extent to which your standards may change in the ways that you hold them to others and to yourself.

In the discussion on Inclusion of differences between UK and US trials on Talk:Depp v. Heard I replied to you:

"And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie "You're right about editing." I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trials isn't it also OR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply: "the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not." How is that not so?"

In the third paragraph of your opening reply to the edit warring thread,[50] you included pointed comment:

"despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion."

The link is to a response from gtoffoletto, a "wiki-ogre" of his own description, within comments that followed with the edit summary: "WP:LAWYERING Not mentioning the previous trial is absurd."

1. I was not involved in wikilawyering other than in claiming that "the same rules need to apply to all"
2. As you know from my perception as in the immediately preceding response[51] "A different editor decided this topic was best covered in the article's body text." who happened to be the editor that started the thread.
3. My personal edit summaries are fantastically clear (if anything I stand corrected on having needed to have toned them down).

In relation to this off topic content in your 970 word reply, and feeling the weight of past accusation, I came to your talk page in attempt to discuss the issue[52] only, myself, to be accused of bludgeoning.

You insist on BLP considerations in regard to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-a article in gawker[53] and, even though I immediately comply to your demands, you still make issue of it here. Meanwhile, on another BLP topic (me), you are corrected again and again regarding your accusations and, while nothing is withdrawn, you still bring the same stuff out on repeat. In regard to the wp:crystal ball text, where my one attempt at revision was reverted, I'm still glad that it was raised as an issue on the article talk page[54]. I'd pointed out that it was just a revert[55] but now I'm thankful that the issue was dealt with in that way so that I wouldn't get "blindsided" here.

Please talk with people. People can change as can our understandings of them. Please hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others and which others may hold you too as well. In the same way that you demand change from others, you can change too. GregKaye 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

comment

If the situation is virtually one editor vs many editors? Then who's the problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes "if", but I wouldn't say "many editors", at least not since managing to address various of misrepresentations made by TheTimesAreAChanging to which starship.paint and Homeostasis07 have referred. I've not had previous difficulties like this. See also comments by Saucysalsa30 above including: "However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here," among other strong points. In cases where there have editors involved, we still have to go by our 5p based rules.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 13:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "if" 5:57, 9 July (UTC)

Hope it all works out. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope suits you GoodDay and I hope to more fully return to it. I've inserted a section heading above (which anyone can change) but hope it suits. GregKaye 19:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: As said above, I’ve pretty much decided to retire from WP for now and yes, tendentious editing is a major reason. I could not care less about IPs calling me names etc, but when editing becomes all about trying to fix a seemingly endless flow of misinformation/misinterpretation, then I know WP is no longer for me. GregKaye’s editing is the textbook example of tendentious, in every way. I don’t think he is necessarily malicious, he simply has a very strong view of the case, which, combined with his lack of source criticism skills and seemingly endless time to spend on editing results in eg misrepresenting sources in the process. He is a very prolific editor, but his edits are rarely an improvement; as an example, please see his edits to Depp v NGN, where he replaced the sourced text with quote walls that overemphasized/took out of context parts of the verdict and left out key parts. [See this roll-back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1092982380&type=revision]. To fix his errors would necessitate editing WP as a full-time job. I don’t think there’s any other option than to ban GregKaye from Heard/Depp related topics, as he has gotten feedback for his editing many many times since April 2022 when he first began editing them, with no changes to his behaviour.

As for my stance on the topic, as it has been brought up - of course I am biased, every one of us is. In this case, all of us have some impression, given how prominent it has been on media and social media. Personally, I’ve followed the case closely since 2016. The facts and evidence are consistently on Heard’s side, supporting the view that this is a classic DV case with the abuser using DARVO techniques. In addition to the UK verdict and DV experts’ almost unequivocal view of the case, consider Occam’s razor - the alternative is a conspiracy theory where a 20-something C-list starlet spent 4 years creating a hoax with multiple participants while concealing all evidence of it, and then only took a fraction of the money she could have gained in the divorce.

You’re free to take the latter view of the case, but if it (or the other view of the case) affects the way you edit or makes you declare reliable sources biased to the extent of not reporting full facts, it’s a problem. I don’t think GregKaye fully understands this.

I’d also like to note that despite my strong opinion of the case, I’ve also added a lot of very positive content on Depp’s career -to the extent that an editor, who clearly indicated that he thinks Depp has been wronged, contacted me on my talk page to ask about collaborating on the article. That’s just one example of how a strong personal opinion does not necessarily mean your editing is automatically biased.

Finally, it should be noted that Homeostasis07’s comments should be taken with a grain (or several) of salt given his previous editing, e.g. in Marilyn Manson/Evan Rachel Wood related topics and the subsequent ANI.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3, You launched personal attack on four editors here. Please cite "IPs calling [you] names etc". I replied, not even mentioning your attack, but referenced page abuses of WP:NPOV and MOS:INSTRUCT in particular. You are yet to respond.

You claim tendentious editing with presenting evidence. (My additions include providing TOC navigation to the social media commentary.[56] among my great many NPOV edits) There have been many against policy issues of all sorts that I have cleared up.

You mention your concerns of my editing with the other Depp trial and yet none of you pinged me[57] The first I knew of it was when TheTimesAreAChanging launched his accusations (which were mainly based on my corrections of unjustified POV) on the Depp v. Heard Talk page.

Yes, if you assume Depp is guilty then darvo would apply - but this is where the your bias is exposed. We are covering a trial where 7 jury members decided that Heard defamed Depp by claiming abuse, in the free speech obsessed US. (btw, I added the link to the darvo article[58]). We can't judge whether or not darvo applies. We "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality.." per mos:instruct.

You edit warred over removal of content you didn't like with final result here. No, I don't typically remove materials but have more often focused on correcting ways in which they have been misrepresented. Each to their own.

Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IF you're going to malign additional editors, such as someone with as clean a record as Homeostasis07, it could be appropriate, at the very least, to inform them. GregKaye 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope I don't regret this, but can anybody answer these questions in fewer than 10 words?

(1) Do you LITERALLY know any of these people in real life? as, e.g., a neighbor or vendor or co-worker?

(2) Do you understand that they are actual humans, and not collectible action figures or Pokémon?

If the answer to (1) is "yes", X (Family Feud "strike" noise). Go to WP:COI; do not pass "Go"; do not collect $200.

If the answer to (1) is "no", and the answer to (2) is "yes! BUT THINGS! Lily-Rose! DARVO!", please stop referring to strangers by their given names without their permission, because it's disrespectful, intrusive and unprofessional, and then go on a field trip to an older public library or thrift store that has a bunch of bound volumes of the World Book Encyclopedia or an analogue, and take one of the books off the shelf and sit there and open it at random and read five or ten articles. Or start with an article about something you like (Affenpinschers? pasta? trombones? Vanuatu?) and read the next half-dozen articles after that. THAT is what we're trying to do here. This level of hyperfocus on minutiae of strangers' personal lives needs to be taken to a blog. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2

Hi - I'm seeing some odd behaviour from a veteran editor @Scope creep:. He's marked several of my articles as reviewed, and then nominated them for deletion in rapid fire. Otrium was written in February, Cambrian Biopharma was written in March, and Contentsquare was just added this week. I looked at his block history and he has a history of being warned and blocked for disruptive editing, so I wanted to get some extra eyes. I don't mind defending articles from legitimate concerns, but this appears to be targeting. After the first nomination started to get heated, I tried to dial things down by reaching out on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be able to read and understand what he's reading. He threw a fit when I mistakenly inserted a comment into a discussion, for which I apologized, but when I pinged him, and he replied by instructing me how to ping. He also accused me of being a paid editor, in a very condescending way, even after I told him I was trying to get access to the helper script for my work at the AfC help desk. Despite the rapid deletion nominations that suggest WP:BEFORE was not done, his work seems to be fairly good, so something weird is going on here. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TechnoTalk ScopeCreep is an active participant at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. It's not un-common for patrollers to review articles and then nominate them for deletion through speedy deletion, prod, or AFD. The latter process is used if the nomination is possibly controversial. I wouldn't take it personally, as Scope Creep nominates articles routinely on a daily basis as part of his work as a patroller.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to take a deeper look at WP:NCORP if you are going to take on the task of creating articles for tech companies. A quick review of your created articles shows several more that are likely to be nominated for deletion as routine coverage of funding rounds do not satisfy notability requirements. Need in-depth independent coverage of the company. AfDs are a routine part of the Wikipedia editing process and the most important thing is to not take them personal. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

TechnoTalk, why not just find and include 1-2 sources that meet GNG requirements with the additional NCORP source requirements. That way you can avoid creating articles that shouldn't be created, avoid having your articles AFD'd, and get "keeps" on any that go to AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As NPP reviewer here. The tool we use allows us to mark the article as reviewed and file the article for deletion at the same time. It is common for us to do so as if the articles in question do pass the afd, they definitely pass whatever criteria NPP has for reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• without comment on the merits of the articles or any history between the editors, I'd say That is completly illegal and abusive and its not done is a little over the top from Scope Creep. No one is going to jail for poor AfD formatting. Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @North8000: Good suggestion. I'm adding the sources to my keep votes. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What an absurd and slightly abusive ani report. The reality seems to be that can't accept the idea that your articles have to be sent to Afd because they are atrociously written and clearly fail WP:NCORP, a notabiltiy standard that you clearly don't accept and seem somehow to think don't apply to your articles, that in the majority, are private business articles, that look and read like native advertising. That combined with your bludgeoning behaviour at the Otrium Afd, is the real abuse here. Kicking up a stink because your articles are sent to Afd is natural, but this is the wrong venue and you've likely stymied your chance of becoming a page reviewer. scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While I do not condone Scope Creep's abrasiveness, as a New Page Patroller myself, I would support their choice to nominate several of your articles, as they do seem to fail NCORP with the citations currently provided. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @Scope creep: Can you confirm that you no longer target editors and their articles, and this was just random page patrolling that brought these articles to your attention? That would help me decide to withdraw this complaint. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @Padgriffin: If you think any of the articles I've written are not worthy, then I welcome a discussion and an opportunity to defend them. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping others improve their articles, and have a good sense of what makes a subject notable or not. Just don't mass nominate them out of spite on a holiday weekend. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response There is no spite or malice involved here, honest, although it might feel like that, it is simply page review. When I reviewed Otrium, I saw 7 other articles that I thought were very poor. Some of them have been csd's already but they'll go to afd. However, your continual intransigence for over a week on the Otrium Afd, even when user:HighKing went into minute detail of how the NCORP standard works, and myself, is problematic. You refused to accept it, until several other editors became involved, with this notice. It is written in the very plainest language. That is not WP:AGF. Why is that? scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is an extremely apparent lack of WP:AGF being demonstrated in this thread, as this insinuates that the AFD submissions were performed out of spite rather than out of a concern that an article does not meet notability guidelines during routine NPP work. In addition, I do not understand what you are implying by stating you were not given an opportunity to have a "discussion and an opportunity to defend them", as you were free to do so in the AFD nominations. The note that it was done "on a holiday weekend" is equally as perplexing considering that volunteer work such as editing Wikipedia is more likely to be performed in our spare time, which in turn would likely result in more edits (and AFD filings) being made over a holiday weekend. This also seemingly implies that the filings were made to inconvenience you during the holiday weekend, despite Scope not being aware that you lived in a nation that happened to have a holiday weekend. Your (self-admitted) claim that your rapid article outputs were made with the express goal of gaining access to the AFC helper script, overall hostile and non-AGF mentality in this thread combined with your apparent lack of understanding of notability guidelines present a rather clear case of why you should, in my opinion, not be granted access to the script. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to me as a bad faith nomination. At the root of this complaint, TechnoTalk would do well to pause their rapid article output which was for the purposes of getting access to the helper script and their BATTLEGROUND mentality. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. EVERYONE CALM DOWN! Throwing around accusations of bad faith and BATTLEGROUND behavior is just going to escalate the problem. How would you feel if multiple articles you worked on in the last few months were suddenly brought to AFD by one editor? And then that editor had a rather abrasive/ rude response to your inquiries. You might start feeling specifically targeted and harassed; particularly if that editor had a history of targeting editors in their block log. And you probably would seek help at ANI. I don't think we should start beating up TechnoTalk for having experienced a particular process in a certain way (even if that process was appropriate) and choosing to get help. I do think we should calmly and politely uphold our processes, affirm that Scopecreep was just doing his job as a part of his productive work at NPP, and de-escalate the situation by just letting it go and letting the AFDs do what they are designed to do. I will point out that if Scopecreep had been more patient and kinder with TechnoTalk on his talk page, this might not have ever been brought here in the first place.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I'm sure Techno genuinely felt aggrieved. But I'm not impressed once we dig a little deeper and especially given the context that Techno was in a rush to create multiple articles in order to access the Helper script and his comments at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think he’s giving a normal impassioned defense of the articles he created based on his understanding of policy (which is flawed) at AFD. I’ve seen him learning about policy after key text at NCORP and other places has been pointed out to him (see my dialogue with him which was cordial at AFD for example). To my mind, this is an issue of a well meaning editor who tried to create meaningful content but missed the mark because they either hadn’t read or didn’t comprehend NCORP and what that looks like when it is applied. In other words, he’s learning through this round of AFDS. We have to give people some space to make mistakes and learn from them. Now if these issues continue with future article creation and AFDs, then I would say we have a deeper problem.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Response Thank you for hearing me out. scope_creep has a history of targeting individual editors, which is problematic for someone with NPP and other rights. For those of you who were quick to jump on me and not read the history I posted, let me share some context. These are statements he made as part of his earlier targeting charge: "I think it will need to have a look through your articles." [59] "I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family." [60] "If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough." [61]. He was justifiably blocked for his behavior just two years ago. @Girth Summit: was the blocking admin. SC apologized and was unblocked. Fast forward to today. Before last week, the last article I wrote that was deleted was Pretzle logic in 2016. (I never even saw the nomination, since I edited less frequently then.) Last month I saw a sudden increase in AfD nominations, and successfully defended all of them. Then SC nominated Otrium, but first deleted a chunk of info with reliable sources. So you can understand why I might be a bit annoyed at that point. Article creation is a path for me to get helper script access so I can respond on the declined article's page, instead of at the help page, which many article creators don't know to use. So anyway, I'm launching a frustrated defense, thinking here we go again, and SC compounds the problem by claiming the article is about a furniture company (it's not), and calling this a press release. That makes me think his nomination isn't in good faith, and I'm honestly starting to think he's going so quickly he's not reading what's in front of him. This is all on the deletion discussion. I tried to cool things by reaching out on his talk page and thanking him for being on NPP [62] and he replied by accusing me of being a paid editor, in very snide terms. "Everybody has earn (sic) a living, put a roof over their head and feed themselves and their families." [63] He also stated that he was going to target my other articles: "Well I'll check the rest your content as well, if this is the quality of your content your producing." [64]. He then rapidly nominated for deletion several other articles I wrote, and so I decided that I needed to bring his behaviour to ANI. He even admits above that he targeted my articles "When I reviewed Otrium, I saw 7 other articles that I thought were very poor." I don't mind doing an honest defense with an honest nomination, and indeed Otrium was just deleted, breaking my streak, but piling it on is unproductive and quite frankly very demotivating. He's even ramped up his claims that I'm a paid editor, by opening a conflict of interest report. So I'll wrap this up by asking scope_creep to apologize, and as part of the apology confirm that he will no longer target me or anyone else with revenge editing. I also request an IBAN. It's important to not condone irresponsible behavior, whether it's by SC here or by other editors I see at the AfC help desk. Will the community support me in my efforts to make this a better place for all? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you are reading the room correctly to continue re-hashing why you think this is a valid complaint and to then demand sanctions and an apology. There is no grounds for an IBAN, there is no community imperative to demand an apology from scope creep and this is little reason to drag another veteran editor into this thread for percieved violations of your own personal behavioral standards for AfC members. I'd suggest WP:DROPTHESTICK and focus on editing. Slywriter (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ditto @Slywriter. @TechnoTalk suggest a mirror, but also beware of the boomerang. You do not have clean hands here Star Mississippi 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm definitely reading the room now. Thanks to those of you who took the time to read my concerns, and understood my frustration. I'll just have to keep improving my sources so the articles are bulletproof. You can close this thread. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged above, I'll note for the record that I consider the issue that I blocked (and later unblocked) SC over several years ago to be ancient history. TechnoTalk, that source you linked to does indeed look like a rehashed press release (and it's not a reliable source anyway). I'd be happy to explain why that is, but this isn't the appropriate venue - come over to my talk page if you want to discuss. If you are going to use sources like that to support articles about businesses, you are going to continue seeing your articles nominated for deletion. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• STOP, we don't need more drama nonsense; we already have a Arbitration case for AfD stuff. If we have redirected the energy from drama to improve articles instead, I'd reckon that Wikipedia would gain hundreds of good and featured articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It's not at all unusual or inappropriate when you discover someone has created multiple articles with poor sourcing, you go check their other articles. TechnoTalk, you need to stop using spammy sourcing. You have said you aren't being paid, but I'm afraid these articles really do make you look like you are. valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you everyone. The community has spoken. My sourcing needs to be improved. I stand behind my more recent articles, but if consensus is that they be deleted, so be it. I'm not being paid, but it is a lot of wasted effort for me. I can always move to non-company articles to keep contributing. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose account IP 91.237.86.201

IP 91.237.86.201 keeps engaging in disruptive editing and a prolonged edit war on the FB MSBS Grot article. On the surface the behaviour would simply appear to be nothing more than a grinding and tedious content dispute on a very low traffic page, however overtime (dispute first arose in January of 2021) IP's edits along with those of a couple other accounts appear to be rather suspicious for the following reasons: single-purpose accounts (accounts appear to edit a narrow subject area and overlapping articles), lurkers (user Military Galaxy Brain was dormant for 3 years from 2018 to 2021 and user Rzęsor for 10 years form 2012 to 2022), stylometry (all the listed users accused other editors who reverted them of "vandalism"[65] [66] [67][68]), chronology of edits (re-adding the exact same text first added by IP [69], then following revert same text re-added by users Military Galaxy Brain, Rzęsor, 2a00:f41:2883:368e:d7c:edad:fb4e:2d45 and 2A00:F41:2808:D4CE:852B:D481:89AA:A665. What's makes this unusual is that these accounts would enter the dispute month apart and re-add the exact same text first added by IP, and then the IP would jump in and again re-add the text in support of these accounts, kicking-off an edit war, when they were reverted [70]). I think that by themselves none of the listed items would add up to anything suspicious, but when looked at in full context they do appear that rather questionable. E-960 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to note that the article was locked several times by Mifter, Deepfriedokra and El C due to disruptive editing by the above listed users. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Any admin, anybody? I believe that this is a serous issue, because the IP is trying to include text that is synthesis and not representative of actual sources, the IP and his "supporters" were told of this (provided examples that the sources cited do not say what the inserted text claims), however I think the IP is just trying to add the text by simply using battle ground tactics, by re-adding it until success. I would really welcome meaningful support form admins to look into the matter. The IP has been at it for just over a year now, and every-time the text gets re-inserted/reverted one of the suporters shows up to initiate an edit war. --E-960 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Series of personal attacks by "new" IP-editor at Talk:GrapheneOS

 Note: This incident was re-organized into sections. Revision 1096642789 contains the latest text before the re-organization. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Skimming today's additions should be clear enough.[71] Looking at WP:NPA responding guidance, IP User Talk page or article Talk page discussion does not seem appropriate or likely to be fruitful. I would like to see the comments removed. If something could be done to reduce SPA, IP and Puppet accounts at GrapheneOS and Talk:GrapheneOS, that would be great too. Latest IP Geolocation is Toronto Canada, home of GrapheneOS, unless it has changed since the days of CopperheadOS. Note related open SPI investigation, and admission there of editing with multiple accounts by Anonymous526, Anonymous874.[72]. Will follow by notifying IP. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 is heavily personally involved in the GraphenOS article they're editing. They have a personal feud with the developer and that heavily influences their editing. They've been repeatedly warned and banned from editing the closely related CopperheadOS article. Yae4 gradually reverts almost all improvements made to the article by many different people while trying to push their own clearly untrue original research. They're very familiar with Wikipedia policy and choose to disregard it. Please look at the past admin actions against them and look into their very clear personal feud and grudge against the GrapheneOS project. They make the baseless accusation that anyone editing the article and undoing their biased original research is a sockpuppet or was told to edit the article by the developer they have a grudge against. This has driven away almost all editors from the GrapheneOS article. The consistent problem in all of this is Yae4 's behavior. Filing all of these different formal processes is part of how Yae4 tries to lock in their highly biased / unsubstantiated edits and scare off anyone else editing it. They have a very long history of edit warring across many articles and starting these personal vendettas where they massively abuse formal processes like this one to drive everyone else away from what they treat as their territory. I was personally driven away from editing Wikipedia by Yae4's behavior, but I came back to refute some of the clearly made up stories they've been pushing as part of their grudge against Daniel Micay who they repeatedly target with outlandish claims and fabrications. Yae4 should be banned from editing anything to do with the person they have this huge grudge against after being repeatedly warned about doxxing and the other ways they act out this personal vendetta. They already had a ban on editing the closely related CopperheadOS article and editing this article is almost the same as editing that one. They're stopping the many people interested in writing an accurate, neutral article on GrapheneOS based on the sources instead of Yae4's analysis of their original research. Many people other than myself have been driven away from editing Wikipedia by Yae4's behavior. Please look into their history of edit warring and requesting all these investigations into the people who disagree with their approach to editing articles largely based on pushing a point of view and coming to conclusions not even based on what the sources say (i.e. not even original research from a primary resource but rather claiming those primary sources contain things they clearly do not and edit warring + filing all these formal procedures to make that the status quo through exhausting and intimidating anyone else who dares touch their territory). 142.126.170.15 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) has not been blocked from the CopperheadOS article, unlike what you claim. I investigated the recent surge of SPAs, and found low-quality evidence of that (apparently false) claim being spread off-site. (I am still not a participant to the biased source or discussion. I hope I'm not upsetting OP by continuing to engage the IP editor here.) 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yae4#Notice_of_Dispute_resolution_noticeboard_discussion and several other incidents are there for people to see. 142.126.170.15 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: False and unfounded accusations of bias, involvement, etc. by 142.x, There is nothing to add to what I declared in 2019. To 84.x, I am not upset. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's completely true that you're incredibly personally involved in the GrapheneOS article. You're pushing completely baseless claims about it without sources, which you insist on including in the article, and you try to scare off anyone else from being involved. You have an active personal feud with the lead developer, who you accuse almost everyone of being, and as can be seen here obsessively track them across platforms and make accusations about them regularly. You should not be editing an article about something where you have a personal grudge heavily influencing you, and the admins need to intervene after years of your biased editing, edit warring and attempt to drive away anyone who touches your territory which you use to act out your grudge. All of that is fact, and verifiable from your long history of biased and unsubstantiated edits, false accusations, repeated rants about the developer, clear cut fabricated stories such as what you did with the GitHub Gist along with the doxxing and harassment admins have warned you not to do repeatedly. It is you making false and unfounded accusations about dozens of people and not only in relation to these articles but MANY others. What you do on this platform is scaring off countless peopl from editing to get your way pushing your biases. 142.126.170.15 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I notified the IP editor of Wikipedia's policy on COI, if they have an undisclosed connection. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider Special:Diff/1096626911/1096642599 WP:REHASHing on 142.'s talk page and unresponsive to concerns of COI. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC); edited 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Before this thread spirals out of control, I suggest editors focus on 142.'s behavior here. If there is a concern about another editor's behavior that requires more AN/I action, make a new section. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Editor 84.250.14.116 behavior

Please review 84.250.14.116 recent actions as well. Obviously, I do not need to notify them of being added to this. After "apologizing" and saying they were "disengaging",[73] and after I said my "goodbye",[74] they continue to "engage" at my Talk page.[75] Please stop it. In conjunction with recent tweets linking to my talk page, in my view, it has become WP:HOUNDING. I would like it to stop, and I wish for no more messages from 84.x at my User Talk. They can take any constructive discussions related to articles to article Talk or noticeboards, etc. I am doing my best to "slow my roll" and avoid 3RR again. Of course numerous single purpose accounts and IPs are not helping. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider your request acknowledged from now on. I came here, because I saw 142.'s edits at the article talk and was about to leave a message about their behavior, but found out this AN/I case had already been opened. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC); edited 17:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The "recent tweets" claim seems to be baseless or unsourced, somehow used in conjunction with a claim against me. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found tweets from Micay that seem to be referred to. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Starting fresh Edit Warring: 84.x is now reverting and enforcing their will at GrapheneOS without any pretense of seeking consensus. Removing Dubious tag and restoring unreliable sourcing is the latest.[76] The Dubious tag was added in hopes of gathering consensus at the Talk, which has not gained consensus[77], so removing it is counter-productive. I will not participate in edit warring, so please help. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I have to make you consider: What is the dubious tag trying to achieve at this point, if not disrupt the article's neutral viewpoint or give more weight to WP:OR ideas? After I requested to cite reliable sources on the talk page for a contrary viewpoint of "open-source" (to cite it in the article), none were offered and the consensus-building stopped. So far I've counted at least 4 sources in the article supporting the "open-source" definition, 0 for Yae4's argument "partially open-source" or less. If anything, the consensus (in secondary sources) is the subject is "open source", it should not be controversial to revert your unsourced views doubting the definition as anything else before the consensus can change or has changed.

    I had no clear reason to warn Yae4 with {{Uw-disruptive3}} despite me, User:Resonantia and User:EndariV (?) disagreeing with Yae4, so I have not done so now. As I previously decided for myself, moving on to other topics would be more productive for me and these unfounded messages waste editors' (if not also administrators') time. I'm also undertaking efforts to seek clarifications on interpreting policies, to help us both understand policy better: Special:Diff/1096754236.

    I should have made it clear the Wikipedia community disagrees with Yae4 with several things and some consensus already exists, however that and the behaviors of editors is a separate discussion to be had. The way I see it, original research pushing by removing reliably sourced information, introducing original research to the article and adding maintenance tags doubting reliably cited sources (or doubting everything on the talk page) has been going on for far too long, it is frustrating consensus and policy-abiding editors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    Note: Consensus can also be found in the other section. Talk:GrapheneOS#Free_and_open-source_software or Open-source_software (or less open)? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    "GrapheneOS asks CalyxOS and bromite developers to not use GrapheneOS sources", or a similar basic statement or quote from Micay/thestinger, leader of GrapheneOS, posted multiple places at GitHub, is not WP:OR. It is WP:PRIMARY. Claiming consensus is misleading at best. Counting poor quality sources, which you insist on adding back into the article while disregarding discussions of the sources, does not make a good case for ignoring the primary source statements. How many times do I need to say, as immediately above: "The Dubious tag was added in hopes of gathering consensus at the Talk"? The point of the dubious tag is to bring interested, neutral editors to discuss that point of disagreement, and help get actual consensus. You added it a few times at least, so you ought to know. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    Also, those sources circa 2019 cannot be expected to say anything about something that occurred after they were written, obviously. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• 84.x Deleting other user's Talk page comment: See [78]
• 84.x Repeatedly mis-stating facts of my edit summaries and edits. For example[79] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yae4 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

84.x accusing another of disruptive or tendentious editing: Special:Diff/1096724104, Special:Diff/1096750419. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(Non-administrator comment) OP was banned for WP:3RR violations a 3RR violation less than two weeks ago, and seems to have continued disruptive editing in this topic after their partial block ended; I've also warned OP with {{Uw-disruptive2}} (Special:Diff/1096455200). There is definitely a surge of new SPAs in the article and its talk page, including the IP mentioned in OP. The comments by IP seem to reflect to OP's previously sanctioned behavior, which may be continuing. I'm concerned said IP editor may also have conflict of interest in the subject, and also isn't referencing their claims to any sources, so I understand 142.'s behavior to be troubling. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC); edited 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I do agree there is a possible concern about IP 142.126.170.15 as it appears to be talking in a very sided tone (albeit they do have some valid concerns themselves), but IP 84.250.14.116 appears to be trying their hardest to WP:AGF in everything, both you User:Yae4 and IP 142.126.170.15, while User:Yae4 came at me with a suspiciously negative tone towards me and did not look like was WP:AGF in any potential honest mistake I've made as you can see on User_talk:EndariV which I am not very happy of because I have zero intentions on causing trouble here, nor am I concerned about this developer drama. I think it is not only the GrapheneOS page that need to be looked into, but your actions User:Yae4 as well on your very impartial tone (WP:NPOV) to everything because your edits on Talk:GrapheneOS are not very neutral and it is very difficult to understand what's going on here without feeling a very rude tone by User:Yae4 and requiring a lot of WP:OR. EndariV (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have reasonable suspicions based on behavioral evidence on-wiki and off-wiki to correlate 142.x is an user with a Wikipedia account (logged-out) and likely connected to the subject, but in my opinion it does not warrant WP:SPI yet and the suspected master account has not received sanctions prior. Nonetheless, the suspected master account is stale. No comment at this time who I suspect the user to be, due to privacy policies taking precedence. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors EndariV and "Jann ruhe" behavior, and Yae4

An editor might be temporarily having a hard time with AGF:

• When they invested significant time in helping and collaborating to get an article published (GrapheneOS), getting it DYK publicity, and trying to find "reliable" sources to use to improve it, on a purely volunteer basis,
• When they are repeatedly personally attacked (with untrue BS) by an IP editor, 142.126.170.15.
• When they see more new WP:SPA accounts appear around the time of a "call" on Twitter, and interaction reports do not exclude them from being puppet accounts.[80]
• When the first edits of two "new" SPA accounts EndariV and "Jann ruhe" use odd, similar language in edit summaries like "editorialized",and one also says "notable source" like that is particularly meaningful at wikipedia, [81][82], after the editor has been especially cautious to closely paraphrase or literally quote the WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My behavior is nothing like IP 142.126.170.15 and IP 84.250.14.116 and I have said previously that there is a possibility of an undisclosed COI, in *agreement* with you and IP 84.250.14.116. I don't really know why you're also calling me a "puppet" other than the fact that you have been calling a lot of people puppets before, including IP 84.250.14.116 which I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion other than the fact that you're heavily biased. I have no idea who "Jann ruhe" is and considering the fact that they haven't really done much, it's very weird of you to say lots of bold claims about that account.

I looked at your page and you have conducted a (very bad) sockpuppet investigation[83] with a valid verdict in my opinion and especially now you're starting to be very rude to me for no reason. I have no problem with a Wikipedia administrator looking into all of what you claimed because you do make serious claims. EndariV (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@EndariV: Did I "call you a puppet"? No. I said there is odd similarity between your and "Jann ruhe" first edit summary, and interaction reports do not rule it out. I'm not going to rehash old puppet investigations here, and I really would prefer to focus on articles not editors. Suffice to say puppetry at GrapheneOS has been admitted very recently, and confirmed elsewhere I've edited. I'm doing my best to tread lightly with the new WP:SPA accounts. Biased? We are all biased. My bias declaration says "No associations or affiliations to declare... Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free." What should yours say? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Brief pause for station identification

For what it is worth, I am taking a short (?) wiki-break, and look forward to seeing what, if any, actions are taken or suggestions are given by the Admins that be. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I will have to agree and follow on this too. There's so much to follow here that unless I am explicitly called on for something by an admin, I'm taking a break from all these situations and conflicts. EndariV (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP

I noticed that User:Andrew Davidson is topic banned from all deletion related activities, and yet they are active in NPP. I have found that nominating articles for deletion is significant part of the job; if an editor can't do that, I do not know if they can be an effective reviewer. I emailed this concern to an administrator yesterday and they shared the concern, but they had reasons why they were unable to act. Andrew Davidson is an experienced editor and I have nothing against them. Bruxton (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: have you attempted at all to address this issue with him on his talk page or sought input at WT:NPP/R before posting here? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a politic way to say this, but I very much doubt he'd be nominating articles for any sort of deletion even were he not banned from doing so. —Cryptic 23:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That may be so, and a talk page thread may go nowhere, but you should at least try to discuss it prior to escalation. I think his background was already well known at the time the right was granted. Further if your concerns over his use of the permission are independent of the topic ban then why bring it up. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TonyBallioni who granted the user right. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are many thousands of articles awaiting review. The feed makes it easy to browse through them or filter on particular criteria. Naturally there are lots of weak entries but I typically pass them by to focus on topics which are of more interest to me. If I should happen dwell on a topic which then doesn't seem to make the grade then I might do what I can with it but would not mark it as reviewed. The article then remains in the queue for others such as Bruxton. It's not unusual for reviewers to pass when they find a topic difficult to assess or otherwise process as this is the standard advice: "If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer."

I am currently in an NPP backlog drive and seem to be pulling my weight in that so far. The activity specifically includes re-reviews to check the quality of the reviews which are being made. As yet, no-one has had any complaints about my reviews and Bruxton doesn't give any specific examples.

For an example where I found a significant issue, see Literary Latin. This initially seemed a promising topic but I came to the conclusion that it was an invalid fork from the main topic of Latin with inadequate attribution of its copying. I tagged the article and started discussion, pinging some other editors who had some history with the matter. When the discussion went nowhere and creator failed to respond, I reverted the split by redirecting the page back to the main topic.

As for Bruxton, I am not familiar with them and so just took a look at their user page. I find that they were only granted page reviewer right a few days ago – on 16 June. As they are comparatively new to the task, it is surprising that they should be so quick to jump to conclusions and escalate to ANI.

Andrew🐉(talk) 01:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't see that as a problem; there are many NPP tasks that don't involve deletion, and as long as Andrew is happy to delegate to others as needed (e.g via the very active NPP noticeboard) I am sure that the process will benefit from his experience. Always assuming that this doesn't result in signing off on articles that need to be deleted, but that would need to be demonstrated. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone without any knowledge of the history I am okay with someone who is excluded from AfD being a new page patroller as long as they don't nominate for deletion. I would also welcome them at AfC where there is rarely any AfD activity. Gusfriend (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Kommentar I probably brought this concern to the wrong forum. I recently started at NPP, and that is why the requirements of a reviewer are fresh in my mind. The word deletion is used 103 times in the tutorial. Other duties which are discussed in the tutorial are also a form of deletion. If an article is redirected it is deleted. If a reviewer starts a merge discussion that is a suggestion that the article's contents should merged and the article should be deleted. As a reviewer, I imagine that AD has just been granted an exception to review, because they cannot do the work of a reviewer like CSD, AfD, redirect and merge. Bruxton (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: If an article is redirected it is deleted. If a reviewer starts a merge discussion that is a suggestion that the article's contents should merged and the article should be deleted. This is flatly incorrect, neither one of those is a form of deletion which actually hides history from non-sysops (indeed both are specifically listed alternatives to deletion), further it's important to remember that articles which have been merged should not be deleted. Contested WP:BLARs can be an issue as those are discussed at AFD, but those are relatively uncommon. Avoiding these kind of misunderstandings is why it's best to seek input from experienced reviewers at WT:NPP/R first. Also remember that per the big bold letters at the top of the page this board is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, even if you have diffs demonstrating that a perm has been used improperly it's usually best to start a user talk page discussion first, mistakes happen, most concerns can be resolved without taking up everyone's time on the dramaboards. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@74.73.224.126: Thank you for the messages. As I have said above, I have probably come to the wrong forum; and I first consulted with an administrator about this issue. Some of the things you have said above may be factually correct, but they fall into the category of a distinction without a difference. For instance, as an article creator, if one of my articles is redirected it is no longer there unless an ordinary user goes into the history of the redirect... so yes, it is essentially deleted. Also I have no "misunderstandings" about a reviewer's duties. Bruxton (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: The distinction, and it is an important one, is that only sysops can (un)delete pages, and for that reason there is significantly more procedure involved in matters relating to deletion (long history behind all that but it's best to avoid digression). The fact that new-users will struggle to reverse redirections isn't particularly important since new users struggle to do all sorts of things in our increasingly complex editing environment, not the least of which is creating new articles that aren't CSD fodder in the first place. Indeed if you can manage that last one you can probably work out what happened starting from your own contribution history (understanding the procedure behind it all is a different matter entirely). I agree however that further discussion along these lines is best suited to WT:NPP/R or WP:HD, and this thread can be closed. Incidentally, pings to unregistered users will not work so you have to go old school and use {{talkback}} or one of its related templates. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think TBANed editors should have page reviewer perm, as a blanket rule. If you can't control your own contributions, you can't supervise other people's contributions. You kind of have to have a good knowledge of notability policies to be a reviewer, right? If you're TBANed from deletion, you don't have a good knowledge of notability policies. Levivich^[block] 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  He wasn't TBANed for lack of policy knowledge. That happened due to 1) Annoyance from some at how successful he'd been at saving articles from destruction. 2) His admittedly excessive rebuttal of delete arguments, which while policy compliant, had got too much for some after 12 plus years. 3)Your own policy violating 50+ post bludgeoning of the Halloween purge thread, as summarised here. A major cause of the NPP backlog is ANI choosing to take down the Commander just over a year ago, who was a one man queue clearing machine. Let's not add insult to injury by depriving NPP of the good Colonel's services! FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I see your support hasn't wavered. One thing I'll add is that if sanctioned editors are to be excluded from NPP, that should probably be a policy change discussed on a policy page and not something that's just applied to one editor at ANI. BTW, who is the Commander and what are they the commander of? Levivich^[block] 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fair response, part of why you're so so loved round here no one but me called you out on the 50+ post thing. Commander Waterford used to command the NPP queue, he long held no 1 spot as the editor with the most patrols. Here is one of multiple threads where NPPers mourned his loss and its impact on said queue. Perhaps it wasn't a good comparison, the Colonel is not much like CW. Much more diplomatic and affable, hence his fine work mentoring newbies at dozens of real life ambassador & outreach events, and why he's appreciated at NPP as mentioned by IP .224.126 .FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's because 50 posts is low for me, and people want to encourage me moving in the right direction :-D Levivich^[block] 17:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  If anyone is interested in what actually happened, as opposed to Mr. Huxtable's usual heaping of praise on blocked or banned users, here's the actual discussion The discussion here is pretty clear: there is an overwhelming majority here in favor of revoking the autopatrolled permission because of doubts about CommanderWaterford's diligence (as well as their honesty). What's more, I see a majority of editors here, including many seasoned editors, who do not believe that CommanderWaterford's edits and style are in accordance with our policies and guidelines. A list of grievances includes serious copyright violations, brusqueness and rudeness, a lack of good faith, and more, but what one can distill out of this discussion with great clarity is that CommanderWaterford suffers from I DID NOT HEAR THAT, which is evident even in their very responses here. With their Wikipedia career on the line, one would expect a serious and seriously humble rebuttal and a promise to do do better: that is not what is happening. Many express regret given CommanderWaterford's positive contributions to the project, but that does not change the fact that the community consensus here is for an indefinite block Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are really two questions that need to be answered in this kind of situation. First can the sanctioned editor continue to contribute positively with the PERM despite the restriction? This question is best answered by the editors in the area (hence the reference to NPP/R) and the answer thus far is a resounding yes. Second is there any evidence the PERM has been misused? Thus far the answer is no, not a single diff or log entry has been presented as evidence. Therefore the editor's continuing use of the PERM is consistent with the interests of the encyclopedia. We do not revoke permissions as punishment, but only when doing so is needed to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. I'm aware of the colonel's idiosyncratic views on notability; the permission granting admin was almost certainly aware as well, but merely holding such views is not a reason to revoke the permission as long as the user does not misuse it, given that the permission has been held for years without issue this does not seem to be the case. Almost everyone here has at least one PAG they'd like to see changed, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you really believe a blanket rule is needed you can always start a thread at the village pump, but as of present there isn't one. Anyway I've probably contributed too much to this thread already about time to let others have their say. Granting admin has been pinged and this thread got a mention on a well-known WP:BADSITE, so I suspect there will be additional input here from people with more knowledge of the situation than myself before long. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. I'm TBANNED in one area, doesn't mean I don't or can't contribute in another. If I read an article on the size of ice glaciers in Alaskan waters, no reason I can't vet it and approve/reject. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• This ought to be brought to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment to be pursued. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Inconsistent The other editor who was topic banned from deletion at the same time as AD was denied the NPP perrm for the reasons outlined above. @Polyamorph and Joe Roe: both commented. A core part of NPP is identifying candidates for speedy deletion, PRODS, AfDs, and draftification. Given you are currently topic banned from deletion discussions, this would violate your topic ban from deletion discussions. And from Joe Roe, Sorry but Polyamorph is right. There is no way you can patrol new pages effectively with your topic ban.  Not done. Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I am now retired from NPP. But decisions about whether an article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia or should be nominated for deletion are a core part of the process. It's difficult to see how a user could effectively patrol new pages with such a topic ban. Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Addendum: but it seems in this case no one has issue with Andrew's patrol log, so if he is able to find pages to review and skipping those that need deletion decisions then there is no harm. They desperately need more reviewers at NPP. Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  In retrospect, and reading the comments here, I think I might have been unfair to Lightburst there. Deletion is a big part of new page patrol but it's also possible to avoid it, if that's what you want or have to do; I've reviewed nearly a thousand pages in the last month and only nominated a handful for deletion. Unfortunately they've now retired so it's too late to make up for it, but I don't think my one-off decision on a PERM request should be taken as any sort of precedent for Andrew D. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Lightburst got busted for COI editing and then retired, so the two cases aren't really similar. Levivich^[block] 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I do not see that they were "busted for coi" - I see an accusation and no conclusions. It looks to me like their retirement roughly coincided with the TBAN from deletion related activity and the NPP denial. The NPP perm is similar because with a TBAN both could not properly review articles. Have a great weekend everyone! Bruxton (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is it a little inconvenient to NPP review without the ability to delete? Yeah. However, he can still productively review even without that ability. If Andrew finds an article that he feels should be deleted, he can just skip it and leave it to another reviewer, which is what I'm sure he's done countless times. There are plenty of NPP tasks that do not involve deletion, such as reviewing and tagging. Andrew's patrol log is also clean. I just don't see how this is an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The risk isn't that articles that need deleting won't be deleted, the risk is that articles that should be deleted will instead be marked patrolled. Still, that's a hypothetical risk, and I'm not seeing any evidence that this is in fact happening. Levivich^[block] 17:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of the individual but I will note that it would be very easy to NPP without the option to delete. They can simply pass on articles (without marking them as reviewed) that should be deleted. When I'm in unusually-active NPP periods I do that when I think I would otherwise surpass my AFD grief limit, particularly in areas that have active fan clubs at AFD. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC) c*There is no reason to suspect that Andrew has any agenda that would infringe upon his T-ban or that conversley, he would be keeping articles that should be deleted. While NPP enables the possibility of tagging article for any of our deletion processes, most other users can tag articles for deletion without the WP:NPR user right. What they can't do is check them off as 'patrolled'. That said, user:74.73.224.126, permissions are indeed occasionally purely revoked as a punishment, not only by a common community consensus at ANI, but also by the Arbitration Committee, even when the tools have not been misused.

As they are comparatively new to the task, it is surprising that they should be so quick to jump to conclusions and escalate to ANI.: I think that as a relatively new user and even more recently admitted to the New Page Reviewer group, although expressing a valid concern, Bruxton may be unduly escalating in good faith what normally would be a valid concern, there are after all, plenty of New Page Reviewers who have been exposed as using the right to their own ends. However, like the unfortunate demise of RexxS who was also a very valuable contributor to important off-Wiki events, witch-hunts (and I am not saying this is one) are to be avoided because their result can ultimately drive highly experienced, prolific and dedicated users off Wikipedia.

I have personally disagreed - on occasion quite heavily - with Andrew on various issues over more than a decade that his work has been very familiar to me, but on absolutely nothing at all that would have even bordered on breaches of policy. Andrew was accorded NPR 5 years ago by admin TonyBallioni who is unlikely to have made a mistake. Not because NPP is currently in a crisis trying to cut down an untenable backlog resulting from patroller burnout (750+ patrollers but of whom only half have ever made a patrol ), I suggest very strongly that in the total absence of any wrong doing, we cut Andrew some slack, cease what might become yet another classic Wikipedia character assassination, and close this thread without any action. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Gtroviz

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

---

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

See the edit history for Nelson Piquet, and the accompanying talk page. Highlights include Man, you are totally ignorant. Your socialist retarded culture in US and Europe is not our culture. Die, [84] LOSERS UNITED. Commie world, lets do in Wikipedia, ohh we are sou stwpid and lest do the homoland, oh yeah, [85] and Your "super sources" are pathetic angry socialists from the US and Europe. You live in Rio? No, then go eat cattle pasture. You don't know the local slangs[86] - and more since the abuse is ongoing. This is in response to being told that WP:OR and a user-generated slang dictionary don't override well-sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorse. I've been called retarded as well, as well as 1 other editor they have made personal attacks against as well. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That "other editor" would be me. I see they've now been blocked for a week and reckon some of those edit summaries may need a revdel. Patient Zero^talk 23:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Hehe, sorry forgot who the other one was. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary reads like a threat of violence. [87]. Grounds for an indef block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Yoshi24517! - and yes I did think the same, AndyTheGrump. I would endorse an indef at this point also because of the highly disruptive nature of their editing. Patient Zero^talk 23:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both AndyTheGrump and Patient Zero that I support an indef block at this point in time. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be willing to up the block to indef, but let's see what the blocking admin, Bbb23, says first. Deor (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deor: I vacillated on the length of the block. I also thought about adding a comment here that I had no objection to another administrator increasing the block to indefinite. Certainly the behavior is egregious enough. Bottom line: do whatever you think is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Gtroviz's brief contributions history, [88] I get the distinct impression that the account was created by someone already familiar with Wikipedia. Note how Gtroviz starts with a series of meaningless edits, then goes to battle over some very specific topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Because this editor seems to have an intense hatred of Wikipedia and its social norms, and repeatedly alludes to violence against Wikipedia editors, I believe that an indefinite block is entirely appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Rick. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

Inflation'sLastLaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is disruptively editing the article Fractional-reserve banking, adding some very long explanation about something, disruptive edit summary, user page with derogatory comments about "Powell and Yellen", and look at their username. Nythar (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the edits will need to be revdelled per WP:CFRD #1, given their massive quotations from copyrighted sources. Ovinus (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked as a not here case. I don't believe the edits need to be revision deleted, as they just seem like copies from other Wikipedia articles that happen to have large quotes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: I'm not sure on copyright policy in these cases, but surely the 1700-word quote from The Grip of Death (1998) is rather egregious? Ovinus (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Upon looking at it further I realize the overquotes are more extensive than I thought they were, so I have done the revdel. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Block neo-Nazi IP address

This should be self-explanatory. Here's the diff. Thanks. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

One edit that might be anti-semitic in response to a post of yours from last year? And it's not "self-explanatory", at least not to me. Didn't the IP misspell the word to boot?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 This is Wikipedia, not Twitter or Facebook, so if you'd actually take reports of white supremacists seriously that'd be wonderful! Your response is facetious and deeply insulting. Last I checked, racists who make spelling mistakes are still racist (it's also not a spelling mistake, see below). I have spent my entire life dealing with Nazis, so it is beyond exhausting having to explain antisemitism over and over and over and over again to people who do not listen, do not take it seriously, and do not care. As shown in your response, it is also a neverending task. But I'll do it once again in the hopes of removing one, just one, Nazi from the internet:

• Mossard: Portmanteau of Mossad and retard.
• Mossad: Israel's intelligence service; basically their version of MI6 or the CIA.
• Holocaust denial: Antisemitic conspiracy theory asserting that Jews collectively faked the Holocaust in order to gain global sympathy, create the state of Israel, covertly genocide white people, and secretly control global events.
• Schindler's Ark: 1983 historical novel about Oskar Schindler, who saved some 1,200 Jews from extermination during the Holocaust by employing them in his metal factory. The 1993 film Schindler's List is based on the novel. The film is by far the most well-known piece of popular media about the Holocaust, and as such is a frequent target of Holocaust deniers.
• Oy vey: Yiddish phrase of exasperation or dismay. Frequently used by Jews, and often used by white supremacists to make racist jokes about Jews. See examples here, here, and here.

I'm really not sorry if I sound like an ass. White supremacists look for any and every imaginable opportunity to spread hateful conspiracy theories wherever they go, and they deliberately do so in a subtly joking manner to maintain plausible deniability. Here is a great read on just one of the (literally) endless number of methods they use to promote their rancid ideology! They use this same strategy everywhere.

If you do not block this Nazi, they will be back with ten of their Nazi friends, who will each then come back with ten of their Nazi friends. That I can guarantee. Why do you think there is an automatic blanket extended protection policy on every single page even remotely relating to the Shoah? There should be an absolute and unequivocal zero-tolerance attitude towards racism on Wikipedia. This should go for all bigotries. I seriously expect better from the administrators here. If you're not equipped and able to identify and block Nazis on sight, then you should either find an admin who can do so when such requests come in (I get it, not a fun topic to research!), or not be an admin at all. But please, I am begging you: take this seriously.

Oy vey! Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 01:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Clear antisemitic comment. IP should be blocked promptly. —El Millo (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the questionable edit or post has been reverted & the IP hasn't returned. No action would be required, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay So what is an "acceptable" number of racist edits for you to consider a block? Five? Ten? Fifty? 500 over thirty days, so that a Nazi can get extended confirmed access and provide their thoughts on race science to the general public? What is your racism tolerance level? Do you seriously think this IP address, or any account they create, is coming to Wikipedia in good faith on any topic? Wouldn't it be better to just, I don't know, not give Nazis a platform of any kind in the first place? Please enlighten me. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk

If the IP returns & makes the same or similar post? Then block'em. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@BladeJogger2049: Your attack on GoodDay is bullshit. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If an IP isn't actively, by the definition of whichever admin is looking, vandalizing, then we tend not to block. A single edit is almost never grounds for a block, unless it's a blatant personal attack or legal threat. That doesn't mean any of us think there's an "acceptable" number of racist edits, that GoodDay has to respond to any question about a "racism tolerance level," and also, GoodDay didn't have to respond to you. GoodDay chose to respond to this, and you insulted them. You've been here for a long time so I honestly can't figure out why you went this direction, but you need to pull back, now.

In addition, the rest of your comments? Not great! "If you'd actually take reports of white supremacists seriously" Yes, because the best thing to do when seeking help is insulting those who you're asking. You're talking to us like we're children who can't possibly comprehend the evil we're allowing. "it is beyond exhausting" then don't. Seriously. No one asked you to. You could have reverted and that was that. "Mossard" is a fucking joke of an insult, and you really need to figure out why you are so riled up by this. --Golbez (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who's blocked hundreds of Nazis and racists, many for single edits, this particular single edit doesn't rise to the level of blocking, especially since it's happened only once, and best it's borderline. I can assure you that we block clear-cut Nazis and bigots promptly and without hesitation. @BladeJogger2049, please dial it back, those are personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Your initial response was genuinely hurtful and dismissive, but I apologize for my rant and accusations in response. That was uncalled for and not okay. I love editing here and collaborating with everyone, and I should not have lost my cool. @GoodDay I apologize to you as well, that was a gross response of me and just wrong. I get that blocks are on a case-by-case basis. I am sorry to both of you. @Golbez the "Mossard" thing is extremely offensive, but I should not have taken my anger out on fellow editors instead of the actual people who come up with that shit. You are right I was wrong to respond to GoodDay like that. Thank you for setting me right. I am sorry again. Thank you as well for your response @Acroterion. Please let me know what I need to do so that I can make this right for all of you; I am extremely embarrassed by my behavior and should not have slandered anyone. I've been quite busy with life lately so I'm not as active editing on here as usual, but I will still see notifications. Again I apologize sincerely. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 04:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it was offensive, but it wasn't at the level that called for this kind of anger. --Golbez (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please remember that some of us deal with this stuff on a daily, or at least weekly basis. I'm sorry if this is your first encounter with that sort of thing. Consider yourself fortunate. However, on a scale of awfulness, this is about as mild as it gets. We've seen just about every hateful trope there is, and the slippery slope you are concerned about doesn't exist. Wikipedia has always been a crazy magnet. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I unfortunately have more than several lifetimes worth of experience with Nazi shit. I don't know why such a small thing as this affected me the way it did, but I handled it poorly. Thank you. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 21:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Made-up image licenses by RKT7789

Can an admin look into this? New article Brandon Russell, by User:RKT7789, has an image File:Brandon Clint Russell2.jpg which has supposedly been released under CC1.0 public domain license by the author (RKT7789), even though it is a "self-portrait" of the subject. The other image of Russell on Commons has also been uploaded in public domain by RKT. The CC1.0 license seems dubious in these pics as well: File:Kansallissosialisti 1941.jpg and File:SKS member.jpg.

But what looks like further foul play is File:Ajan Suunta 1939.jpg. The image was tagged for a wrong license and human review. RKT7789 simply removed the tags and suddenly claimed it's in public domain as CC1.0. --85.76.96.255 (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I found the images of Russell from Telegram where they were told to be used freely. Kansallissosialisti and SKS member pictures I have personally taken. Sorry if I have broken rules.RKT7789 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Telegram is in no way a proper source for images. Please find a proper web-addressed source for the image and then license them properly. Nate • (chatter) 23:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

IP removing automated fields

An IP has been removing the {{age in days}} template from a variety of professional wrestling articles and replacing them with static numbers for some weeks now. They have been asked not to do it, both via edit summaries and talk page messages, but they are uncommunicative and are regularly moving through different IP addresses. A range block is needed. Please see the contributions of any of the following IPs:

• 2409:4065:1F:42F0:0:0:12C6:70AC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:E19:6636:0:0:90A:2204 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:19B:AA11:0:0:188D:98AC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:19E:385:0:0:2FE:E0AC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:209:7AD3:0:0:87A:D0A1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:D15:C70E:0:0:98A:1508 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:E81:6E00:0:0:98A:F910 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:D88:AFE8:0:0:9CA:DF09 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2409:4065:E17:77E4:0:0:90A:BF0C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are almost certainly more, as this is spread across a variety of articles. This has become a near-daily occurrence. — Czello 10:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Range appears to be 2409:4065:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 judging from WHOIS and {{Blockcalc}}. Given the number of potentially affected users the block should be anon-only and a partial-block should be attempted if feasible. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've applied an article namespace partial block to the 2409:4065::/36 IPv6 range for two weeks. Account creation was not revoked. This should keep the block as soft as possible, allowing legitimate users to create an account and edit, but not continue disrupting these articles anonymously and over this very wide range. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Gartuwaso, WP:CIR, SPA, nothere, personal attacks, just pick one

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

---

Gartuwaso is a relatively new user who appeared at the often spammed article Michael Maigeri Ede/Michael Ede and it's AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Maigeri Ede. Following that, they showed up at random articles I've created or edited, adding either nonsense, or nominating for deletion in bad faith by accusing myself and MB of "paid editing" and effectively being in cahoots with one another. They've continued this diatribe and they don't appear to be here for anything constructive, and are now accusing me of racism and paid editing for nominating articles for deletion that simply aren't notable. Their only edits are revenge nominations/edits, casting aspersions and related to spamming Michael Ede.

I laugh 😂 as I see this message from you. No one will block me. Just because I use UPE on you that's why you will request block against me. Make you, I will appeal if you succeed by inviting your friends to come and comment. It's really amazing 😍 a person who normally nominated notable African articles, Indian articles and other low profile European and Asian exhausting your time on non notable actress. It 100% fail notability of living person. Google search shows nothing but Nigerian fake newspapers. Stop warning ⚠️, your titles will not make me fear 😨 you. Your request to block will never work. Administrators are not selfish and racist, they are well judge and non partisan peoplediff

It appears clearly you are inviting your friends to comment on keep. I have no revenge on you as no any article is nominated for deletion by you. Nonetheless, if you succeed in this nomination case, I will definitely appeal it where real and unconnected administrators will look at this article which totally fail notability of living person. If you invite your friends here to comment Keep it may consider as meat puppets as I can see MB and other commenting. If Wikipedia is really independent platform this article with definitely going to be deleted. So, also concerning the UPE,it appears that the person whom you created this article had paid you or possible connection; if not why are you exhausting your time inviting your friends to comment Keep while they know it's not notable. Google search show nothing but full of Nigerian fake newspapers with no significant coverage.diff

And to clarify, a brief time line:

• They show up here after not having edited for months, to try and keep Michael Ede, a frequent spam target.
• Then here at an AFD I nominated (though they did vote delete) shortly after they showed up at the previous AFD.
• Followed by this edit to an article I created
• And finally here on a redirect that I created quite a while ago, which MB had expanded, complete with a bad faith nom accusing several of us of paid editing and using "fake nigerian newspapers" (which is demonstrably untrue, there aren't any Nigerian papers used, fake or otherwise in that article and don't appear to have ever been used there.)

I am requesting an indefinite block on the grounds of, well, you can take your pick but at the end of the day, it's clear they aren't here to contribute meaningfully. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note Yes I have used UPE not saying UPE directly but used possible UPE. I simply used UPE because they are trying to depend non notable actress with no significant coverage as everyone believed that these editors are experienced editors. She 100% fails Wikipedia article notability of a living person. If you make Google search about her its only fake Nigerian newspapers that featured her and nothing else. I said User:Praxidicae|PRAXIDICAE🌈]] appear to invite his friends to comment Keep such as MB and other unknown user because as I initially nominated the article for deletion MB appeared to undo my work immediately because I haven't created the discussion, I later created and he eventually came and commented to keep by saying it's a bad faith nomination, please is there any bad nomination faith by non notable article?. I'm sure there is no bad faith in nominating an article that's not notable at whole. Again, User:Praxidicae|PRAXIDICAE🌈]] has been long time nominating African articles, Indian articles, Arab articles, low profile European articles. I deeply check his/her nomination and I finally told him this. There are many African and Indian articles that are notable but he moved them to draft or nominated for deletion. This is an indication of racism and bias. I'm not here for any personal attack but want Wikipedia to have more transparent and incredible. Everyone should have access to Wikipedia without sidelining people. Everyone should know that this issue began when I nominated his article for deletion which is notable to be deleted as it lacks media coverage with no any source rather Nigerian fake newspapers by Google search.Gartuwaso (talk) 15:07, 06 July 2022 (UTC)

  Would you like to provide evidence in the form of diffs or are you more interested in a lengthy non-sensical diatribe that will lead to a faster block? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked. Don't have time for this nonsense. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, beat me to it. I was coming here to say accusing an editor of "racism and bias", especially without proof, is a personal attack of the highest order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Combining that with "no one will block me" is more or less the admin equivalent of throwing raw meat to a starving hyena. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sure admins everywhere appreciate being analogized to hyenas. EEng 06:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Contentious page mover

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

---

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

What should I do with an editor with page mover privileges doing a contentious page move without any discussion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The same you would do with any editor who's actions you question i.e. talk to them first? Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

↑This. If you still disagree even after talking to them about it place a request at WP:RM/TR to revert an undiscussed move, once that's been completed a formal RM can be initiated where everyone will be invited to add their input in accordance with WP:RMCOMMENT. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, first off, you didn't bother to engage me at my talk page or anywhere else. My rationale here: Further readthrough of both articles and sources on Wikipedia and off-wiki searches as well indicate that 'Kalwant Singh' is likely an implusible mispelling for 'Kulwant Singh' for the general. Even the online source (https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/book-review-kashmirs-untold-story-declassified/2059369/) used in Onkar Singh Kalkat, where Kulwant Singh (general) was linked, refers to the general as Kulwant Singh, not Kalwant Singh. Next, I also took into account of the number of pageviews of what's previously the redirect page, which was 8 pages in the last 30 days, 35 pages in the last 90 days, which seems to indicate that there's limited traffic coming in by way of the redirect page. Thus I performed the page move. My reasoning (except for the pageviews part) was indicated in my edit summaries. I further went on to check on all the linked pages to ensure that whatever mainspace articles that need correction or updates, are also to be updated accordingly. Let's take this to other appropriate venue(s), but my rationale remains as it is. – robertsky (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The idea that it is a "misspelling" is a supposition, which could have been easily resolved if you bothered to discuss. I had reverted a previous attempt to reuse the page title for the new topic, which was just before your move.

There are high quality RS that used the spelling "Kalwant Singh", e.g, [89][90]. So it can't be written off as a misspelling. If there are multiple individuals with the same name, we need a dab page or something similar. I hope you can set one up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't accuse someone of failing to discuss when your first step to resolve a grievance is to take them to ANI. That's rank hypocrisy. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I apologise if it seems that I had overlooked your earlier reversion, but when I looked that the article, it was a simple unnecessary disambiguation to me. I suppose I should have checked for the various page histories again in between the brief two hours or so when I looked at the articles and when I performed the page move.

Nothing on the general's article and its sources indicated that there was an alternate spelling of his name. I did a search on Wikipedia and found only the drug trafficker with this name. If we were to account for the mispelling/alternate spelling for the general, there are only two articles. Following WP:ONEOTHER and the section below accounting for different spelling variants, a hatnote on both pages is sufficient, which are now on both pages. Yes, I am aware of WP:NCPDAB, but to account for an alternate spelling which wasn't apparent? But sure, if you want the dab page, I have it up (+ edits to the general's page to establish the alternate spelling) before I turn in for the day.

As for the Google books, they aren't accessible to me, having blanked out by the limited page preview overlay and message. But I will take your word for that. – robertsky (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please proceed on the assumption that Kulwant Singh (general) will be eventually moved to Kalwant Singh (general) because that is how his name is spelt, in official documents as well as RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And, I would also be extremely unhappy if this drug traffic is considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kalwant Singh". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: it's done. – robertsky (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User Bobfrombrockley - questionable (fake?) source representations

In the article Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists the user Bobfrombrockley added: "Many historian, such as Peter Potichnyj, have argued that from 1941 and especially after the war, the OUN developed in a pro-democratic and anti-Nazi direction". The given source is Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine by David R. Marples, page 285-286 Google Books link to check.

• This is a pretty surprising statement, afaik at least a significant collaboration of the OUN with the Nazis as well as massacres against Poles are not in doubt in history books, though it's a controversial topic now with the war going on and Putin-Propaganda using selective parts of history. So I checked the source. It is clearly not stated on the given pages 285-286 of the source. In opposite, the cooperation of the OUN with Italian and German Fascists is mentioned on p285-286 in the early 1940s. It's also stated that they were sympathetic towards Fascism, though in the mentioned view of Kas'yanov not altogether fascists themselves. Maybe he gave the wrong pages, it's possible to search further with the given Google Books link of the book.
• On page 309, conclusions of the book, the Battle of Stalingrad (till Feb 43) is described as a supposed turning point for the OUN thinking, from there on it was clear the Nazis would lose the war. In August 1943 the OUN discarded the fascist elements of their program (a part of the OUN also stopped to collaborate earlier after the Nazis opposed an Ukrainian state, though not opposing Nazis that early). On page 27 it is mentioned there's the Ukrainian Diaspora view, including Potichnyj, that argues there was from 1943-44 a democratic shift in the OUN. Right after that it's mentioned that the historian John-Paul Himka disagrees with this statement, Himka argues the anti-democratic nature of the OUN did not change even after the war.

1. It's explicitly mentioned in the source, a 1943-44 democratic shift of the OUN is argued in Ukrainian Diaspora. Bobfrombrockley extra changed the year of this statement from 1943/44 to 1941 in his edit (to the the begin of the Nazi occupation, which is crucial). While the source on the given google books link actually describes part-collaboration and at least fascists elements/sympathy at this time.
2. He worded the statement (that's on top not really theirs) as coming from "many historians", later at least changed to "many Ukrainian historians", likely to upgrade and frame it as an expert/scientist-consent. This is not true to his used source. The source does not state they are many historians (it said Ukrainian people in diaspora incl. Potichnyj) and a disagreement to the Ukrainian Diaspora view by a historian is described right next (and earlier too) in the same source. The source makes rather clear that view is disputed.
3. He added the statement that the OUN had from 1941 onward an "anti-Nazi direction". This is not mentioned as an argument by the Ukrainians in the source (see page 27, a search in the book shows no result for me for this statement either. Potichnyj himself went so far as denying on earlier pages a collaboration at least about the UPA, but he not describes OUN as anti-fascist and it's also not presented as the Ukrainian Diaspora view). The Marples book also describes the opposite. It looks like Bobfrombrockley made this up.

This seems like manipulation (like the year change may seem harmless, but in context changes the message). Intent seems also clear, his other edits in these topics (Svoboda, Azov, OUN, UAP) follow the same direction. I checked another edit of Bobfrombrockley where he presents the Azov regiment as anti-fascists to see if it's maybe an accident. Bobfrombrockley here adds the claim Azov was found by an anti-fascist activist. Looking into it, I see it nowhere stated or implied in the BBC-source that Khazin is an anti-fascist activist and the only result I can find on the net for that.. is this Wikipedia article itself. He's definitely not known for that, it looks like Bobfrombrockley just made this up with a feigned source.

Very seldom people extra check the sources, so such fakes can be very sustaining and damaging. Please review the behaviour of the user. The subject is controversial enough, we don't need on top users who make up what the sources say to fit their own pov. 2001:A62:472:9C01:593:6819:19F1:13FD (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)— 2001:A62:472:9C01:593:6819:19F1:13FD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These are pages heavily watched by editors with a variety of political views, so I don’t think it’s true to say nobody’s checking the sources. My edits on both pages result from checking the sources and feeling we were misrepresenting them. Editors can check the sources I was paraphrasing and determine if they’re still misrepresented, and edit - or discuss in the relevant talk pages. I’m not sure what the incident is here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor attempting to incite an edit war

@SnowFire has decided to pick a fight with me after he decided several of my edits (one of which contained a minute error he could have corrected without completely reverting everything I did) were, his words, "obviously incorrect" despite my offering of evidence in my favour. I believe this is an attempt to start a flame war as he is offering no willingness to compromise. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, SnowFire is discussing things reasonably. It is you who are being combative. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe he is. He freely admits he decided to pounce after reading an earlier discussion here. I do not think he is acting in good faith as he handwaves legitimate arguments I make. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: Do you have a diff for this claim of deciding "to pounce"? —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pounce"? That is a strange word to use in this context. Are you familiar with Wikipedia: Assume good faith? Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It is on his talk-page.

"I saw it come up while doing my occasional hate-browsing of WP:ANI where I saw you getting reported is all"

This was after my interactions with him began. He is being extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, from everything I can see, SnowFire is being perfectly diplomatic and explaining his reasoning and process. You apparently took umbrage when he said you were incorrect, and are the only one here who appears bellicose to me. If you're looking for a frustration-free experience, I might suggest looking elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I am not looking for a wiki war, I just expect to be able to make edits without them being pounced on. SF admits he has no interest in any of the topics I have been editing and seems solely interested in picking a fight with me. This is what it feels like. I'm still coming down from OGS tearing my head off. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: Where specifically have they said this? Provide a diff to the edit; otherwise, your actions will be under greater scrutiny, particularly for personal attacks toward SnowFire. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I did say it was on his talk-page.

What's a diff? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy: I have read the section of the talk page, and I don't see anything that indicates they're picking a fight with you. As for what a diff, is, it is a link to the particular edit where they made the comment in question. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave now until SlushFlame has lost interest in me. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have warned TheCurrencyGuy for the above comment, which reads as a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've said I'm going for now..... I'm just upset right now. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Please see section above #TCG’s faits accomplis for context. TCG, welcome to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project. That means your edits are not guaranteed to stay. If you want 100% creative control, I unironically recommend a blog or personal website - you can write exactly what you want there with nobody to edit you. What you perceive as hostility was me attempting to explain to you, in detail, why your edit was bad and against wikipedia navbox practices. You can take that information and improve your Wikipedia editing experience, or you can perceive it as personal attack. If you take the second approach to every time somebody disagrees with an edit, then this is not the place for you. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Also, as a side bit, it was really just one edit I reverted. The other edits I reverted were undiscussed page moves - which is not something a very new account should really be doing without making sure they really explain their moves well in their edit summary, which TCG did not. I didn't even say that the moves were invalid, but rather suggested the WP:RM process, which TCG took. TCG, using RM discussions to establish a consensus is standard for very experienced editors when proposing potentially controversial moves, so you really shouldn't take being required to build such a consensus as a personal affront, nor my comments attempting to explain Wikipedia article titling policies.) SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    I made a miniscule mistake, and now its led to this edit conflict. I accepted your reversions to article titles and set up RMs. I lost my temper with your "hate-reading" comment. You could have discussed this properly with me instead of resulting in all this. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What you seem to fail to grasp is that they are discussing it properly, and have even explained the "hate-reading" comment. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm just on pins right now with all this. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"All this" referring to the tsuris of your own making? Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Ninja edit: Wait, is your complaint the phrase "hate-browsing"? I mean self hate by that, as in I know it sucks to read about drama but sometimes do it anyway to keep up on drama matters. Wasn't talking about you, as I thought would have been obvious from context. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    It certainly sounds like indicating an attempt to pick a fight. If you are so engrossed in it now why don't you go and start an RM at the Renminbi article? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I need to clear my head.... I didn't want it to turn out like this. I started this because I lost my temper at what felt like personal slights. I'm going to leave until that report on me and this section falls off the page. I can't cope when it feels like I'm being dogpiled.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I only joined Wikipedia because I felt I could do some good on its coverage of certain topics that pique my interest, and now its all crashing and burning. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In all good faith, we're saying all that is necessary is that you slow down and accept that the process is collaborative. You will run into many disagreements. They are not a call to combat. You can simply withdraw this complaint, try to move forward in a more community-oriented spirit, and I do believe all will be well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I withdraw..... I will not be back for several months probably.... this has got to me in a very deep way. When it feels like my world is burning all around me I lose it. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• (EDIT: I wrote this before TCG wrote the above, but I think it's still relevant to bring up, because "whoops never mind" isn't an excuse for acting terribly after being called on it.) With this diff and the "if you are so engrossed in it now why don't you go and start an RM at the Renminbi article?" comment above, TCG is just pettily repeating comments I told him in good faith back as taunts to something where I actually gave ground and did what TCG wanted! I guess I learned my lesson that compromise is seen as surrender or something. To explain TCG's above comments: TCG was attempting to edit war on {{Currencies of Asia}} to change "Pound sterling" to "Sterling" because he likes "Sterling" better (not because the title doesn't fit otherwise or something), earlier diff, recent diff. The article, however, is at "Pound sterling". I suggested that if the article was somehow moved to "Sterling", then TCG's edit would be fine, but apparently the Wikipedia consensus is to use "Pound sterling", so he shouldn't circumvent an article title he doesn't like by piping references to it. As part of my later edit, I switched over the "Renminbi" link to also be a simple link to the article title for consistency. TCG apparently has decided that this is showing weakness or something, hence telling me to move Renminbi???? idk. And apparently I'm "SlushFlame" now, which is not a promising sign for respect in the future.
  • TCG, if you need time away, fine, but if you do return to Wikipedia, you need to take other people's feedback seriously, including other people's negative feedback. Not every edit helps. If you disagree, great, but you have to defend the edit, not accuse others of attacking you. If that is too stressful for you - then consider the blog option. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    You gotta admit, SlushFlame would be a great handle for an alternative account if you ever need one. EEng 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Look, this is ultimately what frustrated me. I intend to try to get that article moved eventually after things have calmed down there. I had an extremely nasty experience with someone who was acting in such bad faith he was banned. I was trying to make observations, but I'm not good at arguing..... I..... Gah... I don't know what to do. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I just don't know what to do anymore...... I'm.... I don't know.... TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've tried to make my case.... but there was a nasty war of words over it, and I don't think I can successfully get that article moved while the rubble is still being cleared. I felt my intentions were entirely reasonable: "Sterling" is the currency's name thus that is how it ought to be listed, and that is all I was doing. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Look.... I'm just going to shut this account and make another account with a different name and no baggage, this one feels tainted now. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @TheCurrencyGuy: Just be aware of Wikipedia's clean start policy if you do, and that [i]t is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:TheCurrencyGuy - Are you aware that you started this with one of the more useless reports I have seen recently at WP:ANI, because you only told who the other editor was, and not what page you and he were edit-warring over? Some of us don't want to have to go through your user contributions or those of User:SnowFire to figure out what you are quarreling about. You have wasted our time. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I lost my temper, I'm sorry, I've said I'm sorry. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

I noticed the following IP address has been vandalising a handful of pages for the past few years, mainly Debora Rabbai's page. I reverted a pretty nasty one a couple days ago and just now got around checking the contrib history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsey40186 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty nasty stuff. I did a long block. Seems pretty static. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible Meatpuppeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty

I was not active on Wikipedia due to various personal trauma, and when the AfD of the above was initiated I was undergoing the same, but managed to get involved in the AfD.

When I looked at the AfD discussion which is closed now, User:Hemantha was blocked and his 'Vote' at the AfD was reducted by an Admin.

But after the Hemantha's deleted vote, within 15 hours, @NeverTry4Me: has come out with an unsolicited assessment of sources involved.

When NeverTry4Me commented at the Hemantha's unblock request, he was causioned by another editor, "Considering that you were blocked yourself not long ago, I'd advise you to stay out of this discussion. At the very least read WP:UNQUALIFIED."; and then NeverTry4Me reducted his comment.

In the unsolicited assessment, NeverTry4Me never assessed the source Sopnendu Mohanty appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt in the The Times of India, the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.

Though NeverTry4Me suggested, "I have no energy to evaluate all 25 "just passing mention" sources.", I suspect considering the above circumstances, meatpuppeting was involved.Eesan1969 (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Eesan1969 Your claim This is the is a case of SPI, not at ANI. Take there, I don't mind as I know, I am not any sock. CC: @Deepfriedokra: @Star Mississippi:. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's simply an apparant meatpuppeting, nothing to do with sockpuppeting to take this issue to SPI.

Why did you ping a few Admins when this discussion is at ANI? Are they Arbcom members?Eesan1969 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI, your suspicion is invalid as user Hemantha he brought me to SPI. And about PING, they are observing my activities as I am a restricted user. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what is your real interaction with Hemantha, but what I raised above is possible meatpuppeting. I want to leave it to non-involved Admins to decide whether I am wrong.Eesan1969 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong venue for this. WP:HSOCK: If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. – robertsky (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I have already mentioned, this is nothing to do with sockpuppeting, but meatpuppeting.

Robertsky, please note you not only voted 'Delete' at the above AfD but relentlessly campaigned for the deletion, I think you should stay away from this discussion.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am pointing out that meatpuppet is also dealt at SPI. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to call into the question of the deletion, go to WP:DRV. – robertsky (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There are enough Admins moving around here, please leave it to them, I am not expecting WP:DRV advise from the one who relentlessly campaigned for the AfD?. Thanks.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, expect the unexpected. – robertsky (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Your warning sounds differently.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Eesan1969, Robertsky was correct in pointing you to WP:DRV if you would like a deletion review and if you have concerns about meat puppets you should open a report at WP:SPI. Gusfriend (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

uh, huh. Are you really the one to think that way when you asked for such clarifications when we first interacted with each other at the AfD? I was taking into account that the AfD hasn't passed too long ago, and also assume that you were away from wikipedia due to personal trauma as well when I replied above.

I am being friendly here, and trying to tell you that there are the avenues that are more suitable for such matters.

Outside of the guideline/policy text, SPI is definitely more suitable than ANI because: 1. not all admins have the suitable spidey sense to suss out meat socks; (no hard feelings here, fellow editors with admin rights!) 2. the admins who hone their spidey sense for such stuff are likely to be the same admin running SPI.

Same for DRV, the admins and editors who process the DRV queues are experienced at dealing with such appeals. – robertsky (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Within 15 hours, NeverTry4Me has come out with an unsolicited assessment of sources involved. NeverTry does not need to be solicited to provide a source assessment and 15 hours is in no way suspicious of anything. Neither is commenting on a blocked user's talk page. This report is utterly ridiculous. Trout the OP and close this absolute waste of time. – ².O.^Boxing 08:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In the assessment, the following WP:RS is left out.

Sopnendu Mohanty appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt

That's the issue.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A lazy source assessment which was the final comment in the AfD, that had no baring on any of the !votes? Where's the issue? Where is the urgent incident(s) and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? This isn't a matter for ANI. It isn't really a matter for any noticeboard. I wouldn't even say it's a matter worth bringing up on the user's talk page. The AfD is over. Article deleted. Move on. – ².O.^Boxing 09:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I was not active during the AfD, I was a little shocked over this assessment which is mostly unsolicited, when there is a RS Noticeboard if required. I think you are right, "The AfD is over. Article deleted. Move on."Eesan1969 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I ran the Afd, so I will comment. The source analysis at the end comment was largely accurate. If there was any chance the guy was minister of state, a senior individual in government, then I would have made a comment. The guy is the chief Fintech Officer, of the central Singapore bank (MAS) He is a banking official. He is not on the director list at list, nor the the on the Management team, but is head of a department: Org chart. He is banking consultant, not a Minister of State. The usual inaccurate Times of India. So the outcome of the Afd was correct. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought of not to respond anymore after my response to @Squared.Circle.Boxing:.

Anyway this my last response and I will stay away from responding anymore.

Sopnendu Mohanty is a Fintech Professional and since fintech is a very innovative field with the involvement of finance and technology together with the use of Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and with the advent of Crypto and Digital Assets; Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) hired Mohanty to lead a specialized section which was not earlier part of the traditional regulatory or central banking issues which are mostly legacy. His prominence not comes out of the seniority or directorial positions, but mostly from the innovative thought leadership ....not only within MAS but among other organizations in advisory capacities.

Mohanty was appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt with the rank and status of a minister of state and this article confirms it. The Times of India is right.

Malaysia appointed special envoys and advisers equivalent to ministers. India appointed Prime Minister’s Special Envoy with Cabinet rank. Sri Lanka appointed High Commissioner with Cabinet rank.Eesan1969 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Editor with a blatant COI bothered that his pet article wasn't kept is not a matter for ANI or SPI as there's no legit case against NT4M here nor any indication he did anything wrong. Beware of boomerangs. Star Mississippi 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Justanothersgwikieditor: Agree with your point, "...While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him." That's why I am not agreeing this AfD.Eesan1969 That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of criteria for deletion of articles. If there is no significant coverage, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. OP agrees that there is no significant coverage, so this whole report is moot. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield (again)

• Jeremy Mayfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 66.169.51.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Took me two weeks to notice this, but an (incomplete) attempt at scrubbing his drug test controversy occurred again from here to here. The IP range is the same one doing the previously reported one here. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 11:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As the last IP edited two weeks ago, I don't think is needed now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@FMecha: Is this part of a longer-term pattern? I don't think that ANI is the place for every individual incident of information sterilization; I'd only report if it's systemic or recurring. That said, I've added the article to my watch list, so I'll keep an eye on it for a while. —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The pattern behavior and the IP range seems to be the same as the one doing the similar edits back in January and February. For the record, the IP doing that earlier this year was 66.169.50.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - so there might be a connection. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Being a BLP, I've semi-protected 3 months under the rationale of "WP:DE / whitewashing", which is kind of unusual but seems the best solution to the problem. There is enough of a pattern (in my eyes) to justify protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

User:136.57.191.25

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

---

This user, Special:Contributions/136.57.191.25, just told me to stop making pointless edit summaries. My edits are not pointless. So could you please tell him to stop sending me messages about that? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the IP has been blocked in the past for disruption as a long term abuse account. Wondering if that is still the case now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That still is the case now, and he sent me that message on my talk page twice. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through edits, I see that. 6 month block w/o talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 142.105.166.40

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

---

142.105.166.40 (talk · contribs) has twice told users to kill themselves (1, 2), and when warned against vandalism for a since-removed edit to Talk:Lori Lightfoot, they threatened to continue (3). Every other edit they have done has been to remove sourced content they don't like. -- Pokelova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Curious boy

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

---

Hello! It's me, an editor from Nepal. Well, I want a dispute to be solved between me and @Usedtobecool:. This is about a dispute that started after this one. [91] to [92] After this I came here. [93] I accept that when the other side depicted his leftist behaviour, I couldn't control my inner faith of rightism/Liberal democracy. I was a bit rude but this account was my fresh start made per this advice. [94] When the new account was made was the previous account active? Surely not! So, how can I be a sockpoppet then? My accounts were blocked and a made few other accounts thereafter and all were blocked successively. I accept that fact but @Usedtobecool always led a block campaign against me in an authoritarian manner from here onward->.[[95]] This is what I want to be solved. I accept your sincere suggestions. Please see my articles created and there class before judging any further.2404:7C00:43:C931:3DE1:A3EA:B4EC:661 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What? No, seriously, your three links are of discussions from a full year ago. I have no idea what you are complaining about or what you want done. That said, you yourself are making some personal attacks and lacking of good faith. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

IP, you are required to notify the person on their talk. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll note the OP has made some pretty remarkable personal attacks on UTBC and another user at UTBC's talk in the section above the ANI notice. valereee (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is a request to be unblocked it's not very persuasive. Secretlondon (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Fma12 and legal threats and keeplocal

Fma12 (talk · contribs) stated that my actions of opening an SPI investigation were "libellous". I informed the editor of the no legal threats policy, and that warning was summarily reverted with the statement that my SPI request was still "libellous" remaining. The editor has also been importing images I uploaded to ENWP to Commons, then attempting to orphan the local copies on ENWP in favor of his imported versions of my files (they also removed the {{keeplocal}} tags I placed on them). I instructed them to stop being disruptive but they refuse to acknowledge my work or the language on {{keeplocal}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As a long standing editor and more than 68,000 edits, clearly I know the rules. @Locke Cole: accused me of editing as a sockpuppet here and I replied to him considering this an offense for such accusations and expecting an apology from his part. Previously to that, we have been discussing my edits (you can see the entire discussion here where I admit to have commited a mistake on removing the "keeptag" replacing it with a "now commons" template. Nevertheless user Locke Cole insisted on looking for controversy first opening a case at the sockpuppet investigations and then here.

Locke Cole considers that copying a PD file to commons (as I did) is "disruptive" and I have been trying (with no sucess) to explain to him that.

If you read the discussion you can see that I did not threat or made personal attacks Locke Cole. On the contrary, I insisted on being more collaborative so we have interests in common and being engaged in such futile discussion is exhausting for both parts. His behaviour towards me are verging on harassment Fma12 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that as a true legal threat. That said, Fma12, you could stand to dial it back a lot. The belligerence in that conversation and on display here isn't compatible with collaboration, and it's making it harder for me to figure out just what the underlying problem is. It would be helpful if someone involved in this would explain the actual issue here, neither of you has made that especially clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Locke Cole seems to be very angry at what he considers "disruptive": copying files uploaded by him to commons (such as I did with this logo and removing the "keeplocal" tag in the process. What I did and I recognised it was a mistake. Apart from that, he accused me of sockpuppeting. Fma12 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. Yeah, Locke Cole, unless you have some pretty serious evidence of working, I'd suggest you retract it. That would seriously help bring the temperature down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NLT, by word: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect ToBeFree, this is not that. I agree with Blade that it is not a legal threat meriting sanction, but that safe harbor provision is clearly meant for discussions of article contents, not descriptions of editor behavior. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors are not living people? I do see your point though, and I agree that the quoted section is unlikely to have been intended to refer to this situation. We do have WP:ASPERSIONS though, pointing to which might have been better than claiming "libel". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with this I completely agree. Better here if a different adjective were chosen--"insulting," perhaps? In my own very much non-admin opinion, just a general admonition to be better all around and everyone can be on their way. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why were these images not to be transferred to commons? Were they all logos? Is the dispute about whether they are fair use or PD? Secretlondon (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly – I had been watching it on Fma12's talk page for a while without really having something helpful to add and hoping for it to deescalate by itself – this is a matter of personal preference due to bad experiences with Commons. That's not too uncommon; there are users who prefer to upload files locally and would like to avoid interacting with Wikimedia Commons's community and its processes. That's legitimate; WP:F8 contains an exclusion for such files.

I can also understand that replacing these local images by global copies in all articles they appear in is something upsetting to do to the uploader of the local file. If there's no real reason for doing so, asking someone to stop that part of the process isn't unreasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secretlondon:: I uploaded some of those files to Commons (see files 1, 2 but user insisted on tagging them as "keeplocal" instead of the "now commons" tag. I don't know why. Fma12 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If that, in the way you're describing it in this specific sentence, is really the issue, then I can easily explain "why": {{Now commons}} is practically a deletion request while {{Keeplocal}} is the very opposite of it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @ToBeFree:. I did not know that "now commons" was a virtual DR. In fact, I think that moving a file there allows it to be used not only on the en.wiki but on all projects. Beyond of that, it's not clear why user Locke Cole tagged files for "local use" when he's been uploading some of those files to commons, such as GM Deffense and GM SPV logos. I'm a reasonable person and can discuss any topic in a polite manner. But Locke Cole's manners were not (at least from my POV) polite at all, even accusing me of sockpuppeting (a case easily closed due to lack of reliable proof from his part). Fma12 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It categorizes images into Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which has an {{admin backlog}} tag and is generally seen as a category full of files an administrator can spend their free time on reviewing and deleting locally. If images that had been tagged as {{keep local}} appear in this category, they may well end up being deleted in an accidental violation of WP:F8, much more so if {{keep local}} was removed from the image page. The best thing that can happen to such pages is a revert of the template replacement.

I had noticed that Special:Diff/1096697287 was pretty, hm, my dictionary says "upfront"; I'd have said "direct". To the point. It may help to interpret "I don't care" as a good-will gesture rather than an unfriendly one: Stating that Locke Cole doesn't care about the Commons imports by themselves is a limitation of the complaint: What you were doing is generally not being opposed to, only the removal of {{keep local}} was. Your response's first sentence was a suboptimal "First of all, be polite when you're talking to me", which is rarely going to happen if requested in this way. Ironically, the best way to actually request civility, from what I've seen so far, is to restrict the reply to the content/facts without addressing the other user's tone. This forces the other editor to reply to the content/facts rather than giving them something new and off-topic to argue about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your advice (about the tone) for future discussions. Fma12 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fma12 was closed as behaviorally "not too believable" by EdJohnston. I guess a checkuser result would have been "two different continents". Which is not perfect proof but makes the accusation look rather strange in hindsight. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds from the above thread that various parties now more clearly understand 'keep local'. It's my hope that this dispute may be resolved. I can see why a person with 68,000 edits and over fifteen years editing might be annoyed by being named at SPI. Even so, it's better when people avoid the word 'libellous'. Though I seldom work with images, my understanding is that 'keep local' requests need to be handled carefully and any revert war about such tags is going to set off alarm bells. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree and EdJohnston: In addition to the still-intact legal threat on their talk page, they have now taken a work I produced and, instead of using FileImporter, they have uploaded it directly to Commons after downloading the file as c:File:Gm financial logo.svg under their own username without attribution. How would this not be a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL License that all contributions are made under? The Commons file lists https://www.gmfinancial.com/en-us/home.html as the source, but if you review the SVG source code for https://www.gmfinancial.com/content/dam/gmf/header/gmf-logo.svg, you will see the file they've uploaded is different. The local file (File:GM_Financial_(logo).svg) correctly lists the mis-attributed Commons file as a duplicate. From my brief experience with Fma12 on his talk page I understand he does not respect my work or the value I try to provide to this project, but this is totally unacceptable to lay claim to another editors work without attribution. All while still maintaining that simply opening a WP:SOCK investigation given the odd coincidence of this IP making similar edits is somehow "libellous". —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I seem to be looking at public domain logos neither eligible for copyright nor created by either of you, so I don't understand your license violation allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I had said to @Locke Cole: that "spending time looking for an image on the web (or drawing a vector version of a logo) does mean it is "your" work. You are only the uploader, not the original creator". Since this debate started, he has been stating (and acting like) those images were his property instead of PD-textlogos.

@ToBeFree and EdJohnston:: apart of accusing me of being a sockpuppet (even opening a case here, quickly closed because of lack of strong and reliable proof) and "legal threats", user Locke Cole has recently replied me with a "FUCK YOU" on my talk page (here) as his sole (and definitive, I guess) response to my arguments. From the beginning, his behaviour towards me has been inappropriate and less than collaborative. But I didn't expect an insult like that. Discussing with that kind of users in a civilised way becomes impossible. Fma12 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We should perhaps wait a few days to see whether their ragequit is more than yet another temporary userpage statement made out of frustration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry that he has taken that decission, surely after feeling frustrated (and I take his insult as a consequence of that feeling). I agree with you, we should wait. Fma12 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access

2600:1003:B034:4FC2:0:22:E0ED:9201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see here, could an Administrator please revoke their talk page access? Nythar (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

IP just threatened legal action. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Single-IPv6 address block replaced by a /64 block with talk page access revoked, /43 blocked because this seems to be a pretty disruptive habit coming from the range, with comparatively few helpful edits in between. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh, I am sure the IP will have a writ of Id Nihil in no time, and then we'll be in all sorts of trouble. Dumuzid (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

CIR by Pearlharborandmidway

Pearlharborandmidway (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made unexplained and unsourced changes to a number of articles. Of their 2,000 edits, only 3 of them have been on a talk page in any capacity, and those were all several years ago. They've been blocked twice already for previous instances of persistent addition of unsourced content, and since then, they have had plenty of warnings for it on their talk page, but seem to have no interest in changing or even acknowledging this behaviour.

Diffs:

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99] Loafiewa (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. Enough final warnings to publish in hard back. Will leave longer note on their talk. Star Mississippi 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

oh god they're a mobile editor. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, Edit Wars

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

---

User:Nightwalker-87 and User:Joshuarshah are engaging in edit wars and vandalism on multiple pages, including 5G NR frequency bands, LTE frequency bands, Verizon (mobile network), AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile US, and more. In their edit notes, they are accusing multiple users of being sockpuppets, and are reverting people's constructive, sourced edits while replacing the page content with their own unsourced edits. They refuse to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, where several people have asked them to explain their edits. 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Nightwalker-87 hasn't edited in over 24 hours and I don't see any accusations of sock puppetry in their edit summaries for their last 50 edits. Joshuarshah filed an SPI but I fail to see how this is ANI worthy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Nightwalker-87 (talk · contribs) reverted several people's edits with no explanation. Here. and Here. These edits are vandalism, and both users are engaging in edit wars. They reverted people's constructive edits

What do you see here? Looks like an accusation of sock puppetry to me.

Attempts to discuss with them have been unsuccessful, they ignore anyone who disagrees with them. 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And yet you chose not to file an actual edit warring report because you can't even provide diffs. Not to mention that at least one of the editors hasn't edited in over 24 hours now. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I did provide diffs. Didn't see them? Why are you being argumentative? 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided diffs of them edit warring. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

They've reverted several people's edits with no explanation or discussion on the article's talk page. Do I need to revert their edits 3 times to prove that they're edit warring? That's ridiculous. Are you an administrator? Why are you replying to me? 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Because you made a ridiculous ANI thread with no evidence of any of your accusations. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I posted evidence of all of my accusations, actually. I'm sorry that you're having trouble reading them. 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment), (edit conflict) You may want to discuss with them first. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Please read WP:VANDAL so you will no longer feel compelled to use that phrase inappropriately. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Posting their personal opinions with no sources, removing another user's sourced edits, is vandalism. I haven't used anything inappropriately. Thank you! 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you actually read what Dennis linked. Vandalism on Wikipedia requires bad faith, not edits you disagree with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did read it. The edits are bad faith, because those users refuse to engage in discussion on the article's talk page when challenged. Anyone who reverts their incorrect edits are themselves accused of edit warring. 73.128.151.200 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Sexual allegations against a member of The Posies

I'm not much for retaining criminal allegations in the context of a WP:BLP, but these have received a lot of coverage and precipitated the breakup of the group. For the last reason alone, the content is rather integral to an article on the band. A new WP:SPA keeps removing the sourced content in several articles, and claims to be editing on behalf of the accused band member. We need more eyes, and perhaps some administrative assistance. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I second this request, and agree with all statements above. Since the allegations are the known reason of the band's dissolving and well covered, they are worth noting and keeping in my opinion. The SPA in question (at the time of this comment) has complied with the requests not to edit the offending material on The Posies and on Ken Stringfellow, but did actively try in replies to me on their user talk page and on my talk page to get me to remove it for them (I won't). User also seems to have slipped and stated "On a different note, if I might ask if you could please remove any of my information from the pages. I would be appreciative of that." here so if that statement is true, they have a COI. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The account that kept removing the content has been blocked from the articles in question by Cullen328. That's probably enough action for now, unless they take the disruption elsewhere. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

While I began cutting some of the unsourced history from The Posies, a new IP arose to remove the same content from both articles, so further action may be warranted, Girth Summit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see Drmies has blocked the IP from editing the articles in question. Let us know if they come back on a different IP. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with backlog on WP:AIV, please?

A few editors are vandalizing repeatedly. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please ban a user

A user keeps saying nonsense to my talk page. Please visit and block it. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Princess Faye For obvious vandalism you'll get a much faster response at WP:AIV 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Princess Faye: It looks like the IP has been warned and apologized. I don't see where anything else needs done unless they do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Geronimo Virula Medrano El at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano

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

---

• Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please do something about Geronimo Virula Medrano El's edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Velaz de Medrano? I have tried to warn this user about his excessive screeds (re: WP:TLDR) and about AFD format issues, but his edits at this AFD have rendered the discussion mostly unintelligible. He has made an extensive (60K worth) argument for the retention of his article (Andres Velaz de Medrano) and I believe it is time for him to stop arguing to allow any other voices to be heard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

All I did was move your comment down to the "Comments by editors, page publisher and replys", as your reply did not belong at the top of the dispute. I have provided all the sources. Can someone do something about wikidan61? His professionalism is questionable, I am requesting someone who knows more about the topic because it is clear he cannot read what I have provided. He has made clear that it is too much for him to read. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Heavens. I think moving his comments to the talk page and having him make a brief comment (a modest paragraph) summarizing his views and linking to the talk page would be reasonable. That can't stand as is. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

are you serious? Read my sources, look at the citations. This is ridiculous. Stop getting off point. The proof is there. Lesen. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Literally no one is going to read that much information in a deletion discussion; posting that much will do more harm than good. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You're not upholding your duty as a widipedia editor, your purpose is to read my citations and sources. If you or wikidan cannot do that then I am requesting someone else more knowledgeable in the subject. Simple. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Geronimo Virula Medrano El has now reverted me twice, reinstating his preferred (and unreadable) version of the AfD. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You removed my defence and left ONLY my reply to the other editors. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and against the guidelines. You cannot remove my dispute and my citations and sources. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Geronimo Virula Medrano El has just removed my !vote from the discussion, without explanation. [100] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I reverted my previous defense because Mackensen deleted it and wikidan61 went against the guidelines and deleted it. Geronimo Virula Medrano El (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you denying that you removed my post from the discussion? The evidence is plain for all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Actually, it was Mackensen who removed your post in this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, AndyTheGrump's post is still there after Mackensen's edit (the refactoring makes it look like it was deleted and reinserted elsewhere). DanCherek (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Check the page history. I re-added their !vote to the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you restored it after it was deleted by Geronimo Virula Medrano El. This is what the AFD looked like right after Mackensen's clerking and Andy's comment is still there. DanCherek (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, AndyTheGrump and I edit-conflicted but I added his comment and then my own explaining the action I'd taken. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• I endorse Mackensen's clerking of the AfD and have restored it. Further, if GVME were to unclerk the page again, it would warrant a final warning for AfD disruption, with a block on a subsequent offence. —C.Fred (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  …and have just reverted an unclerking and left a level-4 warning. —C.Fred (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• With regard to the Andres Velaz de Medrano article they've created, Geronimo Virula Medrano El (GVME) has stated: Look, this is not a random page. This is a divine genealogical study and declaration of my national forefathers. [101] They believe that this forefather of theirs was a Moorish prince called Abd al-Rahman, firstborn son of the Umayyad caliph al-Hakam II who ruled over Spain in the 10th century. Reliable sources say that Abd al-Rahman died as a young boy, but GVME tried to remove this information from our article twice. [102] [103] When their page on Andres Velaz de Medrano, which revolves around an imagined genealogy and which presents 17th-century Spanish legends as facts, was nominated for deletion, GVME blanked the AfD page. [104]
  But there's more: they've also created the already deleted Draft:Medrano (surname), another article focused on the imagined history of their family. They've twice added the term "Virulaha" to articles without citing a source, [105] [106] and when queried about this they have said that the "Virula" in their username has everything to do with Virulaha. [107] Editors trying to explain to them how Wikipedia works have been on the receiving end of personal attacks (e.g., it i clear that wikidan is only after STARS and to delete people's pages for nothing more than to puff up his ego [108]) and numerous aspersions.
  This is clearly very aggravating for them: they have edited the AfD page 345 (!) times. [109] All in all, I think that this editor is, at this time at least, not here to build an encyclopedia, and that it would be better for everyone if they would be indefinitely blocked from editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Geronimo Virula Medrano El has just made a post on WP:DRN, accusing contributors involved at the AfD discussion of being "sockpuppets and people who are voting in bad faith", while providing precisely zero evidence (not that WP:DRN would be an appropriate place to do so, even with evidence). [110] At this point I'm inclined to agree with Apaugasma above that an indefinite block is appropriate, on more or less all grounds available, starting with basic competence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I've just informed them that bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. I look to see how they respond to that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Their response seems to be further personal attacks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have partially blocked Geronimo from the AfD as they have more than said their piece. The discussion can now hopefully continue to resolution. If someone things further action is required, no issue with my block being ammended. This was to stop the present disruption. Star Mississippi 14:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• The user has been given way too much rope - I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Threats

Can someone please take a look at this and perhaps protect the page?[111] Semsûrî (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected your Talk page for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

User talk:Pielok1990, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:LouisPhilippeCharles, has been leaving me x-wiki abusive messages (1 2 3), including emails of a similar nature. While the insults are mild, they're all very much of a personal nature and given this user's past behaviour I do not believe there is any benefit in them retaining talk page access CiphriusKane (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@CiphriusKane regarding scowiki, we can't help you with that. They appear to have one active admin there, so you may get help at sco:w:Uiser collogue:CiphriusKane. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I'm aware and the situation there has been dealt with, I was merely providing the link for additional context. Also, ye kinda just recommended I contact myself CiphriusKane (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha missed that - that's what you get for being the only active admin on scowiki :D — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've revoked their talk page access. They don't need it anyway as any unblock request should come from their main account (even though they're outright banned). Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

CiphriusKane, cross-wiki abuse is best dealt with by stewards over at meta - you can request global lock here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

185.24.124.71

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

• Got an IP using personal attacks on their talk page, just not WP:NOTHERE basically. Judekkan (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The constant "zionist" stuff was enough for me to block for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced/unreliably sourced caste POV by user User:Virk Khatri along with personal attacks directed towards other editors

User:Virk Khatri has been POV pushing Khatri in the Virk article without reliable sources [112] [113] [114]. After I removed the unsourced contents and restored + expanded the article, the user kept on edit warring [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. Also notice the WP:OWN behaviour and personal attacks against me [120] [121], with one [122] targeted towards a religious group → "Stop polluting Sikh articles with your Castist CuIt you Hindu". While the user has been blocked for 31 hours, I would request stringent actions against them including a possible topic ban. Also note that I've started an SPI here, the users listed having quite an overlap when it comes to Khatro POV push. I'd also request protection of the Virk article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I will indef per WP:ZT for racist/caste-based bigotry. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked a whole bunch of socks over at the SPI. I think this can be closed. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Itzhak Rosenberg/User:Cukrakalnis activity

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

I would like to draw attention to the activities of a user who has a long history of editing in the ethno-nationalist spirit. He was even blocked once for it. He has not stopped his activities. An example is the persistent posting of information in the headline of an article about the fact that Poles in Lithuania, are actually polonized Lithuanians, similar edits in an article about Belarusians. Today he made a series of edits removing information about the Polishness of a number of figures, instead replacing them with information about their Lithuanianness while manipulating the source: Ludwik Narbutt, Zygmunt Sierakowski, Antanas Mackevičius (in first two cases the author used the phrase "bojownicy litewscy"-"Lithuanian fighters" which should be understood as fighting in Lithuania, which is relevant to Sierakowski, who was born in Volhynia; User:Cukrakalnis knows very well that these characters are referred to once as Lithuanians and once as Poles, which is why we use the term "Polish-Lithuanian" to describe them). The most scandalous recent move to publish on Commons maps of pre-war Polish provinces, of which the northeastern ones were described in Lithuanian: Lenkų okupuota, which means "occupied by Poland" (they have already been renamed: 1, 2, 3, 4 Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING from editor 98.155.8.5

• first edit user 98.155.8.5 edits my talk page in an uninvolved discussion with the personal attack "Well that's disturbing". I reverted.
• second edit user 98.155.8.5 restores previous comment and expands explaining that the user was commenting on my talk page due to an unrelated discussion on an unrelated article. Undo again warning of WP:WIKISTALKING and WP:ANI
• third edit user 98.155.8.5 comments again on my talk page this time in a different thread with Levivich but again referencing the previous discussion with Fram. Another personal attack, this time WP:ABF "Sure dude, just like how your comment above about "now that's how you secure a border" was totally innocent, eh? Please.".

Users Levivich and Fram are uninvolved, while I disagree with them I consider their comments to be in good faith and not disruptive. User 98.155.8.5 is an IP the edit history suggests related edits going back as far as February 2022 and has been warned once in the past regarding edit warring. [123]. Seeking WP:IBAN for 98.155.8.5 specifically for the user commenting on uninvolved conversations on my talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi LaserLegs (talk · contribs), and all others reading this. It's true that my first comment to you was rude; I was frustrated and apologize. I came to your talk page because of the stuff happening over at Killing of Jayland Walker where you seemed intent on diminishing Walker's death. You argued it was not a notable incident worthy of a Wikipedia page and that the media was "just in it's usual state of hysteria", you claimed it was not a killing or a homicide, despite the fact that reliable sources reported it as such. You characterized the deceased's behavior as "wild" despite the fact that none of us know what was going on during the car chase, and user Levivich (talk · contribs) clearly made a point in his comments to you about why that is unacceptable on your talk page. You responded, simply: "Thanks for reaching out, but I have zero regrets."

I just don't understand where you are coming from. He came to you in a polite manner, and you couldn't even acknowledge some of his points, which are based on Wikipedia policy! Your coldness and stubbornness are incredibly hurtful. I'm sorry that you seem to have such a negative outlook on things, and appear to lack a bit of civility in terms of relating to other editors who are coming to you in good faith. Yes, Wikipedia is about give and take and sharing multiple perspectives, but when numerous people are repeatedly coming to you and asking you to please tone it down, you just seem to give zero f*cks. Can you at least try to practice a bit of humbleness?

The Killing of Jayland Walker is a high visibility incident. An unarmed black man being fired upon over 90 times. A little bit of empathy on your part would have gone a long way, but you seemed intent on tearing down Jayland Walker, and debating about things that credible, reliable sources are in agreement upon, in order to tell the story in a different way and put Jayland Walker in a negative light.

My point about your previous edits from June that user Fram (talk · contribs) brought up with you — in which there was a rather nasty and incredibly insensitive & callous comment made ("now that's how you secure a border") about 23 Moroccans who died while trying to cross an international border — is that you seem to have a pattern of behavior or bias that should probably be addressed. I really wonder if you just don't like people of color, or maybe you've had some bad experiences earlier on in life or whatever, I dunno ... I wasn't going to outright say that, or assume that, and I still don't truly know your motives, but you dragged me here to the ANI board so I figure it's just best to be honest about what's going on here. Maybe you just like to be inflammatory for some reason?? However you cut it, this way of interacting with other Wikipedians really isn't okay on any level.

Also worth pointing out, is that I'm not the only one who has taken issue with your disruptive and perhaps aggressive conversational style. Just today, user WaltCip (talk · contribs) posted to your talk page, requesting that you "dial it back" on the ITN/C board. You regularly seem to have an adversarial take on things, which is unfortunate. And instead of actually addressing my concerns, or the concerns Fram (talk · contribs) raised regarding your comment about migrant deaths (you never responded to Fram! why?), you took offense and now here we are.

Why is it so difficult to explain about why you thought it was okay to disparage dead, poor, people of color? I'm just concerned about the way you are interacting with folks here. I certainly could have gone about it in a better way, but you really do seem to be holding on to some dark thoughts & feelings, and it really would be better to just be open about some of that and start working on it, rather than blaming those who are bringing these things to light.

I hope this can be a productive conversation, and welcome hearing back from you LaserLegs (talk · contribs). It's too bad you felt the need to request a block, because I've been making many positive contributions to Wikipedia, as have you. I don't like the way you behave, but I also thought it would be better to just bring it up with you rather than to try and get you blocked. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

As an aside about being warned for edit warring, it's true! The page about Jayland Walker was being disruptively edited and vandalized. I am not familiar enough here about how to request page protection, and the edit warring brought the necessary attention to get administrator action on the issue. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has had page protection since the 4th, and it seem distruption has stopped for now. As per WP:OWNTALK if an editor asks you to stop commenting on their talk page, then you should stop. The article talk page is still open for any necessary discussions. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to this thread, and I don't know if the IP intended to seek my opinion or for me to further elaborate on this matter, but I have nothing to say about this specific incident. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• fifth edit, even after being referred to AN/I, continuing to comment on me as an individual in a discussion with which the user is uninvolved. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• LaserLegs (talk · contribs) First off, I was very involved. The discussion is about your behavior over at the Killing of Jayland Walker page. And the point of my comment is that we should be focused on team work here, collaborative effort, and meeting eachother half-way when possible. You do seem to have a problem with that, eh? Any chance you'll be addressing some of the other issues I've raised above? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• • reverted with unambiguous insistence that 98.155.8.5 refrain from joining discussions on my user page or commenting on me as an individual in the future. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi again LaserLegs (talk · contribs) I can agree to that, so long as you keep any insensitive comments to yourself (and tread more carefully on the pages that I'm also editing); especially in regards to people of color and people who have died unfortunate deaths! Please try and have more compassion! I am literally begging you here!!

Would you also agree to please work on some of your stuff, and be a bit more reserved and civil in the future? Your repeated dog whistles are very much not appreciated, please keep those biases to yourself. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• sixth edit where the user suggests that I "please work on some of your stuff" a reference to the editors previous comment where the user suggested "you really do seem to be holding on to some dark thoughts & feelings" thus continuing to discuss me as an individual even after being asked expressly not to do so. Would an admin please step in and issue a WP:IBAN? I'm tired of being WP:HOUNDING on my talk page and having my personality evaluated and commented on by someone who I've never met, and who lashed out at me over good faith edits made to a page that I expected to shortly end up at WP:ITNC. Now the user is demanding that I "tread more carefully on the pages that I'm also editing" as if I owe them some special treatment. Please I just want this torment to end. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• I feel tormented by your insensitive comments as they relate to people of color, how do you not see that? I can agree to not post on your talk page in unrelated comment threads, and to not attack you as an individual; but this has nothing to do with your personality and everything to do with your offensive comments!  This is about actual conduct and rude behavior here on Wikipedia.

LaserLegs (talk · contribs) would you also agree to please be a bit more reserved and civil in the future?

I'm not asking for special treatment, I'm asking for some decency and respect on your part. Can you agree to that? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You really must accept LaserLegs request to stop posting on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK they absolutely have the right to ask you to stop and people have been sanctioned for not respecting such requests. Any behaviour issue of LaserLegs is separate from this, and you are only hurting you argument by continuing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I do accept that (as mentioned above) in my most recent previous comment. Totally fine with not posting to their talk page!

Can you or another administrator please urge them to be more sensitive and civil especially when related to wiki articles & issues pertaining to the deaths of people of color? Levivich already urged them to do so and was disregarded. It would be very much appreciated, and I think it's a reasonable ask in order to minimize toxicity and conflict, keeping Wikipedia relatively safe for everyone who participates and interacts on this platform. Thank you!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Overly aggressive behavior from User:Subtropical-man

While my interaction with User:Subtropical-man has been brief, I have immediately noticed behavior that strikes me as alarming/aggressive.

My good faith edit was removed, in which I corrected the perceived errors of a reversion and submitted a new one explaining my reasoning for the edit in a clear and concise manner. In response, the message on my talk page:

• Assumes I "only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing", stating that my change is not rooted in logic and comes off as incredibly judgmental of my abilities to contribute to Wikipedia
• Discounting my edits due to my edit footprint, indicating that because I have a low edit account I again have "no idea what I'm doing"
• Accuses me of starting an edit war over a single edit (severe escalation/accusation of my behavior)
• Gave me a "last warning" which I assume was an attempt to bully me through a vague/urgent threat, taking advantage of my "apparent" lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes as a new user, considering the user in question doesn't have elevated permissions to take (unnecessary) serious action on my edits

In normal circumstances I would attribute the aggressive rhetoric in their response to the fact that English is not their first language and been more forgiving of the behavior, but looking into their talk page there seems to be a consistent pattern of aggression in their recent edits, resulting in a previous ANI and recent warnings regarding their rhetoric from other users for activity such as that on Talk:Perth. I don't feel like I will be able to engage in a good faith discussion regarding my edits and thought I'd bring their behavior to a more formal audience. Sam Walczak^Talk/_Edits 23:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sam Walczak, you analyze each my word too literally. Maybe my one sentence "You are a new user, you have a very small contribution to Wikipedia [1] and you only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing" is impolite and unnecessary opinion, I just assumed that because you are pushing your version again even though it is debatable. Maybe my comment in your discussion partly contained impolite and unnecessary opinion, but note that most of my text of this comment is an exact explanation of the problem. I consider your change to be wrong as malta has no cities / towns but only administrative units named "local councils". You tried to compare Malta to other countries, but other countries have cities so it's no problem to enter the largest of them into the infobox. Malta is different from other countries because there are no cities. Instead of continuing the discussion, you started a thread in ANI because I wrote a rude sentence. In my opinion, this is an abuse. We both made a mistake - lack of good faith. I invite you to a substantive discussion about the infobox in the article Malta. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out the existence of this. – ².O.^Boxing 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this article breaks the Wikipedia:No original research and totally breaks the Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is either for removal according to Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive, non responsive beauty pageant editor (8 July)

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

SPA editor in pages covered by beauty pageants general sanction is non responsive and continually making disruptive edits. Two warnings from bots went unheeded. Followed by warning #1 from me [124]; warning #2 from me [125]; then reintroduction of bad sources after the last warning [126]. Editor has never replied on their own talkpage or any other as far as I can tell. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb

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

---

Headbomb has been removing all sources by the publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing from articles encyclopedia wide. This seems premature, as no consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion about the publisher at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I personally disagree with the blanket removal of these sources, as many of the authors are notable academics within their respective fields, and these books are in the collections of many university libraries. Further, it seems that some changes have been made to improve the editorial oversight of CSP, so I am not convinced that they should be viewed as unreliable. (I am still making up my mind). Regardless, others at the RS noticeboard discussion have commented on the premature removal of this content and the edit wars and contention it has caused. I respectfully request, that Headbomb be asked to desist removing the sources and reverting editors who object until the relevant discussion has reached a conclusion. Further, it's clear to me that no thought whatsoever, beyond a blanket dismissal of the publisher, was put into the removing of the content. No consideration of the author and their standing as an academic (as we would do when using a Blog as a source per WP:BLOG where it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication.") In short, I doubt Headbomb even looked at the sources themselves but just saw the publisher and removed it. A more thoughtful approach would be better.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please notify any user you start discussions about. I have done so, but please do so in the future. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

They did. DanCherek (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw you notified the user but the message was removed. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint is misleading. First, Headbomb has not been removing all the junk publisher citations; he removed a selection where the material was already attributed to a credible source. Second, Headbomb didn't remove these junk citations in defiance of an ongoing discussion. Rather, the discussion came about later. This is the BRD cycle working as intended. Since this litigation misrepresents what's actually happened, I do not blame Headbomb for not even dignifying it with his participation. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Blocked

51.253.0.0/18 is Blocked By Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.253.75.130 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生 appears to be the blocking admin, the range will need to be widened to 51.253.0.0/16 to catch the latest IP. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

92.16.15.253

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

Most of this IP's unconstructive edits have been reverted by multiple editors (for various reasons). Asking them to stop adding unsourced content fell on deaf ears, just like all the warnings that they received so far. Input on how to make them see sense would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Pinging some of the involved editors (HistoryofIran, Mako001, Dr.Pinsky and Packer&Tracker). M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Most of their edits in the last two days are fine and obviously in good faith. I did see a BLP concern, one I reverted that assigned a religion to someone without a source. Several of the ones I saw reverted were where they just added wikilinks without changing the text, or changed flag size, etc. These might be a pain, but again, I think they are acting in good faith. I have to leave for several hours, so many someone else can look closer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, valid point about the apparent good faith. Their unresponsiveness is rather frustrating though, and they don't seem to have any idea where their talkpage is yet, or that it even exists. It would be worth giving them a proper explanation of exactly what the issues with their editing were, if there was some assurance that they were actually aware of it. As it is, I don't see any point doing so, since they are apparently unaware of what they are doing wrong, or that they are even doing anything wrong. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, their good faith doesn't make their edits any less disruptive, especially when combined with a lack of communication. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Their lack of communication is indeed annoying at times as pointed out by M.Bitton. I thought of adding a Welcome message on their talk page and encourage them to contribute after logging in but apparently they never respond to talk page notices, User_talk:92.16.15.253. I think in their recent contributions; Special:MobileDiff/1097253533 & Special:MobileDiff/1097254823; they haven't been exactly disruptive but certainly not adding much value either to those articles. I second Makoo1 statement, they need a proper explaination on How to contribute constructively to the enclyopedia (WP:AGF) like most newbies and must be great If they do with a account in future, Cheers.Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked. When people have no notion of having a talkpage, the only effective way to help them find it is unfortunately a block. I have blocked the user indefinitely, with a link to their talkpage in the block log. Bishonen | tålk 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC).