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. 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

Bold, or disruptive?

I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.

Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.

CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.

So... any suggestions on the best way to get this obviously-good-faith editor back on track? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that they are editing in good faith, behave civilly, and respond well to criticism of specific edits, but then keep coming back again and again with different angles to push a non-neutral pov into our voting system articles. I'm not entirely sure of their pov but it seems to involve the promotion of range voting and putting down instant runoff voting as an alternative, focused on their application to parliamentary elections to the exclusion of the many other applications of voting systems. For the latest see Talk:Instant-runoff voting § cherry picked and politically-motivated source in lede regarding an incident where they added a neutral and factual statement but chose an unreliable and non-neutral source. See also the other incidents I linked to at dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual majority criterion (2nd nomination), Template:Did you know nominations/Highest averages method, Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem/GA2, and a user talk page thread from last August.

Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

CLC is not a newbie

Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.

I don't see the issue with requesting a move for the primary page—in addition to only requesting it (rather than moving it myself), 4 editors expressed support for moving the page to partisan primary to avoid ambiguity with nonpartisan primary (@Philosopher Spock, @Toadspike, and @McYeee) and making the primary page into either a disambiguation or broad-concept article. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

CLC also started a move discussion on Talk:Smith set, and when I told Lime that we needed sources for the name, not "it makes more sense", they answered Are we not allowed to include "this term makes more sense to normal people" as a consideration at all, when choosing between multiple similarly-notable names? That would certainly have changed my behavior with regard to most of the moves I've made, since generally that's the justification I've used—in all these situations, the page move was from one common name in the literature to another, similarly-common name that I think is more intuitive or memorable to the average person. On a new article, this would make sense, but after 13 years at a title, I think we need a bit more than that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

...huh. TIL there's a completely different policy for page moves than there is for edits. (In body text there's no presumption against changing things—"I think this phrasing is better" is a perfectly valid reason for an edit.) Sorry about that, then. I guess one more question:

Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.

When the policy says "controversial", does this mean something like "someone might like the old title better" (limiting undiscussed moves to stuff like fixing typos)? Or something closer to "the title is often the subject of dispute/disagreement"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, "we're going to have to change the incoming links from several hundredthousand articles" is a decent indication of controversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, then I'm back to being confused; doesn't the redirect left behind handle that automatically? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't that problem caused by tagging the deleted article titled primary election as a disambiguation page and then people making semi-automated edits under the assumption that the tag was correct? Or is this a different incident? McYeee (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any chance that this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr? Specifically the sock Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was very into electoral systems and prolific. The edits here and maybe [1][2] seem particularly striking. (This is not the result of a comprehensive check.) --JBL (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to run a sockcheck, but I don't think our interests overlap much. I think in the first edit we're expressing almost-opposite suggestions, though; I was thinking of using AMS as the name for what most people call MMPR, i.e. the New Zealand/devolved UK system, then expanding the scope of the MMPR article to discuss other kinds of mixed rules. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think CLC is a sock. Judging by the sockpuppet archive, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and his socks seem to have focused considerably more on concrete political figures and Canadian politics, e.g. People's Party of Canada, Kevin O'Leary, and Justin Trudeau. Wotwotwoot (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Some additional notes and corrections on this:

For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections and then moved the article in mid-September,

I didn't rewrite the article much, except for the minimum necessary to change the title. The article was already about partisan primaries. However, at the time the article was written, these were the only kind of primary elections, and so the article did not make a distinction. The title "partisan primary" is more explicit and less likely to cause confusion.

In this case, the move was a response to the semantic drift, with nonpartisan primary having become a common way to refer to the first round of a two-round system, after the states of California and Washington adopted this terminology. The consensus on the talk seems to agree that the majority of the article belongs at "partisan primary", with disagreement about whether the old title of "primary election" should be a disambig or an article (McYee and Toadspike supporting an article vs. PhilosopherSpock preferring a disambig).

changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates.

I believe someone else changed it to a disambiguation page, which is what caused the disruption. I left it as a redirect, which shouldn't have caused any issues. I'm a bit confused by this ANI since nobody seems to have raised any actual objections to the move, just questions about what to do with the redirect that got left behind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

my view is that this editor is an intentional civil POV pusher with frequent diffs, additions, or wholesale rewrites to social choice related pages to make them 1. more focused specifically on political elections rather than objects of mathematical study and 2. to emphasize certain refrains common in the amateur election reform community, namely those around IRV and STV's ability to exhibit certain behaviors, and extended & out-of-place soapboaxing about cardinal utilities vs ordinal

When called out on specific technical concerns this editor is willing to play ball by Wikipedia's rules, but the pattern of behavior shows an extremely clear lack of objectivity and technical expertise. And it is quite the burden of work for other editors to keep up with correcting all the affected articles.

please see Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Lede once again has turned into a soapbox

and associated recent (enormous) diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254146037 that had been actively being discussed on talk page without consensus Affinepplan (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

One particular comment in the thread Affinepplan mentions above is where Lime claims The ANI thread is for the unrelated question of whether I made too many page moves. First, that's not an unrelated question, second, it's the quality of the moves, not the quantity, and third, it's not about if your moves are disruptive, but your editing in general. I'm focusing on the moves in this report because they can do the most damage, but they are hardly the only problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and as an involved editor who finds myself agreeing with Lime about half the time, I'm sure he's civil, but I can't really tell who's doing the POV pushing. McYeee (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Depending on how strict you are about it, you could say either all of us or none of us are, which is why I usually try to avoid discussions like "XYZ is POV-pushing". Even if the other person is completely correct about everything, it's a fact of human nature that I'm going to feel like anyone who disagrees with me is a biased POV-pusher. Much better to instead focus on whether the content itself is up to scratch and adequately-sourced. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good initial position, but as the civil POV pushing page suggests, it may be insufficient when facing a determined POV pusher. POV pushers can wear down other editors by sheer persistence, and such actions can't be rebuffed by just looking at the content in isolation. Wotwotwoot (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or no, CLC's editing at Instant-runoff voting continues to be out of control. Today, after being reverted for an 11k-character addition to the lead (!) with the reverting edit summary being "30 references in the lede, skipping levels of header - please review WP:LAYOUT" their response was to reinstate even-longer versions of the same changes, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @SarekOfVulcan reverted some of my changes on the grounds that I'd accidentally skipped levels in headers (i.e. went straight from 4→6), as stated in the edit summary. As a result, I reinstated the changes after correcting the formatting errors. If Sarek has some other disagreement regarding the content of the page, he can undo my edit and explain why he still dislikes the new version in the edit summary. (By the way, I did it twice because a user complained about the length of the restore the first time. I self-reverted the page back to Sarek's version, then broke the edit into two chunks to create an easier-to-read diff.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

see also the re-addition here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254208089 of a reverted diff due to POV concerns without having reached consensus in an active topic on the talk page Affinepplan (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on Electoral systems

I believe, fundamentally, that actions speak louder than words, even in a place like Wikipedia, a very huge collection of words where words are kinda the point.

My now months-long interactions with CLC have generally been more about how this editor edits, although what they've added or removed has also been a feature.

• From day one, this editor has made large, sweeping changes (frequently more than 5000 characters and often more than 10,000) with little to no edit summaries. Those large edits frequently span multiple article sections, making it very hard for other editors to review them.
• They have removed sourced content without any explanation or sourcing to explain why the original content is not valid. (removed in this again large edit, partially restored by me here)
• They have, either deliberately or inadvertently, ignored or misinterpreted guidelines such as MOS:BOLDSYN (such as here)
• Even before they moved a years-long stable article that is the straw that broke many other editors' backs and led to this entry at ANI (Instant-runoff voting to Ranked-choice voting), they attempted to make "Ranked-choice voting" the lead "title" of the article, as seen here.
• They have introduced factual errors which can easily be refuted by consulting sources—see the changes to the formula used to calculate the Droop quota in this (again, massive, multi-section) edit (something that may have been able to be avoided if their edits were smaller).

At every turn, I and other editors have attempted to point out the inconsistencies and problems with not just the content of CLC's edits but also how those edits have been made. Over months. All of this feedback, all the requests for discussion and consensus, have fallen on very deaf ears.

So as far as assuming good faith goes, CLC has had that, by a mile. And however conciliatory and reasonable this editor may be able to make themselves sound, if you look at the timestamp of that comment and then compare that to the timestamp of Sarek having opened this discussion here, you can also see a related pattern.

Then you just have to look at the actions CLC has taken while this ANI discussion has been happening. They have continued to edit in the same way and they have continued to edit one of the very same articles that was highlighted in this ANI entry. They have continued their problematic editing in other electoral system–related articles throughout this process. Those actions do not speak of someone who respects this process or respects the norms and guidelines of the larger project. So ultimately, I don't care at this point what CLC says—I care about what they do. And what they have done, and continue to do, is be disruptive and dismissive of anyone who attempts, however nicely, to get them to course correct while spouting empty apologies and promises of modifying their behaviour and blaming it all on being a new editor when they get called out.

Given all this, a move restriction is not a suitable action to fix the many issues. The recent "bold" move of Instant-runoff voting is a symptom of the problem, not the underlying issue. I believe a substantially lengthy topic ban for CLC around any articles to do with electoral systems is the only remedy at this point other than a full ban. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I entirely concur with your summary. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I will summarize the complaints in the bullet points here.

1. In my first few months of editing, my edits were too long and changed more than one section of an article.
2. 8 months ago, when I'd just started editing, I didn't use an edit summary while slimming down an article.
3. I made bolding and formatting mistakes.
4. While making an edit incorporating information from an older version of the article (the one titled RCV), I accidentally placed the old title at the start of the article.
5. I supposedly introduced a mistake into an article 5 months ago. (I'll briefly note that consultations with sources here, here, or here all disagree this is a mistake.)

I find this particular quote surprising:

At every turn, I and other editors have attempted to point out the inconsistencies and problems with not just the content of CLC's edits but also how those edits have been made. Over months. All of this feedback, all the requests for discussion and consensus, have fallen on very deaf ears.

I received no feedback on any of these edits; you won't find any discussion of them on talk. Whenever I did receive feedback I quickly incorporated it, e.g. when I received a notification telling me I'd been reverted with this edit summary, I took it and broke it into much smaller chunks. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

> I received no feedback on any of these edits;

you absolutely have. please don't try to gaslight the readers of this thread. multiple authors (including myself) have given you quite direct feedback on multiple occasions

for example, this thread on your User Talk Page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Closed_Limelike_Curves&diff=prev&oldid=1243047873 where @Superb Owl was attempting to give you some good feedback, but you chose to argue back and blame other editors instead of accepting the feedback. Affinepplan (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I support whatever disciplinary action is deemed necessary - I think it is an opportunity to help CLC grow as an editor Superb Owl (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there has been problematic editing by CLC, and that action is warranted. I think a "substantially lengthy topic ban" could be too severe, though, depending on how one defines "substantially lengthy". @Joeyconnick: approximately how long did you have in mind? -- RobLa (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi RobLa—I have no idea what the standards are for lengths of topic bans. I feel like something in the range of weeks is not going to have sufficient impact, so something in the "x months" range is what I was thinking. It looks like many of the ones listed at WP:EDRC are indefinite, and the ones that aren't are 6 months to a year, so 6 to 12 months seems reasonable to me. I'm sure any admin would have a better idea of what might be suitable and I would defer to them; this is one of the few ANI discussions I've participated in and I freely admit I'm not familiar with how they go and what the norms are. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick, thanks for the thoughtful response. I think the goal is rehabilitation rather than punishment, since I think they have made some valuable contributions, and could be good for the long-term health of the project. My hunch (both from their editing here and on electowiki) is that they are perennially impulsive and impatient, and that short punishment will seem like an eternity to them, and a long ban from the topic they are most passionate about may send a message that we want to burn the bridge with them (which I hope we don't). I also don't know what is typical/customary, but my inclination would be to have a shorter topic ban (e.g. 3 months or maybe even shorter), but with a much longer probationary period after that. If after having their electoral editing privileges restored, they resume problematic behavior, I'll be likely to concede that I was wrong about them, and a much longer topic ban (e.g. measured in years or even indefinite) should be considered. Does that seem reasonable? -- RobLa (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds really fair and I appreciate you explaining your rationale so thoroughly—I'm sure that is helpful for everyone following, not just me. I think the probationary period after, not something I had considered or realized was possible, will hopefully help keep things on track. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm admittedly just winging it myself. It would seem that "probation" or "supervised editing" is an editing restriction that is sometimes imposed, and that we can impose whatever restrictions we feel we can get consensus on. It would be helpful if @Closed Limelike Curves weighed in with an effective apology followed by a suggestion for what measures seem fair to them. -- RobLa (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Supervised editing is solely based on the editor that you are supervising. I have seen it done on a now community blocked editor who failed to listen to the person who was looking after their edits and would consistently argue with them. However, it could work out if the editor that is being supervised is not hostile and I don't think CLC gives that behavior. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting supervise Lime? McYeee (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@McYeee, I am not suggesting that it should happen but just telling that it can be a very problematic option. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you; my threading was bad. If anyone here still supports supervision, I would appreciate their answer to my question, but I get that you have not expressed that support. McYeee (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Joey's complaints about my edits prior to September are perfectly spot-on. They were disorganized, long, spanned several sections, rarely included edit summaries (only ~40%), and included frequent formatting errors. (Well, given the extreme length of WP:MOS, chances are I'm still making formatting errors.) I can understand Joey's frustration, particularly given there's a few cases where I've accidentally re-introduced MOS errors after Joey fixed them (after missing his edit summaries).

I also strongly agree with Joey's comment that actions speak louder than words. To give an example of this: after Joey brought the lack of substantial edit summaries to my attention back in July, my use of edit summaries went up from ~40% up to over 95% (according to xtools). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a similar tool for edit length, but since reading his comments, I've made a substantial effort to try and limit the scope of my edits (typically to only one section). If you still feel some of my edits are difficult to review despite this, please feel free to revert and let me know so I can correct this. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed move restriction

I'd like to suggest that Lime be restricted from moving any pages until they demonstrate that they understand when pages should and should not be moved. At Talk:Preferential voting, they just suggested moving the dab page to a (disambig) title and redirecting it to Ranked-choice voting, because TL;DR is that it looks like the majority of searches for PV are from Australia, which uses it to mean RCV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggested the page instant-runoff voting/RCV is the primary topic, because "preferential voting" is overwhelmingly an Australian term used to mean RCV. I raised this issue on the talk page for discussion and did not move the page myself. How would that be disruptive? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that proposing to move a page on a talk page should not be used as a basis for imposing a restriction on moving pages -- seeking consensus like this is what we should be encouraging. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking, or starting a move discussion, isn't what I'd consider disruptive. My concern is that Lime might go "ok, one person agreed with me, nobody else said anything, we're good" and moving a long-standing article title without any further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable thing to comment on the talk page, to make sure it doesn't happen. On the other hand, restricting a user's move privileges because they hypothetically could have used them incorrectly, but didn't, seems bizarre; if anything, seeing an editor ask for consensus shows they're less likely to move pages incorrectly.

(And is "one person agreed with me" never enough to declare consensus, even for minor moves? At the extreme, I don't think correcting typos requires any discussion on talk. I'd like more clarity on exactly how much consensus is needed for different page moves, ideally with examples.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are about 80 thousand examples of move discussions if you search for "Requested move" but usually the easiest thing to do would be to start one and list it at WP:RM (well a bot does that for you, you just need to use the template).You get free examples that way, and only in pages that you're interested in, and as an added advantage if anyone gets dragged to ANI it would likely be someone else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a very nice advantage for sure :) I'll keep it in mind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m a fairly green editor and I find it very instructive to read and participate in open move discussions at WP:RMC and see how they are closed. You’ll see what’s controversial, the numerous policies and other considerations that support a title change/move, and how consensus is assessed. Typically if there is low participation or opinions are mixed a request is relisted or closed without moving. Moves are rather drastic changes and often arguments that might have been persuasive if we were deciding what to name a brand new article aren’t enough to change a stable title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

PirateWires Wikipedia Investigation (Administrator Notice)

I am wanting to give a notice that Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months. The long news article includes several editor names and possible (I say possible as I am not casting accusations myself) violations of canvassing/coordinated efforts on Wikipedia as well as on Discord in regards to the Israel–Hamas war.

I am not, myself, accusing anyone and wished to bring this to the attention of administrators for further investigation to see if this article has ground to stand on or is baseless. The editors directly mentioned in the article will receive an AN/I notice as the news article itself accuses them of violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have done no further investigation and am just simply doing the initial alert to the matter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement "Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months" is inaccurate. As I have said elsewhere, I see the primary utility of articles like this as

• a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect
• a way to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Wikipedia's systems either directly or by employing external vectors.

The Tech for Palestine group is probably worthy of some investigation however, but as I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Canvassing, this does not appear to have happened, or at least no one has presented any evidence at the PIA5 discussions or at AE about individual accounts.

For background see the ongoing discussions about a possible PIA5 case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral).

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Now see, I did not know it was already being discussed in ArbCom/other places already. That pretty much answered that. This discussion (on AN/I) can be closed as it seems there is already something being looked into and my alert was just late to the party more or less. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The "investigation" is heavily based on material published at WP:ARCA. There's not a lot new out of it. It's extremely lazy journalism if you could call it that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of interest, and setting aside the casual defamation, I will be trying to track the effects within the PIA topic area. These kinds of articles are not unusual, but this particular one is quite a nice sharp external signal. So, it may be possible to see the effects as the information impacts the topic area and editors. I have seen this and this so far. "already being discussed" is maybe the wrong way around. There is discussion about a possible PIA5 case. The discussions have included quite a lot of statistical evidence. Unless it is a coincidence, I assume the article was produced to provide external pressure on ArbCom to reduce the likelihood of them not taking the case. So far me, as someone interested in the complicated dynamics of the PIA topic area, it is quite an interesting development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for each of the editors involved in the ARCA discussion around PIA5 to be asked to confirm or deny whether they had any involvement in the Pirate Wires article? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so and I'm not sure what this would achieve or what the goal with this questioning would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody needs permission to ask questions in the PIA5 discussion and hope for open and honest answers. I have already asked BilledMammal since the article uses some of their data. If they have some background/context, they can share it openly, or they may know nothing about it and be surprised by the way their work has been used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland, that seems reasonable. Do you know whether the second analysis in the Pirate Wires article - on co-editing - was also prepared by a user and discussed at ARCA? It is a nonsense analysis of course - it would look much the same if you cherry picked a similar number of editors who spend time in any topic area. But the interesting question is whether that analysis was prepared by Ashley Rindsberg (the write of the Pirate Wires article), or by someone else. And how did they know how to pull the underlying data? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Zero0000 asked something similar here so you can see my answer there. I hope the analysis wasn't done by anyone allowed to edit Wikipedia because it is horrifyingly dopey, the kind of thing that would get you immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't know how the data was generated but the account list obviously comes from BilledMammal's list of accounts that have made 100 or more edits within the topic area since 2022. But the connection between the authors "amongst top 30 members of this group" statement and reality is not obvious to me e.g. why is Surtsicna there? They might be quite surprised to learn that they are pro-Hamas Wikipedia hijacker and might consider it defamatory and want the author to pay for them to buy a new nicer house or maybe a new car. It's easy enough for someone with access to generate page intersection counts for 30 accounts and produce a crosstab with code and share it as a google sheet, or maybe someone foolish did it manually using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In February, an explicitly coordinated effort was launched when leaders on a group called Tech For Palestine (TFP) — launched in January by Paul Biggar, the Irish co-founder of software development platform CircleCI — opened a channel on their 8,000-strong Discord channel called “tfp-wikipedia-collaboration.” In the channel, two group leaders, Samira and Samer, coordinated with other members to mass edit a number of PIA articles. The effort included recruiting volunteers, processing them through formal orientation, troubleshooting issues, and holding remote office hours to problem solve and ideate. The channel’s welcome message posed a revealing question: “Why Wikipedia? It is a widely accessed resource, and its content influences public perception.”

Uh, I am not an Israel-Palestine DS/GS understander, but I seem to remember when GSoW, EEML, etc did this we responded with something other than "close the ANI thread within an hour and tag the journo's page with {{notability}}". Is this being addressed at the arb case?? jp×g🗯️ 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's because there is existing precedent for dealing with this in the PIA area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I agree enforcement is needed if there is an active lobbying group.

It may be that Samisawtak and BilledMammal can help with the investigation, as it seems they have previously been looking into this "tfp-wikipedia-collaboration". Per Samisawtak's edit page summarizing their 347 total edits, 159 were made at User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, 6 were made at User:BilledMammal/Samisawtak/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, and 1 was at User talk:Samisawtak/sandbox/tfp Wikipedia collaboration/Lily Greenberg Call.

Looking further All 17 editors who worked on User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration may be able to help.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Samisawtak is one of the editors involved in running the group. As for the article itself, it misses the actual issues with the group:

1. It is affiliated with an actual EEML-style mailing list, to the extent of coordinators recruiting for the list on the channel
2. It is used by community-banned editors, who have since being blocked engaged in the off-wiki harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors, to request edits be made - requests that are acted upon
3. It instructs non-ECP editors to make edits in the topic area

BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, are you able to provide a list of the community-banned editors? I am always looking for test data from these kinds of actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what I can provide without violating WP:OUTING, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about the Wikipedia rule that even connecting 2 anonymized strings across the on-wiki/off-wiki boundary is treated as a form of outing, a rule so strange to me that I can't even remember it. Nevermind then. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: agree that is for a private investigation by the proper authorities. In the meantime, please could you explain why they were using your user subpages for their work? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

They weren’t. They deleted those pages in an attempt to cover their tracks; I had them restored to my user space. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, I would say, no, the Tech For Palestine group is not being addressed in the PIA5 discussions in any detail, although it has come up. Some information about the group has been available since last June I believe, or thereabouts. One thing that is interesting about the Discord screenshots for me is statements like "I have been levelling up on WP by doing quite a few simple edits". This is what a lot of people do of course to cross or tunnel through the ARBECR barrier, but I would like to know whether this kind of "levelling up" activity is being done inside or outside of the topic area and whether the accounts have EC privileges or not. Most of the topic area is not EC protected. Many edits by non-EC editors in the topic area are given a pass/not noticed because they are "simple edits" or look/are constructive. This is a backdoor that is probably being exploited by activists and ban evading sockpuppets every day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I learned about this article and thread because WeatherWriter pinged me on my talk page. I'm sure there will be a proper investigation but just want to preemptively say that I have never heard of TFP, do not work in tech, and don't even have a Discord. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have heard of TFP, and despite being one of the top 30 members of a powerful pro-Hamas group hijacking Wikipedia, and despite having okay tech skills, I did not even receive an invitation to join the group. This is the kind of thing people with feelings tell me can feel hurtful. I admire your optimistic 'I'm sure there will be a proper investigation' attitude, a view that I do not share. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Say what? This seems extremely farfetched and far too convenient to be true.

Given that the vast majority of this world's population aware of the Israel-Hamas War statistically seem to be against the human rights violations that are happening to the Palestinians, and this is the international version of Wikipedia, isn't it far more likely and reasonable that a larger amount of Wikipedia editors would simply also share this viewpoint, whereas the editors who support the actions of the government of Israel would, without external backing, be considerably fewer in number, whereas the cited news article in question is a doctored, possibly Mossad-ordered, smear campaign in order to get almost all hindrances out of the way, so any sources that the Israeli government doesn't like can quickly be discredited and banned from any usage, especially Al Jazeera, and then remove virtually all public documentation of ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity from all Wikipedia pages related to the ongoing conflict? David A (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not describe the hypothesis outlined here as likely, nor as reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This would assume that there are no editors willing to push back on what appears to be an active whitewashing/disinfo campaign, which doesn't pass the laugh test in the PIA area or on Wikipedia in general. Again, this has come up before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems like the kind of product produced by one or more fools for the sizable credulous fool market rather than by smart professionals in the IC. I assume the author's main objective could simply be engagement/chasing clicks, but the objective of anyone who helped them to produce the product, and that 'anyone' could be no one of course, is not obvious to me. It might become clearer over time. For example, it is already being used to undermine confidence in RfC closures and argue for relitigating RfCs, which is quite interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I should add that in my experience, play-acting being a part of the Israeli IC doing important collection work is quite a common feature of anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists interested in Wikipedia, and it is a comedy goldmine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there have been a few separate quite recent attempts to completely remove the English version of Al Jazeera as a reliable source in the past, as well as at least one attempt to remove +972 Magazine as well, so if this "journalist" succeeds in getting most of the editors who are against human rights abuses against Palestinians banned en masse, without any reliable evidence, that effort could easily be resumed by others and passed this time around. Then again, I have an overactive pattern-recognition. David A (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A difference, I think, is that the arguments made to challenge the reliability of sources like Al Jazeera here tend to resemble the product of rational actors, whether you find them persuasive or not, rather than someone off their meds with paranoid dreams of anti-editor pogroms. Where are the Fred Fishers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies if I went too far with the paranoia then. There has been quite a lot of agitation against Wikipedia from news and social media that support the Israeli government recently, and I have even been subjected to a few death threats here in Wikipedia because of it. David A (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not you David A, the author of the article. The lack of clarity in my comments, kindly brought to my attention by Zanahary, is apparently never going to improve. Yes, editing in the PIA topic area can include a free death threat package thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists. This package deal appears to expire though as I don't receive them anymore. The attacks on Wikipedia and editors will no doubt continue, and probably escalate. My view is that being attacked personally, defamed or whatever is not interesting. Don't let it distract you from continuing to do things that interest you here. The topic area needs as many editors as possible with a diverse set of biases and source sampling strategies to avoid an article neutrality version of this problem when population size n is too small. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland:

thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists

FYI, this behavior goes in both directions. From what I've seen, the unacceptable behavior on the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel side is also more organized; for example, the covert canvassing on the pro-Israel side was organized by a single LTA spamming emails, while on the pro-Palestine side it is an organized group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt there are attacks and all sorts of shenanigans from both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, I haven't been attacked by anti-Israel/pro-Palestine activists apart from the odd outlier, so from my perspective I must be doing something wrong. From my observations going back over a decade, it's just an objective fact that anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activism that targets Wikipedia and editors exists, has organized and lone-wolf components, has involved on-wiki and off-wiki individuals and multiple organizations (e.g. CAMERA and NGO Monitor) including multiple state sponsored influence operations. The pro-Palestine/anti-Israel activists will presumably learn from their opponent's mistakes and will probably have the capacity to dwarf pro-Israel activities if they choose that path. Visibility into these systems is obviously very limited, so it's hard to say anything sensible about the extent and effects, which may be small right now. Either way, Wikipedia is stuck in the middle and needs better countermeasures. Or maybe just let it go as it is an expensive problem Wikipedia does not have the tools to solve right now. I'm curious what would happen if part of the topic area was set aside for the activists and ban evading types to do whatever they want without ECR or sanctions with disclaimers added to the articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add the caveat that I'm very skeptical about my ability to understand or say anything accurate anything about the topic area because it's too complicated, and that skepticism even includes being unsure whether promoting things like civility, collaboration, social harmony is the best approach to produce the best articles in the long run. The topic area is apparently more attractive to new editors that Wikipedia in general (assuming this is accurate) and they very often don't come here for social harmony. Maybe lots of randomness and conflict would work better in the long run. I have no idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that at least in my case it isn't about being a tribalist and anti-Israel. It is about being pro-human rights (and animal rights) in general, and that I both believe in matter of fact reliable information being publicly available, as well as "not in my name" and "never again for anyone", the latter meaning that I don't want any innocent blood on my hands, even indirectly by association. David A (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, for many people out there, including journalists and people with an apparent elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation, just following Wikipedia's rules can be indistinguishable from being anti-this or pro-that. The way for people to improve Wikipedia is for people to make the effort to learn the ropes, become editors and follow the rules. But apparently that is not as fun as complaining, attacking people, coming up with conspiracy theories etc. People love that stuff. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Like what, just have a /b/ where the pro- and anti- guys on any given topic are allowed to go hogwild and rack up 500 reverts a day and nobody gets blocked for acting like a clown? It doesn't seem like it would fix anything, but if nothing else I guess it would be amusing. jp×g🗯️ 18:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• If admins want to investigate Tech for Palestine, I welcome it. Separately, we shouldn’t assume editors simply editing in ARBPIA are part of some coordinated campaign. Evidence is needed. I am neither involved in Tech for Palestine or a coordinated ARBPIA campaign. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Just opened an AE thread related to this. [3] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why so many bytes are being wasted over a screed published in Mike Solana's blog by an author whose main literary output seems to be decrying the hwokes of Wikipeda. This "investigative report" is a nothing article from an unreliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wait, isn't Mike Solana the guy who shot Andy Warhol? EEng 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  LOL That was Valerie Solanas - Mike Solana is just one of Peter Thiel's pet neoreactionary doofuses hangers-on. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since Warhol was shot 20 years before Mike Solana was born, you could be right. EEng 21:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, here are a couple reasons:

  1. Nobody except Wikipedia editors gives a whit what we say about news outlets on our internally-maintained list of which sources are and aren't acceptable to use in mainspace articles. They do not stop existing because we write that they are bad on a project page. People still read them.
  2. If a screed says we did something dumb, and it is completely full of crap, then we should ignore it.
  3. If a screed says we did something dumb, and it is correct, then we should fix it.

  It's as shrimple as that. jp×g🗯️ 18:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion might be running out of steam but it seemed ridiculous that the bulk of the discussion here happened outside of an archived complaint on ANI. So, I reverted the closure of this discussion which happened prematurely. From my years of experience on Wikipedia, I don't see an "investigation" taking place here unless some editor or admin is willing to devote the time to preparing a case request for ARBCOM. That is the only forum that is structured for an investigation and it will definitely not happen as a result of a discussion on ANI. ANI is best for bringing to light urgent situations that need swift action or a community decision. Not an in-depth investigation. Close this discussion when you think it is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by Político World

Político World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You may get a faster response at WP:AIV. DonIago (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago: - I have previously been asked not to bring reports of unsourced content to AIV, as anything that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the severity, persistent BLP violations or rapid widespread insertions are usually disruptive enough to be reported there. Getting back to this specific case, given the transparent gaming of AC and their failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, they should at the very least be blocked from mainspace until they engage with community concerns. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Político World has been globally locked and indef blocked as a LTA on the Spanish Wikipedia, but the similarly named Político FS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still editing the same article. Waxworker (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if username also violates WP:USERNAME. See Politico. Borgenland (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The network/kid's show space has a lot of these types of 'corporate name mix' vandals, so this has to be a sock of one of them, but which one I'm not sure just on a quick read. Nate • (chatter) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the accent on the first "i", I'm thinking that it's a rather the word "politics" in one of the Romance languages. Español? It's obviously not affiliated with the webpaper Politico or anything. not an Admin BarntToust 21:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Implicit threat to contact employer

Hello,

Roberto221 has implicitly threatened to contact my employer.

On a number of occasions, he has uploaded non-free depictions of coats of arms of Roman Catholic bishops using, in my estimation, improper licensing - free versions may be made, and there are indeed thousands of them made by various Wikipedia heralds; moreover, he uploads them using {{Non-free seal}} which concerns government entities. I have, as such, requested speedy deletion on a number of these uploads that seems to be improperly licensed, most recently File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg. In response to my most recent request, Roberto221 stated "Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him.." (cf. revision). I am a Catholic priest and this implicit threat to contact my bishop, an attempt to disrupt my employment based on good-faith efforts, is very worrisome. I would like it addressed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.

Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree that Roberto221's implied threat to contact an employer was uncivil and unnecessarily escalatory, particularly given that it was over good-faith speedy tagging of likely copyvios. I think a simple warning to avoid similar comments is in order. Since no effort appears to have been made to release private information, I do not believe additional action beyond that is necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be good form for Roberto221 to retract the threat to contact a bishop. While not exactly the same as a legal threat, it has a lot in common with one in terms of its chilling effect on editing, and should be considered unwelcome for the same reasons. Certainly, it should be clear that any attempt to double down or act on this threat is grounds for an indefinite block: Wikipedia disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, not through threats of offline discipline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new policy, WP:No episcopal threats. EEng 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We can pair that with WP:No threats of divine retribution _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly agree that this is completely unacceptable behavior clearly designed to intimidate. This is now how we resolve disputes, if Roberto221 can acknowledge that an maybe strike out the offending comment that would be great. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that any threat to escalate to one's higher authority (an employer, police, or religious authorities) warrants a 4im warning at best and an indef more usually. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Despite the comments here all day, no one had posted a warning to editor Roberto221's user talk page so I have done so. Discussion at ANI isn't effective if no action is taken to inform editors that behavior is unacceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverend, Once again you have failed to grasp the concept of non-free. It was uploaded as a non-free file with its use limited to ONLY one page as any other non-free file. If you keep persisting on these attacks, then I will have no recourse but to bring this up with the editors/admins. Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him..

Regardless of the situation with the coat of arms, this was a completely asinine and unnecessarily belligerent escalation, and should not be done under any circumstances. It is fine (and desirable) to escalate a dispute to other editors, or to a noticeboard such as this one; it is absolutely not permissable to escalate them irl. Editors here are free to speak the truth, and to edit without partiality, on the basis of pseudonymity -- this is an obvious threat to carry out WP:OUTING. On the basis that there may have been a simple lack of understanding of the seriousness of the policies involved here, I am giving them a single warning -- anything like this in the future will result in a block. jp×g🗯️ 00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait... Do you suppose maybe he wanted a word with the bishop about nonfree will? EEng 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Calvinism and Arianism both on the WP:ANI at the same time, what a time to be alive ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Modifying a closed discussion to directly accuse another editor of bad faith

The editor @Trulyy has modified a closed discussion on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe in order to directly accuse me of bad faith edits. This editor, and others, has taken issue with my cautioning of other editors to remain neutral in their point of view when writing content for the article. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Without going deeper into what is getting to be a fairly messy content dispute, this at least is accurate: Trulyy modified a hatted discussion by adding an extra edit that was unsigned that was a comment purely about Rob Roilen some nine hours after it was closed. They should knock it off.

What I am also concerned about is that Trulyy has apparently gotten in the habit of mislabeling substantial edits as "minor," frequently when it's in a heated conversation involving ongoing political topics. This was labeled minor, as was a substantial edit about Ken Paxton's edits in a capital punishment article [4], adding a sentence describing a murder as an example of missing white woman syndrome [5], adding new content discussing Rich Lowry's use of a racial slur [6], adding new content quoting a Jack Posobiec comment and describing it as a thread of violence [7], and so on. While it's not worth more than a trout the first time, I'd remind Trulyy that WP:MINOR is only to be used on superficial changes to spelling, grammar, or structure, or blatant vandalism (or the result of a rollback) that nobody could reasonably argue with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your contribution. I cleared up my reasoning for making the aforementioned comment a couple minutes ago. In regards to why it was purely about that user, it was because he was the dissenting user who did not understand what everyone else in the thread seemed to understand.

The article was, from all times I observed it, written from a neutral point of view, using objective language. Just because it was regarding negative actions, such as making jokes about racial stereotypes, does not mean it was edited in a negative tone. From what I gather you understand that, but I am letting you know just to clear up some of Rob's concerns. After reading the article, the reader was given the opportunity to make their own conclusions, not opinions given to them by the editor. As one user put it:

Buddy, you're trying to whitewash the article. NPOV doesn't mean "the comedian who was racist should have his page scrubbed clean, otherwise it's not neutral".

In regards to labeling substantial edits as minor, I apologize for doing so, I have not read up on all of wikipedia's rules in a while and was not completely familiar with what constituted a minor edit by wikipedia's standards, so thank you for informing me so I can do better. Trulyy (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was just talking about the two issues (the one brought up and the one I saw). That whole talk page could definitely use a lower temperature, but I didn't mean to convey the idea that I thought that was your fault; it was simply meant as a general observation. If you will just leave hatted conversations be and be careful with that minor edit checkbox, that's certainly enough for me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your concern. I am not used to editing talk pages, this is maybe the third time I've edited a talk page, and as the thread I was trying to reply to was at the bottom, I did not take the time to scroll to the top to see the discussion was locked. Furthermore, when trying to post my reply in the locked discussion, I got an unclear error rather than an explanation of why I couldn't post, so I assumed it would be fine for me to edit it directly.

I'm regards to 'accusing you of bad faith edits', I don't recall doing such a thing, but what I do know is you repeatedly tried to edit a withstanding edit because you didn't feel the source was reliable, when it is listed as one of wikipedia's reliable sources. You were presented by several users with references explaining that your opinion on what a reliable source was does not trump wikipedia's lasting standards, and if you disagree with that to bring it up in the appropriate area, not in an edit war on a random page. Nonetheless, you continued to delete other information because you thought the sources unreliable, even though they are approved and acclaimed sources.

No one took issue with your notices. Several times you tried to bring up completely irrelevant arguments such as argument from authority when nothing remotely resembled such a thing.

As for disrespect and assuming bad faith, you started, from the get-go, doing that as seen below:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost. You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact. What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Trulyy (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, your inability to assume good faith and engage in a civilized manner with other editors can be observed in the following thread:

collapsing long, undifferentiated copy-paste
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reason that the article is locked due to arbitration enforcement by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It is also because of multiple unsourced additions to the article and additions of contentious topics without a reliable source. There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source to talk about it and the editor adds information from that article and puts it in there. If you think that it is an issue, you can go to the arbitration committee directly. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source" Do you not see how problematic this is? When the mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition. I think you guys need to take a long look at Argument from authority Like I said, this is just going to end up in a loop where privileged Wikipedia users block anyone else from making edits while pointing to The Rules and shrugging. Absolutely zero accountability. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If you have an issue with it, you can start a thread at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Telling me anything isn’t gonna get you anywhere because I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources. “Privileged” editors are editors who were chosen by the community to bring out their best of their ability to uphold the policies and guidelines that were made and written by the community themselves. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources" - @Cowboygilbert And there it is, openly admitted. What a shame, Wikipedia deserves better. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) @Rob Roilen, It’s because I trust editors who have spent time and time again trying to find the reliability of sources and the effort that they have taken to try to find it. I trust editors like I trust others in my life. If you want to continue to argue with me, I will simply just ignore you. I don’t care about arguing, I care about talking, if I have an editor coming to me to talk about the reliability than I would give them the policies and information that other editors in the community have written and produced to be able to teach the future of editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If the left tries to use jokes made by a comedian as sort of political weapon totally ignoring its context and the largely racially mixed crowd they have been made infront Harris and her cronies in the media must be in deep trouble. 80.131.53.87(talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The context is the subject of the article was at a political rally and was making racist, misogynistic comments. There is no way for his comments to be taken out of context. Trulyy (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) And you have not, so far, provided any proof that the comments were indeed "racist" or "misogynistic". If you don't like them personally, that's fine and your right. But there is a distinct difference between "jokes dealing with race and women" and "actual racism and misogyny". Rob Roilen(talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What proof do I need to provide? My edits and others have provided proof of such. It literally fits the definition. Making fun of a certain race in a derogatory manner is textbook racism.  Trulyy (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What do you think? Cowboygilbert clearly agrees with wikipedia's reliable sources and does not feel like arguing with someone who will not change their opinion... Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, but your opinion on what is a reliable source does not trump wikipedia standards when editing wikipedia. If you have a problem with a source you deem unreliable you can bring it up with an administrator, but just because you feel a source is unreliable does not change wikipedia decision. Trulyy (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That's not true. Administrators have no special authority other what is or isn't a reliable source. You should look to relevant policies and guidelines to judge if a source is reliable, and use dispute resolution if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which part of the long response isn't true. My best assumption is that you are referring to Rob Roilen's disregard for reliable sources as outlined in the relavent policies and guidelines. As was a major aspect of the conversation, myself and other users explained multiple times. that removing other's content on the basis of sources should only be done if the source is not designated reliable by wikipedia

or if it has been resolved through another remedy.

To clear things up in brief, Rob Roilen thought that he had

personal liberty to remove standing content based on his personal opinion of sources rather than longstanding

wikipedia descions.

I told him he is free to edit without using sources he doesn't like, so long as he is using other credible sources.

As was demonstrated in his comments against established and credible sources, For example:

"mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal

k: Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen- 20241028171900-Cowboygilbert-

20241028171400

"You and other editors have continuously referred to outlets like The New York Times and Axios, for example, as "reliable sources""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen-20241028182600-Trulyy-20241028181200

Rather than resolve it in accordance with wikipedia's policies, he has decided to remove content with sources he doesn't like, and, when being told explicitly that is not how to judge sources, instead of acknowledging that fact, continuing to come after other editors. Trulyy (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify regarding bad faith edits as I am rereading the thread, I did not accuse you of making bad faith edits, I accused you of targeting other users accusing them of bad faith edits, which, please see your below quote:

"You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact."

The above example is textbook assuming bad faith, and such behavior discourages well-intentioned users from editing the wiki and contributing to the platform. I did not accuse you of anything I have not proven with wikipedia's definitions. Trulyy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Needless to say, for a new, well-intentioned editor trying to contribute to freedom of information to be attacked by an editor both insulting, belittling, shaming, and harrasing them for editing an article in a factual, unbiased manner that they didn't like will deter other editors and scare away current ones. Trulyy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Both Trulyy's and Rob Roilen's posts on that page are unhelpful. Trulyy blundered in modifying a closed discussion, but at least it was their only edit and they undid it as soon as it was brought up here. Rob, meanwhile, is a single-purpose account needlessly ratcheting up the WP:BATTLEGROUND vibe of that page (and continuing to add more heat than light by skipping anything like conversation and escalating to this noticeboard). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I made every effort to civilly explain my and others intentions, but at no point were any of my points taken into consideration. I feel Rob is not interested in the benefit of the platform, rather trying to punish those whose edits he disagrees with. He had many better, quicker, and more efficient ways to resolve this, but instead chose to try and come after me more than he already has. Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As credit to my assumption, his topic was not constructive whatsoever, especially not to the standard of others, and he devoted only one sentence to the actual issue he reported, thus showing he was picking something against the guidelines, which was an honest mistake, and using it as an opportunity to make the above post and try to come after me. He made no indication he wanted a resolution, an understanding, or anything. I have edited on Wikipedia for a year and have devoted dozens of hours to the platform. This is my only dispute that I have gotten into that has lasted more than three messages and wasn't resolved in a satisfactory manner. Trulyy (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Protip: this matter is visible to many eyeballs now. Best to let others handle it now, if there's any handling to be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not a "single-purpose account" and I certainly attempted to converse with other editors before bringing this to the noticeboard.

I am genuinely troubled by the effort other editors are willing to put into discrediting my input. I'm not sure how to more clearly state my mission here; I am fully, 100%, without a doubt committed to maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and accuracy. That is explicitly why I have continuously cautioned other editors from A) injecting their own personal opinions into articles, B) allowing their own personal opinions to interfere with their objective assessment of a source's reliability, and C) simply claiming a source is reliable because "it's on the list of reliable sources" or "I've always trusted ____". In the context of writing an encyclopedia, these are completely inappropriate. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not continuously cautioned other editors, as more than 50% of your edits are on that talk page alone.

As myself and other editors have told you many times, when it comes to editing wikipedia, claiming a source is reliable because it's on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources is the polar opposite of 'completely innapropriate'. Trulyy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. In the context of that article, what are some sources you would consider reliable? Trulyy (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Rob Roilen

On the "2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden" article, Rob Roilen has been relentlessly making changes to the article (including removing sources for reasons that from my understanding are not Wikipedia's rules for what makes a source valid). He also pushing for the article's removal due to bias. Broadly, his argument is that including reactions to the event that made comparisons to Hitler and Nazism is "sensationalizing", "biased", or invalid due to the outlet or sources having consistent past articles criticizing Trump (implying that a source that has consistent rhetoric is not valid). There are three main things in his arguments that make me believe this person is acting in bad faith.

1. Instead of using the rules of the site as a justification for edits and accusations of bias, Rob Roilen is using his own standards for what constitutes neutrality. After it was explained to him that a completely neutral tone is not possible when the content of the article is not neutral (aka, False Balance), he ignored this and continued to state that the article is not "neutral". I explained to him that the neutral tone he wants is not possible, in the same way that an unbiased tone isn't possible for an article covering a topic like slavery. The other side can not be portrayed as equal in validity.

2. As well, he consistently justifies his reasoning as being because "the page should be written as an encyclopedia", and his specific use of "an encyclopedia" is (in my opinion) a deliberate way of separating the discussion from Wikipedia's rules, and pushing for what he thinks is valid based on what he expects from an encyclopedia (these are his words). The only time he has said "Wikipedia" is when he is criticizing the rules and standards of the website itself.

3. The edits he is making (including removing the introduction section summarizing the issues and rhetoric Trump used, as well as the overall reaction) are fundamentally changing the purpose of the article and what warranted its creation, and I believe this is motivated by a desire to see the page removed. Articles on specific campaign events are not created unless it was notable, had a strong and widespread reaction, or directly caused a significant event, otherwise there is no real reason to create an article on a specific rally. By removing criticisms towards the event and continuously pushing a False Balance, Rob Roilen is misleading readers and trying to make the article less factual for the sake of being unbiased. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. We've been having frequent clashes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Great Mercian (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

64.228.236.176, as it says on many places on this page, you have to inform an editor when you start a discussion on them on a noticeboard or mention them in a serious way. They should be encouraged to participate here. Please do this now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have invited him to join the discussion here. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 64.228.236.176. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've stated my case in multiple threads now, including another ANI, so this is starting to feel like harassment from a handful of editors who would like to see my editing privileges limited, but just to have it here:

My standards for neutrality are Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"NPOV...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)

It also says:

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (emphasis added)

I see on my talk page I've been accused by this IP user of being "manipulative" for posting these policy excerpts.

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight.

I believe very strongly that Wikipedia's foundational principle of neutrality should take precedence over merely reflecting sources' biases. This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint.By reflecting all sources—both their strengths and inherent biases—with balanced skepticism, Wikipedia avoids taking implicit stances and maintains a neutral, trustworthy stance across contentious subjects. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is also a good place to mention that the above user @Great Mercian recently said to me "The more I look into it, I'm more convinced you're either not real or just a troll" and even "I'm half convinced you're a Republican sleeper agent." Rob Roilen (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've yet to see you rebuke such claims @Rob Roilen: Great Mercian (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are personal attacks and contrary to wikipedia policy. I would not stand by them so flagrantly. Just10A (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think Rob Roilen is a Trump supporter or even Republican, though he could be (he has stated he is not Republican and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt). I think the more likely reason is that the user is a fan of Tony Hitchcliffe's comedy and doesn't like that his page is connected to an event widely viewed negatively. That may be presumptive but based on how this began with the Tony article, I think it's likely that this is a motivator. Note: this is just an observation, I do not think this motivation is disqualifying, had Rob Roilen acted appropriatley his edits may have been acceptable. The user's own words and actions are the main thing that I think are worth scrutinizing, not his political views, which I am not comfortable assuming. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, refer to the lightest example, but most convinient for me, of what Rob said prior to a single interaction with any editors:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact.

What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Source Trulyy (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that his behavior is incendiary and unacceptable. But there isn't a "but they did something wrong too!" exception to WP:PA, much less doubling down on them on the noticeboard. It's contrary to policy regardless. Just10A (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen as you seem to have used original research to challenge the acceptability of reliable sources, and have cited WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an acceptable source, I suggest your arguments are better suited for noticeboards rather than within an article that you adamantly seek to delete. soibangla (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Might I recommend that any administrators observing this case refer to the extensive talk page of @Soibangla Rob Roilen (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen I wholly recommend everyone deeply scrutinize my Talk page soibangla (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume Rob Roilen is pointing to your temporary ban from editing one particular article focused on Trump's assassination attempt. I do not see how this is relevant here, since this is not a discussion on soibangla or this different article. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume that will be done. Rob has been rebuked by dozens of editors within the last two days, has made personal attacks, been shown wikipedia policy and ignored it because he doesn't like it. Escalated issues needlessly instead of trying to get them resolved, and violated many of wikipedia's policies. Trulyy (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it extraordinarily strange that I'm the one being accused of "ignoring Wikipedia policy" when there are multiple examples of me directly referencing and quoting said policy in an attempt to get other editors to actually follow it. You do understand that it's possible to be wrong about something even when you're in a room full of people who agree with you, right? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The manipulativeness was what you left out and what you emphasized. First, you emphasized "editorial bias" while completely ignoring "as far as possible", which is clearly an important point of nuance. You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are properly sourced bias, which as I explained, is acceptable. What you have engaged in is editorial bias, by definition. Your interpretation is also manipulative:

"This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint." This is factually untrue. I have shown you repeated proof that this is not realistic in all scenarious, and the site's rules reflect this. For example, an article on evolution cannot be accurate if it doesn't lean towards the viewpoint that evolution is true. By this extreme logic, you would have to present the Creationist perspective equally. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are not properly sourced bias 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this for the article Tony Hinchcliffe. He showed blatant disregard for wikipedia's guidelines, attacked other editors, and then reported me to the notice board, although everyone else in that thread and the talk page thread all sided with me. He has been downright nasty to myself and others. Trulyy (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to another editors opinion on a thread regarding my mistake that Rob escalated:

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Trulyy (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait a sec. An IP who's just joined the 'pedia about two days ago, participating only at the aforementioned page. Now making an ANI report??? GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

is there something intrinsically improper about that? soibangla (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is. Who's the IP, that appeared suddenly? GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not sure why this surprises you, IP accounts file complaints at ANI all of the time. Most IP accounts have addresses that are dynamic and change regularly so this editor probably edited with other addresses in the past. I do not think they are an editor who is contributing logged out if that is what concerns you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editors are perfectly entitled to contribute as 64.228.236.176 has at length on the article Talk. allegations have been suggested by two editors that 64.228.236.176 was recently banned but no concrete evidence has been presented. incidentally, aspersions have also been cast upon me, which might be considered sanctionable. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you maybe argue with the points being raised before going with an ad hom? Like most regular users of Wikipedia, I have simply not made edits or engaged in discussions, until this particular article's vote for deletion caught my attention. I disagree with this deletion, so here we are.

Rob Roilen has also only started being active the last couple days, roughly 99% of his edits are on this article and the one on Tony Hitchcliffe (apologies if the name is botched). This is not one of the reasons I am criticizing him, his longevity is not an important factor to me. I am criticizing his arguments, edits, and overall conduct in this situation. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And if this is not already clear, unlike Rob Roilen, I have not made any edits or deleted sources. I am strictly keeping this in discussion only. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about who you are. But, I'll let others decide if there's a reason to be curious. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is my identity important? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If my identity is cause for concern, who are you implyng I am? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop feigning injury and asking questions you already know the answers to. Remsense ‥ 论 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility, Remsense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't understand the question, which put my hackles up: of course it's important for our purposes who the identity of editors are in the terms we have been discussing. Remsense ‥ 论 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I was asking a question, how is that feigning injury? You appear to be implying I am a specific person, I am asking for validation on this. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

but you aren't letting others decide if they're curious. you have decided you are. soibangla (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

64.228.236.176, if you want a better response to your complaint, it is best to include "diffs" or links to specific edits that you find problematic and that concern you. Typically a report comes with 3-7 diffs so that editors reviewing it can see if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Right now, this complaint is just editors bickering with each other. To take any action, you have to include evidence of misconduct that goes beyond a narrative complaint. I tell this to many editors new to filing complaints at ANI so this is not me taking a side, just informing you what is generally needed for any action to happen. There are situations where an admin will investigate a situation themselves but it helps the filer to point out what behavior they see as problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I may need some time to put all the citations together (and I am not super familiar with formatting so this will require more research) but that seems doable. I didn't think this discussion would take up this much of my time but I am invested at this point. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment remains the same. Without diffs/evidence, I doubt any action will be taken because it looks like a disagreement over content or just two editors who don't get along. You don't need a lot of diffs, like I said, a half dozen examples can be persuasive (or not, it depends on what you choose to highlight). I recommend that this doesn't devolve into bickering between editors or someone will just close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made this a subthread of the earlier one. While the earlier thread was started by Rob Roilen, as often happens with these sort of threads, Rob Roilen's own behaviour was also being discussed and it concerned the same set or articles and issues. Splitting the discussion is unlikely to be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

On the general issue, I have to say from what I've seen that Rob Roilen is still fairly unfamiliar with and having trouble accepting our sourcing requirements and other fundamentals of editing here. While we were all new once, I'm not convinced these articles especially so close to the US election is a good place for them to be learning. They've already been given a recent American politics CTOP alert so IMO barring considerable improvement it's worth an admin considering if it might be productive to force them to learn the basics somewhere else or at least sometime after the election if they want to stay in recent American politics articles. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is something of an issue with this over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CNN. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is asking questions against Wikipedia policy? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, but continuing to ask it after it has been answered might be seen as wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Irony Rob Roilen (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rob's primary objective at the Tony Hinchcliffe article seems to be removing the "racist" label on a "they're just jokes" basis. That he is arguing to exclude "mainstream media" underscores misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Various examples of needless fighting and policy issues, all from Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe:

Oh I see, so we're just going to do that thing where we get stuck in a loop where you claim that mainstream media articles are "reliable"

Why is your sense of urgency suddenly gone? Someone was so eager to call Tony "racist" and lock down the editing of the page for a month, but when people push back we're just going to run out the clock?

It could even be argued that these statements about Tony are libelous.

Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information but then refuse to participate in the ongoing discussion. How diplomatic

None of it is helpful. Lest we think Rob is the only one, or that he's escalating in a vacuum, there are several users making wildly unhelpful comments on that talk page, so I sort of get Rob's strong response in places. The problem is none of his comments seem to move discussion forward, and it's an account focused on this topic. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if editors would stop implying that I'm only here to edit a single topic, since this appears to be an effort to discredit my input. Is my input only valid if I've edited a certain number of pages? What's the threshold?

To contextualize the quotes above, it should be noted that they are from when the Tony Hinchcliffe article was being aggressively edited to portray Tony in an objectively negative light directly after the Madison Square Garden rally. Saying that my comments did not move the discussion forward fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral than it was before I happened to show up.

I also find it deeply troubling that other editors who have expressed personal disagreements with my tone are literally calling for me to be "forced" to follow the rules in a way they subjectively approve of. Please tell me I'm not the only person here who sees the very real issue with that. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The context for "single-purpose account" is WP:SPA FYI. fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral - even if we say you were right on the content issues, being right doesn't discount the negative effect of a flurry of unnecessarily escalating comments with no basis in wikipolicy. I don't have anything else to add, though. If you don't want to be seen as an "SPA", find some good sources to summarize to improve a totally unrelated article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen: To give an example of why your approach is harmful, consider this edit [8]. The edit itself was productive, AFAICT, neither source used in our article describes what Cardone said as misogynistic. Your edit summary was so unhelpful however that it would have been better to not use an edit summary. AFAICT, no one has argued the comment is inherently misogynistic on the talk page. But even if they had, it would be irrelevant. What matters is whether sources widely call what Cardone said as misogynistic not whether it's "inherently misogynistic" (whatever on earth that means) nor whether an editor feels it is or isn't misogynistic. I actually nearly reverted you because I thought it was more WP:OR from you but decided to check the sources just to make sure and found that you were in fact correctly reverting some other editor's OR but with an edit summary that made it seemed like you were the one doing the OR. It's easily possible barring the edit history being further annotated that some other editor might come to the same conclusion as me but not check the sources and so revert you. Working in a collaborative environment means it's incredibly unhelpful to make editors think your edit was improper by using an edit summary which suggest that. But further, it's extremely unclear that you even understand why your edit was productive. If you don't this means you could have easily made the mistake of removing something which was in fact widely supported by secondary sources based on your own interpretation/OR; or in other words the fact you happened to be right in that edit is a happy accident as much as anything. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I have no idea how to more clearly explain that a handful of blatantly biased sources does not qualify as "widely reported", and how even if something is "widely reported", if it completely flies in the face of the basic definition of words, it is not accurate enough to use as source material in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one has every said 'a handful of blatantly biased sources' qualifies 'as "widely reported"'. But as for your second part well that's the problem. If you're not willing to accept the basics of how Wikipedia works then you shouldn't be editing here at all and you definitely shouldn't be editing a hot button CTOP article. Since multiple editors have tried to explain to you how Wikipedia works and you're still either not understanding it or not willing to accept it, it's getting to the point where there's no point trying further. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So to clarify, you believe it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to use blatantly impartial journalism as sources while simultaneously holding neutrality as a foundational principle? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

blatantly impartial journalism Why yes. That is neutral journalism by definition. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean "partial", but either way it matters little.

Per BIASED (which is a guideline), "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

If you have a problem with sources considered reliable, rather than contentiously push changes based on your personal assessment that X or Y source is too "biased" to be usable, you should take it up at the RSN. Over there is where said assessment concerning the sources' bias will matter. You may even find that other editors agree with you; many sources, after all, have had their agreed-upon reliability debated, or even changed, during Wikipedia's history. During content discussion, however, your subjective opinion does not trump community consensus around the usability of sources.

There are processes for reassessing sources, or otherwise building consensus around questions like these. Use them. LaughingManiac (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to say "blatantly partial journalism", thank you for the catch.

But again, I don't know why I need to clarify this, and this is not my personal opinion, but editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic, especially when contentious, and regardless of whether or not Wikipedia has their name in green or red on the perennial sources list. A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources even notes that "context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." Rob Roilen (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic"

Editors are free to hold whatever subjective opinion they have on the appropriateness of sources. But the active use, or avoidance, of said sources is decided using consensus as opposed to that opinion.

"A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable."

Perhaps not, but you specifically stated that these sources were "blatantly partial", with the basic contention that this makes them unusable for this topic. That's your opinion. It's a fine opinion to have, and one that you could well defend at RSN. It's also not something which trumps community consensus on the subject.

This will be my last message here, as I am uninterested in a debate, being uninvolved in the content dispute itself. I am merely reminding you of the policies in place at this encyclopedia. Of course, you are free to ignore this reminder, and keep BLUDGEONING that your personal opinion on what constitutes reliable sources trumps community consensus. LaughingManiac (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I won't lie, I'm edging towards some action being taken against Roilen, per everything above. Great Mercian (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But I've seen you have run-ins with this editor so to be persuasive, you'd have to present a diff or two of conduct that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which I haven't seen yet. I see some worrisome commentary on their judging the reliability of sources but without evidence of improper actions, it's just talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN seems to be getting into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and there doesn't have to be individual diffs of policy violations for there to be policy violations in totality, thats just a false standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So engaging in discussion on a noticeboard qualifies as "editing"? And engaging in discussion about the reliability of sources on a noticeboard specifically devoted to discussing the reliability of sources is "partisan, biased, skewed, and [not maintaining] an editorially neutral point of view"? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I find the way you went about opening and prosecuting that discussion on CNN "partisan, biased, skewed, and [not maintaining] an editorially neutral point of view" and yes that would generally qualify as editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't participated in the discussion, which isn't over yet. Perhaps you would like to join?

Hopefully I'm not the only one here who sees the distinction between "editing" and "discussing on talk pages and noticeboards" as it applies to Wikipedia conduct policy. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus, not sure what I would add. If you want to argue that not being disruptive in main is a get-out-of-jail-free card for being disruptive in talk and wikispace I don't think thats going to work (even if there is actually no disruption in main, which I kind of doubt given the general quality of the contributions I've seen so far) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, discredit my contributions to the encyclopedia based on how you personally perceive my tone on discussion pages, even though you have not participated in the discussions. How illuminating.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Rob Roilen (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In general I find your tone civil, thats not a major issue I have with your editing. You don't need to jump in a dumpster fire to identify it as a dumpster fire, point to the man who set it, and say "That man appears to be setting dumpster fires" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that only 14% of your edits are in mainspace[9], so its not like an issue is being made out of namespaces in which your hardly edit... It would appear that an issue is being made about your core editing areas. Is there a previous account which I should also be referencing which I'm missing? In mainspace this account has simply not made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rob Roilen: If it's not too much trouble, can you name a source that does meet your standards? Great Mercian (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS?[10] soibangla (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong since I'm rarely there but my impression is a reasonable percentage of WP:A/R/E threads primarily or completely deal with talk page activity. Definitely CTOP does not require article editors for sanction, and a very common action is a topic ban or some sort which would of course forbid editing anywhere on Wikipedia covered by that topic. BTW I'm not sure if my point above was understood properly by Rob Roilen. My point is that you're still having trouble understanding and accepting core Wikipedia policies. Perhaps there is still hope for you to learn, but it's quite likely if there is hope, this would be by you staying away from areas i.e. recent American politics, where a lot of people apparently including you have trouble separating their strong personal feelings or whatever from their editing; and therefore are much more likely to make mistakes. There is a reason it's CTOP area after all. And since it is, it's far easier for an admin to decide that your editing is indeed enough of a problem that you need to stay away from it. There would still be millions of articles and their talk pages where you could learn the basics of editing here, but hopefully with greater detachment and less concern on your part about correcting a great wrong and therefore IMO much more chance you will learn. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I've blocked them for 24 hours as an AE action for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the WP:CT/AP topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elijah Pepe's article creation

I have never reported a user to ANI before to so bear with me if I do anything silly or this is the wrong venue.

User:ElijahPepe is a proflific article creator who's quick creation of current event articles have been problematic. His userpage is littered with deletion notices and editors making similar arguments over their creation of articles. Just in the last few months, 2024 Houston helicopter crash was deleted through a PROD, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was speedy deleted (with an additional comment from User:sawyer777 about Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted), 2024 Zamfara State boat accident (a two line article) was moved to draftspace, 2024 stock market decline was deleted at AFD (see these comments from User: Liz and User:Soni on Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted [11] and [12]) and Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a one line article) was moved to draftspace.

Elijah certainly has created articles that are notable, and I would be wrong to not mention that, but too many times they have been warned about their article creation, or their articles have been deleted, with no change in behavior. I think some sort of sanction might be useful in this case to prevent this from continuing to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I recall a recent noticeboard thread on this same topic with this same user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User_needs_autopatrolled_revoked, which was closed with their autopatrol being revoked on account of doing this too much. jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've also noticed this as well. It almost feels like he's creating them just to claim "First!" Here he made an article about retaliatory strikes against Iran that didn't even happen until nine days later. Procyon117 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If Elijah was actually doing due diligence on articles (Confirm there isn't another article, check notability, actually add sufficient sourcing and content), we wouldn't be here. He does not, and nearly all of his articles are one sentence each, way less than anyone would expect. When repeated consistently, this shows a problem.

Note that I have past strong opinions on Elijah and saw this primarily thanks to the ping. I respect his mainspace contributions (as someone who has not contributed much there myself recently), but they are not supposed to be a substitute for due diligence. Soni (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

the issue is also his lack of communication; he rarely uses edit summaries even for huge sweeping changes, and doesn't meaningfully respond to feedback from other editors. see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#ElijahPepe New York Times issues, and this interaction on his talk page User talk:ElijahPepe#Tesla Network. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have nominated Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations for deletion. It was also created by this user. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what ElijahPepe has to say about this. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To explain: I have never claimed that there is anything special about creating articles. I create them because I find them necessary, either as notable entries or for another reason. Since the article about the helicopter crash in Houston, I have tried to reduce articles on one-off events; this morning, a roof collapse in Serbia killed eight people, likely more since I checked, yet I don't intend on creating an article for it. The articles Esolo cites are not good examples of the claim he is trying to make. I agree with the deletion of 2024 Houston helicopter crash, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was a specific case in which consensus changed and that article no longer needed to exist, Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was a duplicate that was technically created before the current article, 2024 Venezuelan political crisis. 2024 stock market decline was a mistake that will never occur again, though I believe that the consensus was a misunderstanding of what I intended to cover. 2024 Zamfara State boat accident was an aforementioned one-off event. As for Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, I created the redirect, but the final article was not mine; editors determined a split was necessary and performed one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

these are some of the current or future event articles Elijah has created (and did not start as redirects) just from the last month and a half or so:

• 2024 Tel Aviv truck attack
• 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak
• Tesla Network (future)
• Tesla Cybercab (future)
• Assassination of Hashem Safieddine
• Proposed acquisition of Dish Network by DirecTV (future)
• September 2024 Birmingham shooting
• 2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (perhaps the most ridiculous example of a future event article)

nearly all of them were created as single-sentence, single-source stubs with no indication of notability. there are more to be found at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/ElijahPepe/all#0
i and others have suggested Elijah simply make these current/future events articles in draftspace, as is fairly common, mostly to no avail. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If using the draftspace, which I did at 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak, is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's still an article about a one-off thing of little significance, made up of WP:PROSELINE collecting a few news stories and other primary sources that don't carry any meaningful analysis. This whole topic should be one or two sentences in History of McDonald's, but it's been source bombed to make it look notable when it's not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

before this gets archived without action (as threads about Elijah tend to do), i'll say i agree with this. the issue is the creation of these articles which have no indication of notability. starting non-notable articles in draftspace and then moving them to mainspace is no better. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

i've been mulling this over a bit, and while i'm not going to propose any sanctions or anything (i don't really know what would be appropriate & productive here), i'd like to expand on my issue with his article creation habits. the last time this particular issue was brought to ANI (by @Trainsandotherthings in april), as jpxg mentions above, the complaints from other editors were as follows:

• creating one-sentence stubs: they're now usually two or three sentences by the time Elijah stops working on them. from the examples i listed above, see 22 Sep, 1 Oct (slightly longer but still only one source), 4 Oct, 11 Oct, 11 Oct, 22 Oct, 27 Oct
• He also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations: see above revisions; they do not have categories
• they're still not using edit summaries for content edits: since april, his edit summary usage has hovered between 25.3% and 38.1% (link); nearly 70% of his edits are in mainspace (link)

in that ANI, Elijah said Ecrusized did not provide a policy against creating one-sentence articles and did not follow up after my comment; his clarification was that it was acceptable given the article was being worked on before being linked to a high-traffic page. Obviously, I'm aware now that is not acceptable. make of that what you will in light of his more recent article creation habits.
as mentioned above, other editors have been raising issues with this for months. Liz & Soni commented in august/september, and Elijah replied And I have used the draftspace where appropriate since this comment. i'm not really sure what to make of his above comment If using the draftspace [...] is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that in light of that.
i'm focusing on his underdeveloped article creations (of which there are so many that i won't name them all here), but there have been other issues as well. above i linked to two previous ANI threads about the NYT debacle from march-april, and i will also link to User talk:ElijahPepe#April 2024 which includes many similar concerns about poor collaboration. the other thread which i linked above is also pretty revealing in my view; Elijah says As far as I know, "Tesla Network" is a placeholder name. I'm not against merging the article because the topic has no coverage, but I created it in order to maintain an article about the Robovan. - that is fundamentally not why or how articles should be created on wikipedia. i pressed him about this, but he did not respond to the substance of my concern and instead just corrected me on a mistake i made in my comment. i also asked him to use draftspace then, which further makes his comment in this thread confusing. again, i don't know what kind of solution this situation needs, but this is frustrating ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I'll offer a solution: a ban on creating articles in mainspace and a requirement to use AfC for all new articles. Take it or leave it, many people have agreed there is a problem but nobody else has proposed a remedy thus far. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support something like this. Procyon117 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Mushy Yank and AfD discussions

I'd like to call the attention of the community to what I see as routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures by User:Mushy Yank. At a current procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh, the problem is illustrated. In this case we have a BLP article largely written by the subject. At the AfD, we have a new contributor User:Gul Butt and Mushy Yank asserting keep, as in In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?(diff) and He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions.(diff).

This wouldn't be a problem as a one-off, but nominator User:Saqib points out Mushy Yank does this all the time: You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR.(diff).

In my opinion, Mushy Yank needs some correction before further editing BLP discussion at AfD. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

One of your two diffs is the keep vote of another editor, not of Mushy Yank, so it doesn't seem relevant for this discussion. Mushy Yank provided sources in his keep vote, so I don't see any issue with the vote as such (even if the article would be deleted, being "wrong" at an AfD is not disruptive if, like here, it is supported by at least a plausible reasoning). The subject seems clearly notable, and is the kind of national "star" the tabloid press features again and again[13]. Considering that many (most) sources probably aren't in English (or in Latin script), I would need good evidence that his roles are not major roles before considering deletion. So what's the problem with that AfD? Not Mushy Yank, as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve cited only a few AFDs where both Mushy Yank and I participated, but there are many more where their keep argument is simply that an actor meets NACTOR just because they have some roles in TV series or films. And when they're challenged, they get irritated and accuse others of making ad hominem attacks and this is not an isolated incident. They mostly contribute to actor/TV/film-related AFDs, an area heavily infested by sock farms and UPEs and several SPAs tend to vote keep based on weak arguments. Their keep votes often shift the AFD outcomes from delete to non-consensus, which is problematic. I suggest Mushy Yank be warned against throwing around weak keep votes. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate their willingness to save articles, but their arguments are sometimes incomplete or not well-supported. For instance, in a recent AfD, they posted a ‘Keep’ vote, stating: Keep: as a very anticipated film, as existing coverage shows; or redirect to Hanu-Man#Future until consensus is to revert and expand, if other users think it’s better. Absolutely opposed to deletion. Does being a highly anticipated film alone make it notable? Additionally, without providing any sources, the film is currently receiving coverage only because of its first look. Should we really keep the article without significant coverage (SIGCOV) sources and without meeting the NFILM criteria? GrabUp - Talk 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I've had some disappointing exchanges at AFD with them as well. Most recently was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Love in the World (Nine Inch Nails song) where, after being challenged on their WP:VAGUEWAVE keep stance, revealed they were trying to argue that sources with only 2 short sentences were examples of "significant coverage". There was another one recently too, but the name of that one escapes me at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, there may well be issues with their AfDs in general, I just don't understand why it was brought here with the example of an AfD where they did provide sources to support their claim, and where it seems that the main issue is the other side, delete voters not looking for sources and at the same time being unnecessary confrontational and personalizing the debate. And when the OP then added a quote from a different keep voter to their case about Mushy Yank, it looked more like an attempt to silence an opponent at an AfD than as a real issue (that quote has since been struck). I still don't get why this AfD is a problem worth of an ANI visit. Fram (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In my example of this particular process, I said the problem was illustrated. I wouldn't normally bring someone to ANI for bad judgement. Then I provided another editor's quote which contained a number of ten wikilinks (example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) which proved my point (routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures. This is not MY cherry picked sample, but my quote of User:Saqib's on this thread (I linked the diffs). If you click on the diffs and do a quick count you'll see my reason for posting this report. You'll noticed I've bolded some of them. Those are bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. 4/10. Before I cherry pick diffs myself, did we look at AfD stats? In the last 500 procedures, 267 Keep !votes and 174 Redirect !votes. 2 deletes. Two out of 500. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Do those numbers seem normal to anybody? BusterD (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they seem entirely normal. Nobody is required to post a certain percentage of "keep" votes or "delete" votes in order to participate at AfD. Personally, I only vote when I think something is worth keeping. The deletions usually take care of themselves. Toughpigs (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As a frequent closer of AFD discussions, I see more of the opposite, editors who have never voted to Keep an article. I'm thinking of one extremely regular AFD participant whom I've never seen argue to Keep an article but their opinion is valued and I can't imagine them being brought to ANI because of their overly rigorous interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on notability. We have inclusionists and deletionists but this differing philosophy isn't grounds for a trip to ANI. If a voting record is now the grounds for an ANI complaint, I can suggest dozens of similar voting patterns among our regulars who veer strongly towards one end of the Keep-Delete spectrum. And I'd also point out the high number of arguments to Redirect an article from Mushy Yank when they don't believe an article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I am one of those editors who would fall in that category (majority delete votes). I think why the keep votes being mentioned here seems strange as opposed to delete votes is because pages recommended for deletion seem to be deleted more than kept. That is why they are brought there in the first place as an editor has likely done their diligence and believes they should be deleted. Yes, there are exceptions but I am talking about what generally happens. Now, if we had an "articles for keep" discussion I think the votes would turn opposite of editor's patterns and an editor voting delete in the majority of those discussions would not seem normal. I realize that is a strange comparison, but I vote keep hundreds of times by viewing and not taking pages to AfD (as I feel they meet notability) before I actually recommend one for deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And for the record, I am not saying it's wrong for someone to vote keep in the majority of discussions. Just explaining why it may not seem normal for the keep votes, while those voting delete the majority of the time may seem normal. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD, they're certainly not normal numbers, but that in itself isn't an issue, since there's no way to avoid selection bias when looking at someone's AfD vote habits. I presume that Mushy Yank only ever joins a discussion when they think they can vote against deletion - nothing wrong with picking your battles. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD wrote: bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. Mushy wrote (just to pick one of your bolded selections at random): I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another. How is that bad faith? Certainly no less bad faith than what Saqib said (triggered a reply from Mushy in one of your examples): You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. At worst, these are quite mild, civil expressions of frustration between editors whose frequent disagreements at AfD have led them to make probably reasonable assumptions about the other's thought process. Per WP:AGF, good faith is about assuming our fellow editors are working to improve the encyclopedia. Frankly, suggesting that an AfD count with too few delete !votes is somehow abnormal or an expression of "bad behavior" itself seems like a failure to assume that Mushy's intent is to improve the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971, I’ve tried to AGF since day one with Mushy Yank, but it’s tough when they called me a TWIT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mushy_Yank&diff=next&oldid=1222349251 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have lots of other examples, a single-word edit summary that Mushy said was unintended and apologized for is not something helpful to hold onto as the source of conflict. Once again this thread is making mountains out of molehills. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank and I often engage in the same discussions and we rarely agree; Mushy appears to be more of an inclusionist than I am and to interpret the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE more loosely than most other AfD regulars. However, I don't think this approach is outside the realm of reasonable participation. I went through several recent examples and found several (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manorathangal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Hannawald, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DemoCrisis) where Mushy offered sources with a "keep" !vote that convinced me. Mushy also regularly proposes (and accepts) redirection as an AtD (see here, here, here). There are others where I definitely disagree with Mushy's sources or interpretation (see here, here, here, here, here), but Mushy generally brings sources and offers analysis based on policy. There are of course some weakly argued "keep" !votes (example here) but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting administrative action or correction. As for the AfD that triggered this, I think Saqib's tone is sharp but I don't think either party is engaging in ad hominem attacks. Saqib did inaccurately summarize Mushy's "keep" rationale as simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series when Mushy's rationale did in fact explain how, to their mind, the criteria at WP:NACTOR applied, and one can forgive Mushy for being annoyed by this, but the tone remains quite civil. (Again, can't say I agree with Mushy's !vote, but I see no behavioral issue here -- certainly none that warrants the opening of an ANI thread.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My hands are not the cleanest in regards to exchanges with Mushy Yank, but here I am. I’ve had very unhelpful exchanges with user but nothing that can’t be tolerated (and I am sure vice versa). Despite the contention I don’t think I have perceived anything that would rise to misconduct or a personal attack. As such, I don’t believe ANI is the best place to address things.

With that in mind, since we are here, there are a few things about the deletion discussions that I think stand out which could be discussed, if not here then another venue. These things may be more of a policy or guideline misinterpretation than user conduct (and I am including myself in the statement about misunderstandings and/or conduct).

• The first is BusterD’s comments about the !votes based on having leading roles. I think there is confusion in the discussions amongh users as Mushy Yanks cites having leading roles as establishing notability despite NACTOR saying “may be considered notable.” Despite having leading roles, the person still needs to meet NBASIC. So, either Mushy Yank misunderstands the guideline, I misunderstand the guideline, or there needs to be clarification as to the guideline. If having leading roles means the person is inherently notable, I would change my !vote to keep in a lot of discussions.
• The second is AfD discussions on lists where Mushy Yank cites WP:LISTPURP or WP:SPLITLIST as keep rationale. Those are not notability guidelines. So again, it is either their misunderstand of NLIST or mine, but I believe NLIST is set out to establish that the list is notable as a group, not as navigation ("Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group"). Clarification on this would be useful as well.
• The last is just the bolding of the actual vote with regards to keep, delete, merge, or redirect. An example is this vote for redirect which if you read closer, appears to me to be a keep !vote. Redirects and merges are alternatives to deletion so believe the keep or delete vote should be stated first with the ATD to follow. The exception obviously is this redirect vote which is the only option presented in the vote.

To summarize the WALLOFTEXT, I think we are dealing with a misinterpretation on editors' part rather than any misconduct which would be actionable at ANI. I believe clarification on at least the first two points may save us time arguing in AfD discussions on the future --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Seems this was escalated rather quickly (no talk page notice?) and there's more than one party tangoing. I see difference in philosophy far more than unacceptable behaviour warranting sanction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User was notified. I checked the talk page and was going to notify (I thought the same as you at first) but see they removed the notification. I agree about the philosophy and behavior assessment which I tried to point out above. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CNMall41 - thanks for the correction, I should have searched the history. I do feel in a situation like this a personal comment via a talk page message (rather than templating) would have been more appropriate at this stage than bringing here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No biggie. In fact, I had half a message typed out on user's talk page before I thought of checking the history so its common. And I agree about the personal message. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been experiencing User:Mushy Yank in live AfD for some months and I've developed my sense of the user based on my real-time experiences. IMHO, some articles should be deleted (based purely on our multi-year experiments on Wikipedia). I was therefore particularly dismayed to find the user almost never !votes delete. Given the mixed feelings expressed by many in the thread, I've spent some hours going through the last 500 AfDs from this editor to learn more about their broader work in deletion discussions. I'm going to avoid providing too many diffs for reasons which will become obvious. I can say I found my reading enlightening. I read the processes newer to older and that gave me quite a different perspective than what I expected.

1) MY certainly continues to boldly assert keep and redirect at everything.

2) MY often has a sort of pleading tone (which I find personally annoying) insisting keep or redirect are the only options available. They often make broad arguments (like NACTOR) which are largely measured subjectively. However, they do it in a polite tone, which is easier to see in more recent processes.

3) MY almost always brings sources to the table (noticing which caused me to re-read everything I'd already read). Now often the sources are churnalism crap, and often these unreliable sources don't impress other editors or the closer. But the sourcing is impressive and something I hadn't noticed as much with my self-selected sample. MY spends time on sourcing (which stands out among "always keep" !voters).

4) While I notice MY make these occasional accusations of bad faith (and I found more than a few), these are much less common in recent months than previously. MY is responding to feedback.

5) As I read the processes newer to older, I could see how MY's work was getting increasingly less cordial, increasingly making less good faith arguments. Of course, that's not how these interactions were experienced. Based on my reading this morning, Mushy Yank's work is noticeably better now than it was when I first came across them many months ago. IMHO, my own personal interactions with MY interfered with my understanding of their broader work.

My analysis of their last 500 AfDs (going back to May 2024) is that they always !vote keep or redirect, and that often they make arguments which don't convince other editors or the closer. Their rigid pattern keep/redirect assertions sometimes unduly influence procedures' outcomes. But when I compare that pattern of what I called "gaming" to the patterns undertaken by previous bad actors or groups (looking at you Template:Rescue), that's pretty benign behavior.

So what does an editor do when he finds he was mistaken for filing an ANI thread, based on his previous experiences with another editor? Apology seems inadequate, but seems the least I can do. On the merits, looking at this thread myself, I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't do that harder reading first (took almost four hours). What should I have done? Gone directly to User:Mushy Yank and confronted them directly with my concerns. Why didn't I do so? I wrongly felt confident I had sufficient evidence. I made a snap judgment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh, when Mushy Yank accused Saqib of ad hominem attack (again) merely for listing ten diffs as examples of MY's bad judgement in AfDs. I can see the moment in my edits where I demonstrated bad judgement. My next mistake was not stepping back from the keyboard. My third mistake was my own overconfidence I could present a case as it arose, and not instead doing the four hours of reading BEFORE filing the report, not after.

I expect to pay a price for my haste and lack of good faith when I saw bad behavior which matched up to my preconceptions of MY, based on previous interactions. User:Mushy Yank, I am sorry I didn't deal with you directly first. I hope you take this thread as awareness your actions are noticed by others, and I am glad that you are making improvements yourself. It is now time for ME to acknowledge my error and make my own improvements. As an administrator my actions and words are always under close consideration of the community. I have amends to perform. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting your initial conclusions here. Hopefully we can close this thread soon and all get back to work! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If I waxed TLDR above, I apologize. I felt I owed MY (and the community) a full description of my part in this. BusterD (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this editor has been quick on the trigger finger with "keep" votes, and snappish towards criticism of the same. I don't think this is quite ripe for ANI, but I would be genuinely curious as to what they think is a good case for deletion. BD2412 T 15:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I'm similarly curious. "If everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody." BusterD (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• As an active AfD closer/relister, I frequently see Mushy Yank's input. While I don't always agree with their !votes, I find them well reasoned and the editor receptive to feedback. They are no more or less problematic than any of our other frequent participants and I appreciate their research into AtDs for poorly attended SE Asian entertainment discussions particularly. Star Mississippi 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: there are some questions above you might like to answer, and I have a request as well; would you please consider changing your signature? It seems to me that the "My of my" comes across as dismissive and snarky, and doesn't help to create a positive impression. Fram (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you very much for your help and input, and to the various contributors who took time to write something nice above. I haven’t identified any question that would need my answering, though. What precisely did you have in mind?

I’ve, very despondently, changed my signature, although I had chosen it as it sounded sporty and enthusiastic to me, but the reference to Niehaus probably went unnoticed and lost but to me, :D.

Thanks again,

Best, Mushy Yank (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't get the reference. A question for you I saw right above here is "I would be genuinely curious as to what they think is a good case for deletion." Perhaps there are others, but this one seems germane (and neutral). Fram (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks, I didn’t perceive it as a question.

How can I answer such a general and strange question? A good case for Deletion? Why should my opinion on this differ from that of anyone else? Isn’t asking this assuming a lot? But, OK, I’ll answer, but that certainly will be disapppointingly plain: just something that does not meet the requirements established by the guidelines, I guess.

If the question is indeed a real one, well, one of the 2 users who apparently wish to know (and for the record, by the way, @BusterD, I don’t remember interacting with them before yesterday but that’s obviously true) mentions I voted Delete twice at AfD. I did not count but, again, certainly true: the concerned pages probably are an even better answer to that question.

I remember one was a BLP (I think living=yes :D) about a British model; no independent reliable coverage on her. So Delete. I was the only !voter, I think (with the nom). Was deleted.

The other was what I thought to be a hoax (an unrealized film called Whore) and took to AfD myself. It ended up Redirected. 2 !voters thought it deserved a Redirect and I eventually changed my suggestion accordingly (not sure). But I originally had identified it as ”a good case for deletion”, I suppose.

Another case comes to mind, now that I think of it. A film that I thought did not exist, and with two other users we took time to verify that was indeed the case. None of us took it to AfD but the debate, was, I suppose, the fruit of our findings (it was called El castillo de los monstruos and was a supposedly Argentine 1964 film). And I guess, Erik, Dr Blofeld (not pinging them but feel free to do it, if you think that’s best) and I had managed to determine it was a clear "good case for deletion". Yes, it took us a lot of time and efforts and it was slow, true. But happy ending:D: the page was deleted. You can check my !vote and realize that although not technically a D (too long to explain why), I was rather active in the process that led to its deletion.

Does that answer the question? To tell the truth, I honestly think this type of question would be more appropriate to a candidate for adminiship or something like that :D, but if you think it was helpful here, I didn’t mind and hope my reply is of the kind that was expected.

Thanks again! Mushy Yank (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In my experience, I have found that Mr. Saqib lost his mind when he saw anyone opposing him. I have observed in some AFDs that I agreed with his rationale, where he never put a tag against my vote about single-purpose accounts or special contribs. Whenever I opposed him. He immediately put this tag. Further, I have noticed that he permanently pressurizing voter who votes against his will. This behavior shows that his statements about AFDs are incomplete. That is why, he has to argue in response to every comment. Let the other admins decide whether my vote resembles WP:AKA or not.  I have also noticed other nominators does not start comment wars against opposite votes on this extreme level. --Gul Butt (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gul Butt, I have found that Mr. Saqib lost his mind when he saw anyone opposing him. Come on, things aren’t that bad yet! But you must be offended by this comment, right? I have observed in some AFDs that I agreed with his rationale, where he never put a tag against my vote about single-purpose accounts or special contribs. Whenever I opposed him. He immediately put this tag Great, so now I'm getting blamed for not tagging all your votes as SPA. Just so you know, I sometimes even try to counter those who vote the same as I do in AFDs, so your blame doesn't really hold up that I only go after people who vote differently. Anyway, since you're here, you definitely need to answer why you've been so interested in participating in AFDs since day one. Have you been editing previously under different accounts or what? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Discussion - I see the argument about NACTOR still being used in discussions which is part of the friction for this ANI. I started a discussion here for those interested as I believe clarification would help with the AfD participation. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• I've also seen this editor vote !keep on several AfDs though not without merit. I have seen them try to find sources that myself or others couldn't find, and once prompted to, they can even change their vote if the sources were seen to be unreliable such as this [14]. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

AndriesvN and Christian theology articles

Since creating their account in 2021, AndriesvN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spent the last 3 years rewriting Christian theology articles into argumentative essays reflecting their own point of view, rather than scholarly consensus on the topic, often citing a self published amateur website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com". I think this makes them an unambiguous net negative for the encylopedia. When confronted about this, they have referred to reverts of their edits as sabotage and saying that the only reason that people oppose their edits is because they are disastrous for [their] theology. [15]. They've previously been taken to ANI before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#User:AndriesVN), but the result was inconclusive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we've gone straight banning with one diff, and some history. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Andries has written The majority is always wrong; particularly so, the intellectual elite. [16]. Does that not come across as WP:NOTHERE to you? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, AndriesvN needs to stop citing their own blog.[17] (It's currently a source in 15 articles.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I see I have only 24 hours to respond.

It claims above that I have been “rewriting Christian theology articles.”

In reality, I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

It says that I converted such articles “into argumentative essays.”

The modern study of the Arian Controversy began less than 200 years ago. At first, scholars relied excessively on ‘orthodox’ theologians only. But, particularly in the second half of the 20^th century, scholars realized that the traditional account of that Controversy is a complete travesty. Hanson, perhaps the foremost 20th-century scholar on the subject, wrote:

-    “This conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. To see this it is only necessary to read that weighty and magisterial recent work upon the subject, La Crisi Ariana del Qarto Secolo by M. Simonetti, a Roman Catholic scholar whose integrity is as unexceptionable as his orthodoxy.” (Hanson lecture 1988)

-    “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack [published at beginning of the 20th century], can today be completely ignored.” (R.P.C. Hanson, 1987, p. 95-96)

My sources are the books published over the past 50 years by leading scholars. (Simonetti, Hanson, Williams, Ayres, Anatolios) Therefore, in the Wikipedia articles, we have both the traditional account and the current view. Mentioning both views, which I do from time to time, may seem “argumentative essays.”

It says above that I am “reflecting their own point of view, rather than scholarly consensus on the topic.”

I claim to do the very opposite. For the last 3 years I have been studying the writings of the leading scholars of the past 50 years. I believe what I present is the scholarly view. But it is important to understand that the scholarly view changed much over the last century.

-    “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (written in 2004) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

-    “There has been a quite remarkable amount of new work on Arianism in recent years. … What had seemed clear points of reference faded away alarmingly as my studies advanced.” (Williams, p ix)

But the Wikipedia pages do not reflect the consensus position of modern scholarship. The Wikipedia pages still mostly reflect 19th-century scholarship. I am not trying to correct the scholarship but to present scholarship.

It says above that I cite “self published amateur website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com".

I have copies of limited parts of the writings of leading scholars on my website, to which I sometimes refer. But if you look at my edits, you will see that the bulk of my references are quotes from scholars. I put detailed quotes in the footnotes. But I will stop referring to my website. I don’t need it.

It says I am “an unambiguous net negative for the encylopedia.”

The Arian Controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine which is regarded as the foundational doctrine of the church.  This, therefore, is a highly contested subject. Traditionalists do not want to hear about the new view of the Arian Controversy because it threatens the foundation of the church. But I am an independent. I do not belong to any church or organization.

When confronted about this, they have referred to reverts of their edits as sabotage and saying that the only reason that people oppose their edits is because they are disastrous for [their] theology.

This sounds as it this is a regular occurrence, but it refers to one single incident yesterday. I put in a paragraph saying that the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was re-introduced only 30 years later. I gave many and detailed quotes from the leading scholars. But another editor simply deleted that paragraph. I regard that as blatant sabotage. Currently, the article on homoousios is silent on the subject.

I think it is important to understand why I am so vehemently opposed. The reason is that the fourth century controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which is the most fundamental and foundational doctrine of the mainstream church. The traditional account of the Controversy had been developed to bolster that doctrine. Rewriting the history of the Arian Controversy threatens that doctrine. The authors I quote are all leading Catholic scholars. They do not need a false account of the Arian Controversy to accept the Trinity doctrine. But tertiary level traditionalists do not have enough understanding to do the same and want to retain the traditional account.

“His sources themselves (outside his personal blog, which he regularly cites and copies from verbatim despite repeated policy violation notices on the matter) have merit”

I have to quote verbatim to show that these are not my ideas.

In summary, the fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Trinity doctrine, the foundational doctrine of the Church. The modern study of the Arian Controversy began less than 200 years ago. At first, by focusing excessively on the writings of the ‘orthodox’ but partisan authors, scholars got it completely wrong. However, particularly in the second half of the 20^th century, much progress has been made, resulting in scholars describing that Controversy very differently. However, the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited primarily by people intending to defend the Church rather than to defend the views of modern scholars. I leave you with some quotes from leading catholic scholars of the past 50 years:

“This conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. To see this it is only necessary to read that weighty and magisterial recent work upon the subject, La Crisi Ariana del Qarto Secolo by M. Simonetti, a Roman Catholic scholar whose integrity is as unexceptionable as his orthodoxy.” (Hanson lecture 1988)

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack [published at beginning of the 20th century], can today be completely ignored.” (R.P.C. Hanson, 1987, p. 95-96)

“Athanasius' works … are written from his point of view. When the controversy is seen from another point of view… a distinctly different picture develops.” (Lienhard, p. 416)

“The modern critical study of the subject really begins with Newman's justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians of the Fourth Century” (Rowan Williams, 2002, p2-3)

“Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source. The 19th century lionized Athanasius and made his career appear even more glorious than it was.” (Lienhard)

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (Williams, p234).

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error.” (Hanson, 1987, p. xviii-xix)

“There has been a quite remarkable amount of new work on Arianism in recent years. … What had seemed clear points of reference faded away alarmingly as my studies advanced.” (Williams, p ix)

“'Arianism' as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy, more exactly, a fantasy based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius. (Williams, p82)

“A great deal of recent work … helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (Williams, p. 21)

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Lewis Ayres, 2004, p. 2)

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (written in 2004) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

“In his wonderful dramatic prose Pavel Florensky epitomizes a centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: in one decision and with one pronouncement the Church identified a term that secured its Trinitarian and Christological beliefs against heresy and established a foundation for subsequent Christian thought. The narrative offered in Chapters 1–10 demonstrates why such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p11)

As an example, I quickly read the Wikipedia page on homoousios.

I made a quick assessment of the article on homoousios. That is the term used in the Nicene Creed to say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.

Wikipedia (W) says it “was later also applied to the Holy Spirit.” But Hanson wrote that the Creed “does not apply the word homoousion to him (the Holy Spirit).” (RH, 818)

Concerning pre-Nicene usage of the term, the article only mentions the Gnostics, who cannot be regarded as Christians. I previously put in a long discussion of pre-Nicene usage which has now been deleted which quotes scholars saying (a few extracts):

·       Egyptian paganism used the term to say the Logos and Father “share the same perfection of the divine nature.” (Beatrice)

·       The term “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).

·       Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to (the Greek term) homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 190)

·       “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192)

·       “It is almost certainly right to conclude that Origen could not have spoken of the Son as homoousios with the Father.” (Williams, p. 132)

·       in the 260s, “some local Sabellians” () described the Son as homoousios with the Father (Ayres, p. 94).

·       “It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)

The following are examples of other concepts that are not found in the article:

·       “Homoousios before it was placed in N must have been regarded as a term which carried with it heretical, or at least unsound, overtones to theologians in the Eastern church.” (Hanson, p. 195)

·       “The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches.” (Philip Schaff)

·       “To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before.” (Hanson, p. 166-7)

·       Constantine “pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 211)

·       “The Origenists had considerable reservation about homoousios and the other phrases containing the term ousios (substance), but the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved.” (Erickson) [Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85]

·       “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)

·       “It seems … that Constantine interceded on behalf of those unhappy with homoousios, insisting on the importance of understanding the term without material connotation.” (Ayres, p. 96)“For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (Hanson, p. 170)

·       “Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (extreme anti-Arians) [the Sabellians] were in favour of it (homoousios) … he pressed for its inclusion.” (Hanson, p. 202)

·       “The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it.” (Ayres, p. 90)

·       “If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine (during the Arian Controversy), there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

·       “He (Athanasius) began to use it [homoousios] first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357 … .” (Hanson, p. 438)

Sorry for this untidy document. I did not realize I must comment within 24 hours and I hastily put something together.

Andries AndriesvN (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We're discussing WP:Policy, not whether or not mainstream scholars are wrong. This wall of quotes is completely irrelevant; please stop including them in talk pages. You do not need to copy verbatim; that is plagiarism and a copyright violation. If reliable, independent sources - not your blog - say something, you can appropriately paraphrase and cite it, with due weight.

TypistMonkey (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

do note that attribution of quoted, verbatim material is a perfectly fine thing, but the part with the slippery slope is when it is done excessively and without encyclopedic purpose or context. This is therefore the definition of the slippery slope, quoting crap tonnes of these outside sources, in a talk page, for no encyclopedic purpose. BarntToust 20:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a helpful response as no-one is going to plough through all of this. Simply - you need to communicate with people and better than this. You cannot quote your own website under any circumstances. Secretlondon (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is this:

During the 20th century, through detailed and independent research, scholars specializing in the Arian Controversy have concluded that the Traditional Account of that Controversy is history according to the winner and fundamentally flawed. The writings of such scholars over the past 50 years present us with a Revised Account.

However, the Church does not accept the Revised Account because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of its foundational teaching; the Trinity doctrine. The Church continues to defend the Traditional Account because it reflects the views of the ‘orthodox’ fathers and supports the Trinity doctrine.

The average editor of Wikipedia articles on the Arian Controversy is not a scholar specializing in the Arian Controversy or even a student of such scholars as myself. The average editor is a Christian intent on defending the Church. By removing any statement that may cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine, these articles are kept at the level of the Traditional Account.

In other words, the Wikipedia approach of building consensus through talk pages cannot work for articles on the Arian Controversy. The majority of editors will always delete ‘negative’ statements. Given the situation, Wikipedia may consider one of two options. It may delete all such articles or it may assign an independent arbiter to ensure that all edits are based on the writings of recognized modern leaders in this area. AndriesvN (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, what you're trying to say is irrelevant to your demonstrated disinterest in following article policy in several ways that have been repeatedly complained about and noted directly to you-- most severely, by essentially converting several articles into extensions of your personal blog. Secondly, you've provably misrepresented your sources in the past (e.g. misrepresenting Athanasius as Sabellian in theology through deceptively quoted passages from an author who himself didn't dare to assert that he was)-- even ignoring your lack of attention to policy, your contributions aren't valuable in terms of their information. Thirdly, your narrative isn't true-- even before you, Bart Ehrman (an atheist) was used as a prominent source for Christian theology articles to the point that many of them are written on some level around his theory of a "proto-orthodox Christianity". Arsenic-03 (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

A day or three ago, you deleted my paragraph that said that homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and only resurfaced in the mid-350s. You justified the deletion as follows:

“This segment is lifted from the contributor's personal blog (this complaint has already been made in the Talk page topic the Disputed notice links to). The citations also do not reference the specific book cited, and one links to the contributor's personal blog.”

Firstly, this sounds as if I invented the arguments in this paragraph. But I provided six verbatim quotes from recognized scholars, confirming this paragraph.

Secondly, you said I did not provide “reference the specific book cited.” I gave the name of the author and the page numbers. Why should I provide full details if the same authors are quoted repeatedly?

Thirdly, you say “one links to the contributor's personal blog.” That is true. But it links to a copy on my site of a lecture by the foremost 20^th-century Arian Controversy scholar; RPC Hanson. It is not one of my articles.

In my view, you deleted this very important paragraph based on minor technicalities. I claimed above that the average editor of Arian Controversy pages will always make sure that those pages revert to the Traditional Account by deleting anything that may question the validity of the Trinity doctrine.

Thans again for your comment. Such comments help me improve. regards AndriesvN (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You say: "You've provably misrepresented your sources in the past (e.g. misrepresenting Athanasius as Sabellian in theology through deceptively quoted passages from an author who himself didn't dare to assert that he was)."

You don't provide references. I am not sure where I "misrepresented" and "deceptively quoted." In the article on my site on Athanasius' theology, I say that his theology was similar to Sabellianism. Both taught that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis' (a single Person). Hanson (p. 235) says that "the hallmark" of Sabellianism is that the Father and Son are one Person. If we use that as the definition of Sabellianism, then Athanasius was a Sabellian. But if you can provide more specific details, I can respond more precisely. AndriesvN (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you copy-pasted from your own blog, verbatim. You just can't do that, and doing so also imported the distinctly argumentative tone from your blog (which is a problem in its own right). Secondly, authors can have more than one book penned by them-- a name and a page number is useless for reference.

You don't provide references My vote includes a link to me demonstrating all the ways you misrepresented Hanson representing Athanasius (including evidence that you've argued the same on the Christianity Stack Exchange only to be summarily refuted), and you're still choosing to misrepresent both by obscuring the history of the terminology you now discuss. I read the cited sections. I've read Athanasius. Now, you've cited p.235 of what's presumably Search for The Christian Doctrine of God to assert that Athanasius and Sabellius believed the same, when the authors are speaking of Marcellus and Eustatius there, and furthermore notes that the former accused Sabellius of incorrectly rejecting the Logos-doctrine. This is why I distrust the informational value of your contributions. Arsenic-03 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you copy-pasted from your own blog, verbatim. You just can't do that

If my site is a summary in my own words of what the scholars say, which ample quotes from scholars, I don’t see what is wrong in copying verbatim from it.

and doing so also imported the distinctly argumentative tone from your blog (which is a problem in its own right).

The argumentative tone is the natural result of having to deal with two versions of the Arian Controversy – the traditional and the modern.

My vote includes a link to me demonstrating all the ways you misrepresented Hanson

It is a pity that I was not made aware of your writings against me. You did not name me, so I was not informed. I would have liked to respond. But I can now at least see where you got the idea that I said Athanasius is a Sabellian. It is a question I put on Stackexchange which you interpreted as rhetorical. But Hanson is my hero. I would never misrepresent him.

Now, you've cited p.235 of what's presumably Search for The Christian Doctrine of God to assert that Athanasius and Sabellius believed the same, when the authors are speaking of Marcellus and Eustatius there, and furthermore notes that the former accused Sabellius of incorrectly rejecting the Logos-doctrine.

Again, you make it sound as if I was misrepresenting something. Other people reading this would not know that Marcellus and Eustatius were the two leading Sabellians. And other people would not know that Athanasius and the Sabellians taught two variations of the same thing. Both taught that the Father and Son are a single Person but they disagreed on how that works. But since the main question in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person, Athanasius and the Sabellians were on the same side.

I distrust the informational value of your contributions.

I look at that paragraph on homoousios disappearing after Nicaea which you removed for no good reason. I look at the article on homoousios, as it now reads. It is empty. Of the use of the term before Nicaea, it refers only to the Gnostics, which is irrelevant. It says nothing about who in the church used it before Nicaea. It says nothing of how the term was interpreted at Nicaea, who proposed it, why it was included, or what happened to the term after Nicaea. These are issues that the scholars discuss at length. It is like a home that was ravaged by fire. This, I assume, is your doing. That is why I distrust your contributions. AndriesvN (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

your blog does not have an encyclopedic tone, and does not have in-line citations of properly-referenced scholarly material. you can show differences in two ways-of-thinking by analysing them in the context of encyclopedic discussion, not by pitting them against each other in argumentative format.

It's futile to discuss with AndriesvN. BarntToust 14:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we are not interested in truth, we are interested in verifiability. Even if the church (all of them?) are wrong on key points of Christianity we don't write that they are all wrong. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for academia. We are writing to expand and to educate, not to prove our argument correct. You seem to be on a crusade and presume bad faith for people editing with mainstream view points. I'd strongly advise you to contribute in areas you don't care so strongly about. Secretlondon (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Both the scholarly and the church views are “verifiability,” but they differ. I previously understood that what you want is the scholarly view. Now I am no longer sure. “Expand and to educate,” “verifiability,” “mainstream view points.” These terms seem to go in the church direction. AndriesvN (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to your contributions here I think we would be right to block you from editing on Christian theology for the time being, as I don't think you are listening or understand what the problem is. Secretlondon (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban AndriesvN from Christian theology

Based on the above posts, I am proposing that AndriesvN be topic banned from Christian theology, broadly construed. I think this a basic minimum and I wouldn't oppose an indef block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral Some of their sources might have merit, but they have too much of an attitude of "Us right, everyone else wrong." tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've demonstrated in the past that whether or not his sources themselves (outside his personal blog, which he regularly cites and copies from verbatim despite repeated policy violation notices on the matter) have merit, he's liable to grossly misrepresent the arguments and base information therein. The reality that he may be providing valuable information (or at least, information not worthy of deletion) mingled together with his argumentation makes mass contribution reversion untenable and article renovation difficult, but I nevertheless opine his demonstrable willingness to distort sources ensures that his contributions are overall a net negative. Arsenic-03 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest an indef seems they're mostly here to promote their personal blog website, which is not a reliable source. I notice the majority of their edits are sourced to it, which is just their own opinion and views and in no means a reliable third party source. They're not interested in editing anything else, just basically in proselytizing and explaining why their fringe worldview is right. They've had policies and guidelines explained to them many times, and they've clearly demonstrated they have zero intention of following them. I don't think they can be productive here. (Oh and blacklist their blog at the same time.)Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I'm surprised he got in a comment in the previous ANI egregious enough to be revdel'd, and is still here. No prejudice against an indef, myself. Ravenswing 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• non-admin comment There's a comment on the user in question's talk page that seems a bit concerning: You'll find it here. It reads, "Combined with the miracles that we are surrounded with, such as the miracle of sight, it allows me to look forward to my death.". Could be emo stuff, but really not the stuff you wanna see on Wikipedia. Is this just some Heaven's Gate cult-esque morbidity or whatever? Is this just emo? Is this an actual concern? BarntToust 21:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's just religion. Secretlondon (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  i don't think this is of any concern; it's not that much weirder than saying "i look forward to going to heaven" ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block as per Canterbury Tail. Barring that, support the topic ban, broadly construed. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, with an indef topic ban as second choice. Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC).
• Support topic ban. I would AGF past a full NOTHERE, but they're really not getting the point of WP regarding sourcing. I can't see that revelationbyjesuschrist.com has any place here on WP, and certainly not when it's added by its author. If it's backed up by so much research, This article quotes from the world-class specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy., then why not quote those as RS instead?

If this gets worse or spread (and that would be no surprise), then INDEF is still a possibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the editing is disruptive, and if unchecked then a block would be necessary. I have offered to help them get their head around what we do here - I don't know whether that will help, but if they are willing to engage then we might get somewhere. If they don't respond to my offer, I don't object to the apparent consensus for an indefinite block/TBAN. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban - I think a topic ban at least is a must given their conduct in this area. I could go either way on an indef; they don't seem to be particularly collaborative, obviously a major issue, but they also may be more amenable to the opinions of others in a topic that isn't so important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'd prefer that this discussion isn't closed until we have heard from User:AndriesvN. I am interested in hearing their response to this critique. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Policy says we have to wait at least 24 hours, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The user in question has already written a lengthy-as all hell would let out tangent of some supposedly cited backups of content on their talk page to Liz. The sources they give may be of merit? They have been given an ample notice to see what has transpired here. They have made a choice to not engage here, or maybe they do not care? Also, they have spoken with Girth Summit on their talk page, in which Girth reiterated the ANI discussion taking place, and gave some very helpful advice to them on their misgivings.

  They either know that this is going on and don't care, or or they are just blissfully unaware of the way Wiki works. Look, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU might be going on, but they are well-aware of the other stuff on their talk page. They may yet actually be doing research, or it could all just be WP:FRINGE cruft. Who knows? BarntToust 13:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well they responded in the section above with a massive wall of text, most of which is not about the actual topic of this complaint. I really don't think they get it or understand what Wikipedia is for. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess that this obliges me to read their user talk page response. Wish me luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note that the above was Liz's last post since departing for that user page. Liz? Liz? Are you all right? Should we send in a rescue party? EEng 06:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @EEng, you get the SatNav, I'll drive the Jeep! into the jungle of fringe-y Christian theology we go! BarntToust 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to put together a proper reply. My habit is to sleep over things. AndriesvN (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum. They've not just used they're own blog as a reference but embedded links into the text of articles. The changes they've made are not backed up the the sources in the article and appear to have quite a lot of OR in them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think I got all the WP:EL vios. Haven't removed all the citation templates using the blog as a source because I have no interest in locating a better one. Folly Mox (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  As an aside, given this editor's propensity for providing verbatim quotations rather than summarising in their own words, I suspect the source material hosted on their blog – excepting, of course, their own OR posts – comprises faithful reproductions of the original sources. So not every citation to the blog is as bad as it seems, although clearly still inappropriate. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Numerous citations of own blog, does not understand or intentionally ignores WP:OR. Lengthy argumentative passages on talk pages, and this is an ongoing issue. I would extend this to everything related to Christian theology and early church history - arguments about discussion of Councils and Creeds are also problematic. TypistMonkey (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I consider those to come under "broadly construed" Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• The editor is showing no interest at all in improving. Three points, really: a. they can't seem to make an argument without completely losing sight of the matter at hand, an ongoing problem, and continue trying to prove that they are right in all kinds of places--here, their talk page, edit summaries, without ever involving the fact that we are an encyclopedia and the crux is their behavior. b. Their walls of (irrelevant) text only exacerbate their disruption. c. Perhaps most damning, they continue they show an incredible amount of bad faith; they did so here, in a note on their talk page where their only response was to argue that they were right on the content, and again here, in one of the defenses of their rightness--look at the last paragraph for the conspiracy theory, "the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited not by the world's leading scholars but primarily by people intending to defend the Church". Enough already. I'm for an indef block/ban, and a topic ban at the very least. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have edited the article (meaning Arianism) in the past, and I'm not a Christian, so I don't seek to "defend the Church". I have even WP:CITED Bart Ehrman in the article, he is an atheist. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndriesvN&diff=prev&oldid=1254709248

• Support indef block with topic ban as a distant second. The 2000+ word response that they posted indicates an inability to speak plainly and collaborate with other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block, or topic ban if not enough consensus for a block. The user in question doesn't seem to understand or respect the purpose of Wikipedia, and has been around long enough (and confronted about it enough times) that they really have no excuse. Case in point: when confronted for turning articles into argumentative essays (see top of thread), user responds with a long argumentative essay in defense of their theology. Completely beside the point. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal of theology. Given the user's persistent unwillingness to change, I think a topic ban is a bare minimum, and an indef block more appropriate. HieronymusNatalis (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, indef block, per nom. Raulois (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do we mean by topic ban? If it’s only circumscribed to not editing on the articles that he has been disrupting, then that wouldn’t be a good idea. I would approve of T-banning him on anything that pertains to Christian theology. Raulois (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support t-ban on Christian theology as broadly construed as is possible. I think this editor could be formed into a successful contributor once exposed more thoroughly to Wikipedia's requirement to collaborate. A medium-length (two-three weeks) general block may also help them cool off. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Can we get a close on this? It looks like there's an overwhelming consensus that favors a broad t-ban with a marginal consensus against an indef. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

    Cullen has indef'd them. Secretlondon (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, missed that. A shame but appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan appealable after one year and every year thereafter. Oppose block (for now). Clearly there is a problem here that requires some form of editing restriction. My usual preference is to go with the lowest level of sanction that will resolve the problem. In this case, I am not yet satisfied that AndriesvN is NOTHERE. That said, if there is not an improvement in their editing after the imposition of the TBan, then a block may become necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. They need to edit on different areas. Secretlondon (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or indef on grounds of WP:Nothere. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC).
• Comment I'm not going to plow through all the nonsense about Athanasius and Sabellius and Marcellus and Eustatius and Logos and vehement homoousios, so I don't have an opinion on whether anyone should be blocked or topic-banned or whatever. But if someone's topic-banned, why just wrt Christian theology? My spidey sense tells me that's asking for trouble. How about instead: anything related to religion or theology (with the proverbial broadly construed provision, natch). EEng 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked AndriesvN as not here to build an encyclopedia. They have shown that they are here only to push their own idiosyncratic theological theories, to promote their blog, and to insist that they know the "truth". As for a topic ban, I see no evidence that this editor is interested in improving articles about butterflies or asteroids or blues music or particle physics, or any other topic except early Christian theology. Their singular focus is to push their personal pet theological theories, so I fail to see what a topic ban would accomplish. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban at minimum, not really sure why not an indeff as nobody has presented good work in other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  familiar with WP:SPA? that's the idea behind indeff. BarntToust 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, double negative, I missed that. misunderstood since I missed the double negative 😅 BarntToust 17:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin is reverting my perfectly legitimate edit and making accusations of my being a sock of some other user at the very outset.

Ratnahastin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting my perfectly legitimate edit and making accusations of my being a sock of some other user at the very outset. I put in two very relevant points pertaining to the Adani Group ONLY on the Talk Page Talk:Adani Group and with references from highly regarded RS. With no discussion whatsoever they are reverting and over and above accusing me of being a sock in the edit summary. My edit His revert with accusation I am not sure of where this should be. So am posting this at two places.117.194.134.78 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you're a sockpuppet, but pinging random users to include information in the article certainly won't help. Instead, you can just edit the article yourself to include that information, paying attention to including reliable sources, and maintaining a neutral POV. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 11:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the user for you. Next time, please notify a user before taking them to ANI. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 11:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As Matrix said, pinging random editor is no way to suggest changes to an article and is bound to raise eye brows especially when you're editing as an IP. And when an article has had enough problems with socks that it's even been discussed in the media, I think you should naturally expect a lot of suspicion anyway so your actions compound that even more. Your excessively bombastic tone when suggesting changes undoubtedly hasn't helped either. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I woudnt bother with comments like these but that "raise eyebrows" part....and "bombastic tone"....I looked through the revision history of the article and came across four names (three of them with higher editing privilages and one an Admin) and thought of asking them why those bits were not there (both were well known at their respective times). Its now clear to me that some editors on that article will only tolerate what they like to see there rather than what is true or fair. ```` 117.194.134.78 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying you are a sock then? Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How did you come to that conclusion from what the editor just said? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO and editor who knows enough to look through the revision history of an article, and even enough to work out that one of those editors is an admin (User:Materialscientist who has an admin category not no userbox), but somehow not enough to know it's completely inappropriate to ping said editors to a talk page discussion over something they weren't involved in to lambast said editors over the state over said article has likely gained that experience via questionable means. Otherwise they'd know much better how to bring disputes to the talk page such as raising issues calmly and neutrally and not pinging a bunch of uninvolved editors of nothing to do with them, or saying "had completely trashed the hindenburg report and its allegations against Adani". I'd note that looking at the edit history, AquilaFasciata only edited the article once in July 2023 [18] and does not show up in the talk page and MainlyTwelve likewise hasn't touched it since February 2023 [19] and also hasn't touched the talk page. There have been quite a few edits since then by other making me think that I was wrong to say these were "random". These were editors specifically chosen whether from experience or whatever else that lead the OP to believe they would be most likely to assist even if they didn't realise that lambasting them was unlikely to help in their goal. So in fact, this editor was experienced enough to do all that yet still somehow didn't understand the inappropriateness of WP:canvassing either. All again pointing to an editor who gained experience in trying to manipulate Wikipedia content most likely based on a COI, rather than improve it. P.S. Just noticed they even used a vandal template above. Although yes, they had justed posted simultaneously at AIV, still I think it's fair to say most inexperienced editors are not going to do that between pages. Of course even making it to AIV and ANI so quickly is IMO another clear sign of significant experience but only with limited WP:NOTHERE goals in mind. Likewise using RVV [20] Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to be in a position of defending an IP editor who heads directly to ANI on their first day, but experienced editors know that IP addresses are dynamic and this editor could have years of editing experience with a variety of different addresses. They could respond here tomorrow with a different IP address. That is the conclusion I would come to rather than they are a block-evading editor who is socking. But that's me, YMMV. I did revert the reversion of their talk page comments because, aside from the pinging, I thought it was legitimate for them to raise questions on an article talk page when every edit they made to an article are reverted. Assume this editor isn't a sock, where else should they go to to find answers? I think the AIV report was a mistake but, again, I'm not an editor whose every edit has been reverted, I'd be pretty frustrated, too.

But Nil, I appreciate your thoughtful explanation, I know it was based on your substantial experience editing on the project. I just think there is a pervasive bias against IP editors on this project, in general, and I like to give them the benefit of the doubt unless presented with clear evidence of their ill intent which I don't see here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt that this editor is a sock of a banned user and shouldn't be allowed to edit.[21] It's his modus operandi to mass ping a bunch of editors on the talk pages[22] and has been blocked on his other IPs.[23] I find your revert here to be unhelpful as it contradicts WP:DENY. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of banning socks is to prevent a registered user or an ip, from gaming consensus. On the talk page the IP has made only 1 comment. I think the action by Liz is justified. Editors must explain why the edits suggested by the ip are against the policy, instead of being heavy-handed. — hako9 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

But banned means banned. A banned editor is not allowed to make any edits anywhere. I have filed a proper SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor. Liz and Ratnahastin have a look. Capitals00 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if an ip is using multiple accounts, usually only sock accounts are perma banned, not the main account (unless main account is also disruptive). The ip's edit on the talk page merit a response, whether sock or not. Their request was in good-faith. It reflects poorly on long time editors, that they can't even explain their disagreements on the talk page, and they move straight to removing edits. — hako9 (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Socks are blocked, yes, but their main account is also blocked for using socks. In this case, this IP sock's main account was banned (not just blocked), as such he is not allowed to edit at all, even with the IPs. Anyway, this IP sock is now also blocked.[24] Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No offense, Ratnahastin but your "sock detector" is not confirmation that an editor is a sock. It's grounds to file an SPI complaint but I don't believe in trusting any editor's suspicions as if they are factual unless they are an SPI clerk. I know I tell many NPP not to tag new articles as CSD G5s unless a sock is confirmed, we don't delete articles/pages on the suspicions that an editor MIGHT be a sock. I feel this is especially true for IP editors who already face a bias against them as they are frequently seen as probable vandals. But I can see we differ on this point and will not agree here but I just wanted to present my own view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz: I agree with you that since we allow IP editing, there's nothing wrong with an IP editor or new account having experience. In fact, I dislike it when editors come to ANI and say this IP editor or new account has too much experience they're clearly not new and so they're a sock; unless the editor has claimed they have little experience.

But this isn't the same situation. It's not that they are experienced which is the problem. It's that they are experienced but only in certain ways that is the problem. I do not believe a good faith editor would only learn the things they've learnt, much of which takes editors a long time to learn but somehow fail to learn much more basic things. BTW I later recognised I shouldn't have made my second reply (the admit sock one) in the way I did, while I feel my opinion was justified, it was never likely to be much help. However having made it, I did feel I should explain it when queried.

It does seem that I was wrong, I incorrectly assumed they were a COI sock, probably paid, who only learnt enough to try and force their way through. I was a bit surprised by some of stuff they did which seemed counterproductive but I've seen a lot of editors with certain motives do stuff which they should have realised was counterproductive. However now that it seems confirmed they were a sock of an editor who seems to be more of a troll it makes a lot more sense. They didn't learn this stuff because they didn't care to learn. Or actually it's likely they wanted to cause the exact disruption they caused, and have unfortunately learnt exactly how to do it.

FWIW, I had no problem with you reinstating the discussion. I felt it sort of odd that I was telling them to go to the talk page (when reverting their attempt to change the article) when I knew they'd sort of tried but been reverted. However I didn't do this myself since I felt it had been established that if the IP editor had wanted to start a discussion they should do it in a better way, at a minimum without pinging other editors and preferably without the unnecessary complaining and instead concentrating on what they wanted to change and why they felt it was justified. And while my suspicions they were a sock weren't enough for me to be willing to revert them as a sock, I also felt they were enough that I was comfortable letting others with more experience treat them as one and so apply WP:DENY etc.

I think this is always a tricky area as a lot of dealing with socks especially from IPs does come in the form of those who know the sock just applying WP:DENY; which does mean there is a risk they could in good faith make mistakes difficult for the IP to challenge. That said, as much as I respect SPI clerks etc, I'm not sure if they're always necessarily doing much more in simple cases like this. And I'm not sure if they even want us to bring every single IP sock to them. Also some admins who aren't SPI clerks but are experienced with some specific sock will just block them as socks even on their own volition. While admins have gone through RFA etc, and yes the block can be challenged via an unblock, in reality, I think most of the time if an admin experienced with a sock calls someone as sock, few admins are going to query them.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Improper vanishing and restoration of a deleted article

Last year, I had a protracted debate at an AfD with Errico Boukoura. TLDR: the nominated article, which was written by him, used unencyclopedic language and the author bypassed proper AfC, after several failed AfC submissions, by removing the controversial parts and adding them back after passing AfC. At the AfD, everybody, except the author, agreed with deletion. After the deletion, the author vanished.

Today, I noticed the article (with a slightly differently spelled name) exists again. The unencyclopedic language is similar, if I remember well, to the original article. It was created just a few days after the closure of the AfD by IlEssere in their very first edit. Some historical revisions even use phrasing I remember from the original article:

• The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene.
• The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects
• Today, the building of Keramikou 28 stands as a symbol of the Athenian art scene through the numerous exhibitions, performances, and projects hosted within its walls

Also note that the current article passed AfC, albeit in a much shorter version than the current text.

Pinging editors who participated in the AfD: @Explicit, Star Mississippi, S Marshall, XOR'easter, HandThatFeeds, and Daniel. Also pinging @ToadetteEdit, who approved the current article at AfC.

– Janhrach (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I forgot to note, to avoid confusion, that the current article is not a verbatim restoration of the deleted one. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just got pinged; I didn't remember reviewing the draft and didn't noticed the AfD, but to be clear, doesn't the article meet G4 of speedy deletion? ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When I thought that G4 applies, eligible page should be identical, and the substantial addition since the acceptance makes it ineligible, if I interpret policy properly. Other than that an AfD may be appropriate as I fail to verify any qualifying sources in the article that makes the building notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if you’re referring to the original page or the one I created. Regarding the page I created, the articles in Greek are the ones that mention the points you're addressing. IlEssere (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am referring to your (recreated) article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

All information added to the page is referenced, though most sources are in Greek, as this building is in Athens and has primarily gained attention locally.

You can share which specific parts you are referring so I can help with the transition of the reference. IlEssere (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Translation IlEssere (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I meant this edit, which happened after the AfD. You reviewed the recreated article, not the original one (that which was deleted). Janhrach (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Saw the diff, just realized that G4 would have applied, given that it was not caught by the helper script nor PageCuration to the least (given that Atlantic306 had given the article a pass) I am not sure whether G4 applies now or not with the current expanded version. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning some of the terms, so I'm not familiar with what AfD means. I actually started using Wikipedia because of Keramikou 28. I came across an article related to it that had incorrect information and was poorly written, but I unfortunately lost track of it before I could figure out what happened to it.

After some research, I created a new page myself to provide accurate information on the topic. IlEssere (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD=Articles for deletion ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! It seems others have also noted that the original page may not have been properly written besides me.

As for the page o created, I'd really appreciate any guidance on ensuring the page I created meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have suggestions or would like to make any corrections or add relevant information, please feel free to do so. IlEssere (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this. Janhrach (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What about this? IlEssere (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you lost track of what happened to the article that had incorrect information, then why its historical revisions of your article contain text fragments from the old, deleted article? Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Wikipedia. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.

Please feel free to make any corrections you find necessary on the page I created. If you have any questions about the Greek references, I’d be happy to help with translations for verification. IlEssere (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The notice about the AfD discussion was on the top of the article for two weeks. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don’t remember if I saw the AfD notice or not, as this was about a year ago. A friend told me that the had gone through some conversations about the relation of the page, but didn’t know what happened. I’m still quite new to Wikipedia and learning how everything works, so there’s a lot I’m still figuring out. IlEssere (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So you say that the author of the deleted article is a friend of yours? Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I said a friend that had gone through some conversations. IlEssere (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What conversations? Do you mean they participated in the AfD? Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So this is substantially a recreation of the deleted article, and should be G4'ed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that while past revisions would certainly qualify for G4, the current one contains a lot of content not present is the deleted article, so it is not eligible. Janhrach (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a copy-paste of the previous page. I used the structure of the original as a framework, but I worked on it and made changes to create new content." IlEssere (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Long story short: Last year, @Errico Boukoura: created a draft for the topic, It was submitted 5 times and it was declined by 3 distinct reviewers including a rejection by @Greenman:. Apparently the decline was due to the article's tone. It was then reviewed by an experienced reviewer and accepted it, vbut later it was sent to AfD and deleted on grounds of wp:tnt. A few days later, another created the draft and was accepted five months later. Based on this, the article is plausibly notable, so the issue should be around the prose and/or the editor. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Could you provide some guidance on how I can improve the prose? IlEssere (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it is important to note that reviewed version of the original article was significanly abridged, and the removed content was re-added after review. Janhrach (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and I’ve made changes to this. I’ve significantly abridged the content and removed unnecessary details to make the article more concise and focused. IlEssere (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My comment was about the original article created by Errico Boukoura. Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I admire your honesty, but it is impossible to verfy without the ability to view deleted revisions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were an admin, so you could verify my claims. Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion (thanks for the ping), this is not a G4, but nor does it address the issues which go far beyond prose. I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28 where the content is best discussed. If IlEssere's conduct needs assessing, this should remain open. If this is deleted, a note should be relayed to AfC reviewers to keep an eye out for spelling variations and that it's best left for experienced reviewers. Star Mississippi 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you share the present issues t on the current Keramikou 28 page that go beyond prose? Understanding these factors would be helpful in addressing the article's suitability. Additionally, are there specific elements (like sourcing or content focus) that you find problematic in its current version? IlEssere (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, article improvement is not a subject that is dealt with at ANI. I recommend asking any editors who reviewed the article for Articles for Creation if you went through that process or asking at the Teahouse. I also recommend participating in the AFD linked here so you can hear the critique of the article by editors, that might provide guidance on how to improve it. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am currently participating in the AFD discussion, but I've been advised to come back here to understand what the specific problems with the page are. I'm feeling a bit confused because the opinions on here seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the main concerns are. Could someone help me understand the key issues that need to be addressed for this article? IlEssere (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  IlEssere, I'm not sure why anyone would tell you to return to ANI. This noticeboard deals with editor conduct, not content issues. This is not the forum to come to for advice on improving this article and your time is best spent elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi IlEssere (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz I did send @IlEssere back here and the prior AfD to read all of the arguments already made about why the article should not have been re-created. IlEssere it's fine if you disagree, but you really do need to listen to the other editors' input especially in the prior discussion. Liz's suggestion about the AfC declines will also help. Star Mississippi 04:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. I just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing. I'm genuinely trying to figure out the best approach for the article and understand how to move forward. IlEssere (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a situation where the spelling of the title of an article has been changed when it is recreated after a deletion. This is an all-too-common practice, in particular when the name of the subject is transliterated from a non-Latin writing system. This is a situation in which it is difficult to assume good faith, because it appears to be gaming the title, which is a conduct issue However, since the article has been nominated for deletion, we can focus on the content issue at the AFD and ignore the conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank for clarifying this. I tried to clarify the problems with the page at its AfD, but @Star Mississippi directed me here to find the reason why the article was AfD. IlEssere (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @IlEssere, you cannot understand the point. The article was sent to AfD because it is a recreated article that is not a G4 and neutrality as on the old deleted one is still disputed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand what the problem is now. I confused since other things where mentioned on here. IlEssere (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The article should be, of course, discussed at AfD. But I think conduct should also be discussed, as there are plenty of reasons to think that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person:

1. The new article was created only a few days after the deletion of the old one. IlEssere explains this by saying that they copied the old article, worked on it, and uploaded their more-or-less finished work after the deletion. But the oldest revisions of Keramikou 28 do not seem to indicate this. They look like IlEssere restored verbatim fragments of the original article (Some passages are familiar to me, some less so, so I am not absolutely sure.) and worked on them on-wiki.
2. IlEssere claimed they didn't know what AfD means. However, they mentioned the AfD process in this Teahouse post. I find it highly unlikely that they would forget about the existence of AfD. Even if they had forgotten the name, I linked the AfD discussion above. I think it is very unlikely that they wouldn't remember even after visiting the AfD page.
3. Do not see a good-faith reason why would IlEssere leave the significant expansion of the current article for after the AfC, especially noting that they claim to be a completely new and unexperienced editor.
4. The language of the current article is similar to the previous one.
5. Both IlEssere and Errico Boukoura claim to speak English, Greek and Italian on their user page.
6. Notice the "Articles contributed" list on IlEssere's user page. It seems to be a list of all article they have edited. They list the article Theodoros Stamos there. However no edits have been made to the article by IlEssere. The last edit to the page is by Errico Boukoura.

IlEssere hasn't defensed themselves convincingly yet.

– Janhrach (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve addressed most of these concerns previously.

1. I discovered the Keramikou 28 page around the time it was deleted and noticed it had a lot of misinformation and was poorly written. Since I was new to Wikipedia, I copied the entire page and began working on improving it on my own with more accurate information, better tone, correct references, and a more suitable image.
2. As for AfD, until it was brought up again, I wasn’t entirely sure what it was. When I first posted in the Teahouse, I only knew from a tech-savvy friend who followed the original Keramikou 28 AfD process that the page had been deleted due to poor references. To clarify, as @Janhrach mentioned, I am *not* connected to the previous creator.
3. Could you clarify what you mean by “similar”?
4. If you are talking about the tone, I disagree that the new version resembles the old one, which I remember as being highly promotional.
5. While I do speak English, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Arabic, I don’t think that sharing some of the same languages as Boukoura means we are the same person.
6. Lastly, I have made improvements to each article listed on my profile, including the Theodoros Stamos page.

IlEssere (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that this was the result of your offline work?

You said "I'm not familiar with what AfD means." and when ToadetteEdit responded "AfD=Articles for deletion", you were satisfied. This is not consistent with your reply that you weren't "entirely sure what it was".

As for the language in the old article, I will quote S Marshall:

The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear.

This description also fits the current article.

Can you please post the diff in which you edited Theodoros Stamos? Was it this one or this one?

– Janhrach (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t even remember this, I thought you were referring to the current page. I'm not sure when I created that one, it was likely early edits in my Wikipedia.

What I tried to do was; copy the original page and make corrections, intending to update to how the current Keramikou 28 page looks.

As for AfD, I now know what it is, so lets focus on the current page.

Concerning my edits on Theodoros Stamos, I need to review them, as I can't recall when I made the edits. As you can see on my page, I have been editing numerous entries recently. But please give some time since I am busy in real life. IlEssere (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This contribution is remarkably similar in key words and editing style to a number by Errico Boukoura seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28. I find myself agreeing with Janhrach's hunch above, for whatever that is worth. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The diff I presented is extremely important – it is your very first edit and the edit that created the page that is now nominated for deletion. You said:

As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Wikipedia. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.

This diff, at least seemingly, disproves this claim. I really fail to see how the text added in it, or in the few following edits, could be seen as a suitable replacement for the now-deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Backlink: Wikipedia:Teahouse § Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28. Presented without comment: el:Special:History/Κεραμεικού 28, it:Speciale:Cronologia/Keramikou 28. (Indentation level chosen arbitrarily). Folly Mox (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Remarkable how el and it are both languages that User:Errico Boukoura has listed on their userpage as proficient or native, and IlEssere happens to create articles on this topic on both those wikis. At some point, we need to accept what is staring ourselves in the face. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower7 - WP:NOTHERE

Special:Contributions/Cyberpower7 - An SPA account is adding delete votes without a rationale on all the AfDs they come across, previously warned by User:Jmcgnh and User:Geschichte. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never seen worse comments in AFD with regards to quantity and quality. Completely non-communicative user - so far. I tried a few undo's, mostly as a technical means to display a red button, when the new message button obviously did not work at all. Rapid drive-by spammer, difficult to think otherwise than NOTHERE. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I am going to go through their edits and revert them one-by-one (in case the occasional one has some sort of substance). Agree the editor should be indeffed given previous warnings. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah--I see I'm not the only one seeing this. I'll block. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In their (very partial) defence, I am not sure their English is as strong as they might be thinking it is and therefore suggest that maybe they've not really understood the guidelines and can't express themselves clearly. It probably doesn't matter as I doubt they will read this, but maybe their enthusiasm would be better directed to a Wikipedia language project that they understand fluently. JMWt (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they can't speak fluent English isn't relevant. If they at least wrote something on AfD pages, no matter how illiterate-sounding and poor in form, they could be directed away from here and to a place that uses their language so they could contribute. If that were the case, this would be an issue of the lack of the ability to communicate. However, what this is in reality is an issue of low-effort posting on AfDs literally everywhere within a hop, skip & jump away; Their inability to understand this place due to the language barrier is superseded by the fact that they don't even at least try, make an effort to write anything on here, and that they Dunning-Kruger themselves into thinking they are competent enough to be on a branch of a site that requires a decent grasp of English, instead of having good judgement and going to the place where people speak a language that they are actually competent in. I seriously doubt the Indian Wikipedia or whoever would enjoy en.wikipedia dumping this WP:CIR issue on them. BarntToust 22:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You mean the Indian Wikipedia, where they speak, um, Indian? EEng 23:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A script I didn't recognise, had to look it up: Santali language. There's a Santali Wikipedia here (And for EEng's benefit, I should point out that while I can *read* a little Indian, European and Asian, the only language I can really speak is American.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@EEng, No. Given they freely advertise on their talk their user page as being a citizen of the Republic of India, I'm going to assume they speak Hindi, the other official language there besides English. But, there are, as you'll see by clicking the hyperlink of the Republic of India, numerous other languages that are recognised as regional, those are Assamese, Bengali, Boro, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu or Urdu... Which is why I say "their language" and generalise "the Indian Wikipedia" since I've not got the slightest of what language they have transcribed to their talk page, and which language-edition that they should not anyway be pointed to. Could be Hindi, could be any of these others.

I'm sorry, but whether or not this was sarcastic, my mind has gone to "Hey, do you speak Mexican?" BarntToust 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, Shirt58 beat me to the punchline. Saying "I can read European and Asian and speak American" gets the teasing done just as well as the oft-said "saying-'Hey do you speak Mexican'-to-a-Hispanic-person" goof-up does. BarntToust 00:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"one of the language-editions of Wikipedia that are of a language commonly spoken in India, where this editor is a citizen of" would probably be the more proper way to specify, but is long-winded. BarntToust 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother anymore. EEng 04:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

EEng#s, you're not the only one who has that question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hah! I knew someone would say that! EEng 06:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Clerical note that this user is distinct from User:Cyberpower678. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't you know that I speak Santali? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 13:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And to think Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused was taken to AfD twice. EEng 05:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

TPA Revoke

Can we get a TPA Revoke of Special:Contributions/2.98.157.204 Please since being blocked they've attacked the blocking admin [25] [26] twice. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this here? If it's really an issue, the blocking admin can revoke talk page access themselves. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a very common request to make here. To the contrary, the blocking admin is not chained to their blocks and does not always see that TPA revocation is required. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If the blocking admin is the target of a mild attack and not aware of it, its probably better for everyone to just ignore it rather than advertising and spreading the attack. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, maybe not. The stakes are exceedingly low in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So productive. I expect the perpetrator to return in a few days or sooner on a different IP. 216.126.35.235 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you recommend, 216.126.35.235? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of some vitriol that would peel the paint off a battleship. That was pretty tame. I generally am inclined to tolerate a certain amount of carping on talk pages as long as it isn't off the hook or menacing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Ad Orientem. I'll never forget the time I was told that I "embodied everything that was wrong about Wikipedia". At least that was grammatically correct even if it was cutting. But this is the internet, you have to expect pointy elbows sometimes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I recommend simply ignoring it. There is no need for a creating an ANI case or revoking talk page access in this situation. Long term, those actions are likely to only further escalate problems without providing any tangible benefit to anyone. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:8049:6C4C:E243:9CDE (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, "ignore it", gotcha. That's good advice, but do you happen to have any for when I see an ANI post that feels a bit frivolous to me? Remsense ‥ 论 12:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment on it of course. They don't call it the drama board for nothing. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:8049:6C4C:E243:9CDE (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

'Ignore it' is usually pretty good advice actually (see WP:DENY). If someone is moaning about their block on an IP's talk page, we don't really need to take any action about it. Sure, if they're making themselves a nuisance by pinging people or whatever it's worth stopping them, but if an ANI thread was started every time an blocked IP or vandal had written words to the effect of 'That admin is a complete asshole', the archive would be significantly longer. (This take me back a bit - this was my personal favourite piece of vandalism I reverted, followed by this witicism on their talk. Happy days...) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Whining, griping, snarky and sometimes amusing responses to a block are par for the course. Unless they are menacing or in some other form obviously disruptive, I think most admins just ignore them. My personal favorite... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That example is priceless. Kind of throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see if anything sticks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of topic on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard by Bluethricecreamman

The user Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs) has non-admin closed a topic I started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding the reliability of CNN's political coverage before the discussion had reached any logical conclusion.

In addition to Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs), multiple editors made calls for my discussion to be closed essentially as soon as it was opened, namely The_Kip (talk · contribs), Myceteae (talk · contribs), Daveosaurus (talk · contribs), Slatersteven (talk · contribs), and Muboshgu (talk · contribs). I feel very strongly that this is completely antithetical to the foundational principles of Wikipedia, specifically that editors should assume good faith and seek consensus in their endeavor to maintain the integrity of what should be a high-quality, neutral encyclopedia.

I believe this very clearly falls under Wikipedia's definition of WP:BADNAC, specifically the point that a closure may not be appropriate if "the discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial."

As stated unambiguously at WP:NACD, a non-administrator should not close a discussion if they have offered an opinion in it, which Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs) did.

Personally this is very troubling. I started a topic in good faith on a very specific board, meant entirely for discussing the reliability of sources. A discussion about a foundational aspect of the encyclopedia was met with immediate negativity from other editors, with many of them outright refusing to concede basic points or even engage in discussion.

I am not alone in my assessment of CNN's political coverage; a cursory glance into any contentious political talk page will probably reveal multiple editors expressing a similar analysis in good faith. As it stands, that argument is typically just met by editors doing what they did to me - which is pointing to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and saying "well, the name is in green on the list so you are wrong", even though that is exactly the discussion I was trying to have.

The entire point of a properly neutral, intellectual environment like the one laid out in Wikipedia's policies is that someone like me should be able to have a discussion like this without literally being silenced by people who simply personally do not share the same assessment and want me to stop posting. How long is too long for a discussion about the foundational principle of source neutrality? An hour? A day?

Rob Roilen (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rob Roilen: given that they noted in their edit summary: Feel free to open it up and undo this edit if I was wrong. why didn't you ask them to revert the close before dragging this to ANI? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought about it but my interpretation of WP:BADNAC is that I can't do that, maybe I'm wrong? I see that it says:

"Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions, inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Rob Roilen (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there's never anything wrong with one editor approaching another to ask them to reverse an action unless there is a topic or interaction ban, or the request was completely unreasonably; although in those cases it wouldn't be appropriate to bring it here either. In fact, it's expected that unless there is a very good reason, editors should always discuss stuff with an editor before bringing them to ANI. The Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures which is linked in the very next paragraph also makes it clear that in the particular case of challenging these types of closures you should discuss it with the closer first "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion". The Wikipedia:Move review and Wikipedia:Deletion review pages for the other types of reviews also make it clear editors should normally do so, with differing levels of how important it is to do so for each. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This should absolutely not have been closed by someone who offered an opinion seven times within the same discussion. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] On that basis alone, it should be reopened. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree having left several comments it was unwise to close it especially with so many others having commented. But I don't think we need to make a big deal over this, Bluethricecreamman specifically invited others to reopen it if they disagreed so I did just that. I have no objection to someone uninvolved closing it if they think it's justified. Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening. Hopefully the editor avoids closing discussions they are active in moving forward. Daniel (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elli, why did you issue a block to Rob Roilen? Was it because they opened this complaint on ANI? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I commented above on this page explaining this. It's not just because of this complaint (which is substantively reasonable) but their approach to the entire topic area. The vast majority of their edits are arguing about recent developments American politics and not in a particularly constructive manner. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Elli. I was just surprised to see their name crossed out while I was reading this complaint. It's just that typically, when the block comes out of an ANI filing, it's mentioned here that an editor, especially if they are the OP, has been blocked. There was no mention in this discussion so I didn't understand the grounds for the block. I think if this persistence continues, a limited duration topic ban might be called for during this election period, but that's a separate discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably should've mentioned it in this thread too, yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'm partly responsible for this mess (even though nobody bothered to tell me that I was mentioned) due to suggesting the quick closing of that time sink. Editor time and patience is not an inexhaustible commodity and I had hoped that stomping on the nonsense would have saved time.

I'd recommend Rob Roilen's block be converted to a one week topic ban from anything to do with American politics with the broadest possible construction. After one week silly season will hopefully be over and maybe in the meantime they will have found an article about a bird or a town or a footy team to improve. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

apologies to all. im a bit inebriated on a friday night rn and havent had a chance to respond. i made the close boldly to end a convo i suspected would not be productive on the notice board.

im fine with any revert of my close and made it boldly to suggest folks move on and continue appropriate conversations on the talk page . im happy to revert it, though i assume folks alredy have.

happy friday yall Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good block of a disruptive SPA who already has a huge thread earlier on this page. If they resume this nonsense after November 4, their editing career is going to be a short one. Grandpallama (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Their very first action upon getting back from the block (aside from an Administrative Action Review filing and related user-talk posts) was to resume edit-warring on 2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden: [34]. I'm also wondering if this is their first account; they have a very comprehensive knowledge of how to appeal basically everything, coupled with what seems like a chip on their shoulder about Wikipedia in general (see their userpage), which is a bit eyebrow-raising for an editor with so few edits. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

My reverted edit does not fit the definition of edit warring and is a genuine effort to A) preserve tonal neutrality and B) provide the most up-to-date context. I also do not appreciate the aspersions being cast. Rob Roilen (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion: XRV was suggested by Elli so I don't think them figuring out about it is that surprising [35]. I'm not going to check, but I'm fairly sure someone mentioned RSN to them too. I'm not aware anyone mentioned ANI to them before they came here but it is possible given all that went on and they also edited with an IP and got into trouble before, and did take part in discussion at DRN. So knowing about ANI is perhaps not so surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rob Roilen is WP:SEALIONING. They are complaining about the reliability of CNN based on what they perceive as bias without providing any examples of inaccuracies that would suggest unreliability. They are doing this because they don't like how CNN is covering Donald Trump on the eve of the election. The content on their deleted user page suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I provided two recent examples of blatant inaccuracy in CNN's reporting. I do not appreciate the aspersion and accusation regarding my politics, which you are incorrect about. If you continue digging (not very far) you'll find my unambiguous statement of my politics. Rob Roilen (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your deleted user page is quite informative for your beliefs, as is the current one. You have provided no examples of a "blatant inaccuracy" in CNN's reporting. Just things that you don't like. So maybe it's a WP:CIR issue too. I would indef you, but for my being WP:INVOLVED in Trump-related issues on WP. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how to more clearly state that CNN's reporting that "Trump said Liz Cheney should be shot" when he was clearly speaking rhetorically is factually inaccurate and misleading. It is the responsibility of fellow editors to seek out the actual remark in context and compare it to CNN's reporting.

  The other example also shows clear inaccuracy, where CNN reports that Trump "assailed immigrants" at large when in fact he was referencing the use of the "Alien Enemies Act of 1798 if elected to target "every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil."

  But here we are, discussing the topic in the inappropriate place, because the discussion on the appropriate board was closed prematurely. Rob Roilen (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, all of the responses that you got there about how CNN's reporting is accurate did not stop you from going off-topic here. It's a clear WP:IDHT situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  +1. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

2nd non-admin closure

I have attempted to appeal to the user Hy_Brasil on their talk page regarding their re-closure of this discussion and was met with accusations and an invitation to appeal it elsewhere.

I believe the non-admin closure was uncalled-for, specifically in regard to [[36]] where it is stated:

A weak local consensus that is reached between few editors or with little discussion is likely to be limited in its applicability and impact. Likewise, editors who reach strong agreement on an issue, but who may have overlooked an important policy-related aspect of their decision, may come to a strong but nonetheless invalid consensus that is quickly overturned or simply never enacted.

Seeing as the discussion was not even open for 24 hours, only involved a small number of editors at the time of closure, and did not have time to reach a broader consensus, I do not believe it was appropriate to close it. I don't know how much time is required to determine the validity of an in-depth discussion of source reliability, but surely closing such a discussion before a single day has passed is leaving much unsaid.

Rob Roilen (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a real shame the first block wasn't indefinite. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If I hadn’t been the one to close that discussion, I’d be proposing a topic ban from American Politics for you. WP:DONTLIKEIT, based on a misguided interpretation of bias, is not grounds to discredit a source. This was clearly explained to you. You are wasting the community’s time, which is its most valuable resource. I will not be engaging with you further. Hy Brasil (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw the thread at RSN but didn't comment, as everything that could be said had been said by others. The issues you brought up are about bias, and per WP:RSBIAS Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I think the thread is left closed, as nothing can come of it. I would suggest doing some editing outside of contentious topics areas, new editors jumping in the deepend can be a difficult experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources are required to be accurate and I have clearly presented more than one example of inaccuracy that I do not feel my fellow editors have adequately addressed. If people are misinterpreting rhetorical devices, and endorsing reporting that misinterprets rhetorical devices, this may be a WP:CIR issue, with respect. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rob Roilen I don't think you have presented inaccuracy, you've presented reporting that in your opinion is inaccurate. Take for example one you mentioned above, about Trump saying "Trump said Liz Cheney should be shot". Reporting that he said that is factual, how those words are reported on is a matter of bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I welcome the discussion but we should be having it on the appropriate noticeboard. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

RSN is for discussing the reliability of sources, not a general forum. Nothing you have discussed is matter of reliability, so it wouldn't be an appropriate noticeboard. WP:RSBIAS isn't going to be changed. All I can say is that you should try to hear what others are trying to explain. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have stated multiple times, in extremely clear terms, that I am trying to "discuss the reliability of sources". Why is this being ignored? Rob Roilen (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not being ignored, several editors have tried to explain that what you're discussing isn't a matter of reliability but bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

And we are still discussing the topic, but on the inappropriate board. I have plenty to say about it that other editors may even agree with. That's why I feel very strongly that the discussion should be reopened. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No you are ignoring what you are being told, and then demanding people explain it to you again, as said wp:cir may be an issue here, as at some point you have to be able to edit on tour own tweo hands. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If people are misinterpreting rhetorical devices, and endorsing reporting that misinterprets rhetorical devices, this may be a WP:CIR issue, with respect. = I am correct and everyone else has a competence issue. Can an uninvolved admin either apply a TBAN or an indef, because continuing this is not productive. Grandpallama (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is bewildering. Obviously there is more discussion to be had on this topic. We are not discussing it on the appropriate board. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Likewise this [37] helpful explanation that it's not an aspersion when RR says it because RR's opinions are right whereas everyone else's opinions are just opinions. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You are not engaging in good faith discussion. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. this time sink has taken up enough time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  How much time is too much to spend on discussing the reliability of sources for an encyclopedia? 24 hours? We haven't even had the discussion; editors are discussing it here instead of in the specific discussion I opened on the appropriate board. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  When everyone has said you are wrong, you will not get your way by refusing the listen. There comes a point when you have to accept you are not going to get your way. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  However I have had my say, it is time for the admins to end this time waisting. We have been more then patient. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, would not oppose a long-ish block. I hope that once the US election passes, all this will settle down, but I also don't see a downside to a T-ban. As for Rob's insistence that these discussions are appropriate, consider: Suppose I were at work, the team discussed a possible course of action, and everyone else agreed with an idea I was arguing against. Shouting at them, "We're not finished because I haven't convinced you yet!" would not do my career any favors. The community heard the arguments and was not convinced. Right or wrong, you have to accept that sometimes consensus is against you. To do otherwise is disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Suppose you said to someone "Bobby needs to walk a mile in Tom's shoes" and they interpreted it as you literally saying that Bobby needs to wear Tom's shoes and walk a mile. Then you tried to explain that you were, in fact, using rhetorical language to make a point. Then the other person called the police and told them you were being disruptive, and when you tried explaining this situation to the police they arrested you while a crowd of people stood around yelling about how disruptive you are for trying to explain rhetorical speech.

  Does this make sense? Rob Roilen (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not in favor of reopening a discussion because the user does not appear to be ready to have it, and given the bias concerns users have brought up with Rob, Rob should probably not be the user taking up this issue. For one thing, as users have sort of brushed around, a claim of significant bias should be established by second party sources and not original research. I do think users here could be more patient with Rob, understanding that a user's supposed bias isn't necessarily malicious, and that they may have a respectable opinion even if it isn't presented to the degree of actionable Wikipedia standards or with the most perfect understanding of those standards. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would respectfully counter that users have been extraordinarily patient with Rob and extended a great deal of initial good-faith interaction/feedback, given the degree of WP:IDHT on display, and given that the disruptive behavior that earned a 24-hour block has resumed immediately after the block ended. Continuing to be patient with Rob is not more important than protecting the project from Rob's time-consuming behavior. At a point, continuing to engage with an editor who has clearly indicated they are not listening--and do not intend to listen--becomes counter-productive. Grandpallama (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my comments above I said the first close was inappropriate, not because it was a non-admin but because it was involved. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with this second close, and quite frankly to file a second request here reeks of a battleground mentality. This viewpoint is only reaffirmed when I reviewed the user talk page conversation during the block. I agree with my colleagues above saying enough is enough. Daniel (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Battleground behavior was exhibited and it shouldn't continue or repeat. A topic ban could help. —Alalch E. 00:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, based on timesink of WP:JDL and WP:SEALIONing. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from American Politics. The battleground behavior, along with many other behavioral issues such as sealioning and bludgeoning, has resulted in a tremendous time sink for the project. Hy Brasil (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

All this pile-on calling this a "time sink" or "sealioning" is so antithetical to the entire point of Wikipedia. It wouldn't be a "time sink" if the discussion was open and time could be spent actually discussing the topic on the very specific, appropriate board instead of...what? Calling for an indefinite ban on my speech because I....wanted to discuss the reliability of a source? Am I hearing this correctly? If you think this is a waste of time, maybe go spend time somewhere else? Rob Roilen (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and a block of at least 3 months (if not indef). Hy Brasil did nothing wrong by closing and taking 3 different editors to ANI and an Admin to WP:XRV within the span of a few days is crystal clear battleground behavior. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, you are stating that it is "battleground behavior" to adhere to Wikipedia policies regarding dispute resolution? Rob Roilen (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I've asked Rob, to take a six-month break from American politics. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support temporary TBAN - as the original closer, I accept I did a bad close. i think Rob is trying to learn, and think them wading into contentious topics is probably a bad way to learn wikipedia editting. I support a TBAN from political work for a limited duration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Never mind about limited duration, I've seen his recent edit history. Maybe a permanent TBAN should remain on the table. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban until at least January 22nd. This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1255180423 is such a textbook example of sea-lioning that if I were David Malki I'd be charging royalties for it. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping an admin would just to an AE topic ban but since one hasn't happened yet, I'll support a community one. While I initially said until the election frankly even at the time and as I've though about it more I think there is a fair risk this isn't enough so hence why even the 1 week block isn't sufficient. Instead like Daveosaurus said, I think we should at least wait until January 22. I'd go further and suggest 3 months from then which will hopefully be enough for any controversy to have died down enough so it might be simpler to just say a 6 months topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN, if not indefinite block. It might sound like a pile-on, but trust me, it's not. Rob Roilen has been on Wikipedia for what, 2 weeks? and has already pushed my nerves to their limit, and I'm pretty sure this is the same with others on here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I love the idea it would not be a time-sink if we just allowed this to go on indefinitely. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block They are doubling trippling down at their own talk regarding the current week long block. Enoughs enough it's clear they are not even listening to anyone. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if a longer block is not applied, a permanent ban from taking part in WP:RSN should also be applied. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think a Tban from American politics will have the same effect. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Noting here that per Lavalizard above, and despite the exhortations of multiple users (including myself) for them to stop and do something more productive with their time, this user is continuing to bludgeon and sealion on their talk page... including the very people trying to give them helpful advice, like GoodDay. Thus, despite being on the fence initially, I find myself increasingly, and regrettably, in support for an indefinite block - it is difficult to see how they could work collaboratively with other contributors in the future if they're unwilling to not just review and understand core policy, but also take into account the most basic and genuine good-faith feedback from experienced editors in situations of disagreement or conflict. LaughingManiac (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and just in case - I'm not trying to suggest that I'm one of the above-mentioned "experienced editors". I'm very new to (more) regularly editing Wikipedia, and to these administrative processes in particular. But when I see an editor that's been here for 19 years very clearly telling them that they're not listening and they should walk away, and Rob responds with the idea that their block is "textbook censorship of dissent and abuse of authority", I feel like there's going to be a recurring issue here. LaughingManiac (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is going to take some very careful writing. this [[38]] is quite, tone-deaf, to say there least. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Big Ballin Oaks

Big Ballin Oaks (talk · contribs) I feel this may be preliminary—but also, who am I kidding? Their 13 edits so far consist mainly of of Mormon fundamentalist WP:FRINGE heaped onto a handful of pages. In addition, they made two peculiar posts on my talk page, though I took umbrage less with being called a racist Nazi, than with their passing familiarity with our corpus of essays, given they've only just registered.[39] Remsense ‥ 论 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Their username appears to be a play on Dallin H. Oaks--Diannaa (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the account is now checkuser blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/troll Fistagon back again

The Fistagon vandal/sock/troll is back again, this time under the name Jabberwok violates ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please take the appropriate action against them and then revdel their usual schoolboy edit summaries, please? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked (thank you, Sam Walton!), but they're posting crap on their talk page (see this, for example), so need their TP access revoked; if the revdel could happen at some point, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed user talk page access and the post they made there. Also revdel done on a couple more edit summaries after Googling for meaning of terminology used. Some were less insulting/not quite BLP violations, but I think they qualify under RD3 (purely disruptive) -- Diannaa (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Diannaa - it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird report about the Modern Monetary Theory page.

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

---

TL:DR a page is being vandalized in a more long term way and subtle way, where can I go about this?

Hello, this is a strange report, I'm not reporting anyone. I'm reporting a belief that the Modern Monetary Theory article has been subject to long term vandalism, or confusion around the topic. It seems to me the former is more likely than the latter. I say this, because what little I know about the theory ABSOLUTELY conflicts with the pages description, from as early as the first sentence.

That sentence ends with the line "...needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires" to demonstrate that it's not just me saying that's wrong, here's a (very short) video about MMT, titled "your taxes pay for nothing" [40] - the title alone should clue you in to the idea that maybe MMT isn't claiming that "taxes need to be paid" and that giving such an impression in the opening sentence of the article, is a redflag that something's up.

Likewise MMT believes constructive work, contributes to economic growth and the value of the currency... not "savings desires" as the rest of that sentence posits. Again, these are the kinds of things someone whose against MMT might say about it. Falsehoods.

So why am I bringing it all the way here? Because this isn't standard vandalism, I can't report this as active and ongoing, and the usual means wouldn't resolve it (it's clearly gone under the radar)... and I don't have the time or inclination to fix it. I'm just a passer by. I'm happy to be directed elsewhere, thank you for your time, sorry if I wasted too much of it. 101.115.129.232 (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the content of this article, the best place to discuss problems with the article is on the talk page. As noted at the top, ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What you're describing isn't vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Zzzs

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

---

Zzzs is including inappropriate commentary in several discussions. Most recently, they said I don't need to be reminded of why Wikipedia is a failure. I am withdrawing this merge request for now. ZZZ'S 20:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC) in this edit. Frustrations were starting to build after this edit, but the closing summary is inappropriate and user needs to be reminded of more appropriate ways to express frustration.

for the record, I came across this as I was about to vote Oppose in the merge. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

User was also warned by Hurricanehink here. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I think opening up this incident discussion without talking to the user directly (especially from an anonymous user) is a bit bitey. I only warned Zzzs this morning because I wanted to check in on them. I know they been having some difficulties in real life, and I don't want this discussion to spiral out into anything other than what's probably a simple misunderstanding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I left a head's up to the anonymous user who started this discussion, assuming good faith that they might be a Wikipedia user simply logged out, or perhaps they haven't created an account yet. Either way, I suggest this discussion be closed and resolved on user pages. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I warned them for this behavior several weeks ago, and the warning was reverted with the edit summary ”Let me be in peace please”. I’m on mobile, so I can’t fetch the diff, but it isn’t the first time Zzzs has been warned for unfriendliness or inappropriate edit summaries. I would be thankful if someone could find the diff. :) MemeGod _chat 21:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

well folks, if there's been a problem, you'll likely not have to deal with it much longer since the user in question's declared retirement and is no longer interested in editing here. they seem to have the "society rejects me" angsty edgey attitude given the nature of some words posted here and here. anyways, forgive me if the term "edgelord" is too much of a pejorative, but is this more than just a simple "edgelord" case? does this sound like someone who needs concern directed at them? because this sounds like a Nine Inch Nails song IRL to me. BarntToust 00:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

specifically, this editor's remarks on their talk page really gives Trent Reznor's "Hurt" vibes to me (not Johnny Cash's cover). But straight up angsty angst of "needing to escape" and "fake friends" and what have you. It just rubs me the wrong way. BarntToust 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User with systemic bias

Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs) has a track record of editing Wikipedia solely to push a pro-Syrian and anti-Lebanese agenda with disregard to actual academic standards.

Whatsupkarren seems to have an obsession with removing any mentions of figures related to Lebanon as evidenced here [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] (This is only the tip of the iceberg and there are many other articles that follow this pattern some of which I probably have not even found)

This wouldn’t be an issue if Whatsupkarren did similar edits for other articles but they hyper fixate on only removing any mentions of Lebanese/Phoenicians in articles but are fully capable of adding sources for Syrian/assumed to be Syrian figures. Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search so it's obvious Whatsupkarren is being biased in only removing, and never adding, sources related to Lebanon/Phoenicia but doing the exact opposite when it comes to Syrian/assumed to be Syrian articles.

Furthermore, when Whatsupkarren doesn’t get their way they just dismiss articles they don’t like as “unreliable” [46] [47] even if they were published through universities or other academic sources (They don’t seem to understand that an article/books reliability is based on the original publisher not an online website it can be found on) and just adds original research when they don’t get their way. [48]. Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable” [49] [50] but an article that uses Wikipedia as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable.[51]

Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research as they admitted themselves "I'd like proof that the Oxford source which I added cites that source, as I wasn't able to access it." [52] (in regards to the Oxford source which they themselves added)[53] and also here [54] where it seems they just typed a phrase [55] without actually providing a page or quote.

Their obsession with removing anything related to Lebanese goes as far as asking for advice on how to delete entire categories related to the subject. [56]

I suggest a topic ban in relation to Lebanese and Phoenician related articles as there is not really an explanation for this behavior outside of ethnic discrimination which is not what Wikipedia was intended for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Phoenician (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm free and allowed to edit any article on wikipedia as long as I'm sourcing my edits with reliable sources & engaging in discussions to resolve potential issues as I have done so many times and also not being as offensive as you have been with me for a while. It was you who started using rude language with me by calling me an illiterate, ridiculing me for making typos, calling my edits trolling even though I was using reliable sources, and trying to provoke me by claiming that I was incompetent. This can be seen in this discussion. Which Red Phoenician refused to continue and refused to answer my concerns which I had raised.

-There's been a trend on Wikipedia for years, where editors have been classifying notable figures as Lebanese without sources. And also classifying common Levantine/Arab/Middle Eastern cultural elements as distinctly "Lebanese" even when they don't have any Lebanese ancestry or when the subject is actually common to the broader Levantine/Middle Eastern region. It seems like this has been going on for quite some time. While I'm sure similar situations might occur with other Middle Eastern countries, the Lebanon-related instances seem to stand out the most. I've been trying to fix that for a while; I'm not racist; I want historical accuracy. If you have any issues with my edits, you could've simply started

discussions on the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns. I am ready to discuss with any user every single one of my edits. It was me and not you who started the two discussions we had.

-Red Phoenician has been wikihounding me for months, very often disruptively, adding sources that are not reliable or don't accurately reflect what they added 1 and 2, using a rude & provocative language with me.

-Red Phoenician has been misusing sources and not adding accurately what the sources they add say.

For example: in the Frumentius article, I removed content that wasn't accurately supported by reliable sources, the article used to say Saint Frumentius was "described as ethnically phoenician", that wasn't & isn't backed by reliable sources. Red Phoenician later reverted my edit and added sources that, still, didn't state that he was described as ethnically Phoenician. Using "ethnically phoenician" is very problematic historically. Later I added a more accurate representation of what Red Phoenician's sources say. And that he might have been Greek too since a book published by Oxford described him as such. Red Phoenician thought my edits were disruptive and show possible trolling.

-Regarding Marina the monk, yes, the source which I removed still isn't working, at least with me. The link seems to be dead. Many saints, who were not from modern day Lebanon used to be in the category of Lebanese Saints. Red Phoenician previously added a saint from what is today Syria to that category and also a saint from persia. No sources anywhere say they were Lebanese. saints who were not from what is today Lebanon were also in this category. The category was a mess, and still is, up to a point. None of the saints in the category are described as Lebanese by cited sources or reliable sources, far as I know, which I think violates WP:NOR. I also didn't want to delete the category as Red Phoenician claimed, more modern saints, for whom we have sources that actually call them Lebanese could be added to this category.

-Red Phoenician added that the city of Byblos had a reputation of being the oldest in antiquity, the source they used doesn’t say so, it doesn’t say the city had a “reputation”, the word reputation implies a belief held by people in general, not only one person. This shows yet again, that the user doesn't show accuracy in a lot of his edits.

-Regarding Jounaton Roumi, in a cited interview he says that his father's father was from Syria. Not Lebanon. Syro basically is a combining form of Syrian-Lebanese. The man said that his grandfather was from Syria. Regardless. I later kept the article as you edited it.

-Regarding, Pamphilus of Caesarea, the sources simply did not say he was Phoenician. So I removed this unsourced claim, and opened a talk page asking whether anyone has sources that call him Phoenician.

You really find that annoying, right?

-"Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search" although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.

-Regarding this, you misused your sources, again, your sources, apart from one that you couldn't prove to be reliable, and which I showed wasn't reliable enough, didn't accurately support continuous occupation. This is the main issue and this is why I reverted your edit. Me claiming that researchgate isn't reliable wasn't what led me to remove your edits.

-Not sure how this is original research? This is literally what the source says. Any issues you have with my edits could've been raised on the talk page but you did not do so.

-"Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable”"

First off, why did you not raise your concerns on the talk page discussion that I started?

Secondly, I could not find evidence that the newspaper you had cited is a reliable source, you could've simply explained on the talk page why you think it is. Thirdly, your source doesn't quote Pope Francis, who isn't a subject matter expert, to begin with, it talks about what a Maronite Archbishop who is said to have been a friend of Pope Francis, said.

-"but an article that uses Wikipedia as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable."

How does this article use Wikipedia as its source? The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Regardless, you could've simply raised your concerns in the talk page discussion which I started. Again, this proves your unwillingness to engage in productive discussions.

-"Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research"

No, the source which I used provides a quote which I provided in the discussion. Without the need to download the whole book.

Regarding the Aleppo book, no, you're wrong again, and you could've simply asked me to provide the page which I would've definitely done. You simply didn't. I copied and pasted the link of the page but Wikipedia links sometimes do not work.

I think this report proves Red Phoenician's unwillingness to engage in discussions to resolve issues, Red Phoenician seems to hold a grudge against me and doesn't like how I've been accurately following Wikipedia's policies. The user also has been engaging in original research for years.

I suggest this user be at least punished for the rude language they used with me. Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not rude to point out a user's (WP:COMPETENCE), it is obvious English is not your first language and there is nothing wrong with that but when you constantly mess up pages with grammar issues [57] as you have done just now with “Jounaton Roumi” and “Other non Lebnaese saints” it becomes hard to tell if these are genuine mistakes or some weird form of insult.

There was no point addressing you in the Frumentius talk page as you admitted to original research and asking to access sources you yourself added.

Regarding my addition of Saints to the Lebanese Maronite saints category that was because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category…until I created it. I didn’t contest these or the manakish edits so I don’t see the issue.

“although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.” This isn’t true as I clarified before because you’re perfectly capable of finding sources of things NOT related to Lebanon/Phoenician but seem incapable when this is the case.

As for the Wikihounding accusations many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist don’t think you’re so special. Of course once I saw it was just removing everything Lebanese ever I reverted those with sources as this is constructive and nothing else.

Rest of this is them acting like they’re not aware of their actions/acting as if the issue is a personal attack and not an issue with the contributions so I hope an admin gives their insight into the issues. Criticism of competence is not rude and they are the only one taking it personal “You really find that annoying, right?” and “Duhh”[58] among others. Wikipedia is not a battleground for passive aggressive ethnic squabbles it’s based on reliable academic sources not getting upset for things such as a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also it seems they're just trying to get me banned now on baseless accusations instead of accepting any criticism. [59] Red Phoenician (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You too made grammar mistakes in the past ( I won't call you illiterate though ) even native speakers often make typos and grammar mistakes; that doesn't make it okay to call or even imply someone is illiterate or incompetent when you know that they're able to communicate effectively with you. It is obvious that this language was intended to provoke me. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made fun of me for fixing a typo. The mistake I did on Gibran Khalil page is a typo, not a grammar mistake, I mistyped the name of a Lebanese city. And no I'm not constantly messing up articles, you'd like others to believe so, so that you can justify your rude language.

I did not admit that I engaged in original research, let me explain this to you again, I couldn't access the book, but a quote from the book is provided by Oxford references https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?btog=chap&isQuickSearch=true&q=Meropius+Greek

I already provided the quote on the talk page.

"because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category"

That still doesn't justify adding them to such a category, you should've created a standalone maronite category if you really wanted to add them to a maronite category

"many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist"

But also many, so many of the articles I edited hadn't been touched by you until I stepped in.

most recently this one where you added an unacceptable source per Wikiepdia policies.

Sifting through Red Phoenician's edit history, it becomes obvious that the user has had a pattern of removing the term Arab from articles

1, 2, 3, 4. However, I won't claim that you're ethnically discriminating against Arabs, if I had issues with any of those edits, I would've simply raised my concerns on the relevant talk pages.

I wasn't getting upset over a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest, i was upset by your inaccurate edits, you keep misusing sources by adding claims not accurately reflected in the sources, you, yourself added. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the crocodile tears over the typos nobody is insulting you, you are the one going “Duhh” as you view this as a personal issue. You just admitted you couldn’t access the source again…and I said I created a category, you aren’t properly reading what I am saying. As for Massad again I did not contest your removal but added a more reliable source since you ignored Caldwell’s. Yes Maronites are Syriac not Arab and dabke is an ancient Levantine dance unless you are now going to argue that the Canaanites were Arab. As for Byblos if you had an actual issue you would’ve gone to the source dispute resolution instead of only removing the Lebanese/non-Syrian cities from the list while keeping the Syrian ones even without proper sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You won't even admit that you used a rude language with me.

-Yes again, for the millionth time, I can't access all of the book, I can access a quote from the book, which means it wasn't original research. You also refused to provide me with the link in the discussion which showed your unwillingness to cooperate, I wanted to verify what you were claiming in that discussion.

-I know that you later created that category, but you shouldn't have added them to the Lebanese category in the first place as that violated wikipedia's policies" AND btw it was me and not you who eventually removed them from that Lebanese category, why ?

-I wasn't trying to make a point about Maronites' ethnicity, and I really am not interested in doing so. I was trying to show you that by your logic, not mine, you also are discriminating against a group of people, and have an obsession with removing anything related to Arabs.

-It was me who asked for a third opinion, I asked user Demetrios1993 who has proved to be very knowledgeable, if they could provide input, they did. You could've simply taken it to the dispute resolution page, no one told you not to do so. And again, you want me to be punished for not editing x too, I don't have to. The sources that were used with the Lebanese cities did not show continuous occupation or weren't reliable enough. If you had issues with my edits, engage in the discussion on the talk page Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red Phoenician, I have to say, having briefly looked into some of these, it sure looks like you're throwing stones from inside a glass house. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading my most recent response could you provide some examples please. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Glass house indeed. I had a brief interaction with Red Phoenician last year on Lebanon. From what I could see looking at their edits at that time they appeared to be here to push a WP:FRINGEy POV that the Christian Lebanese are not Arabs but, somehow, ancient Phoenicians. See Phoenicianism. I haven't looked at the dispute they have with this particular user but any accusations from them of "systemic bias" takes chutzpah. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall this interaction specifically but I assume it was related to the infobox note which was cited by three sources. But yes Lebanon is a diverse country with various ethnicities with some claiming descent from Phoenicians as has been proven genetically, [60] but arguing over self-determination is outside the scope of this dispute. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I remember your liberal use of WP:SYNTH to support your tendentious WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this relevant? I don’t think tarring a party without a goal of sanctions is fair to do at ANI—bring diffs or stop raising unsupported accusations; it’s derailing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and vandalism by IP user 194.230.146.10 (with possible sock)

The IP @194.230.146.10 seems to be engaging in vandalism across multiple articles. They may also have multiple IP accounts. Going through their edit history, there is historic vandalism here, here, here, and here. They gave been previously warned here, here and here.

I first noticed their behaviour because they kept reinstating unsourced, tangential information (which was a bit POV but wasn't, on the whole, objectionable if it had been in a different section and was sourced) to the Afro–Latin Americans page here. I also left a polite message on their talk page, since I wanted to avoid it escalating further and they'd ignored my requests for them to find consensus and source the info. But as I noticed several other comments over the last couple of years—also about unconstructive edits—I thought it worth raising an incident.

I believe @31.164.184.21 may be the same user, as they reverted to the same text here, within minutes of the other IP, and engaged in blanking of sourced information here.

I appreciate my own behaviour will be considered as well, but I believe I have tried to be fair and helpful (if sometimes brief) in my reverts and comments on their talk page. I stopped after two reverts (~10 hours apart) when it became clear this would escalate into an edit war otherwise. Lewisguile (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Red Ice

2600:100F:B1B5:AB10:0:31:798C:D601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has issued a legal threat in this edit summary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for the legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

SamuelRoth79 disruptive editing at Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

---

New user SamuelRoth79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and related pages advocating with long walls of text for the adding of fringe material from unreliable sources (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_needs_some_input_from_other_editors for details) despite objection from other editors. SamuelRoth79 has made personal attacks against other editors, baselessly accusing them of being racist [61], as well as making bizarre pronouncements like and NO I am not the same person. I am white rich JEW [62] that make me suspect that this person is WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who originally brought this whole thing up, I assumed good faith up throughout the entire process and still believe, though only somewhat, that SamuelRoth79 genuinely thought they were being helpful. As of right now though, I think giving SamuelRoth79 just a bit more WP:ROPE will show their true colours. If they want to genuinely help, I'd be more than happy to try and help them. If they continue their current pattern however, I fully support a block. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are "good faith", it's still a massive WP:CIR issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

SamuelRoth79 just posted a new comment to the FTN thread, and we've now officially stepped into activist territory. I have no doubt now that SamuelRoth79 had the best intentions for their people, but the Wikipedia guidelines unfortunately don't align with their goals. This has gone from "hot mess" to "hot minefield mess". Sirocco745 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Black people, at least in my country go ballistic every time a cop accidentally kills a black man. They start tearing down statues, which they would have NEVER DONE in Ancient Egypt, destroying public property was the death penalty and history to them really mattered. So I think if their self esteem was raised a little bit. By the knowledge that they were the Ancient Egyptians, maybe not by ethnicity but by appearances and haplogroup matchs. They would behave a little differently. [63] is just frankly a completely WTF comment. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also of note is that they've made very few actual contributions to articles, with their only edits to articles being to add the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SamuelRoth79&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 Sirocco745 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

you personally came at me for putting an image in. I told you I was new to technology and you blasted me for taking a photo out of an article. I already said I didn't mean that you were racist. I was even implying that. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

so you are saying because you don't like me or I an strange that you are going to block me from open source website from contributing probably the most important information of the Century. That could possibly heal the wounds of real racism. That has existed in our culture for 500 years. Maybe more. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A block? An open source website that I have donated to in the past? For trying to add an image?? What is this "survivor"? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not real life, therefore you shouldn't assign the same level of personal connection and importance to the events that occur here. I completely sympathize with the intention and purpose of your edit, however, there are better ways to reduce civil unrest than editing Wikipedia in a way that violates its policies. It's nothing personal. Again, I understand the idea, but I can't agree with the execution.

Also, I only said I would support a block if your intentions were to maliciously subvert Wikipedia's policies. The other part was I said I would be "more than happy to try and help" you. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I was asking you for help to get that image approved for the page all morning. Do you not remember? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This actually is real life. It doesn't matter if it's on a simulation, people matter. Their feelings matter. And that is exactly what the Ancient Egyptians lived up to. They had the best moral compass of any society since then. They cared about other people. They didn't say "No. You're excluded because you're weird" SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

this comment is a reaction to someone's suggesting I am an "Afrocentric" when clearly I am not even black. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked SamuelRoth79 for disruptive editing. Personal attacks, POV pushing of a fringe theory, and a general lack of competence are also factors in this block. When that editor wrote "Peer reviewed" as a fellow LGBT you seem pretty racist, that was an utterly unacceptable, evidence free personal attack on another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Long-term abuse at John Troxell

A vandal from (at least 10 addresses in) the IP range 2600:1006:b000::/39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been vandalising the page John Troxell for something in the region of six months now. I suggest a long-term pageblock.

(Looking at the contribs page, it seems there's also been quite a lot of other vandalism from different addresses in the range in the last few weeks, but I don't know if that's a solvable problem)

--AntiDionysius (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate has helpfully protected the page. The vandal might get bored and desist in that time but given their evident persistence the pageblock might be a good idea anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's trivial to protect the page again. The IP range is being pretty disruptive, though. I did an anon-only block with account creation enabled for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attack by XXSniperXX12 against WP:GSRUSUKR

See recent edit history here for Battle of Popasna. hey are a non-ECP user. They were previously advised of WP:GSRUSUKR at [User talk:XXSniperXX12#Sanctions]]. Their user contributions show that they have continued to edit in this area. Their edits at Battle of Popasna were deleted twice, citing WP:GSRUSUKR each time. They reinstated their edits each time. The second time, their edit summary stated: When you, and other “extended confirmed” editors are too lazy or unaware such articles need fixing, why can’t normal editors like myself do something about it? Do you know more than us about this topic just because your account has more edits than mine? And at least analyse the changes I made, which vastly improved the article, and look at the difference of it before and after before making such quick and impulsive decisions to revert the article page back down to its degraded form. Pathetic! Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that XXSniperXX12 has also re-created articles that had been merged or were otherwise redirects. [64] [65] [66] Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Since XXSniperXX12 consciously and deliberately chose to violate Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, as shown in an edit summary, I have blocked the editor for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Quirk1

Quirk1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be a WP:SPA, aiming to Arabize figures/dynasties who were not Arab, i.e. WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

• There was this long and drawn out attempt at trying to claim that the famous Kurdish ruler Saladin was "Arab" in five (!) sections [67] [68] [69] [70] [71], this lasted a whole month, from 5 October 2023 to 10 November 2023 (and as seen, they later came back on 26 February 2024 and attempted to rekindle the fire). A short summary of all this was that Quirk1 tried to go against the consensus in WP:RS about Saladins Kurdish origins in with their opinion, non-WP:RS, and even imaginary sources by ChatGPT.

• Attempts to claim an Arab origin for the famous Persian poet Rumi by citing a blog [72]. This is almost like claiming an Arab origin for Shakespeare, its that ridiculous.
• Disregarded the several suggestions about the ethnicity of the Muzaffarids (Iran), instead of trying to portray them as just Arab, which they were reverted [73] [74] and called out for [75]
• Misused several citations to claim that the Rawadid dynasty was still Arab. I covered their source misuse here [76], which they never addressed, which leads me to the next part...

Severe WP:CIR/WP:HEAR issues;

• It took me FOUR attempts of asking Quirk1 to participate at Talk:Rawadid dynasty [77] [78] [79] [80] for them to first merely start asking "so do you want to go discuss it there with me?" Hell, one of their comments earlier were "...Do you mind telling me the reason for your revert on Rawadid dynasty?" Despite me writing several edit summaries and asking them to join Talk:Rawadid dynasty. It can't possibly be that hard to read edit summaries or see when you're getting pinged, especially when Quirk1 is so quick to revert.
• Quirk1 was told the following; "I told you multiple times to go to Talk:Saladin and open a discussion there. I will not repeat myself again here" (you guessed it, despite this message, Quirk1 did not stop bothering one of our fellow users [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]).
• Quirk1, take this as a warning: your behavior here is becoming disruptive and may lead to a block if you continue. You either refuse, or are unable, to WP:HEAR what other users are telling you. It is clear both consensus and reliable sources are against you, and continuing to argue your point is becoming repetitive. Wikipedia users are not obliged to satisfy you.
• There's also the painful "discussion" at Talk:Rawadid dynasty between me and Quirk1 where they either can't or don't want to understand what WP:RS says [86].

I'm not also not the first person to call Quirk1 out for misusing sources, some comments about him doing it from Talk:Saladin:

• You debunked nothing, and as another example of misrepresenting sources...
• ...the above sources presented by brand new editor Quirk1 are either misrepresented or unreliable/primary sources that cannot challenge those supporting a Kurdish ancestry.

As of this comment Quirk1 has 213 edits, the VAST majority of them being from their attempts at Arabizing Saladin and the Rawadid dynasty. If that's not WP:SPA then I don't what it is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with HistoryofIran. I thought this editor had retired after their insane marathon of crude, barely sensical POV-pushing at Saladin and Talk:Saladin (not to mention my talk page) a year ago, but it seems that on the anniversary of that, they're doing the same thing at another article. This editor is WP:NOTHERE. R Prazeres (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the feedback about misusing sources, they were also explicitly warned a year ago that their refusal to WP:HEAR was disruptive and could warrant a block: [87]. R Prazeres (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Quirk1#Indefinite block. HistoryofIran, your reports continue to be overlong. Some background is fine, but please work on prioritizing by date (recent) and egregiousness. If you find condensing too challenging, at least date your diffs in parenthesis or something. There's a smidge of irony of me needing to tell you this again, especially in the context of a report such as this. Thank you. El_C 04:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It is tough for reporting editors to determine if they are providing too much detail or too little detail, although I am a big fan of concise writing. In this instance, I believe that HistoryofIran made a compelling case that the reported editor is an ethno-nationalist POV pusher. I certainly would have blocked the editor myself if El C did not get to it first. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen their generally good-but-overlong reports languish for weeks, sometimes to the point of getting automatically archived, even more than once, even more than twice and thrice. I know this because I've attended to such reports myself many times, and likewise brought up this issue on several occasions. So while it's good it would have been addressed by someone else in this instance, this has been an ongoing issue. But I still try. El_C 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I genuinely thought I had gotten better at it. I unfortunately don't know how to condense it without removing important details. If any of you ever see an example or two that I could get some inspiration from, I would highly appreciate if you informed me of it. I will also remember to date my diffs next time. Thanks to everyone who participated! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hninsiphyutoxica

Hi friends, can someone help me sus out what this editor is up to? Their editing patterns are very bizarre... they seem to add a photo to an article, and then they go back and remove it a few minutes (or hours) later. This has repeated several times.

Examples:

• Added a photo, then removed it 2 hours later

• Added a photo, then removed it

• Added a photo, then removed it as an IP editor, then removed it as their logged in account after the removal was reverted as an unexplained content removal

• Added a photo, then removed it 4 hours later

• *Added a photo, then added attribution in the caption (perhaps an attempt to advertise the business?), then removed the photo altogether

• Added a photo, then removed it 3 minutes later

• Added a photo, then removed it, then added it back, then removed it

• Added a photo (this isn't even a photo of this person), then removed it 1 minute later

• Added a photo, then immediately removed it

• Added a photo, then added attribution in the caption, then added the image back after it was removed by another editor, then the image was deleted from commons and removed by a bot

• Added a photo, then removed the photo 2 hours later

• Added a photo, then removed the photo 3 hours later

it goes on...

The user has been warned several times about making "test edits" and I've specifically asked them about their weird edit history but received no response. Seems like they are WP:NOTHERE.

Any ideas? RachelTensions (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking gaming the system to get extended confirmed status (was thinking autoconfirmed but they already have that, and a very weird way to do it especially since they're nowhere near the edit requirement anyway). They're making mobile edits so it's possible they might not be aware they have a talk page. Other than that I'm not really sure myself. If they're not responding to anything they should probably be blocked from article space until they can explain what they're doing. Procyon117 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, yesterday they nominated for deletion the most frequent photo they're using at commons. They uploaded the photo as "own work" and CC-BY-SA4, but now state the photo should be deleted because they "sold the copyright to another person"... bizarre. RachelTensions (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The weird patterns have continued even after this ANI...

Added image, then removed it 6 hours later.

Also it looks like their most frequent image has now been deleted at Commons. RachelTensions (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand now they've re-uploaded the image and added it back: [88] Countdown is on to see how long this one lasts... RachelTensions (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: they removed it again, made it 2-ish hours this time. RachelTensions (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give them a pblock from Nang Khin Zay Yar, I admit somewhat speculatively, to see if that gets us anywhere. -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Was I dreaming, but when we decided to eliminate all coverage of pro wrestling because it's not worth all the trouble, didn't we throw beauty pageants into the deal for the same reason? EEng 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Harris family vandalism

I need a second opinion.

• Jackie Obama (talk · contribs) (blocked by me)
• Edward Agassian (talk · contribs) (blocked by me)
• Joshua Agassian (talk · contribs) (globally locked)
• There are more to list, see history of Talk:Family of Kamala Harris for example.

Persistent Kamala Harris related vandalism at:

• Category talk:Kamala Harris (which I have protected autoconfirmed or confirmed for 3 days)
• Talk:Maya Harris
• Talk:Donald J. Harris
• Talk:Family of Kamala Harris
• Talk:Harris (surname)
• Category talk:Harris family

I was thinking of semi-protecting all the pages for three days (until the election) in case the vandal creates yet another account but that may stifle legitimate talk page comments. I have no strong opinion on how to proceed. Commander Keane (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's be fair, legitimate talk page comments from non-autoconfirmed people are pretty rare in that CT. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I was mainly worried about protecting Talk:Donald J. Harris as the article is locked so editors are told to use the talk page. Commander Keane (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

User: Robert Obama and User:Peter Agassian are other socks of the same person making the same ill-informed and misguided edits. At this point, I support semi-protecting all those talk pages for ten days or so. The chance that an IP or brand new account will make a useful comment at Talk: Donald J. Harris at this time is negligible. Axe grinding is all that happens there. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just information only (though I'm usually generally sympathetic to protection around US elections): The socker for all the accounts in this case is WP:LTA/NDC. No SPI needed. There is now an IP block in place which should help reduce the nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple obvious sleeper-socks on Talk:The Grayzone

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

---

Sockpuppets involved: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bonks1 : created in 2017, left stale until returning to single-purpose POV-push at The Grayzone - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zuludogm : Created in 2006, left fallow until being briefly used to singlemindely push promotional content about Robby Soave at Rising (web series), and now a single-purpose POV push account at The Grayzone

These appear to be following a pattern of sleeper sockpuppets of Philomathes 2357. It's also a revealing tell that Unbandito chose to "notify" Bonks1 and claimed they had "productive discussions in the past." [89]

I am submitting this for review as it is completely obvious that there is sockpuppet behavior. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're accusing me of here if anything, or if I am even supposed to comment on this, but I would note that my full reason for pinging the people I selected in my talk topic was you've all been active in discussing or editing this part of the lead at some point in time and we've had productive discussions in the past. I was just trying to say that users in general on the talk page have been able to work out compromises and improve the article in the past, not necessarily that everyone I pinged was a part of that.

I think it's worth noting that neither Philomathes nor any of their alleged socks have participated in the most recent discussions, nor have they ever participated in the same discussion as far as I am aware. That doesn't rule out all possible illegitimate uses per WP:BADSOCK, but it does eliminate some of them. I imagine the admins will be able to settle this with checkuser, but it certainly doesn't strike me as "completely obvious" sockpuppetry. Unbandito (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Philomathes2357 quit editing shortly after a hat tip warning by Dr. Swag Lord PhD (also a likely sockpuppet). Zuludogm returned for exactly two edits one to the talk page and one to its own talk page. Bonks1 then returned right after to POV push after not editing since 2018 once and 2017 before that.

Obvious Philomathes Sockpuppets Are Completely Obvious. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, you should quit casting aspersions unless you wanna get a boomerang. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the clear PA: [90] Meters (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There's another clear PA here: [91] Toughpigs (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Fastily

I have some concerns about how Fastily deletes U5s. I have talked about this to them already but that conservation did not resolve my concerns (see User talk:Fastily#U5s). According to the speedy deletion crtieria, a U5 is Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages. I came across Fastily because I received a mentorship question where a newcomer asked why their page was deleted (User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Bristlepaddy (12:02, 21 October 2024)). It's a fairly commonplace question and usually such deletions are warranted. However, I was surprised when I actually looked at the page in question to see that it looks like the average draft from a random newbie. I undeleted it because I'm under the impression that this is obviously not a U5. I pinged Fastily in the discussion, hoping they'd say it was an oversight, but they didn't comment on my talk page, hence the conversation I started on theirs last night. In response to my concerns, I was told: This looks a lot like a promotional piece/resume for a non-notable individual created by an SPA with the sole purpose of increasing this individual's SEO visibility. If I'm wrong in this instance, I'd love to know why, but it's worth noting that I encounter dozens of similar attempts every single day. I don't think Bristlepaddy has the purest of intentions here. I became concerned that Fastily comes across similar situations frequently. That's the gist of it, I encourage others to read these discussions in their entirety. I am also concerned that their response to me trying to nudge them in the right direction was this: [92]. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong. But I would like other admins to give their opinion on whether these are inappropriate deletions, because I believe them to be:

• Draft:Patrick Marmion (the situation described above)
• User:Harunss1977 – clearly someone working off of Template:Biography. Not a good draft, but not a U5.
• User:Pealoei – two sentence draft about a provincial electricity service in Thailand. This is not unambiguously promotional, which is a requirement for G11.
• User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox – draft about a historical election

These are just within the past few days, it's quite possible that there's more. If these are indeed inappropriate deletions, ANI seems like the proper venue, as improper speedy deletion can be bitey. I realize that Fastily does a lot of good work combating spam and I don't want to disrupt that. I just want these concerns to be addressed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox was a hoax, as was the user's userpage, which I just deleted as a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for clearing that one up. It looked fine as a glance to me and seemed confusing why it would be U5'd. Hoaxes are a different criteria, maybe it was somehow a misclick? I don't feel welcome providing feedback at Fastily's talk page anymore, so I felt like this was the best place. I also didn't want to seem too vengeful or anything, so I really did only look at stuff from the past few days. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt it was a misclick because the two criteria aren't close together when using a drop-down, and I believe the U5 was a tag by a user, meaning you just delete it and the software fills it in for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  A sandbox hoax can fall under U5 or G3, since the intent to create a hoax (G3) isn't known, and it might just be fucking around (U5). I've deleted entire alternate histories people have written as U5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ooh, can we change the U5 policy to "fucking around"? I'd support that!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was the one who tagged that sandbox (intentionally as U5). There's a long-running issue of user pages/sandboxes being used for fake articles about nonexistent or not-as-they-actually-happened elections, and CSD tagging is a little tricky for them. They're not really hoaxes per se - they seem to be used for alternate history forums of some sort, and not intended to be moved into mainspace - and sometimes it's not clear at first glance whether or not they're fake. However, if the users have made any positive mainspace contributions, then they don't fall under the letter-of-the-law for U5 even though they're misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. I tag a fair number of them since I delete a lot of the images on Commons (a more significant issue because they're mixed in with non-fake images). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your diligence and explanation. I think the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are good (and they do a lot of them, which is why I was having a hard time going through their deletion log)! I've been going through even more of it the past hour or so and am not finding any massive red flags, so unless someone else is aware of something I'm not, all I'm really looking for is a "I'll err on the side of caution in more ambiguous situations". I'm a big believer in holding admins accountable, so ideally when editors bring up concerns about admin actions.... they're not insulted, you know? That response to Fathoms Below kind of pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to file this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Let's examine the facts here. You keep going off about assuming good faith, yet your first reply to me is accusatory, so yeah, of course I'm going to respond the way I did. Up until that point, I was willing to discuss the possibility that I could be wrong, because being human and all (unfortunately the upgrade to FastilyGPT hasn't landed yet), I do make mistakes. Back to the story, holding my tongue here, I again asked you to explain your reasoning and you responded in an accusatory way. Are you really surprised you got the response you did? I take enough abuse from vandals/spammers/LTAs, the last thing I need is abuse from my colleagues. I see some feedback below that I was heavy handed here, so if that's what the community consensus is, then I have no problem admitting to the error. -Fastily 03:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I am incredibly surprised that this was how you decided to reply to feedback. I disagree that anything I said could be described as abusing my colleagues. I asked you a clarifying question, which is only natural when your response to a draft that shouldn't have been deleted is I see dozens of similar situations every day. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Having fun twisting the narrative there? I suppose this will also be a shock to you: baseless accusations of bad faith aren't constructive feedback. I've been both patient and cordial with you, yet you have exclusively responded with vitriol and hostility. Well cool, I'll do the same, or wait, it's only okay when you get to be the one that does it huh. I called you out on it above and I guess that stings because it's the truth. Here's some friendly advice, don't run around throwing stones at others' houses when you live in a glass house yourself. -Fastily 05:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Having read most of these discussions, Clovermoss is absolutely not the editor coming across as hostile. You need to dial it back. Parabolist (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fine, but worth noting that I wasn't the one who went around looking to pick a fight in the first place. -Fastily 05:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fastily, if you see I'm a bit concerned that you said you see dozens of similar situations to this one every day. Are you saying you delete all of these as U5s? as so "accusatory" as to justify a response of If you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page (where the thing she couldn't do was prove a negative), and then escalating to casting aspersions against someone else who tried to get you to chill out, you have misunderstood WP:ADMINACCT even worse than you've misunderstood WP:U5. Now is the time to hear the wake-up call, not to double (triple, etc.) down. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That makes no sense, this has nothing to do with "proving a negative". I asked for an explanation as to how I might be wrong. I have never once said that I'm infallible. I did not get an explanation, only someone accusing me of making a mistake (in bad faith I might add) but then refusing to explain why. -Fastily 05:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh come on. You said, based purely on vibes, that it was SEO spam, and then asked her to somehow prove that it isn't. If you can't see how absurd an expectation that is, I don't know what to tell you. There's no accusation of bad faith. An accusation of bad faith would be something like "You frequently delete every page in CAT:U5 at once, such as here, 9 pages in 3 seconds, starting 6 seconds after the previous deletion you made (a G7). While yes, there are various workflows where this could occur innocuously, when combined with your tendency to erroneously delete things under U5, the fact that you seem to never challenge bad U5 taggings, and your inability here to justify this challenged speedy of a viable draft, sure tends to give the impression that you're mass-deleting by script while either not looking at what you're doing or only taking the most cursory glance." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  There was literally an accusation of bad faith made against Fastily. Grandpallama (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading the user talk page discussion, I am very concerned about the responses from Fastily with statements such as:

• Ok that's utter nonsense and you know it.
• Sounds like you have trouble discerning between constructive contributions and spam, which I find troubling given that you're an admin.
• If you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page.
• Very convenient for you to show up here, presumably at the behest of Clovermoss.
• Both you and Clovermoss have been around long enough so your inability to understand the issue is not my problem. This has been a waste of my time and I won't be participating any further.

These statements appear to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talking about AGF is nonsense when the context is dealing with SEO spam. Two admins on a user talk page should be able to exchange opinions without a need to sugarcoat everything. Fastily handles a lot of bad stuff so it is always possible that they were wrong in this case. I don't know about that but I do know that this is not an ANI matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about AGF on the deleted articles. I'm talking about Fastily's comments aimed at Clovermoss and Fathoms Below rather than the deletions. The worst WP:AGF issue is the canvassing accusation (the fourth talk page quote). There's also a difference between being direct and being uncivil. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Since Clovermoss rode in accusing Fastily of assuming bad faith, I'm pretty sympathetic to Fastily's response. I'm not seeing an ANI issue here, except perhaps a trout to both parties. If Clovermoss doesn't like getting salty responses, Clovermoss shouldn't prompt them. Grandpallama (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's salty to say that you're concerned about inappropriate deletions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe when it's done in good faith, no. But that's not what you did, or how. Grandpallama (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it's not possible for me to have done all of this in good faith. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because of the lack of good faith behavior exhibited at that discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Clovermoss isn't the person calling attention to the responses so I'm not sure why If Clovermoss doesn't like getting salty responses is part of your response. Both Clovermoss and Fathoms Below were civil in their comments on User talk:Fastily. And that discussion was not the first time Clovermoss tried to express her concern about the deletions to Fastily. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit. Clovermoss opened the discussion by scolding Fastily and then with their first reply, implied bad faith behavior on Fastily's part from the outset. That's neither particularly civil nor especially constructive. This disingenuous "I don't know why Fastily reacted like they did" nonsense is insulting to anyone who reads that exchange. The fact that one of Clovermoss's choice examples is a glaringly obvious hoax should be so embarrassing as to make them rethink this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of an uninvolved observer, your comments in this discussion read as hostile and combative. I recommend you tone it down a bit. genderBiohazard (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And I strongly recommend you gain more experience onwiki before making recommendations to other editors pointing out serious concerns with a false narrative. Grandpallama (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess Fastily should learn from mistakes he recently occurred. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to overstep my boundaries as a newcomer and I apologize if I've slighted you in some way. It is not my place to comment regarding the main topic of this discussion. I was merely suggesting that you remain civil in your responses. genderBiohazard (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Heated =/= uncivil. Grandpallama (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should tone down the heat then. Opening up a reply with Bullshit is pretty aggressive. Saying that Clovers's statements is nonsense and that they should be embarrass[ed] does not help maintain a "pleasant editing environment" from the first paragraph of WP:CIVILITY. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not at all seeing a reason to consider Draft:Patrick Marmion promotional, nor how U5 would apply. There are bits that could be written better (I removed the external link for the surgeon father), but those issues just seem like someone new to writing Wikipedia articles and not knowing the best way to structure biographies. And the subject definitely looks to be notable, I'm finding a number of reviews for a variety of his plays. Silverseren^C 01:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't found the outside coverage that you mention, but the first few sentences describe my general surprise when I read this page. As I said in my response to the newbie: I have undeleted your userpage. I am unsure why Fastily deleted an article draft as not aligned with our goals when writing content is pretty much the entire point of everything. Your draft isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be. It also isn't so egregiously promotional that another deletion criteria would apply. In later replies, I encouraged them to seek out adequate independent sourcing. A lack of notability is not what U5s are for. Plenty of newbies have no clue that we have standards for this stuff but we should at least give them a chance to figure it out. An improper speedy deletion is going to make it less likely they'll even try. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's just a few example from many options and there's many more besides from those. So notability as a playwright is definitely not in question. I do agree with you completely though. Notable or not, we don't just delete drafts someone is working on by misusing CSDs like U5. Silverseren^C 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• User:Pealoei was tagged for G11 but deleted as U5. A two sentence draft about a provincial electricity service belongs in a sandbox, not the user's main page, and would thus be an appropriate U5 deletion under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Considering they were hardblocked a couple hours later for a promotional username, I can only assume it would have qualified for U5 anywhere in userspace (as paid spam rather than a legitimate draft, which wouldn't be considered closely related to Wikipedia's goals). C F A 💬 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're correct on the tagged/criteria deleted under distinction. I don't think this would necessarily count as U5 anywhere else in userspace because it isn't obviously paid spam. I genuinely believe a good faith newbie could write these three sentences: The Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) (Abrv: กฟภ. RTGS: kofopho; Thai: การไฟฟ้าส่วนภูมิภาค, RTGS: Kan Faifa Suan Phumiphak) is a Thai state enterprise under the Ministry of Interior. Established on 28 September 1960 by the Provincial Electricity Authority Act 1960 (BE 2503, it is currently headed by Chayabol Thitisak. PEA is responsible for providing electricity in 74 provinces in Thailand—all except Bangkok, Samut Prakan, and Nonthaburi)—which are served by the Metropolitan Electricity Authority. But I do appreciate that we're actually having a discussion on all this. That's what I wanted from Fastily, an open and honest discussion on the merits. But instead they doubled down instead of considering that maybe I was right. Silverseren explains what my reaction to that draft was. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fastily doesn't delete user pages as G11, no matter what they're tagged as. Like, ever. The six (count 'em!) exceptions since his resysop, compared to 103,304 labelled U5, prove the rule. —Cryptic 02:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I would not have deleted that. Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a U5 anywhere. How is that not plausibly a draft of an article? What does WP:FAKEARTICLE have to do with anything, unless you've somehow come to the conclusion that it was meant to "indefinitely" stay in userspace despite lasting barely seven hours between creation and deletion? What difference does it make that it was created on the base user page, as new users are wont to do, instead of /sandbox or some other subpage, as users who've been editing Wikipedia for decades do? Just what on earth do you think Wikipedia's goals are, if they don't include trying to write articles? —Cryptic 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  This was obviously an illegitimate spam draft. Their username was the group they were writing about. Yes, it's theoretically possible it was an innocent newbie who got confused, but that's not very likely, is it? Regardless, deleting "drafts" on the base user page is common practice for a lot of admins. I move them to a subpage unless it's obvious it would qualify for U5 elsewhere, but that's not what everyone does. I think the issue here is with how broadly U5 is able to be interpreted. I would support getting rid of it altogether. C F A 💬 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Illegitimate spam drafts are explicitly not deletable as U5, and pages written neutrally are explicitly not deletable as G11. Not even when the sourcing sucks or when the author has a COI as obvious as a Sherman tank. —Cryptic 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Where does it say that? Do you think spam is closely related to Wikipedia's goals? C F A 💬 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Right on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5. Do you think writing articles is not closely related to Wikipedia's goals? Do you think that would have been deleted if someone had put it in mainspace instead? —Cryptic 22:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Plausible drafts" ≠ userpage spam. They weren't writing an article — they were just advertising on their user page. The mainspace article exists at Provincial Electricity Authority, which is in fact where the "draft" is copied from. C F A 💬 22:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've posted on Fastily's User talk page about U5 page deletions several times over the years. My main complaint is that it doesn't seem to matter what the User page is tagged for (it's frequently G11 and even G12), Fastily always changes the CSD criteria to U5 for some reason.

My other problem involves our patrollers, it seems like some can't abide by any content on User pages. I've seen User pages that just had an editor's name and occupation tagged for CSD U5 speedy deletion and other times there are what are clearly article drafts that have just been mistakenly placed on a User page that are tagged for CSD U5 speedy deletion. In these cases, these drafts should be moved to a Sandbox or Draft space, not tagged for deletion.

I think there is fundamental vagueness on what "webhost content" consists of because, to me, it means content that should be placed on an editor's personal blog or website, not article drafts or a simple bit of biographical information which is explicitly allowed to be present on User pages. But, like I said, this involves educating our patrollers, not just admins who review these pages. But, honestly, I've stopped reviewing pages in the CSD U5 Candidates category because I found myself untagging pages because I thought the taggings were inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning "web host" in WP:U5's section header is very probably the worst wording ever to deface WP:CSD; it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual text of the criterion except for the matching template and category name. I've joked for years that we should just replace the text of U5 with "Any page in the User: namespace written by someone without enough social capital to get anywhere when they complain after you speedy it". Because the implication about it applying to new users - sometimes not even specifically "has made few or no edits outside of user pages", like the criterion reads - seems to be the only part people pay attention to, and policy is supposed to be descriptive, right? —Cryptic 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As for User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox, it is really astonishing to me that an administrator would not immediately recognize with one or two clicks, that Gideon Blackburn did not win the 1816 United States presidential election. Blackburn existed but was not a politician but rather a religious and educator figure. The winning candidate was James Monroe, of course, who won an overwhelming landslide victory. Similarly, the losing candidate was not John Henry Miller, who also existed but died in 1782. The actual losing candidate was Rufus King who is not remembered much these days, but was a prominent American patriot of that era who was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States Senator and later ambassador to the United Kingdom. So, this sandbox was a blatant hoax that fooled the reporting adminstrator. Some people generously call such hoaxes alternate history but Wikipedia is not a platform for hosting deceptive forms of fiction and I will support any adminstrator who quickly deletes such obviously inappropriate garbage content. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If it were at least labeled as a hoax instead of "U5" then administrators - and anybody else, even without viewdeleted - would be able to recognize it without even those one or two clicks. —Cryptic 04:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Erm... Not all administrators are Americans. – robertsky (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about this discussion? [93] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, Clovermoss, I was unaware of that discussion. I am talking about the fact that in this case, you failed to detect that the deleted page was utter hallucinatory bullshit and instead chose to benignly describe it as a draft about a historical election when it was the exact opposite of that. Fretting at ANI about which precise CSD tag should be used to delete clearly inappropriate content seems like a poor use of all of our time. To be clear, I agree that some of Fastily's comments were overly prickly and I encourage that editor to be more careful with their phrasing and interactions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And which CSD criteria should be used to delete the obviously notable draft of Draft:Patrick Marmion that Fastily attempted to get rid of and which is the actual originating article topic for this discussion in the first place, which you haven't addressed at all, Cullen? Silverseren^C 05:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't need to. I concur that I may have been heavy handed here and I thank you for providing the references above. I usually do some cursory research on any page before deleting, but I clearly missed the mark here. Thanks for pointing that out. -Fastily 06:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My response was to Liz in this instance, since she brought up talking to Fastily about her concerns and I wanted to make sure I found the right discussion. I realize now that specific example (and not the main focus of what went wrong here) is a hoax, but it would've been slightly easier to realize that if it was deleted under the proper criteria. I'm not American and my general instinct towards newbies creating drafts on historical elections is that they're probably not lying about who won. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I am aware that you are from the north side of the Niagara River but when you say that your general instinct towards newbies creating drafts on historical elections is that they're probably not lying about who won, that was obviously wrong in this case, and is probably a gullible attitude that you should reconsider. I admit that I am an American political junkie and immediately saw this as a hoax, but this draft had obvious indicators of fraud, such as piped wikilinks to entirely different people, and mention of alternate history in file names. You should do a modicum of verification before using a draft like this as an example of misconduct by another administrator. That's my view at least, but I also believe that you are usually a good administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This specific example was a mistake, yes. I just don't want it to overshadow the larger concerns here. As for elections, I'm mostly used to seeing people write about obscure elections that don't have articles when it's something like the 1800s, so it didn't raise as much of a red flag to me as it did to you, especially given the other U5 concerns. I was also using the "view diff" and preview feature of the last revision instead of looking at the source code directly. I will definitely keep your feedback in mind for the future, as those are good tells to watch out for. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Admins should absolutely not be telling people to "get off my talk page" for raising legitimate concerns. That's really disappointing behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fastily didn't tell Clovermoss to get off their page for raising a legitimate concern. They told Clovermoss to get off their page after Clovermoss accused them of assuming the worst faith possible. Grandpallama (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming that someone's completely normal draft made by a new editor is "SEO spam" is "assuming the worst faith possible". Silverseren^C 05:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That "completely normal draft" reeks of COI and SEO. Clovermoss is the one who created this situation as a result of engaging with a deliberately combative and provocative approach. Fastily asked for explanations, civilly, which were not provided. Grandpallama (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  So, to you, "deliberately combative and provocative" is saying I hope this is just an oversight but if so, please be more careful. Speedy deleting article drafts as U5 can be bitey? If yes, then I question your judgement on what "combative" means in every scenario. Silverseren^C 06:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Starting with the assumption that Fastily had made an error and warning him is combative, yes. You are questioning my judgment? You are the one defending as perfectly kosher the article about Patrick from Bristol written by... Bristlepaddy. Yeah, no red flags there... Grandpallama (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Not criticising or making personal attacks, just want to point out, but I've experienced the same thing. Unfortunately, Fastily seems to not be very civil towards users. Once on his talk page, he replied to me What exactly are you hoping to achieve by coming here and continuing to complain? I'm literally not your therapist. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you're not the only one who edits here. So yeah, you should expect to receive constructive criticism from time to time. If that's too much for you to handle, then it's high time for you to find a hobby that that doesn't involve Wikipedia. I know plenty of editors (admins included) who are on the spectrum but don't use their disability as an excuse to justify incompetence and/or bad behavior. Knock it off. in October 2024. Since he is an admin, he should know better than this. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As for User:Pealoei, I am the administrator who blocked that editor for "promotional username, promotional edits", and I stand by that block. I believe that poorly referenced content directly related to a blocked promotional username ought to be deleted. Personally, except in the most blatant cases, I do not myself delete content created by editors with overtly promotional usernames. I believe that "two administrators are better than one" in such situations, and I am very happy that other administrators like Fastily are willing to clean up such messes. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Since PEPSI697 is bringing up something posted on Fastily's user talk page, I think it's probably a good idea to provide a link to the relevant discussions to add context. It started when PEPSI697 requested to be granted Rollback rights, didn't like Fastily's response and then decided to remove Fastily's response from the the page basically saying it didn't count. PEPSI697 than posted about the matter here on Fastily's user talk page. The next day PEPES697 started a new thread about the matter on Fastily's talk page here, and then started Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237#Can somebody please help me - I don't feel safe here about 20 minutes later. So, it's important to understand the entire context of things leading up to that Fastily post. PEPSI697 has sort of a disclaimer posted at the top of their user talk page, which is fine I guess for their user talk page; however, Fastily's response to their Rollback request was none of those things and seemed perfectly fine per WP:TPG. Moreover, PEPSI697 doesn't really get to apply their own conditions to posts made by others on community talk pages/noticeboards and doesn't get to remove posts made by others just because they're "sensitive" to criticism. I don't mean to try and derail what's being discussed here, and I'm not trying to make light of users who have ASD; I do, however, think it's important to understand the context of what PEPSI697 is quoting above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. However, I'm not really thinking strongly about the rollback request "incident" for the moment and haven't worried about it for a month now. It has been all good since about 3 October 2024. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You're claiming that everything is all good, but you're trying to use this "incident" as an example of poor behavior by Fastily without even seeming to consider that it was your inappropriate behavior that started things. Your removal of Fastily's comment and statement that it didn't count was wrong and this was pointed out to you on his article talk page. You could've simply apologized to Fastily for removing the post at that point and that would've probably been received positively. Instead, you continued to post on his user talk page about how he was making you feel unsafe and that you didn't want to get blocked/banned, and then continued the same discussion at the Teahouse. You were doing all of this before Fastily had even responded to your first post; so, it's not hard to understand why he responded the way he did. Several of the posts you received at the Teahouse even pointed out the fault lied with you, but you still seem to think otherwise and still seem to think that your behavior wasn't an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See this discussion I made last Wednesday. I've apologised for the actions I did if you didn't see it. What I mean by "all good" is that I haven't thought strongly or worried about it. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to comment that you probably should have just kept the discussion to the very inappropriate responses by Fastily on their talk page (and not just to you, but many others over time) and the Marmion draft's obviously inappropriate deletion attempt, Clovermoss, instead of bringing up other deletions. There is a long-standing tendency by many at ANI to obfuscate a discussion to avoid the actual topic brought up and instead go into long tangents about any minor inaccuracy that can be pointed out to prevent that primary topic from being addressed. As many are doing up above with things like the hoax election article. Silverseren^C 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Silver seren: Who specifically are you talking to? Just curious as there are lots of users in this thread here. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone who is not addressing the actual Fastily talk page discussion raised by Clovermoss that is the reason for this thread and/or not discussing the actual draft at issue that was inappropriately deleted. Anyone who is trying to harp about the hoax election draft or the electrical facility draft without actually making mention of the aforementioned topic of discussion is just derailing from the subject matter so it doesn't get addressed. Which is very common in ANI threads. Hence why I suggested just above that Clovermoss should have just focused on the former when making the report to not give leeway for such derailment to be done by others. It's unfortunate that such things are necessary, but past experience in threads here has shown me that it is. Any form of minor inaccuracy or misstatement in one's filing of a thread here, no matter how inconsequential it is to the topic being presented, will be frequently used as a method to prevent the main topic from being addressed. Silverseren^C 06:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Silverseren, personally, I have already advised Fastily that I agree that some of Fastily's comments were overly prickly and I encourage that editor to be more careful with their phrasing and interactions. But the hoax election draft example and the COI electrical utility draft example were two of the four examples of the alleged misconduct raised by Clovermoss. Are you arguing that the weakness of these two examples should have no effect on this conversation? Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying they aren't the reason for this thread, the draft discussed on the talk page and the biting of a newbie who wrote a perfectly fine article is. Hence why I suggested above that Clovermoss probably shouldn't have included those other examples as they would inevitably derail from discussion of that issue. Since if Fastily is going to claim that that draft is "SEO spam", then I question their capability to analyze other such drafts and also question whether they have been driving away a number of other new editors trying to honestly contribute to Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 06:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite possible I'm missing this within the wall of text, but may I ask what you think is wrong with the utility draft example? I still think someone here in good faith could easily write that and that's what matters. That making a mistake like this has an invisible cost, not that I'm immune to somehow not impacting others with my own decisions. Anyways, I really should go to bed (it's quite late) for now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I assume just because they had a COI username that matched the name of the utility company. I agree that that's not a reason why they can't make a draft for a notable company. Just that there should be more scrutiny for that. Silverseren^C 06:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I will say the "User:Pealoei" standing for "Provincial Electricity Authority" is a bit more subtle than what I usually encounter. I have deleted some spam myself and usually only do it in the most blatant of cases. Those three sentences, even from a COI editor, are mostly neutral. They could've theoretically submitted that as an AfC draft even if it would've been rightly declined for a lack of sourcing. But I don't think deleting it as a U5 is under the spirit of the criteria. It's possible I'm wrong, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, and that's definitely not my read of things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. In my opinion, any poorly referenced draft created by an account whose username represents the subject of that draft is inherently and fundamentally promotional. Hypothical User: QRS is incapable of creating a neutral, well referenced draft about QRS Corporation 99.99% of the time, and the exceptions to that rule ought to be enshrined in a very special Wikipedia museum that does not yet exist. Any human being conversant with our policies and guidelines would have selected a different different usename, and if they didn't for whatever reason, they could make a thoughtful request to change their username, accompanied by a fulsome promise to follow all of our Polices and guidelines, indicating where they went wrong. That did not happen in this specific case. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree these should be speedies. (I even consider it a feature, not a bug, that "other" social media - and these users do consider Wikipedia social media - has taught them to inadvertently disclose their COIs by naming their accounts after the company that's paying them.) But the community doesn't permit individual administrators to delete pages like these on their own recognizance. It permits individual admins to delete user pages about "writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" with the explicit exception - as if trying to write articles weren't one of our primary goals, but only vaguely connected! - of anything that looks like a draft; and it permits individual admins to delete pages that that are exclusively promotional, again with an explicit, redundant exception that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". Intent, even when obvious, doesn't enter into it, or else we'd have a whole lot fewer mainspace hagiographies about Kazakhstanian businessmen. —Cryptic 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with lots of what's been said above. It's important that folks responsible for speedy deletions have an opportunity to discuss how each of us might apply these criteria in real time. I've been working the speedy list myself recently. Draft space is maintained as place for development, and I've performed some G11s in egregious cases. It's obvious that even trusted servants will disagree, but in this case, I'm agreeing with Cullen328's and Cryptic's statements immediately above. I would have deleted these myself. Perhaps I would have been in error. But such choices are well within my trust of any other sysop. This thread is an unfortunate overreaction and shouldn't end, IMHO, with action against Fastily. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see the attempt at an article as blatant promotion, especially if they're a governmental body, which means the block should have been a softblock for a username that represents an organization (in this case the Provincial Electricity Authority in Loei, I assume). That said, I've made a lot of deletions and username blocks so I'm sure there would be some borderline cases other editors and admins would disagree with. Differences in judgement are expected, but WP:ADMINCOND calls for civil discussion of our administrative actions which isn't quite what we saw here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• And now we have a petition for Admin recall against Fastily, based mostly on stuff that happened 10 years ago. This is freakin' awesome! BusterD (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Historical information was presented to provide context and establish a pattern. I put the petition itself forward due to concerns with how they were handling themselves today, and whether or not that was in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. I sincerely apologise if it appeared to be based on the 6 previous ANI threads surrounding Fastily's deletion-related conduct. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread. So you have that, and six ANI threads each going back before the editor's return. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread

  Yes, I noticed. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was alarming to read, and that's why we have recall now. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's an WP:ADMINACCT/WP:CIV issue and a deletion-related issue here, and they're both harder to resolve when taken together. On the behavioral side, I think a lot of this case may have been fueled by a simple misunderstanding (I think Fastily may have perceived Clover's "that's assuming the worst faith possible" about that one draft as instead a broader judgment on their deletions and/or a denial that we should ever see things as spam, and responding to that in an overly defensive manner). Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, the exchange with Clovermoss and a couple other examples above give us enough to resolve that part of the discussion with a trout or formalized reminder or something. Regarding deletions, I find Tamzin's and Liz's comments/evidence most concerning as they point to patterns rather than examples. Specifically, that it doesn't seem like Fastily declines many U5s, sometimes changes CSD tags, and carries out deletions at a speed where it would be impossible to fully evaluate the content. Whether someone should switch tags seems like a subject for a different forum, which leaves us with the classic problem of how to effectively evaluate deletions of an admin who has made 634,791 of them. Fastily has donated an awful lot of volunteer time focusing on deletion, so we'd really need pattern-level evidence or a good sized sample. If people want to go that route, I'd recommend closing the behavioral issue and creating a subsection to focus on evidence. Personally, I think I'd be fine just deprecating U5. Spam, historical fiction, etc. already fit under various G-type speedy criteria, and I agree with some others that we make it too easy to delete newbies' drafts, practice sandboxes, notes, wikimarkup experiments, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites I'd support deprecating U5, or at the very least making an explicit carve-out that the criterion doesn't apply to sandboxes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  What about the records of someone's fantasy football league? That isn't a hoax, isn't promotion, isn't vandalism, but it also isn't anything to do with Wikipedia. I've always seem U5 as the NOTHERE of user page CSDs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I just don't see what's so urgent about that that it needs summary deletion. Would I delete that if U5'd (and not in a sandbox) right now? Yeah, sure, I believe it fits the criteria. Do I think it was worth the time for someone to tag it and for someone else to delete it? No, not really. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it would be more clear-cut if the records of the fantasy football league were just placed in the sandbox, someone didn't edit it for how many months and the user left, and another user tagged it for deletion after discovering it. Deprecating U5 might have the unintended consequence of flooding MfD with nominations like these, but just a hypothetical. Anyway, this is beginning to get out of scope of ANI. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we're talking about a user that's WP:HERE, I don't see why another user doesn't have something better to do than digging through userspaces looking for 0-views silliness to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites eh, lots of accounts with not that many edits start out with small things like fixing typos and then they might experiment in the sandbox since they're new, not knowing exactly the purpose of the sandbox since PAGs are hard to learn at the start. Another user might find the sandbox among the first user's contributions by accident after said user is long-gone, since they saw the person fixing typos or doing something else and looked at their contributions page. I wouldn't automatically assume people would be searching out for pages like these but this hypothetical might be a bit of a stretch. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are we talking about someone who's only here to make fantasy football pages in their userspace? If so, that's a behavioral issue and they should be blocked per WP:HERE. If we're instead talking about a good faith contributor, I have no trouble viewing some random userspace page with fantasy football information as either a place to experiment with wikimarkup, tables, templates, etc. or as falling into the leeway we tend to provide good faith editors to include some personal detail in their own userspace. If the context is unclear, what is so urgent about such a page that it needs to be not just deleted but speedy deleted? This is, in part, what I'm saying about U5 -- it's rare there's a clear-cut case such that speedy is called for but not covered by other criteria or by WP:HERE. More often than not it's just someone's random nonpromotional inoffensive sandbox, where we don't stand to gain anything in exchange for the user demotivation upon deleting a page almost nobody would ever see if they weren't looking for NOTWEBHOST violations in other people's userspace. YMMV. All this said, there's probably a better place to argue about U5 in general (my fault). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  People already ignore, almost universally, the existing carve-out for drafts (let alone plausible drafts). What makes you think they wouldn't do the same for a new carve-out for sandboxes? —Cryptic 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe we should just have admins follow the rules? I'm really confused that I've just randomly stumbled across this discovery that what's written and what's enforced can be dramatically different. I don't like it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  The rules are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If it turns out that everyone is ignoring this it is the policy that needs to change to reflect the reality. MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  We haze prospective admins for a week and get pissed at them if they draftify too many articles, but if admins ignore the explicit carve-outs in CSD criteria that's... just to be expected? -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  If I came across as if I thought this were a good thing, it wasn't intended. My point was that this isn't a problem with the criterion; it's a problem with the people applying the criterion, and changing the criterion won't make them apply it any better. —Cryptic 23:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think Rhododendrites makes a good point regarding the importance of looking at reasonably large samples when evaluating the conduct of highly active admins (since even a below-average error rate will create a large number of errors if applied often enough). This also seemed like a good opportunity to procrastinate on actual work, so I drew a random sample from a subset of this query (which looks for deletions by Fastily whose summaries match \bU5\b). Specifically, I recoded the summaries to indicate whether deletions happened solely under U5 or under U5 and another deletion criterion, subset the data to the time range between 2024-01-01 and 2024-10-04 today, (pseudo)randomly drew 300 deletions, and dumped the result to a wikitable. The table is at Special:Permalink/1255380976 Special:Permalink/1255383709, if someone wants to look through. I'm also happy to rerun my script with a different sample size or time range, if desired. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  (ec) Edit: I realised that I had unintentionally set the wrong end date (4 October instead of 4 November), so I've fixed that and repeated the process. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing this. Despite my concerns, I don't necessarily have it "out" for Fastily, I really just want to make sure my concerns are not indicative of a way larger problem. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Blablubbs, I'm just curious, what was the pool size of User page deletions that this subset of 300 was taken from? I wonder about the total number of CSD U5s over a period of 10 months. By the way, I forked your query and am running it on my own page deletions and it is still running. I might not have gotten the code written correctly. Maybe if you have a second, I could get your opinion on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Liz, the total for 2024 was 16371. The overall total from the quarry is 103310. Here's a table. Re the Quarry: I'm by no means an expert (I cobbled it together by from existing queries by Cryptic), but if all you did was switch out the actor_name, it should run just fine. It's tough to say more without knowing what exactly you're referring to, though. Since this thread is already ballooning somewhat, it might be best to take that elsewhere, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I use Quarry throughout the day but most of my queries were written by other editors. You're right though, this is off-topic, I'll ask you on your User talk page.

But on the subject of CSD U5s, I have raised the question at WT:CSD in the past over its liberal overuse and misinterpretation (including one embarrassing discussion where I keep referring to it by G5, not U5) but if our patrollers used their tagging skills to reevaluate the User pages of our senior editors, many of them would be tagged for CSD U5 as they contain biographical content that is not directly related to their editing work. There is very, very little tolerance towards new editors who have any biographical content on their User pages. Since most new editors think of their User page as a profile page, let's just say that I think the vast majority of these pages are tagged for speedy deletion as soon as they are spotted by a patroller. In instances where it is a CV, I agree but in most cases, the content is harmless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's an overenthusiastic patrolling of user space, imo. I've seen a lot of U5s that were clearly attempts at drafting articles which just need moving to a subpage, but I get pushback from patrollers declining these sufficiently often that, tbh, I've started to pass on them. I don't recall it particularly, but I seem to have looked at User:Pealoei and failed to decline it. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like there needs to be action taken in regards to the patroller community as a whole if they are consistently bad at the task when it comes to user pages. Enough so that multiple admins and editors have brought up this being a long-standing issue. Silverseren^C 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That is so good to read, Espresso Addict. I thought it was just me. I rarely review the CSD U5 category when I look at CSD-tagged pages because I was removing taggings I thought were inappropriate and some patrollers came to me protesting. I get enough complaints on my User talk page already so I just don't review U5s. I think admins patrolling CSD categories are outnumbered by patrollers and it is harder to change their behavior than adapt our own. If I think it is egregious mistagging, I will post a message to a particular patroller but I think, in general, the judgment on U5s is just overboard. These taggings are sometimes warranted but in most cases, I don't think so. And it is especially bothersome because it affects brand new editors more than veteran editors. Very BITEy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikieditor969

Wikieditor969 (talk) is seemingly SPA, focused on editing articles involving Eritrea (especially Eritrean people) to replace or remove mentions of pre-independence Eritrea. In several cases this user removes "Eritrean" as a nationality[94] or place of birth[95] entirely. In many cases they have removed "Eritrea" as the location of Asmara[96][97] or of other places.[98] They present themselves as clarifying that historically the land of Eritrea was not the country of Eritrea, but while they have the ability to clarify this history by using phrasing like "Asmara, present-day Eritrea", they consistently choose not to; in fact, they have at times removed such clarifying phrasing[99][100] in order to erase Eritrea. Though I approached the editor to communicate my concern and recommend more clarifying language— after I stumbled across across one article in particular where they had done such editing[101] (where I started a tangentially relevant section on the talk page)— they disregarded my message and in fact went back to revert my edit and further cut down mentions of Eritrea in that article by replacing a mention of Eritrea with one of the province.[102]

While they have (rarely) made similar changes[103] on similar topics, their edits by far focus on erasing mentions of Eritrea from Wikipedia. Placeholderer (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So if they were born before the country of Eritrea existed, then they couldn't have been born in the country of Eritrea. That first example you mentioned is clearly correct, as they can't have been Eritrean as their parents fled in the 1970s, and they were born in Sweden, so that edit saying they fled the provinces of Eritrea in Ethiopia seems quite correct. As do their other edits. You can't be born in a country that didn't exist at the time. As for removing text like "present day Eritrea", I think such statements should be removed as unnecessary. Articles should be based on the time the event happened and pretty much every country in the world has changed name and country many times in history. If we put what everything is called today, in articles that are not actually about that country but a person or historical event, it's completely unnecessary and would just bog down millions of articles. The country article is the place to discuss that sort of thing, not a person's article. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern isn't with the technical appropriateness of each edit, but with the overwhelming focus of the user's edits being a potential suggestion of not editing with good faith, especially when some edits do seem wrong, and especially especially when those edits ignore previous GF feedback.[104] I'd use more specific acronyms in order to not look like I'm accusing anything but GF and SPA are all I've got Placeholderer (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a violation of Wikipedia's edit policy...

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

---

I am reporting user Escape Orbit for having violated Wikipedia's editing policy, specifically WP:CAUTIOUS. After looking at the timeline of changes Escape Orbit made, it appears they proceeded to make major changes ([105] & [106]) to the article Men's interest channel, specifically, its content, without having a discussion first about the proposed major changes changes. I initially chastised them for their disruptive behavior (see collapsed sections at Not a list article), but upon figuring out Escape Orbit made the article content changes (at 09:34 & 09:35), then posted on the talk page (09:44) (meaning they didn't have a discussion about their changes before implementing them), I withdrew my comments, and decided to let administrators take care of the situation with Escape Orbit's disruptive behavior. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say WP:BRD applies and you shouod re-engage with the talk page discussion if you disgaree with their edits. This is not a situatiuon requiring admin action at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Your complaint does not qualify as there appears to be a on-going discussion at the article’s talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: So, you don't believe Escape Orbit removing large chunks of the article's content would be an attempt at making a major change to the article?

@Bgsu98: I'm filing the report because Escape Orbit SHOULD have a launched a discussion about their edits BEFORE they went through & made them. Attempting to start a discussion about their changes AFTER they've made them essentially renders the reason for said discussion moot. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong about that. Editors generally don't require prior permission to make edits, even major edits. Like has already been said, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page. See WP:BRD. This doesn't belong here. Remsense ‥ 论 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I believe, when it comes to major edits to an article's content, WP:CAUTIOUS indicates otherwise. It even states as such at the description page:

Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose to be bold, provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.

And, as I've already stated, it becomes moot to have a discussion about proposed changes AFTER said changes have already been made. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

How does it become moot? Articles aren't written in permanent ink. The idea that you can only discuss whether your version or Escape Orbit's version is the better one while your version is the live one is a huge stretch. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me provide an example of why having a discussion AFTER the change that the discussion would be related to becomes moot...

It's like going through & re-decorating the inside of a house, then proceeding to ask whoever lives in that house if they think there's reason to change the way the inside used to look. By that point, the change has already been made. And, there's no guarantee that whoever lives in that house is even going to like the change made, since they weren't consulted about the change BEFORE it was made.

And, if anything, I'm not calling the pre-Escape Orbit version of the article MY version; to imply such would actually go against Wikipedia policy as it relates to claiming ownership of an article. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is no use arguing over your hypothetical analogies for what collaborative editing might be like, I am telling you what it is like. Drop this thread and go start a discussion with the editor like normal. Remsense ‥ 论 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, your read on site norms is wrong, and you should take the advice given to you. The insistence that this is the correct course of action while refusing to discuss the editor's changes with them at all is frankly making you look pretty unreasonable. Remsense ‥ 论 03:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For someone to make what ANY editor on here could construe as being a major change to an article's content without having a discussion about it BEFOREHAND actually makes look inconsiderate. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's frequently prudent to do so, but there's nothing requiring discussion before a major edit. And there's nothing particularly controversial about the trim. This is a content dispute. And quite frankly, I think Escape Orbit's edit was the superior one; it's a bit absurd to examples to illustrate the subject get far more real estate than the actual subject, to the point where there are more than twice as many examples as channel articles that are even in the category. If ones wants a list, then make a list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

After now reading the withdrawn comments on the talk page and your escalating threats over a content discussion, I would strongly urge you to drop the stick there. It's OK to be wrong on the common practice, but your interactions on that talk page are anything but collaborative, mostly consisting of escalating threats targeted at Escape Orbit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

In what world are edits like [107] appropriate in a collaborative environment? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Crikey. At least this thread will serve some purpose as a WP:BOOMERANG case, getting this editor out of here. Remsense ‥ 论 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen anyone withdraw their comments in this manner either and I am sure I don't care for it. If you want to take back something you said, the usual way is to strike it out, not to put it in a big box saying you are reporting the other user. In any event this is at best a minor content dispute. I'd ask the OP what admin action they think can or should be forthcoming. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the way that I initially withdrew my comments; I was not aware that the correct way to do so is to strike it out. I will modify my comments from earlier today in accordance. Also, at this point, I am dropping my objections to Eclipse Orbit's edit. I simply viewed the user's actions (removing huge chunks of article content) as being a major edit, which is why I cited WP:CAUTIOUS. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And, I've struck out my comments here as well. Consider my complaint withdrawn & the discussion closed.

Again, my apologies for the wrong way that I marked my objection as withdrawn.

And, from here on out, I will strongly take to heart & mind EXACTLY what was stated in this discussion about editing content in Wikipedia articles. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see this; all that matters is that discussion can be constructive going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 04:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And, I promise to do my best from here on out to maintain Wikipedia articles in EXACT accordance to how Wikipedia policies were explained/defined to me in this interaction. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see that you did in fact drop the stick. The goal here is for everyone to be contributing constructively and hopefully getting along! I do want to stress that many of these edits here and in this article also would be inappropriate even if there were a real rule violation made by Eclipse Orbit. Not only do we need to be collaborative with people we disagree with, we have to be polite and fair to people who are breaking rules as well. We're going on seven million articles, most of which are important to someone and without this approach, things would break down into internecine warfare. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Coffee: Well, at this point, I feel it's best for me to withdraw my comments above & drop my objections to Escape Orbit's changes. Honestly, I'm not happy about having to do so, but I've come to realize, more or less, at this point in time, I essentially no longer have a choice in the matter; continuing a dispute when you're outnumbered is never a smart decision (regardless of how one feels about the majority consensus about what said dispute is about). So, I will simply figure out how to deal with this outcome and move on from it.

And, to continue dragging this situation on, despite the fact that this discussion can now be considered "closed", would be analogous to kicking a dead horse. So, I am politely requesting that action be taken to do whatever necessary to "officially" declare this discussion closed, then moved so that it isn't drawn out any further. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Highly baised

User:Mr anonymousMr this user is highly baised ,promoting Tulu and tulunad everyware adding local news websites as reliable sources, reverting other users edits , moving pages without discussing, Icecreampool (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You've only made 3 edits so far, one trying to get something by Mr anonymousMr deleted, which failed. The other two were to the same article where Mr anonymousMr wasn't involved. Note that I've given you an contentious topics notice, which applies everywhere, including here. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Icecreampool, besides Doug's valid comments, you haven't provided any examples ("diffs") of edits which might be problematic so your report is unlikely to result in any action. Other editors aren't going to spend their time hunting down evidence to backup your unsupported claims, that's your job. I think this complaint is very premature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:RanSJ17

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

---

SPA promoting CreaZion Studios and its staff. Repeated disruptive reversions of cleanup on their spammy raw-HTML trainwrecks. Promotional edit after level 4 warning for UPE [108]. Editor has just admitted paid editing for CreaZion Studios. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on talk page

Threatens legal action after having edits reverted. Their edits were to say "xyx does not work here". Without any evidence of if they do or do not. It isn't correct to state where the article subject does not work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:147.188.251.161 - User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Dennis - Page in question Sir Nuttingham (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP doesn't know how to go about editing here, but I think they're onto something with regards to that article. The BCRRE website does not indicate that Dennis is a member of staff. His personal website lists BCRRE amongst the places he has taught at; it's possible he taught there at some point in the past but is no longer affiliated. I've tweaked the wording slightly. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we may have a notability problem with Gareth Dennis. The article is essentially a resume + his resignation after pissing off some bigwig. EEng 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like WP:BIO1E to me. Northern Moonlight 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  If there was such a thing as WP:BIO0E, that might fit even better. Since the subject himself has edited the article recently, it's a fair bet every source that might be useful is already in there. I'm under tremendous IRL pressure just now so I'll have to leave this to others, but an AfD seems in order. EEng 21:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  EEng#s, I hope that pressure has eased up on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Liz, I guess it can finally be revealed that in RL I'm actually Kamala Harris. Perhaps that explains some things in retrospect e.g. getting blocked on July 22 was the cornerstone of my staff's calculated plan to give me more free time to clinch the nomination. (A quick shout-out to Levivich for finessing that so perfectly. He'll be Secretary of State. Tryptofish will be commander of Moonbase Zappa.)

  So anyway, yes, the pressure will be easing up soon, at least until January.

  And remember: to reduce crowding at the polls, registered Democrats are being asked to vote on November 5; Republicans should vote on November 6. May the best candidate win! EEng 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess it would take a lot more pressure than a presidential election for you to lose your sense of humor, EEng. I mean, Kamala. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

SPAs POV-pushing in The Keys to the White House

Summary: The major dispute in this article, concerning an election prediction system, is how to approach whether the 2016 prediction ("Trump wins") was correct, as some sources state, or incorrect, as others state (because Trump lost the popular vote). The neutral version reports both sides of the argument. Three SPAs keep reverting to a version that endorses one side and imputes dishonesty to a living person (the system's co-creator, Allan Lichtman).

Urgency: We can expect heavy editing of this article as the results of this week's election become known. Editors who come to the article should be able to work with a suitably NPOV version. It would be great if this could be resolved quickly.

The SPAs: The basic problem is that there are three SPAs that are fervently hostile to Lichtman. User:Apprentice57 had one edit in 2007 and one in 2019, then beginning in June 2024 made numerous edits, all of them related to this article or Lichtman's bio. User:Tomcleontis and User:Caraturane began editing in June 2024 and have primarily edited these two articles and their Talk pages. All three were pushing a then-recent blog post critical of Lichtman, which they wanted to cite. In particular, they have examined the competing views about 2016 and decided that one side has the better case, so they insist on a version of the article that adopts that side in Wikipedia's voice (e.g., Lichtman's "claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016....").

Dispute resolution 1 -- Talk page: I have spent a huge amount of time on the Talk page trying to explain WP:NPOV to these comparative newcomers. They persist in their view that one side is so clearly right that there is no dispute. Multiple sources credit 2016 as a correct prediction. The SPAs, however, refuse to acknowledge these sources and assert that there is no dispute. For example, Caraturane wrote: "For the record, Lichtman is not being accused of making false statements. He has reportedly, on multiple occasions, made false statements." On that basis they will not accept any NPOV version. Also participating in the discussion were two other new accounts, Hangways1 with two lifetime edits, agreeing with the SPAs, and 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C0EE:D9DA:EB5C:31AC with four lifetime edits, taking a more mixed approach.

Dispute resolution 2 -- RfC: After getting nowhere on the Talk page, I began an RfC. Unfortunately, only one experienced, uninvolved editor (Classicfilms) weighed in. She agreed with me that my version was more neutral. The non-neutral version was supported by the three SPAs and by 2.101.10.150, who began editing in October 2024, when this dispute was brewing, and has made four edits. Another experienced editor, LittleJerry, didn't join the RfC, but edited the article to remove the most obvious POV (although his edits were reverted, first by Apprentice57 and then by Caraturane). I reinstated a neutral version, but was reverted. Tomcleontis justified this position by saying, "The outright majority of editors said no." (Of course, it's not a majority-vote process.)

Dispute resolution 3 -- BLP Noticeboard: I made another try at getting more opinions by starting a thread on the BLP Noticeboard. The SPAs adhered to their POV, with Tomcleontis stating that the three had "reached the conclusion that [Lichtman] has been inconsistent or dishonest about it...." This makes the NPOV violation pretty clear. Again, only one experienced editor weighed in, with notwally agreeing that my version was more neutral.

The current situation: Based on the unanimous agreement of every experienced editor, I again reinstated a more neutral version. Apprentice57 reverted 20 minutes later. (My version is more neutral throughout. The "Criticism" section is balanced by "Support". In particular, I created a subsection to present both sides of the 2016 dispute.) Thus, the article is still in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

Relief requested: The three SPAs have persistently engaged in disruptive editing, by pushing their own POV about Allan Lichtman and the Keys. I request that all three -- Apprentice57, Tomcleontis, and Caraturane -- be article-banned from both articles. Admins should note that the contentious topics procedures apply to the Keys article. JamesMLane t c 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to get into this again and have tried to step back to let neutral parties comment. I don't appreciate the incredibly biased way these facts have been presented. Several editors, not just three of us, have been concerned about the page and your proposed edits and it has by no means been unanimous. In fact, the majority of editors did not support your proposals; we've all acted in good faith to find compromise and to try to step away when things were getting heated, only to wake up to email alerts about a new noticeboard posting, your unilateral edits, and now this. We are not hostile to anyone, but are cognizant of Lichtman's repeated attempts to act in bad faith to attack journalists and/or critics mentioned on the pages; to remove material critical of him; and to employ his own family members and fan base to edit his page (as the talk page details at length).

Your incident post here does not mention the reputable news organizations which have all written at length about the dispute in question but cites opinion pieces with single lines about his record, and which are cited (along with Lichtman's own words). These organizations have reported about the dispute not about his record, and are thus more useful in evaluating the dispute. I also fail to see how citing Lichtman's own paper and book which are contradictory to his public statements and definitely contradict what he has said is a point of view by Wikipedia editors.

I implore the Wikipedia administrators to do their diligence concerning how these disputes have gone on on these talk pages, as I am sure they will, as I just don't have the time to go one by one through this and was really hopeful we could take a breather. No one here has been engaged in disruptive editing, nor is there a desire by anyone to make this their sole focus (it just so happens this has concerned way too much time arguing about), but it seems that calling for us all to be banned from editing is an incredibly dramatic and uncalled for step, more reflective of your own frustration with contradictory information and insight than any of our bad faith efforts. I have personally worked with you, JamesMLane, in good faith, to inquire about editorial standards of a news organization you felt did not comply; to ask people to take a break after weeks or arguing; and to find compromise language for the Allan Lichtman page itself. Nor have I edited anything (or even paid attention to the dispute) in a week, so I am frustrated to see this pop up now. Caraturane (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged here as a very fresh editor who joined the discussion, so I thought I'd share my perspective. There's obviously a ton of argument around the article, but the key thrust seemed (to me) to be whether or not Allan Lichtman predicted that Trump would win the popular vote or the electoral college in 2016.

I happen to own a copy of the book Allan Lichtman published that year ("Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016") which didn't seem to have been discussed; probably because it isn't easily available for purchase anymore. There is a very clear section at the start of that book where Allan specifies that not only do the keys only predict the popular vote (phrasing his), but that he is aware of several years where the electoral college winner diverges from the popular vote winner—and that for those years, he designed the keys to predict the popular vote winner. We obviously had a similar split in 2016.

My two comments on that talk page were solely agreeing with other editors that were aware that Allan had made a popular vote prediction in 2016.

I didn't advocate for any particular POV to be taken or any particular phrasing. Similarly, I didn't advocate for the dispute to be included in or excluded from the article. (For what it's worth, there's no doubt the fact is disputed—there are a lot of articles claiming Allan only made an electoral college prediction in 2016. 'Dispute' is an easy bar to clear!) More experienced editors than I can identify the best way to communicate all this.

But Allan wrote a very clear book in 2016 that quite specifically states he is predicting the popular vote and clarifies exactly what the keys predict in situations like what we got in 2016. That does resolve, I think, a lot of the disagreement over the factual basis of the dispute, and I'd certainly hope there's a way for the article to include that text if the dispute is going to be covered. It would be frankly bizarre for the article to present a dozen articles of people arguing back-and-forth about what Allan predicted in 2016, and tiptoe carefully in language around it... and yet decline to include the passage in Allan's 2016 book where he specifically clarifies this matter. I don't think it's pushing a POV to suggest Allan's book is very strong evidence for what he meant in 2016. Hangways1 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the quote in question:

"The keys to the White House focus on national concerns such as economic performance, policy initiatives, social unrest, presidential scandal, and successes and failures in foreign affairs. Thus, they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states.''

Indeed, no system could have predicted the 537 vote margin for George W. Bush in Florida that decided the 2000 election. In three elections since 1860, where the popular vote diverged from the electoral college tally—1876 (when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888, and 2000—the keys accurately predicted the popular vote winner.

Based on the historical odds since 1860, the chances are better than twelve to one that the popular and electoral college vote will converge in any given election. However, these odds presume continuity over time in the relationship between popular and electoral college votes. "

Allan Lichtman, Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016, Introduction xi. (2016 edition, published by Rowman & Littlefield)

Again, surely there's a way to present Lichtman's words stating the keys only predict a popular vote (including in years where they diverge from the electoral college winner) without any NPOV concerns. This is just factually what his book contains, not a POV. Hangways1 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the book you mention should be presented, along with other sources. That book is cited in the relevant passage in my version.

You write, "I don't think it's pushing a POV to suggest Allan's book is very strong evidence for what he meant in 2016." Providing the evidence (as I do) is NPOV. Telling the reader which evidence should be considered "very strong" would be POV. JamesMLane t c 22:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm not suggesting the article itself state the evidence is very strong! :) Again, not advocating for a specific POV.

I do think that "Lichtman had usually been referring to the popular vote" doesn't communicate clearly that Lichtman specifically (1) stated in some cases that his system only predicts the popular vote, and (2) discussed years where the popular vote diverges from the electoral college and reaffirmed that the keys make popular vote predictions for those years.

I think that content can (and should) be presented without violating NPOV; if we're going to extensively summarise what the media said that Lichtman predicted, and what Lichtman said after the election... it seems to me that there should be at least as much depth given for what Lichtman said about his prediction at the time, to help the reader adjudicate the following info for themselves.

Anyway, this is seguing back into discussion of the article itself, and this talk space probably isn't the place for that. I wish merely to make the points that I think (1) the article doesn't adequately convey Lichtman's own writing where he makes it clear he's referring exclusively to the popular vote, (2) I think the article CAN do this without violating NPOV, and (3) while personally I think the evidence settles the dispute quite concretely, I agree with you that the article shouldn't use "very strong" or anything to summarise the evidence. Lichtman's own words stating the keys predict only the popular vote could be presented without bias. Hangways1 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk about an escalation, you're actually arguing we should be banned from these pages despite not taking unilateral actions and only acting in consistency with a majority of editors on the talk page? Good grief. Goes without saying, but I think this is really silly and fruitless. Yes, the page can be improved (I don't think any of us disagreed with that?), but no it shouldn't be just as one user and as Lichtman has continually demanded. I for one asked for people to just cool off for a while and have tried, unsuccessfully, to do so myself because we have an actual election on the doorstep that I'm sure those passionate about the 13 Keys will be passionate about as well! Tomcleontis (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• I only looked at this complaint superficially, as I try to avoid U.S. politics articles, but is this really more than just a heated content dispute that should continue on the article talk page and noticeboards? Despite our best efforts, since editors are opinionated human beings, POV pushing is extremely common on this project on contentious subjects and it is usually combatted by having a large pool of editors debating content and editing articles so that articles aren't affected by extreme POVs. Is this disagreement really escalated to being ANI-worthy that sanctions are called for? Maybe posting this complaint here, on a very visible noticeboard, will draw more eyes to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Resolving it without AN/I would be ideal but, as a practical matter, I just don't see a path. If you masochistically wade through the multiple dispute resolution attempts identified above, you'll see the three SPAs, over and over, reiterating that the evidence on their side is stronger, that the sources they cite considered the matter more thoughtfully than the reliable sources that the SPAs disagree with, that the version in which Wikipedia adopts one side of the dispute is the only permissible version, and that any edit that changes that aspect must be instantly reverted. They will simply continue to do that.

  I'd like to draw more eyes to the article -- but several experienced editors have already said that the current version is unacceptably POV. The three SPAs are unfazed. They have demonstrated that they will not change.

  The issue is whether three SPAs can show up, edit an article to adopt a POV attacking a living person, and, by sheer persistence and stubbornness, override all attempts to conform the article to one of Wikipedia's core policies. JamesMLane t c 02:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to fully reply tonight but will try to block out time tomorrow. As I wrote in the talk page when I reverted JamesMLane's recent edit, the edit was unilateral and contrary to no-consensus being found in the ongoing RfC. I reverted it on those grounds, not on the grounds of its specific neutrality or lack thereof - although we are working toward finding something we can agree is neutral. I still plan on posting a talk page topic tomorrow where I will propose some small to medium points of agreement I think we have and where we can edit the page (it can still be improved and JamesMLane did propose some good changes like I previously noted). Even if we are found wrong on the merits of the neutrality of the article, banning us outright from editing the page would prevent us from weighing in on good faith resolutions like that.

That doesn't include the dispute over 2016 itself, where (personally speaking) I do not favor JamesMLane's version of the article (if being forced to chose between only their version and the status quo) as being more neutral because there isn't really a dispute about the 2016 case. We have a primary source from the author himself on election's eve stating the keys were predicting the popular vote.

I actually worry about the actions from JamesMLane coming from POV pushing (requesting and repeatedly pushing edits that have been requested by Lichtman himself previously, which Lichtman did in violation of wiki policies and also seen in an edit from a user with the same name as Lichtman's wife). They also have seemed to be escalating their attempts and accelerating the timeline so as to be completed before the election tomorrow, which has been derailing the process and discouraging replies to the ongoing RfC. I just want them to take the temperature down and work with us. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You write that "banning us outright from editing the page would prevent us from weighing in on good faith resolutions like that." You will still be able to weigh in on the Talk page. My request is only for article ban (i.e., mainspace only), not page ban. As for working with you, I've put in a huge amount of effort to do so. Your position in this very comment is that "there isn't really a dispute about the 2016 case." In your view, The New York Times is wrong, The Washington Post is wrong, Brandeis University is wrong, Wisconsin Public Radio is wrong, etc., so there's no dispute. I've said I was open to a good-faith resolution about how to present the dispute, but to deny its very existence is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 02:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You say that as if it's a moderate option, but this is still fairly nuclear. Being able to propose changes to an article and having to wait for others to implement them is pretty obstructive of the process.

I recognize that sources award a "win" to Lichtman on 2016, but they tend to (as argued above) be opinion articles or drive by mentions of his record before introducing his take on the election at the time (this year the 2024 election, previously the 2020 election, etc.). As I wrote elsewhere, if there is a source that has interrogated his past record on 2016 in a deeper way and come to a contrary conclusion - I'm only aware of this from Lichtman himself post facto and there's an obvious conflict of interest there - I would welcome it coming to light and would find it persuasive. As of now, I'm only aware of sources that interrogated this and came to the same conclusion about the 2016 miss (the Atlantic, the media ethics piece, and if deemed acceptable the Postrider article of course). I wrote this on the recent Noticeboard thread you posted.

This is perhaps not the best place to discuss the merits of this, I mostly bring up this counterargument as an example of how I'm not POV pushing and would be open to changing my perspective, the sources just haven't merited it. Quite honestly, at this point I'm less concerned about the argument itself and more concerned about the process and your conduct. That one we can leave to the admins and 3rd parties I guess. Apprentice57 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for the article to take a stance on whether the NYT, WaPo, Brandeis, etc. are correct or not. The article should provide as much of Lichtman's writings & statements as possible about contested predictions, AND it should mention that multiple media outlets and election personalities have variously supported/detracted from Lichtman's record. This way the reader can decide for themselves (a) what Lichtman's prediction was, and (b) whether the support/critique is reasonable.

I don't see how it violates NPOV to note that Lichtman persistently wrote until the 2016 election that the Keys only predict the popular vote — this is objectively what he wrote! Conversely, I don't see any issue with stating that Lichtman has received widespread support for his prediction record (along with the critique) — acknowledging that multiple media outlets have counted Lichtman's 2000/2016 predictions as both correct doesn't constitute support of those outlets. IMO any version of the article that presents one of these cases but not the other isn't fulfilling NPOV to the highest possible extent.

I'm a new editor so I have no place weighing in on what should merit a ban or not. However, I don't think either of the primary versions of the article being currently debated in Talk are nearly as neutral as possible. Hangways1 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• JamesMLane, the fact is that no action will take place if you don't get the support of at least one administrator and so far I'm the only one to offer a comment here. This case looks much more involved and complicated than a standard complaint to ANI. I think you might have more success if you could simplify your argument. But I wouldn't be surprised if no action comes from this as there is a lot of content to plow through. If this involves American politics, you might have more success at AE if the editors involved have received a contentious topic notification. But my hope is still that these differences could be resolved on talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Hockey IP editor evading block again

Blocked IP user 47.54.219.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (LTA page here) is active again at Montreal Canadiens-related pages such as Jesse Ylönen with IP addresses 71.7.139.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 142.67.118.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). While neither is a confirmed sockpuppet, they share the original IP's presence at Habs-related pages, location in the maritimes, inability to work collaboratively (e.g. persistent edit warring), misunderstanding of guidelines (particularly WP:OWN, see their recent edit on my talk page), and love of the phrase "the foregoing" on the Ylönen article. I am quite confident it is the blocked user on sock accounts, and I would like these two IPs to be blocked for the length of the block to the original IP. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

IP 5.173.214.32

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

---

This IP user has made an edit that constitutes Nazism (see this diff). Clearly, they are not here to build an encyclopedia and should be banned. They have been very uncivil towards User:EPIC as well, swearing at them in their edit summary. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In that edit summary, they sent death threats to EPIC, saying he way "pay with blood" and "be burned alive". That's terrible, horrific behavior! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuing deleting others' comments [109] and [110] and deleting my warning. 103.190.179.16 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)