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

No cooperation, no good faith

User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015

also remove my appeal for discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improve the article? You're removing fully cited material. You want to dispute it? Add to talk page - this isn't Greek Wiki. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not replied to the talk page. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He is a user of bad faith. You can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article in question. The best solution is that both editors just refrain from contacting each other. This is a disagreement that started over at Greek Wikipedia apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

no, dear! it didn't start on the Greek Wikipedia, at least not with me. The user on the Greek Wikipedia via i.p. tried to pass the same text to the article of the party, where an administrator blocked him by locking the page. So, it was moved here. And he even put the exact same text in both the article about the party and the article about the person. I don't know if this is acceptable but does no do a good impression to the reader.

I also don't see not talking to each other as a solution, as it is imperative that differences are discussed. If you want to help perhaps you can take participate on the discussion page of the article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Although the only relevant quote I found regarding your comment on the word libelous is this A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" let me explain that by libelous I mean putting content that does not match to what the sources say. It's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to be able to judge if the sources are being misused, I understand that, but if you're interested you can use a translation app to understand. Also, it is a bit hasty to conclude that i want to whitewash somewhat insulting I think to my person. I'm just trying to make the text NPOV, something the user is completely indifferent to. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Insults / Bullying

request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in a politically motivated edit war with them? Secretlondon (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what he wrote ? what does politics have to do with it? D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I can see that you are blocked on Greek wikipedia for socking. Secretlondon (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is clearly discussed above. Stick to there, please. Secretlondon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What does the fact that I am blocked in the Greek wp have to do with my problem? What do you mean by sticking there? What i have to do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You posted this further down the noticeboard. Someone has clearly moved it to here, with the other thread. Secretlondon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a WP:boomerang issue maybe? Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely seems to be a boomerang case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreementsD.S. Lioness (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently replied to a request for third opinion on this case, but I failed to realize it was (in multiple subthreads!) at ANI already. The dispute is much worse than I recognized in my 3O response and it does seem like administrative action is warranted. At a minimum the article should be protected and the participants referred to WP:DRN, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans for both would be appropriate at least. For how long is up to consensus.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing and continuous removal of sources

Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

heads up: per the big red warnings that show up when you start a new thread, you need to notify users of this. i did it this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The above was filed as a new thread; I've copied it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain how this is a personal attack and not simply you being thin skinned? Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to temp block D.S. Lioness

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

---

This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure a block is necesssary, but topic bans for either or both users may be necessary. I'm not sure that either editor has shown that they can edit in the area of Greek politics effectively. From what I've seen, DS Lioness has edited other users' talk comments to remove personal attacks (against themselves, making them not the best person to remove them), and from what I can see, Michalis1994 is trying to ensure the article is "NPOV" - which to them means that any negative information they think is relevant is included. Neither editor seems to be discussing based on policies/guidelines, but based on their own opinion of the other editor and their own opinion of what's relevant. Pinging User:VQuakr (and will notify on their talkpage) as they responded to the WP:3O request, but to quote VQuakr During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors - neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not remove the term 'whitewashing' as the deletion of cited content in the article raises significant questions about the author's intentions. Additionally, this concern now extends to the political party founded by Afroditi Latinopoulou, Voice of Reason. It is evident that D.S. Lioness has prepared a similar version in her sandbox, aiming to completely replace and distort the cited content regarding the party. Hope you can all see the pattern here. If this isn't whitewashing, then how should it be described? Moreover, there is nothing inherently negative about accurately describing the political party as a far-right organisation - something that has been confirmed by the third opinion, to which D.S. Lioness responded with further personal attacks. The so-called 'negative' tone identified by the other author is, in fact, the result of ideological analysis from reputable sources, which they seem eager to conceal. The replacement of reliable sources with questionable material, coupled with the aforementioned actions, raises concerns about whether D.S. Lioness is going to stop those actions and seek consensus. I have expressed my willingness to discuss this further, but it currently seems impossible to find common ground. Additionally, I must point out once again that they have been previously banned from Greek Wikipedia for exhibiting the same behavioural pattern. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Temporary topic bans for both seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why for both? That seems a little weird. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I demand a single piece of evidence of alleged whitewashing: which cited content I removed?

Your edits deceive readers and vandalizing w.p by adding lies such this June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view." Where the source mention something like that? Here the source in Greek and tranlated by google translate in english

See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban for D. S. Lioness, as their clear POV pushing is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.

As for Michaelis, I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban for 3 months to just take a break and come back when they're feeling less hot-under-the-collar from this mess. The article can wait, and there's already more eyes on it from this ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

where is my pov pushing? You accuse me and you want to ban but without a single evidence!!! You just believed the other user lies. Did you read my edition? Did you read my sources? In what ground you accusing of POV pushing?? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban on D.S Lioness , user seems to not have a NPOV and really likes WP:WL

From [1] it seems like Michalis1994 has voluntary banned themselves AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

O.k. Prove your claims D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that they seem to have voluntarily quit , give them a 3 month ban to be sure AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support As proposer of an indef ban for D.S. lioness. They seem unable to stop digging as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? What evidence do you have? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - 6 months definite ban for D.S. Lioness. And 3 months voluntary topic ban for Michalis1994, would be appropiate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Side note - semi-protection of Afroditi Latinopoulou might be warranted. No issues if that's premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

what are you saying; what exactly are you trying to achieve? what is the vandalism in Papachelas' article? I even explained in the editing summary the minor changes I made. I remove only unverified material according to WP:BLP.

Υou are trying to take advantage of users who don't know Greek, who don't know Greek political parties, who can't confirm what is written in order to achieve my complete exclusion. This is totally immoral!!!

you accused me of whitewashing the far right without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim. Not a single one!!! You manipulate users who are perhaps sensitive to political issues and especially the far right to achieve your devious ends!!! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are now the one being uncivil. I’d be more careful with what I said at this juncture. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a temp block for Wikipedia:Civility violations. Don’t call a user “devious.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And what should I call a user who is trying to mislead the community into kicking me out of the project? Have you checked to see if what he claims is correct? D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You should answer in a way that doesn’t resort to making personal attacks against another editor. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuous whitewashing and removal of labels/information related to other neo-Nazi parties: [2] [3] - there is a clear pattern here. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The edits you posted are ref fixes and have nothing wrong with them … AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ηis contribution has now become a pure stalking at me. You can check this here D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban for D.S. Lioness for POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is, at the very least, rude to call someone pov pusher without providing any evidence. I will wait for diffs prove your accusastion. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it really isn't given the context. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

proposal

Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked you'd both reported each other for check user. Is this another one? Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my check user has completed, Michalis1994 not yet. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note D.S. Lioness is currently sitting out a 24-hour block for Edit Warring, and cannot contribute here during that time. Posting so this section doesn't archive before they can respond to further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it might be for the best if both of them got blocked, at least from interacting with each other. I just don't see them getting along. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an interaction block would make the most sense, having interacted with both these users on Niki (Greek political party). My impression is that Lioness has some personal bias but wants to build an encyclopaedia, and Michail wants to correct this bias. Both users seem very forthcoming and open to third party input but their disagreement appears entrenched. So long as Lioness’ edits are scrutinised I don’t see a problem, but she might need to be explained WP:Undue and that hers is a minority view. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that Michalis1994 is blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and "repeated attacks labeling other editors' edits vandalism despite multiple warnings" and will not be able to make further comments here until the block expires. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • sigh*

  Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From skimming the talk page - this is popular as he appears in a video game? Secretlondon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The current focus is because he will appear as one of the two main characters in the upcoming Assassin's Creed Shadows, which has attracted controversy in some parts of the internet. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Surprised Assassin's Creed Shadows havent needed protection yet Trade (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Last edit 30 June? Secretlondon (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. He was semi-recently announced to be in the upcoming Assassin's Creed game. Chrhns (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am on mobile device so forgive the poor formatting and lack of tagging. If I recall correctly the main person who's behavior crosses into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR is Shinjitsunotsuikyu who declares that what's going on is Western imperialistic revisions on Japanese culture/history, due to the questionable nature (in Shinjitsunotsuikyu's opinion) of the sources used. I would like to point out that the the majority of the editors involved in the discussion are posting on good faith, and now that the RfC is closed the article currently matches what was determined in the RfC (i.e., The article refers to Yasuke as a samurai.) For anyone reading this, please do not conflate this behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to Eirikr and Hexentante. If there is further discussion or disagreements about the RfC I believe there is a proper appeal process as Chrhrns outlined on that Talk page. I will say that the Eirikr and Hexentante, when explaining their positions, have needed to put up with several editors accusing their behavior as wrongful, staunch, original research with little engagement besides these accusations, despite the many attempts by Eirikr and Hexentante to explain otherwise. However the Rfc summary by Chrhrns is fair and I do not take offense to it, as it explains both sides pretty neutrally. This is a very terse summary of my perspective of the Talk page. Lastly, regarding the discussion of whether sources are unreliable (not other topics such as Yasuke's height and sword), I believe most of the discussion conforms to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why the discussions were ongoing and did not halt. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I generally dislike accusing others of wrongful behavior withoit backup and I'm typing this all very fast and perhaps brazenly. If you are not referring to Shinjitsunotsuikyu then please read my comment with that in mind. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Soapboxing, I was mostly referring to that particular editor doing it repetitiously after having been warned about it, but also instances which seem to have occurred sporadically on both sides of the debate. Chrhns (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be sure my position is clear for other readers, I amend the language of my post dated 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) to say "For anyone reading this, please do not conflate the disruptive and soapbox behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to User:Eirikr and User:Hexenakte. That is to say, those 2 individuals have not been disruptive. The reason the conversations about whether the sources are unreliable have not concluded is due to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS and other parts of WP:RELIABLE, not the so-called original research or synthesis.

Also, taking a step back, the fact that there are many editors involved with this situation should be a sign that the situation is not as black-and-white as people may think. It's a serious indicator that ongoing discussion was warranted, not to be shut down on presumptions of bad faith.

Still on a mobile device so forgive any improper formatting. Green Caffeine (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a complicated issue at all. Refusing to drop the stick and the constant original research is against the spirit of a Wikipedia, and makes them very disruptive. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia.

Normally I would hesitate to use that word, but off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte demonstrate that they both had intent to circumvent the RFC process even before it concluded. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same things over and over with no explanation or reasoning, and you just ignored my last message. This is the third time you have ignored us in a row. This shows you are being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your continuance of bad faith assumption towards us despite us being as transparent as possible about it. Hexenakte (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god this nonsense again. How about we just block many of these accounts as WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa1 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, look at Shinjitsunotsuikyu's edit history. They have been here since June and have only contributed on the talk page for Yasuke.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about Wikitionary's policies.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the same case for EgiptiajHieroglifoj, 80.106.161.157, 81.223.103.71, Theozilla, and so many other users.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that looking at Theozilla's contribution page, while his recent activity is nothing but Yasuke, he has engaged in content outside of it in the past. Chrhns (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the Wiktionary talk page is mine, I feel compelled to comment.

• Re: "accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth":

I never outright accuse. I state what it looks like. This is in the context of the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference, and the inappropriateness of using "wikivoice" to state certain details as objective fact, rather than giving those details properly cited as the opinions of the secondary-source authors.

When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail, I can only see two logical ways of viewing such a change: incompetence (the editor not noticing that the cited references do not corroborate their point, or not understanding why this is a problem), or intent (the editor noticing that the cited references disagree, and not caring).

• Re: "what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor":

You ascribe a lot of bad faith to my actions. The RFC itself was carried out in a very poor manner. The putative point of an RFC is discussion to arrive at consensus: instead, what we had was many people posting a vote, minimal commentary as to why, and in apparent ignorance of past discussions about many of the sources. This was more of a mobbing than a discussion. I was very concerned that this was producing a consensus born of ignorance.

Note too my wording there (emphasis added): "If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out." My concern is that most of the voters were ignoring past discussions about sources, and often even ignoring attempts to discuss the sources directly with them. I had no intention of "circumventing the RFC consensus": I was hoping to get an admin involved to bring the RFC back on track, to actually get people to discuss.

@Chrhns, through all of this, you have not done anything to talk with me directly.

To then cast aspersions, as you have amply above, is inappropriate. Even more so for an admin.

Please do better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I have said to the other editor when I saw your Wikitionary talk page. I am not, nor have I ever purported or represented myself to be, an admin.. The issues on your Wikitionary talk page are numerous and involving far more users than simply yourself. While there are some links which have not formatted properly, the "lying" was supposed to direct to a post by an IP Address that outright accuses others of lying. As for the source the user cited, the link to the edit you provided directs to the Encyclopedia Britannica article which states "He was the first known foreigner to achieve samurai status". The Smithsonian also calls Yasuke a samurai, as does the time magazine that is sources. You are still accusing the editor of fabrication (and now incompetence) for reasons that elude me. As for the rest of the discussion, I am not here to argue with you, or anyone. I am merely notifying the admins of what appears to be many issues occurring surrounding this article's talk page. When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad. Chrhns (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your status as non-admin, and I apologize for my mistake. Thank you too for clarifying the "lying" comment, that seemed odd and I noticed the link didn't work.

Re: Britannica, I already laid out why that is a problematic reference in the thread at Talk:Yasuke#Problematic_sources_in_recent_edit_re-introducing_the_troublesome_"samurai"_title, which points have not been refuted to my knowledge.

Re: Smithsonian, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc, these are all tertiary or even quaternary references, which all depend on Lockley's book for any description of Yasuke as a samurai. I'd be happy to post a through analysis of these sources, which I'd already begun drafting a few days ago.

Re: my own view of the other editor's actions as incompetence or intent, I posted my reasoning above. If an editor writes "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", then I (and I suspect most readers) will take that to mean that "fact" is supported by "ref 1" and "ref 2". If I go and read "ref 1" and "ref 2" and neither say "fact", what else am I supposed to think but that the editor who wrote that is either writing incompetently in not noticing that the references do not support their point, or writing intentionally and misrepresenting the sources? Serious question: if you have a third option for what is going on, please present your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot a point.

Re: "When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad."

I see your point about appearing bad. However, I have had (and have) no ill intent. The thread itself is not hidden, and indeed anyone seeking to converse with me directly at w:User_talk:Eirikr will see my comment there directing anyone to wikt:User_talk:Eirikr.

Specifically about "because you do not like the way an RfC is going", my concern was not that I "didn't like the way it was going", but much more seriously, because it appeared to be an abuse of process. RFCs are supposed to be about discussion and reaching consensus. What happened instead was a popularity vote, with most participants apparently ignorant of, and some even seemingly hostile to, any serious discussion of the sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To your point about RfC, it has been explained multiple times that an RfC specifically calls in outside, uninvolved people to render a comment (hence "Request for Comment"), there is no obligation to engage in protracted debate of the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding to an RfC. Specifically, the RfC format used was "Separate votes from discussion" which does carry the notation ((emphasis mine)):

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises

While I understand in hindsight that this format seems inadequate, it should he been brought up in the 30+ days the RfC was extant. In short, your complaint about what happened on the RfC is less an "abuse of the process" and more "it did exactly what it was formatted to do". Chrhns (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think the "vote" format was inappropriate for the issues with the Yasuke article, but even then, it was not carried out correctly. Even more so if we read more of that same sectionfrom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion:

Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.

The RFC section itself should have explicitly included room for discussion, and the survey should have been in addition to that — if at all, since, as the guideline says, "Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers".

An RFC that consists only of a "Survey" section is improperly implemented, per the guidelines. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this really quickly, Eirikr and I have given many of the other editors who oppose our arguments multiple chances as a way of giving a fair chance to present their cases as to why these sources are reliable or to at least acknowledge the many apparent issues these sources have, and multiple times, with the exception of a few editors - who then agreed with our concerns even after initially opposing - have they refused to do either. We have implored them multiple times and every time they get ignored (WP:CANTHEARYOU) or brushed off as "editors aren't allowed to analyze sources and their citations" (contrary to WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which allows editors to consider the content itself as a factor of reliability and individually pick certain claims as reliable while dismissing others as unreliable in determination of, most easily, whether it is properly cited and if those citations state the facts they claimed).

We do not intend to circumvent anything, however I did not believe that RfC that was just closed was the right method to handle this complex issue. The Japanese language is highly contextual and its written form relies on the context of the conversation, as this can affect the meanings of those words, especially more so when you factor that kanji symbols can often have multiple different pronunciations that are not anywhere close to each other (for example, 米 can mean rice, meter, or USA (kome/yone (archaic), maitre, or bei respectively)). Simply put, editors who make it to out to be black and white without considering the complexity of the language nor the issues of the secondary sources provided, it makes for a very muddy battle. With the way the RfC was going, majority of the Yes votes did not acknowledge these issues, and some outright did not explain their reasoning at all. We cannot have a productive discussion if half of the discussion consists of ignoring each side's point and bad faith accusations. The number of times I have been accused of OR (which initially I did do, I apologized for it due to the fact I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and was not aware, which I have corrected this) even after explaining and providing multiple secondary sources is innumerable. It was an extremely hostile environment for both Eirikr and I, which felt like we were talking to a brick wall.

The main reason for my collaboration with Eirikr is because I recognized his proficiency in Japanese etymology - which he has a long history of on Wikipedia just by looking at his Wiktionary talk page - and believed he was the right person to discuss with in terms of the issue at hand relating to a specified quote in the Shincho Koki that was missing, supposedly from the public eye. Eirikr and I have both made sure to be as thorough as possible, considering all possible avenues before making any decisions on what to do with the quote. The user talk page is public for everyone to see, we have nothing to hide, and we have encouraged participation from other users who have joined in. It would have been preferable to acknowledge the discussion with us directly before making these claims, however this has been resolved as Chrhns understands we mean no ill intent, and I hope other editors who are reading this realizes that as well.

I have made it clear multiple times throughout the talk page, I have been wrong on certain points and apologized for making them. I also made the mistake of assuming Chrhns was an admin, I have apologized this to him and made sure to remove any mention of it. I am very willing to accept the responsibility of my actions, because I am not here to push any view or any agenda. I simply want to present what is verifiable in accordance with the privilege of editors being able to do basic verification on these secondary sources. I have advocated for a positive claim of making Yasuke be referred to as someone who was retained as an attendant, as this was properly cited by some of the secondary sources in the talk page, and it is much easier to prove someone is an attendant by way of noted role and if they are in a lord's service, than it is to claim someone is a samurai, which is an extremely privileged class that was not the default of the Japanese people nor those under a lord's service as the noted existence of the ashigaru that were levied under a lord were named as specifically non-samurai, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a prime example of this as was explained in the talk page.

I do not care whether Yasuke was actually a samurai or not, that is not the reason for my involvement in the talk page. I am not looking to reduce Yasuke to less than what he actually was, as some people such as Shinjitsunotsuikyu wanted him to be referred to as a slave, this requires cited reliable sources just as much as the samurai claim does. I am not against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if there were proper citations of him being one. If there was actual proper citation of the samurai claim in these secondary sources, we would not be having this conversation, however that issue still remains and it cannot be ignored.

I will be back to add more to this discussion as I am very busy in my life and I wrote this up really quickly to add to the current claims that Eirikr and I were trying to circumvent the RfC process, accusing others, and tagteaming (which was later cleared up with Chrhns in my user talk page, he was extremely courteous and understanding which I highly appreciate even after my initial mistake). Hexenakte (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and it is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. Editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen reliable sources that state he was a samurai (unambiguously, with either backing from primary sources or a reasoned argument backed from primary sources), in either language 英語であれ日本語であれ / be it in English or Japanese.

Even so, for purposes of our article, I think it would be great if we could say "According to [sources], Yasuke was a samurai". Any statement of Yasuke as a samurai, as objective fact, without citations, is what I have a problem with. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources stating it and broadly speaking, it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems. The RfC already covers this in detail. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"There are many reliable sources stating it"

Do you have any sources stating this? You have made this same claim, and related claims (such as that the Lockley / Girard book is peer reviewed), several times, but you have not provided any sources. Do you have any?

"it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems."

My issue is with how we (Wikipedia editors) are wording the article at [[Yasuke]]. This is very much within the purview of "us individual editors". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise.

Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again). Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well."

Continuing your disparaging ad hominems, I see. Please keep your comments to a discussion of the issues, not the people. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is specifically for dealing with the people, not the content. Your behavior is what's under scrutiny. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ad hominem is never appropriate. As described on the policy page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) It is not considered a personal attack to point out that ANI is about behaviour not content. Neither is it a personal attack to point out walls of text. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take issue with @HandThatFeeds characterizing this page as "dealing with the people, not the content" — in the context of their post as a reply to my post above, this seems exactly backwards from the guidance at WP:No personal attacks. I honestly struggle to see how @Silver seren's comment is not disparaging, something specifically prohibited by WP:No personal attacks.

In addition, they mischaracterize (or at a minimum, misunderstand) my efforts at due diligence in evaluating sources as somehow WP:Original research -- things like digging into cases where a source says "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", reading "ref 1" and "ref 2", finding that neither "ref 1" nor "ref 2" state "fact", and then posting on the Talk page that the source itself is misrepresenting its own sources: and not as a matter of my own personal opinion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your "issue" with my characterization, the page explicitly states at the top: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (emphasis mine)

Taking issue with your editing behavior is not a violation of WP:NPA. Frankly, I think you need to follow the law of holes at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking into consideration of the fact that the person who made this topic in the first place has long since understood that we had no ill intent and clarified that he was moving the RfC issue to be resolved by dispute, this was not made to be a punitive measure, but rather to move a very complex issue to dispute resolution where it belonged. Acting like we are engaging in bad faith behavior despite the repeated clarifications in this topic that we aren't is an issue. Hexenakte (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai."

One source in particular contains fabrications: Manatsha's "Historicising Japan-Africa Relations" (available here via ResearchGate).

Multiple editors, myself included, described at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai status (among other places) that this reference has serious problems, and is not reliable.

You continued to claim it as a "reliable source", more than once, without addressing any of our concerns.

I put it to you that our descriptions of the issues with this paper, valid and easily confirmable issues, are met with your own stonewalling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never even discussed that source before anyways, so I don't know why you're bringing it up in response to me. I brought up completely different sources. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, you are correct, upon review of the many threads, I see that it was Loki and Gitz that kept bringing that one up. I believe my confusion comes from your repeated insistence that sources given were reliable (albeit without listing that specific paper). I did ask you about reliable sources a couple times, including mention of this Manatsha paper, and you did not respond. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could this be a WP:CIR issue?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know at this point. That talk page is a mess. Just like what Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. was like before it was semi-protected. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

100% yes.

I will also say that extended-confirmed protection for the talk page would solve 90% of the issues. Loki (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I was talking about. Just as I stated above, I acknowledged the initial OR I did and apologized for it, multiple times, just above if you even read what I posted. Please stop disparaging us with these accusations, especially Eirikr who did not do any OR, and I already accepted responsibility for that matter and have corrected it months ago. Hexenakte (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I haven't read the RFC or brushed up on this issue, I find it odd that this brand new user was the one to close what was evidently a contentious RFC. Aside from a few edits setting up a Wiki Ed course that doesn't seem to have actually happened and updating their userpage, the closer's first substantive edits were to find WP:RFCLOSE, mark it as {{Doing}}, and then close the RFC 6 minutes later. There was roughly an hour between their first edit and the RFC close, the account has never edited mainspace or anything outside of this RFC, and appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia for someone who has never been a Wikipedia editor. It might be worth taking a second look at this RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith I cannot find a way to reply to you, so I just figured I'd shoot off an explanation. I was added to Wikipedia as part of a University course I took years ago. We could edit Wikipedia articles, or we could write book reviews. While we familiarized ourselves with the Wikipedia process, I disagreed with my professor's request that we should be improving articles that were related to authors associated with our university (by way of her inviting them to speak, or by way of them serving on faculty). I familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies as best that I could before I opted out of doing Wikipedia work and instead did book reviews. I saw that anyone could close RfCs and I thought that it would be a neat usage of my time since I'm between semesters and was bored, so after I read the RfC Closure Requests section I logged in to my account, edited my Wikipedia page, and went to work. It seemed to me that the closure would be easy, since there were a large number of 'yes' votes. As I explained in my rationale, "yes, but as a minority" view was argued to be inappropriately editorializing the subject since there weren't any sources that contradicted the statement. As for the closure "six minutes later", that's because I found the format for closing, typed out my rationale/summarization/assesment in a text document, dropped the {doing}, posted the closure, and then posted the {done}. I did not realize that I needed to have a substantial history of actively editing Wikipedia to close an RfC and figured it didn't get much more "uninvolved" than someone who hasn't edited anything. So, my apologies. I was just interested in the closure process because summarizing and assesing arguments falls within my skillset and I do not have a desire to actively edit articles. I didn't realize that this would be disallowed or problematic, and I'll stop doing so going forward. Chrhns (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the statement "appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia", I'm unsure as to what "intricate" parts of Wikipedia you are referring here? My statement that DRN might be more appropriate for the issue was derived from reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide which states

For complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be

and

For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.

.

I found the Reliable Source Noticeboard and when looking about the policies on reliable sources, and the rest I learned just from reading through policies before I set out on doing anything, and the other RfC about tornadoes sounded more complicated than what was presented as a "yes" or "no" RfC. Chrhns (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, but thank you for the explanation nonetheless. I'm absolutely not saying you weren't allowed to close the RFC or that you did a bad job at it (I haven't read the whole thing) Just that closing an RFC is difficult, so experienced editors should review it to make sure it complies with our policies and guidelines. New editors must be treated with respect, but they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Apologies again. Reading that essay, I see where I have erred. Thank you! Chrhns (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not really see an issues with the talk page. That said I will add that I am fluent in Japanese and this is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as personal agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. In any case the RFC had a very clear consensus.

I also agree that the off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte strike me as calculating how to influence the article and bypass the outcome. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Granted what it might have looked like, do you accept my explanations above?

@Symphony Regalia — Also, could you respond to my earlier response to your very-similar post further above in this same thread? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} ‑‑  22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it concerning how you continue to accuse us of conspiracy for seemingly no reason, even after much has been said that we did not have any ill intent. I really should not have to repeat myself on this matter, but the entire point of that wiktionary page was to do further research on a missing quote that is supposedly hidden from the public eye. Yes, we did talk about the issue at hand with the RfC and recognized that it was merely a popularity contest with no attempt to look into the secondary sources themselves. That is why we are here to do a dispute resolution as this is a very complex issue. I am trying to be as honest as I possibly can here, and no matter how much I try to be transparent I am always accused of something and I still fail to see why.

Another thing is you insist that this is not a complex issue because you are fluent in Japanese and you deem it so. Yet you haven't demonstrated it once since the 3 or 4 times you mentioned it. You have not provided any dictionary entries for your point and you have not written in Japanese once. You are essentially saying "I am right and you are wrong" without further explanation, and when you are asked, you completely ignore it, just as you did above.

If it isn't already apparent by now, this is a recurring pattern among those still pushing for these secondary sources. There is no argument being presented against our concerns, much less being at least acknowledged. Somehow those interpreting that the very basics of verification of these sources that anyone is capable of doing is bludgeoning the process, and then refusing to engage on those grounds, despite it being very prevalent among several editors in the talk page, not just Eirikr and I. This is not to mention the multiple hostile accusations on this section alone.

I know you do not agree with us, but I really have to point to WP:CIVIL. It is very difficult to have a meaningful conversation if half of this discussion is filled with hostility, and the fact I have to mention this several times is problematic. Hexenakte (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, given they left comments like Special:Diff/1232446414 on the RSN thread, I'm ready to recommend a topic ban.

They've been asked to improve their behavior if they wish to continue participating and have not, if anything, have gotten worse.

So, now comes the next step. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the reply to that from another editor, debunking your absurd claim.

DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.

You've demonstrated consistent bias and I think a topic ban would perhaps be appropriate for you. Please cease the harassment. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm still sticking around, but I can send you a picture of the document if you want proof. I have samurai heritage going back to the 15th century when some distant ancestor was granted land by Mori Motonari. Accusing others of lying, as well as harassment is a personal attack. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Three points:

1. re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [4] and Lopez-Vera's book [5] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
2. re When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence, As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
3. Chrhns' closure was flawless, and I support any measures necessary to make that talk page workable and policy-compliant.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Eirikr misinterpreted my edit, as this conversation on Wikidictionary makes clear. This does not directly affect the question of Eirikr's ability to interpret 16th and 17th century Japanese and Portuguese sources, which I am not in a position to evaluate. However, most of the editors who !voted in the RfC preferred to stick to the numerous reliable secondary sources that suggest that in medieval Japan a man who had a sword, a servant below him, and a lord above him - a lord with whom he had a direct personal relationship - was most likely to be a samurai, that is, a warrior of higher rank and prestige. This was the case, according to sources, even if that man happened to be black and born in Africa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 —

• In your point #1 above, you list eight sources. You then claim (emphasis mine): "They [Hexenakte and Eiríkr] argued that [sources] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research."

I must emphasize, that despite your apparent opinion of my position, I don't care one way or the other whether Yasuke was a samurai. My issue is simple academic integrity and verifiability. I care what reliable, confirmable sources have to say, and I care that our article at [[Yasuke]] accurately and fairly presents what such sources say.

Of your eight sources, the first six of them are tertiary or quaternary references.

• Britannica includes zero sourcing or references, and presents speculation that isn't confirmable anywhere (about Yasuke fighting in several battles). I honestly fail to see how this is a reliable source.
• The next five all depend on the seventh (Lockley) for their statements about Yasuke as a samurai.
• Lockley and López-Vera are secondary sources, and while they lack in-line citations, they at least include bibliographies that list primary sources.

So of those 8, we have only two that are secondary sources. Which anyone would know, if they did their due diligence and read the sources in their entirety.

Two secondary sources is a less compelling picture, and this is a big part of why I continue to oppose writing our article such that it states that Yasuke was a samurai, as an uncited statement of fact (in "wikivoice"): most of the sources brought up at Talk:Yasuke in support of making a "wikivoice" statement are either tertiary and merely repeating the statements of other secondary sources, or they have other issues (like the Manatsha paper).

What I have done in evaluating these eight sources is hardly OR, this is simple due diligence in evaluating sources and the bases for claims made.

• In your point #2 above, I see some confusion. I take issue with this sentence, which you changed to add "as a samurai" that appears underlined here:

Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>

The issue I take is that, as written, the text appears to source the "as a samurai" part to the given references — which themselves make no such statement. Hence my predicament: I do not know if you are mistakenly claiming that these sources support your contention, or if you are intentionally writing so as to make your claim seem as if others are backing it up, even when they do not. Given the way it appears that you are trying to ram through a "wikivoice" statement of samurai-ness, I confess that I have begun to doubt your motives.

• In your point #3 above, I think it's clear from the existence of this very thread that the RFC closure was not "flawless". I do not fault @Chrhns for their good-faith efforts, but the closure was not without its issues.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, but your point 2 is just wrong: you are falsifying my edit. This is the code of my first edit:

Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, I'm looking right at the wikisource diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1231823282

Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.

The paragraph in question is not the one you quote here. Again, the exact sentence I take issue with is (minus the wikicode bits): "He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Now I understand what happened. My first edit did not add that "samurai" there. It was added later by another editor here [6]. After the RfC I undid this edit [7] and in doing so I restored that "samurai". I had no recollection of it because I had not included it in the first place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, one issue resolved! Thank you for tracking down where that crept in, apparently in this edit by @Natemup.

@Natemup, the sources cited as references for that sentence ("He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.") do not support your addition of the "as a samurai" bit on the end. Would you object to removing those three words?

I must log off for now, probably for the next couple days. Here's hoping that we can continue to get this sorted out. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to move them somewhere else, but the body of the article must mention that he's a samurai if we're including it in the lede. natemup (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

i just want to drop, that i heavily pointed out, that one of the mentioned sources, Lockney, heavily evades the term samurai in his own comments and publications to describe Yasuke AND that the same sources about Yasuke's samurai status talk about Yasuke slavery status with zero interest to insert this fact of Yasuke's origin into the article as Original research.

If we allow these sources to "prove" the samurai status of Yasuke, we have to insert into the article, that he had a slavery background in his live. I will add, that in Japan academic papers talk about the view of slavery by Japanese with the example Yasuke. We just ignore these academical talks in the western-centristic views of some people here and silence thereby colonial actions of the Portuguese empire and explicit the Jesuits in Asia for a samurai-demand by few people, who neve rinteracted with the primary sources and rather read news articles about a netflix show.

I even highlighted, that the majority of the "reliable sources" talking about the samurai status of Yasuke were NOT about the historic figure of Yasuke, but about modern cultural media products, who showed Yasuke as a samurai in these shows. The article referring to this samurai-Yasuke in the media and tries to find a historic base to this figure of a samurai-Yasuke.

This doesn't make Yasuke in hisotry to a samurai, this just tells us, that these newsarticles talks about this show with a depicted samurai-yasuke. We have a section about this matter in the article about his cultural depiction. It is not a source for his historic title and lacks in Verifiability!

We lack any kind of primary source, that calls him a samurai. We even lack a primary source, that secures to us, that he was ever freed from slavery before, in or after being in Japan.

And this view is even heavily supported by the main source for Yasuke as a samurai, Lockney, who is evasive to the term and often used the term as a "personal view" about Yasuke in his own publications and comments in newspapers.

For example, the Jesuit records never mentioned Yasuke as a samurai, the Jesuits call him a term, typical used for black slaves or servants in Asia by Jesuits and Portuguese at these times, only call him once by his name, call him a gift given to Nobunaga by them.

The articles use a single sentence in the whole record, about various things given to Yasuke as their CLAIM, that this could mean, that he was made a samurai to justify the depiction of him as a samurai in these modern cultural products. This is not a historic fact about Yasuke or even a statement about the real Yasuk by these news-papers, who wouldn't make original scientific comments about Yasuke in the first place.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

additional:

According to this academic review (accessible through WP:TWL), Lockley 2019 is a work of popular history. I quote the paragraph most pertinent to the discussion here:

The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative. The afterward lists chapter-by-chapter “Selected Readings” of primary and secondary sources, but no direct citations. The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Fróis or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.

_dk (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(s. Archiv1; section: Lockley 2016, Lockley 2017, and Lockley 2019?)

is this our "Lockley" Reliable source? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2018 you made 6 edits to userspace. In Novemeber 2020 you blanked your page. Upon returning almost 4 years later you blanked your talk page and an hour later you closed a contentious RfC. You've now gone ahead and made an ANI report over the issue too.

You're quite clearly an WP:SPA yourself. The RfC should be re-opened and closed by someone with experience (no clue whether the close is valid or not but someone with 10 edits should never close an RfC). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing I saw policy wise that indicated that I shouldn't be doing closures. As I stated above, I simply saw an avenue in which I could use my time to contribute that didn't involve actively editing articles and as the other options were far more complicated than the yes or no question presented, I went with what seemed to be the simplest. I also closed the RfC on Line of Duty today prior to reading I shouldn't be doing RfCs. I blanked my page because it had material from an irrelevant course still on it. I created this ANI not about the RfC but over conduct violations appearing long before I had such as declaring nationalist screeds. I won't be doing any RfCs any more and do not particularly care if the one I did do gets reverted, though I stand by my suggestion that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard might be more productive. Chrhns (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, and nobody should be biting you for it. You made a good faith attempt to help out, and that's very much appreciated and welcome here. The only issue is that you started in an area that's very difficult for new editors, difficult even for experienced ones. You also did the right thing by bringing the conduct issue here for discussion. If you have any questions about different ways to participate around Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them on my talkpage if you like. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved observer, I agree with SilverserenC and Loki that it would be helpful to (semi- or ec-)protect the talk-page for a moderate length of time in order to allow more experienced editors to implement the result of the RfC without constant disruption. (The article itself is already semi-protected.) --JBL (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that. I think the talk page does indeed need some kind of protection.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. IPs and new accounts have been flooding the page with baseless, resource-free WP:FORUM comments for days. Needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that EC protection is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to Daniel Case for protecting the talk-page following a request at RfPP. --JBL (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

initial report is SPA

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

---

I feel like pointing out that User:Chrhns's first edit to wikipedia was to close the RfC on Yasuke will shorten further discussion significantly. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't even accurate? You know we all can look at edit histories, right? Silverseren^C 22:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be strictly fair, my first edit outside of my own page was the RfC closure. I am not denying this. Chrhns (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It has already been pointed out that this was the first thing I have done, and I have offered an explanation (and apology) here. In short, I thought doing RfC closures would be helpful and a way I could contribute my time since I do not wish to actively edit articles, and the other RfC about "tornadoes" seemed a lot more complicated to me. Any other action I have taken in regard to the Yasuke content was directing people to more appropriate venues (such as starting a reliable source noticeboard discussion on the contentious source instead of constantly arguing about it on the talk page). Arguably, the Single Purpose of my account was to participate in my course requirement. I brought the talk page up to the Admin board because there seemed to be a lot happening in the discussion, such as proclaiming that Wikipedia is conducting "black supremacy", a bunch of nationalist rhetoric about how Western sources are colonizing history, and various accusations of editors lying. Chrhns (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not even your first edit anyways and you already explained yourself above when this was asked. It's clear JackTheSecond didn't even read the discussion. Silverseren^C 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I saw an SPA account complaining about SPAs. The close is well-argued, and their reasoning above sound. @Chrhns Sorry about the aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the closure request, and specifically requested an experienced closer, mainly because of the SPA issues the OP has brought up. That being said, I also think that the close was surprisingly good for a very new editor who's never even participated in an RFC before.

Despite this, I wouldn't be opposed to an admins reclosing it, if it's felt like that's necessary. But I would suggest that it'd be so hard to reach any other conclusion that it might not be worth bothering. Loki (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

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

---

Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?--Trade (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't there already such a case at the same time this Wakanda-scholar called everyone a racist? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Who? Trade (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WakandaScholar (not the same person btw). Thibaut (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that User:WakandaScholar trolled and harassed users on the JP version of the talk page (here) Relm (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A comment like this:

“The historical Japanese records and Jesuit records say that Yasuke was GIVE by Jesuit to Nobunaga. People who get treated like a property in human trafficking are slaves.

So Yasuke was a slave. There is no confusion on this.

As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history for the benefits of their interests.

And now someone just edited the content to Yasuke "as a samurai" and put a semi-lock until November when the AC Shadows releases.

Wikipedia is now a tool of black supremacy and DEI propaganda.

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”

should be a sign this user isn’t gonna be very useful to the project. Their edit comments alone are just disruptive and wastes productive editors time. I believe a block is warranted.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked Shinjitsunotsuikyu from Talk:Yasuke and Yasuke. Feel free to change that in any way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

ErikWar19 (talk · contribs)

SPA on the Yasuke talk page (with an incursion into the article on former video game executive Mark Kern) who's been bludgeoning to the point of disruption. Recently they repeatedly pushed the view/taunt that Yasuke was actually a slave without providing RSes and/or misrepresenting the sources. Even if Yasuke was a slave of the Portuguese jesuits, that's irrelevant because the contentious point is his status when he was at Nobunaga's service, so all this is pointless waste of time that comes across as deliberate provocation. E.g. slave and/or something else than a samurai, the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling these black people in Japan, like Yasuke, servants and slaves, just one of hundreds of other non-samurai warriors, gunners, entertainers, servants in Japan, Mitsuhide killed captured samurai, but he didn't killed Yasuke and called him an animal and not Japanese, Leupp, who clearly calls Yasuke a slave, is surely not a reliable source, except that we use Leupp already (pointless sarcasm, irrelevant), Yasuke was such a slave-servant already, it was standard praxis in India and Japan for Portuguese to have black slave-servants ... But surely Yasuke is the sole exception without any source proving this unique anomaly in thousands of similar African slaves. This is either WP:CIR or WP:BATTLE, but either way it doesn't help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to start in this matter, that to falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided.

Gitz just dislikes, that i write on the talk page in favour for Eiríkr, when Gitz accused @Eirikr to force their point of view through a very high number of comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240627225700-Silver_seren-20240627224200

He just believes to be successful in my regard now here with clearly stating the accuse of Bludgeoning, because i am a young contributor to Wikipedia.

I highlighted quite often, that his claimed reliable sources are not reliable, that he ignores month of discussion about these sources and continuously ignores the arguments and discussion points of other editors in the talk page in the area, that looked to me as WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:DR and WP:OWN. I will add to this claim this specific comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240628212500-ErikWar19-20240628211100

with his accusation, that i would translate my comments to english, that he couldn't understand me and that he is in general not interested in discussing about sources reliability on this talk page to other editors questioning his sources.

But in recent days there were finally some form of logic reaching him about the questionable source of Lockley and the Britannica article, so as a rather new contributor i presumed good faith for Gitz and didn't pushed these questionable presumptions on my side about his contributions, as i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia and may mishandled the situation myself as i don't want to allege incompetence.

---

To prove the point, that Yasuke would actual be a slave, i provided reliable sources on countless occasions, but Gitzs just dislikes to interact with these sources in any manner in the same manner, that he doesn't want to speak about the reliability of sources in general over the last weeks, like this attempt of @Hexenakte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Hexenakte-20240628162500-Gitz6666-20240628160200, that got completely ignored, just as one of many examples.

A) One of my sources is simply a source repeatability linked and used by Gitz's itself. https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/ IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave and openly talks about this narrative around the figure of Yasuke by Others.

B)

A different reliable source would be the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling black people in Japan in these times in general, this includes Yasuke, servants and slaves.

https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/

And i even provided the official English translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html to make it possible to check into the facts, that a major Japanese institution talks in these areas of time about the first black people in Japan about the terminology of slaves or servants.

C)

Than i quoted the work: Japan's Minorities. The Illusion of Homogeneity by J.G. Russel, 2009

We hear once again of Yasuke and the services he and other black people did under Nobunaga. Not as a samurai, but "as soldiers, gunners, drummers and entertainers." And i highlighted, that Russel points for this statement at the works of Fujita 1987 and Leupp 1995.

Fujita is Fujita Satoru, a Japanese historian, who writes specific about terminologies of titles in the era of Yasuke's time in Japan and i highlighted, that this may be a reliable source about his samurai status or rather a different view of his status by Japanese scholars, rather than to trust recent western news-articles.

D)

At least i quoted:

Interracial Intimacy in Japan, Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 by Gary P. Leupp, 2003

"In 1581, a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave, who had been born in Mozambique and brought to Japan by the missionary Alessandro Valignano. Several people were injured. Apparently embarrassed about the incident, the warlord Oda Nobunaga himself summoned the man, inspected his person carefully to ensure that his color was genuine, presented him with a gift of money, and then took him into his own service. <Yasuke>, as Nobunaga named him, subsequently accompanied his lord in battle. After the latter was trapped by Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit suicide in 1582, Yasuke was captured but released. (This was, after all, not his quarrel: <He is not Japanese,> noted Akechi)"

Because i already experienced Gitz and Others to simply call a source unreliable to be able to ignore it, (he does it here again to explicit ignore D) as a source to be discussed on the talk page) i added to it, that we already uses Leupp extensively in the article as a reliable source. So yea, we have reliable sources calling Yasuke a slave, while not mentioning this fact in any form in the article.

In all honesty, i rather presume, that it is disliked, that i give actual reliable sources for Yasuke to be a slave in a scope, that it could become the majority view in contrast to the notion, that he may be a samurai, claimed by the Spanish historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Gitz just dislikes this possibility.

For this reason, i pointed for example at Tetsuo Owada a famous Japanese historian about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga, used by Wikipedia extensively in the articles of these people, who is talking about the term samurai and the strong difficulties and reactions of others against Hideyoshi and other Japanese retainers of Nobunaga to become a samurai and the motivation of Nobunaga to dilute this title with Hideyoshi in contrast to the claim of Yasuke's samurai-status, that is not mentioned once by Owada and didn't created similar form of reactions at these times in any primary sources.

I want to add, that i had an extensive and long discussion with Eiríkr about the matter of primary sources not mentioning any form of rank given to Yasuke by the Japanese, while the Portuguese Jesuits were visiting Japan to achieve a form of legality in Japan and should have been keen on this prospect, that foreigners may get a title in Japan by a higher lord. In contrast to this important matter, the Jesuits just call Yasuke by the term, typical used for black slaves in their colonies in India over his whole service for Nobunaga and even after Nobunaga's death. I provided sources for these claims in the former sections, Gitz just ignores these areas and thereby presumes me to just state random things without sources. He could read about it, but rather he presumed Bludgeon and/or ignores me and my sources.

---

My clear interest on this talk page, prior to Gitz appearance on this talk page and always not hidden, is to highlight, that A) the sources about his samurai status are spare compared to other terminology used to describe Yasuke, even the slave-term has more reliable sources behind its back. and B) Yasuke is, not disputed by any source, a victim of Portuguese slavery and this matter is not mentioned in the article.

So, did i start a edit-war about the terminology of samurai on the page itself? No. I know about WP:CIR and i feel insecure about my ability to contribute to the article in major areas, as it would need major changes to the article to add this major part of Yasuke's live in this article about him on the top summary of his article and in the section of his Early live and about the section about him being a samurai. I know about my lack of competence and thereby i restrict myself to minor edits in actual articles. Even my contribution to Mark Kern was minimal about sourcing.

So i am only able to highlight the situation of the sources and bring attention to these sources onto the talk-page, that contradicts views and opinions of other editors of the page. This may creates problems with these specific editors, when we have an editor pushing for a specific claims, who is simply not true. This is most likely the case by most of these linked comments. Most of my comments in this regard were directed to the claim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709060200-Eirikr-20240708235200 @Symphony Regalia, that claims a clear academic consensus, that Yasuke was a samurai and that Lockley's work is reliable against the opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1232447992#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

and with contributions on this page and in similar regard on the talk page Yasuke is like:

"Thomas Lockley is reliable. There are editors pushing personal/political agendas via original research over published peer reviewed sourcing. Mainly the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing culture war crowd. These people are starting from the conclusion they want, and then working backwards to attempt to discredit any published sourcing that contradicts it."

And i will leave than this paragraph: They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, that they own the subject matter, or are here to right great wrongs. from WP:BLUDGEON so in a form of self-critic i will presume, that some of my comments may act in a form to Proof by assertion and will attempt to limit my comments, i didn't bludgeoning, i face comments, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240705042700-DarmaniLink-20240704051100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165200-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628163700

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165800-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628165000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709063400-MWFwiki-20240708143100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240706042100-12.75.41.40-20240704060300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165500-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240629120200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240708035200-217.178.103.145-20240703014800 ErikWar19 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ah last sentence should be i face comments from editors, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

oh and this may be interesting too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#h-Symphony_Regalia-2020-07-26T03:05:00.000Z

-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regali used multiple accounts, and obsessively edited the page of Yasuke in Japanese Wikipedia.

He claims that ethnicity is not important in wikipedia edits, but he falsely identifies himself as Japanese in an attempt to gain an advantage in the debate. Pobble1717 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked the first source you mentioned, of which you claim "IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave". What I see when I search for the word "slave" in that article is "Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Given that blatant misrepresentation of the source, I'm not interested in spending time looking at any of your other claims. CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And it goes on.

The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.” ErikWar19 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two points:

• ErikWar19 says i am a young contributor to Wikipedia and i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia, and yet in 2017 they were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on de.wiki [8]. I doubt they are a new user, WP:BITE doesn't apply - also digging out Symphony Regalia's Tban from GENSEX (which is irrelevant here) while pretending not to know hot to post a link on a talk page is not the behaviour of a newcomer.
• As already explained in my OP and also on the Yasuke talk page (here), the point at issue is not whether Yasuke was a slave/servant when he was in the service of the Portoguese Jesuits. Either out of bad faith or incompetence, ErikWar19 insists that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke from becoming a samurai of Oda Nobunaga.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

the block at this time was on the German site, was in 2017 and my sole contribution to Wikipedia was to post one comment on https://www.fr.de/politik/steckt-hinter-afd-freund-lukati-11059673.html this issue on the German site Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht, so the German Arbitration Committee, about the potential misuse of Wikipedia for activities of a party, that is suspected to be extrem right wing in Germany.

It was kinda a big thing, i think 6 of the 10 members of the Arbitration Committee retired around that time from their membership, some in clear protest. After creating my account and posting my negative opinion about this user, i was blocked for sockpuppery, as i didn't contributed to Wikipedia in any other form. So i suspect, that the block was reasonable. At these times it happend, that people created such new accounts to contribute in such a manner and i was suspected to be such a case. I didn't had an interest to contribute to Wikipedia at these time, so i only noticed the block years later and didn't appeal to it.

---

I succeeded once to post a link with a number.....but i didn't figured out, how to replace the number with a word, like "here" or "BBC" and it broke the link, so i tend to just copy paste the link directly into the text. I don't want to break the link.

---

digging up Symphony's ban: i can read his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symphony_Regalia#c-GorillaWarfare-2020-07-26T03:07:00.000Z-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

---

well the thing is, Gitz, the article of Yasuke didn't clearly mentioned his clear slavery background and his presumed slavery-status for the Portuguese in his early live or about his service for the Portuguese. I point at this problem of this specific area of the article, explicit with the samurai status of him, as it is less secured by reliable sources.

I dont insist, that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke to becoming later a samurai of Nobunaga. It is simply possible to highlight, that he was a slave, that got his samurai status by Nobunaga into the article. i wrote even about benefits about this concept on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-ErikWar19-20240619224500-EgiptiajHieroglifoj-20240619222200

[...] the Japanese side, mainly Oda, may had a different view on slavery compared to Yasuke's Portuguese owners and may even gave Yasuke various things to allow him to distance himself from them. But we can't talk about this interesting clash of different cultures by Yasuke's live in Japan, if we hide his clear slavery-background in the article.

---

I just want to highlight the amount of WP:OWN about this article, to guard the term samurai to such an intensity, that just to point out contradictions with other core elements of Yasuke's live on the talk page of article will lead to this stuff here.

It should be allowed to point out, that i call the reliable sources about him becoming a samurai a potential minority view in contrast to the possibility, that Nobunaga used Yasuke in the same regards Portuguese nobility used slaves as personal servants in their colonies. This would make his gifts and salary to Yasuke just attempts of Nobunaga to make his servant to an samurai or/and to free him from his slavery status. An attempt, that didn't succeeded as he was returned to the Portuguese after Nobunaga's death. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise when the sources for section B were posted on the Talk page for Yasuke I noted that they actually stated the opposite: that Yasuke was a 'African Priest' who was 'highly appreciated' and then it listed an example of Africans serving in combat at the Battle of Okitanawate. The rest of the page is about the Edo period onward, which is irrelevant to the discussion of Yasuke. That comment and where they cited these same sources is here: (here) Relm (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

B states on a sidenote:

"African people are believed to have first visited Japan during the Sengoku period as servants or slaves of European ships from Portugal and Spain." And they state, that Nobunaga appreciated him, because of his strenght, looks and demeanour.

the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Eirikr-20240710175000-Relmcheatham-20240710133100

the original calls him https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/entry/14/2.html 黒坊主 and this would mean a black monk, monks can't become samurai, they had Sōhei, so i presume, that the original meaning is a young black man, but thx for highlighting this translation problem. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

so i presume

That statement sums up the problem here. You're inserting WP:OR into your reasoning and then working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article. Combined with your WP:BLUDGEON method of discussion, it has become disruptive. If you don't step away from the article yourself, I expect you're going to wind up with a topic ban, if not a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued incivility from SpacedFarmer

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

This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions.[9] They have been taken twice to ANI before.

• In April, the complaint describes an incident in which SF was uncivil towards editors who disagreed with them,[10] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[11] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[12] While no action was taken and the civility warning was dismissed as being uncivil in its own right, comments in the discussion including by Snow Rise and Hydrangeans expressed concerns over SF's tone and taking digs at the contributions of others nonetheless.

• In May, I brought up what I felt were several issues related to SF's behaviour at AfD, among which was their incivility. The other issues were mostly dismissed due to SF's record at AfD, but again, nearly every editor who commented expressed concerns at SF's tone towards others, including their behaviour in the ANI thread itself. Clearly a message should have been received that their tone was unacceptable, but no acknowledgement of the concerns was made before the thread was archived.

Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round, SF has again taken to being uncivil towards editors who disagree with his nomination.

• [13] In a reply to me: "There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia." Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
• [14] In a reply to another keep !voter, WP:OTHERSTUFF would have itself been a sufficient reply, but SF can't help but make a personal attack about Fandom. "Fandom is always there for fans like you."
• [15] SF then adds to his initial reply to me, with what is partially a line they use often at AfD but also partially a personal attack, "and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
• [16] After I warned him about his incivility, he doubles down with "Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."

Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer is certainly assertive in expressing their opinions within the context of improving the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how calling another editor a "nerd" is an actionable insult. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and if anyone called me a "nerd" for editing the articles that I choose to edit, then I will accept "nerd" as a badge of honor. Similarly with "snowflakes" which is a term that has been used, over used and counter-used so often that it has lost actual meaning in the fog of trading political insults. An assertion that specific content is "junk" or "crap" is bold and unvarnished, but the appropriate response is to advance a convincing argument that the content in question is neither junk nor crap. SpacedFarmer, I encourage you to select wording in such discussions that is less confrontational and more collaborative. Editors who initially disagree with you about "something" are not your enemy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The exact worlds used are less of a concern than the overall pattern of immediate confrontation towards disagreement. How many more people are going to have to tell this user to be less confrontational and more collaborative before they finally get it? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 I had a somewhat similar response to the first ANI report about this user brought earlier this year. In that instance, I felt there was blame to go around and that the conduct being complained about with regard to SpacedFarmer constituted fairly minor violations of behavioural norms under the circumstances. When I was pinged here for this report, read it through, and reviewed the original ANI, I was initially anticipating saying something similar. But after reviewing some of the more recent comments in context, and especially after having just looked at the attitude on display in the second ANI, as well as in some other circumstances where SF has been asked to adjust their approach, I'm starting to lean towards agreement with the OP that there's an issue here that needs addressing.

For one, although I don't think that they are the biggest issue here, I don't think that the "nerd"/"fanboy" comments are entirely nothing. Context is king, and the fact is that SF is demonstrating a pattern of dismissing the concerns of other editors with these sorts of non-sequitor comments, combining ad hominem and strawman elements, thus violating the principle that editorial arguments should be based on content and policy, not one's suppositions about what they imagine to be the motivations and qualities of their rhetorical opposition (or, "focus on the content, not the user", as we usually say in short). There is definitely a problematic amount of WP:Battleground seeping into SF's approach here, from what I can see. And frankly a non-trivial amount of arrogance that they are a more serious editor than those disagreeing with them and that they know best what is called for, with their all of seven months worth of experience on-project.

This attitude may well have been unintentionally enabled by those of us who blew off the first few episodes, but regardless, it's clearly starting to become irreconcilable with a collaborative environment, and I think we're headed towards either a block and/or a topic ban from sport/motorsport subject matter if SF is unable to perceive the issue with their approach and adjust accordingly. I don't know that we're at the point of such a proposal yet, but (for their own benefit if nothing else) SpacedFarmer should at least get a clear warning from us at this juncture. And a clear acknowledgment from them that they understand where the community concerns are coming from wouldn't hurt. Regardless, without a rapid change in outlook concerning how to regard and communicate with their fellow editors in content disputes, I don't see how they avoid some sort of sanction at some point probably not too far down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A new response on SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays." I think something needs to be done. Toughpigs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks. Amazingly stupid comment considering this ANI is open for this exact reason. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: SpacedFarmer topic banned from deletion, broadly construed

I think it's safe to say that SpacedFarmer doesn't have the temperament to work in the deletion realm of Wikipedia. I'm proposing a topic ban from all deletion areas of Wikipedia, broadly construed. Support, obviously. Maybe this'll give SpacedFarmer a chance to change his tact around deletion. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support because of the constant & massive incivility towards editors and article creators within deletion discussions, as demonstrated in this and the previous ANI thread. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my report above and the new PA. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: SpacedFarmer has gone beyond "losing his cool" and is now openly hostile to other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite my misgivings based on what has been presented in this thread, I wanted to wait and see how SpacedFarmer responded to the administrative block before weighing in on any additional CBAN. I have to say that I am not heartened by the complete radio silence in response to multiple admins reaching out on the talk page trying to encourage a change in tact. That said, unlikely though it is to be coincidental timing, it is at least possible that the user is simply busy off-project.
  I additionally have another concern: if a TBAN is advisable in this instance, I'm not sure if removing them from deletion discussions is the right fit. Afterall, I don't think removing them from deletion is going to address the hostility that seems to characterize many of their interactions in the area of organized sport topics. And on the flip side, I'm not sure that they would be as problematic when discussing deletions matters for other topics. That said, the proposal may end up being better than nothing. I'm going to wait a little longer and hope for some response from SF before formalizing an !vote in any direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: They've refused to adjust their behaviour despite past warnings. The incivility towards others, as well as the disparaging nomination statements they routinely make and won't adjust from, have grown quite tiresome. They routinely fail to do proper WP:BEFORE searches and then badger those who oppose them at various times. They've shown no signs that they intend to work at it and do better, so at this point I think it's time to say enough is enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per TheImaCow.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Aqua.107 non-constructive behaviour and edit-warring

Aqua.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly engages in non-constructive editing, often making unsourced changes (e.g. [17], [18], [19], see also examples below), or unexplained deletions of content (e.g. [20]). The larger problem is the edit-warring behaviour alongside this, of which they have a long history, e.g.:

• Portuguese Colonial War: [21], [22]
• Dutch–Portuguese War: [23], [24], [25]
• Battle of Diu multiple times, including: [26], [27]; then [28], [29]; then [30], [31], [32]; and [33], [34], [35], [36]
• Battle of Alcácer Quibir: [37], [38]
• Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523): [39], [40]
• And ongoing at War of the League of the Indies: [41], [42], [43],[44]

They've previously been warned about disruptive behaviour ([45], [46]), unsourced editing ([47]), and about using AI-generated text ([48], [49]). I warned them about edit-warring specifically ([50]) shortly before they started edit-warring at War of the League of the Indies. Edit summaries like this latest one, after I re-explained the problem to them and invited them to discuss on the talk page here, suggests they have no intention to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. They have never responded on any talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

They are still edit-warring and refusing to discuss at War of the League of the Indies ([51]). I can report them to WP:AN/EW instead, but I think their wider behaviour merits a look. R Prazeres (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ubivxoq - copyright violations

I'm not sure if this should be posted here or at WP:CP. I was working through Copypatrol and found this user involved in three seprate cases. I cleared those and left a notice on their talk page. A lot of their larger edits contain blatant copyvios. I don't have time to go through and tag them all for RD1. Can an administrator go through their contributions and revdel the copyvios? They seem to be working constructively but also have clearly ignored the notice left by GreenLipstickLesbian four days ago. Thanks, C F A 💬 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through their contributions and removed all the violations I spotted- or rewrote as appropriate. Some cases could have fallen under WP:LIMITED, but were either unfit for inclusion, or I could rewrite them anyway. I didn't bother tagging those for WP:REVDEL, but everything else should be good to go. All that remains is their commitment to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policy- or at least some sign that they understand it now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my work and for all the reminders. I will strive to be more careful in my next editing, especially when it comes to adding content from the sources I find. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That is very nice and also unacceptably vague, Ubivxoq. What we need from you at this point is an acknowledgement that you have made copyright errors in the past, and an ironclad promise that you will be very careful to avoid copyright violations going forward. This is a matter with potential legal consequences for this project. Please reassure us that you understand this issue and take it seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand the seriousness of the matter, and I truly appreciate all the reminders given to me as a beginner editor. I take the time to carefully read all comments given to my work, and I reply as promptly as I can to give reassurance that I am willing to learn and heed the advice of more senior editors. Again, I apologize for any errors I have committed especially in terms of copyright. I strive to rephrase information I find and I always cite my sources, but it appears that I still missed out on important guidelines. In light of the errors pointed out, I will review all guidelines once more in order to avoid further mistakes. Thank you. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for actually addressing the issue. You've been working constructively and I see no more copyright violations so this can probably be closed. C F A 💬 17:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Your feedback helps me improve on my editing work. Ubivxoq (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deranged Thomas's Grammatological Fulminations

DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This user returns every few months to revert a dozen articles to their preferred version, removing Vietnam but also intervening edits by other editors,(e.g. [52]) and ignoring attempts to communicate.[53][54] Kanguole 23:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas from those articles they have have shown an disruptive interest in. For those following along here, in the various historical states and kingdoms in what is now Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and so on, Classical Chinese was the shared language of scholars, sort of analogous to Latin in Mediaeval Europe. Case on point: the "nam" in "Gangnam Style" is the same "nam" in Vietnam - please see Wikt:南--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, "OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas..." would appear to be pretty much synonymous with "OK, I'm going to precipitate unnecessary WP:DRAMA".: Change of plan. I'm just about to ask DelusionalThomaz515610 about this about this. And if that there isn't a satisfactory outcome there, seek more opinions, discuss it further, and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not Cambodia, I think (used Khmer written with an Indic script), but the rest, yes. If past behaviour is any guide, DerangedThomaz is now gone until he returns in a couple of months to repeat. Kanguole 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally attacked again

Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.

16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [55]

04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [56]

10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [57]

Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf

10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [58]

21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [59] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [60]

Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion [61], you bring me to ANI. [62][63]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [64]

This is tiring. I’ll just copy and paste here my final comment (at ANI) in the last complaint you filed against me:

I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).

Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.

It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.

I would say this kind of interaction is just exhausting. I really don’t think I have the time and energy to deal with the bait anymore. This is sapping up the community’s time. But I know you will never stop until there’s a boomerang.

Again, you can go on with your diffs. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld If you believe Vacosea is trying to get you into trouble to win an argument, why are you giving them so much ammunition? The "sea lion and their bait are disgusting" comment really sounds like you're calling Vacosea disgusting, which is a clear personal attack. Similarly, the "big lie technique" comment is hard to see as anything other than calling Vacosea a liar, which also seems like a WP:PA. Your accusations of paid editing might have merit, but the place to do that is WP:COIN, not an article talk page. And your comment telling Vacosea that you consider their accusations libelous, despite having cautioned Vacosea against using the term "defemation" for the same reason.

If, as you say, interacting with this person is exhausting, then perhaps moving to another area of the encyclopedia would be better for you. As valuable as your contributions are, that part of Wikipedia will survive if you need to move on, and the project will be all the better for retaining your time in an area that doesn't exhaust you instead of burning you out on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In reply to the accusations (of which 4 out of 5 happened more than 9 months ago)

Hi there. Most of the diffs cited above were months ago, and I think I’ve responded to them (multiple times?) at different venues already. And now, you are asking me to respond to those again, one by one. Can you see how exhausting it is??

Not to mention that, ANI is a high traffic venue, making untrue claims against someone (in this case: me) can do much more harm to them (e.g., to their reputation) than doing that on talk pages. And this just happens again and again.

Filing a case for them is easy. And it’s a great way to harm others without any consequences (I’m not commenting on the other cases here, but just this particular one that I know so well. I believe many cases are legitimate). All they need to do is just start a discussion like this, and then those who see their comment will just help them keep the ball rolling. Even if I reply to your concern above, you and others (who maybe relatively new to what had happened before) or maybe them, will continue to respond and again, I’ll need to answer one by one. This is the third time it’s happening in this venue, not including talk pages. If memory serves, the first ANI I mentioned above had lasted for months (with dozens of irrelevant diffs they posted). Isn’t that tiring? Issues like this are exactly what drive good editors away. Further, all these and the stress that brings can drive people crazy I would say, especially when occurs repeatedly.

They are the one who made untrue claims, but they don’t need to reply or worry about that at all, just because the victim is not interested in filing compliant, and also, is now busy defending themselves …

Anyway, I’ll response to some of the newer claims now. I’m not sure if there’s any language barrier. For me, the word “disgusting” is just similar to “annoying”, “discouraging”, etc. it’s just a word used to describe my feelings and I don’t think it’s “attack”, and it’s used to describe my feelings towards the sealioning behaviour:

”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”

If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor to, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...

I think I’ve written long enough and hope that I can just stop here. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It does sound exhausting. That's why I'm hoping we can find a solution that works for you. The issue is what an uninvolved editor can be expected to do. If editor A accuses editor B, and B does not refute the accusations, it seems likely that uninvolved editors would conclude editor B is at fault. If you don't have the mental energy to defend yourself and provide diffs of Vacosea's bad behavior, then it seems likely that you'll be sanctioned by the community sooner or later. This is why I suggested abandoning the article you helped create, because the alternative could be a forced abandonment of all articles. Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation, even if you move to different articles.

Of course, if you CAN muster the energy to provide diffs, that could end things differently.

I see where you were coming from re "disgusting", but I would avoid characterizing other editors that way in the future; if someone called me or my behavior disgusting, I would certainly be upset! In any case, I hope we can solve this in a way that you don't have to deal with ANI again; I can imagine how stressful it'd be to get dragged here, and I rather suspect you have better things to do than come back here again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:BeauSuzanne

I've been reluctant to report this editor BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) again because my previous report filed back in April was overlooked, but I've reached my limit with BeauSuzanne who has a history of consistently creating BLPs on non-notable Pakistani subjects (many of which I suspect are WP:UPE) using WP:FICTREF. Despite my repeated warnings, they continue to disregard the WP:BLP rules against adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF, and making assurances they don't keep. And not only myself, but others have warned them too about violating WP:BLP by adding WP:OR, yet they persist in doing so. It's unrealistic to monitor every article they create, so I'm concerned about how many more articles they've done this to.

And just yesterday, they created an article on some WP:ROTM actor Yasmeen Tahir that I also suspect is WP:UPE, laden with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF so when I asked them why they added WP:OR, they plainly denied doing so. Hence, I decided to draftify the BLP, but another editor moved it back without addressing the underlying problems which also led to a move war. So I had to put in a lot of effort and time to remove the WP:OR - but only to discover today that BeauSuzanne has re-added WP:OR again today and this recurring issue needs immediate attention. BeauSuzanne have also been previously advised, both by me and others, to refrain from creating articles directly in the main NS and to use drafts instead, but they disregard this advice as well. And fwiw, they also engage in LOUTSOCKING. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Saqib. Yes you removed some stuff. But I only added the dramas in which she worked and the award section. I listened to your advise. Yes I made it in mainspace which I admit. But then when you moved it back to draft. Then I didn't moved it to mainspace. Before making a article I do my reserach to make sure everything is correct like I added her interview which I also archived.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

BeauSuzanne, Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT! Please don't act like you've done nothing wrong. Despite multiple warnings, your ongoing practice of adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF and your refusal to admit your mistakes are deeply concerning. I won't continue this discussion further as it risks becoming a pointless argument between us. I've stated my case; now, I encourage others to weigh in. I don't have anything further to say here unless asked. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example of use of a WP:FICTREF? North8000 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, They generally add three types of WP:FICTREF: 1) cite video interviews that do not support the claims made 2) reference offline sources that are fabricated or just made up and 3) cite online sources but those sources do not contain the details they add. For example, you can take a look at the history of Yasmeen Tahir where my each edit summary clearly identifies the problem (timestamped from 16:24, 6 July 2024 ‎UTC to 17:15, 6 July 2024 UTC). And there are numerous similar instances in other BLPs they have created previously and many of the BLPs are also deleted where they used WP:FICTREF. For instance, take a look at this discussion. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on the other things that you noted, but I was thinking that adding an outright fictional reference would be be a clear cut deliberate mis-action. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib The usual standard of evidence is to provide the exact diffs to every accusation. Things are unlikely to go further without those diffs. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, Here, Pakistan Television Corporation, dated 1999 was a fabricated reference used to cite career information. Similarly, a YouTube video of the subject's interview were cited multiple times, but I couldn't verify those claims, either. Similarly, here they inserted details such as ...studied from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and completed her M.A in English..., which were not supported by the cited VOA source. Likewise, the claim that she married in 1962 and had three sons could not be verified from the provided The Nation source, among numerous other instances. And I haven't even begun to discuss the number of unreliable or poor sources they add to BLPs. Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi- These are all recent creations by BeauSuzanne. Please take note of the type of references they are using—mostly fabricated or unreliable sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the references listed here go:

1. looks like an honest mistake
2. Not confirmable (long video in a language I don't speak)
3. partial support with OR spaced between
4. reference completely unrelated to content, probably another mistake

Overall impression is that the borderline notability along with CIR issues create a bigger problem than both individually would be. ~ Note to filer: Linking the complete drafts in this case works fine as the user in question is writing them, but they are not evidence anyone can quickly confirm and judge. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, I cited these drafts because it's pretty straightforward to verify by checking the reference section of each draft. All the offline sources you see there are FABRICATED/WP:FICTREF, including Oxford University Press. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking solely the Oxford ref given at Draft:Durdana Rehman as citation 12: The book exists, lists at least the film Heera Pathar, and lists a "Durdana" as actor for the film. ~ Not entirely fic ref at the least. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, In this particular case, you're correct actually and to be honest. I couldn't verify it when I did the search, which is strange. But what about Oxford Ref # 5 at Draft:Huma Mir. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, the source itself features the logo of "Oxford University Press" as header. There does seem to be a relation there 1; the exact author should maybe have been given as "OUP Pakistan" or "Oxford University Press Pakistan". But again, not a real issue. I grant that it looks suspect at first glance though. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But I don't add anything by myself. I do research when I am making a article. I am not arguing I am just saying.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

• Not entirely sure of the history between these two editors, but noting Saqib has also suggested Beau was a sock, which was not the case per the CU Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335/Archive#01_May_2024. Between that and the prior report, if this doesn't gain traction suggest leaving their edits for another editor to handle as there is, unfortunately, enough other UPE to patrol Star Mississippi 17:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Star Mississippi, But as you can see, I wasn't the only one concerned that this editor might be socking. Also, for clarity, Beau and I don't edit in the same area. I'm a NPP focusing on Pakistan-related articles, which is how I come across their new articles. Otherwise, I don't closely follow their edits, so I'm unaware of what they're up to. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see this complaint without mentioning that much of the dispute between these two editors has occurred in AFD discussions. Saqib has probably nominated over a dozen articles written by BeauSuzanne for deletion discussions and each discussion is full of accusations against this editor. I've never investigated the accusations because my focus has been on determining consensus within the discussion but Saqib's accusations have been going on for over a month and have seemed relentless. BeauSuzanne has not responded in kind but, as I said, I havn't looked into Saqib's accusations. But this one-sided feud has been going on for a while and it would be nice to determine if it has any basis in fact so that future AFDs can be focused on the merits of the article and not the contributor who created them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Saqib's concerns regarding the addition of WP:OR by User:BeauSuzanne, and it is an issue we have to resolve. I think we should educate them the last time on why this is wrong (WP:BLPPRIVACY). If they repeat these mistakes then we will have no other option but to impose a topic ban.

Expanding on Liz remarks (this can be a kind of WP:BOOMERANG), I think Saqib is a bit too harsh (not yet harassing, but some think they are harassing) and leave just too many templated messages or AfD majority of articles of a single contributor in a short span ([65], User talk:Asadwarraich, User talk:Libraa2019) or tends to accuse both new and experienced editors of WP:UPE too quickly, even when editors just cite BLPs with primary references or edit business topics ([66], User talk:Riizwaan111, User talk:Jugni, User talk:Philosophysubboy, User talk:Mkabir1988, User talk:Faresian). Here they said without any evidence: By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE.. In some cases, they continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like User:BeauSuzanne when they have already denied the accusation, three UPE notices on Riizwaan111 ([67], [68], [69]) which is too much. They even accused a very experienced editor @Isi96: ([70]) without any evidence which was ridiculous. This kind of editing is unfortunately driving away potential productive contributors (e.g. User:Faizanalivarya etc. and many other are no longer with us). I'm not suggesting that they are doing this on purpose, but it seems to have negative effects. I just hope they don't follow User:Jytdog's path as we need their contributions.

Most of editors of Pakistani dramas are just fans and it is ridiculous to accuse each newbie as UPE. It would be great if they drop the stick and file WP:SPI cases / leave WP:UPE warnings rather cautiously (only when there are good odds). Also, they are using draftification way too often like a lot of BeauSuzanne's work is in draftspace which will be deleted after six months without any discussion which is sad. I'm sure they can mend their behavior like they have already done in WP:AFD case (after receiving a lot of complains). Thanks. 188.30.56.67 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

IP - Regarding the old account with ~100K edits I've already submitted evidence at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without directly accusing or even engaging with that editor on-wiki so it wasn't an accusation and I bet you can't even recognize that editor. As for the other editors you named above- whom I've warned, I believe my warnings were justified, though I can agree that sometimes I may have gone overboard, and for that, I regret it But if needed, I can provide reasoning regarding why I accused them of WP:UPE. And please allow me to clarify that I do not accuse every other newbie of being a UPE, nor do I frivolously file WP:SPI's. Most of my WP:SPIs have been found correct, and many of the editors I've warned or accused of WP:UPE were later found to be involved in either sockpuppetry or violating WP:BLPs, or at the very least, were engaging in dubious editing behaviour. And by the way, I'm sure you're the same one who's been telling other editors to watch me because I'm chasing down WP:UPEs. That being said, I'm completely open to having my edits scrutinized, and I'm willing to accept any warranted warnings. I'm open to acknowledging my mistakes. In fact, I've stopped casting WP:ASPERSIONS as suggested by some lately, and I've even slowed down on taking articles to AFD because some admins pointed out the backlog. Thank you! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked through a few hundred of their edits and it does not look like UPE to me. I worry most about UPE when most or all of their edits are about people /groups / items which are currently "in the business" and the editor has done a lot of work where such is not the case (e.g. on deceased personalities). I've only taken a superficial look at the areas where concern was expressed but my first guess is that it's mostly that BeauSuzanne needs to modify their approach. At first glance it seems like too many articles on personalities which are either edge case or miss the mark on wp:notability. Suggest evaluating each potential article subject for wp:notability before starting an article. I think that the applicable standard (in their areas of work) would be finding two independent published reliable sources each of which provides in depth coverage of the subject before starting an article and step one would be to include and start building the article from those sources. This would also help ally concerns that other editors are having with their work. Finally when verifiability concerns are raised, immediately add the details (like page numbers etc) to confirm verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, Have you reviewed these drafts too (Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi)? This also begs the question: why would someone persistently create bios on living and deceased actors based on WP:FICTREF, if they aren't involved in WP:UPE? P.S. those Oxford University Press references cited in some of those drafts are also fabricated. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at those specifically but after your post I did. I'd have to take a deep dive on 50-100 references to really evaluate notability on those. But my first guess is that they would fail a strict interpretation of wp:notability (substantial in depth coverage of the subject by each of multiple published independent sources) but that they would meet the defacto standard at AFD. When you said Fictref, did you mean a non-existent fake reference (if so could you provide a specific because that would be a deliberate clearly wrong act by an editor) or did you mean that they cited a real reference that didn't support the text as claimed?(which is also not right but IMO not as serious) On the "why?" question, again, my "probably not UPE" was only a guess, but there are editors who who do that type of editing who are not UPE. Of course I could be wrong, maybe there are many people or companies who would pay to have an article created on a deceased personality. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, Yes, when I say WP:FICTREF, its mean completely made-up and non-existent fake reference. BeauSuzanne is citing things that don't even exist, plus, they've also referenced real sources that don't actually back up what they're claiming in the text - which is also a pretty big deal. And I guess I've pointed out examples in this thread several times now (here, here, here, here, here etc). Thanks for looking into this. I hope I'm making myself clear now? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just a participant here, so no need to answer my request. Which was to pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the accusation of "entirely made up and non-existent" is not correct. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, so far we've not seen such. I think that a response (or non-response) to my specific request will make it clearer either way. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, But I've given diffs of of their recent creation, Yasmeen Tahir. If those aren't substantial enough, I've nothing more to add here — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Here's a bunch of stuff, it's in there somewhere" is really a non-answer to my "pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff." question. Which is fine but that's what it is. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, OK, I got you now. Diff Ref #3 and #11. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ref 3 is available here, author name is the pen name of Md. Nayab Hasan 1.

A google search for ref 11 spits out 2. The pictured woman seems like the subject of the article. I am not sure what happened with the citation.

Also, I did not check what the two citations are actually sourcing; only that the first one does indeed exist, and that something about the second one seems to be at least related. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of times, UPE pages are not created to promote the subject themselves. They are created to promote other pages. For instance, the creation of an older film may be done to promote the film company, an actor who played a role, or an award it may have won (Luxe Style Awards has been a topic of focus for UPEs). Not saying that is the case here, but could be an explanation why on the surface it does not look like UPE.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the draft examples provided, it could be related to PTV which is highly promotional has a lot of FORKS that I am about to redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment: BeauSuzanne was confirmed to another account back in May 2021. GeneralNotability opted warn them rather than blocking because they did not have time to dig into it more. If you look at their earliest edits, there's some questionable behavior. For example, their first edits were to two drafts Draft:Kang Rae-yeon and Draft:Wonho (singer), created by other editors (one an IP) which they then moved to mainspace. They also have a long history of recreating previously G5 deleted articles or otherwise originally created by blocked socks. There are several but a couple interesting ones is Draft:Danielle McRae/Danielle McRae (log) and Draft:Tamara Ryan/Tamara Ryan (log) because neither are about Pakistani actors, which is their focus and both were originally created by blocked sock MeemeeAi. There has also been some interesting activity on their talk page such as this note from an IP requesting BS recreate a deleted article which they confirm on the IPs talk page they completed and is one of the few talk page messages BS has ever left. Then these more recent requests from socks [71], [72]. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on edits from the last 24 hours, I absolutely believe this is part of promoting PTV. Continuous addition of unsourced information as well. Outside of the possible COI and SPI, I would say there is a CIR and NOTHERE issue. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 according to this source, PTV was the only television station in Pakistan during the 1970's and 80's. In 90's some people had satellite dishes and cable but not many so I don't think they are promoting PTV. S0091 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I am just seeing all of this. I would like to believe Yasmeen Tahir wasn't part of a UPE campaign, but just a random article that BeauSuzanne created which I tried to save 😐 Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef for User:BeauSuzanne

Given the clear WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues raised by CNMall41, I think the case is pretty clear for an indef. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Even though their editing history from day one has been somewhat dubious, and as @S0091 has pointed out, they were confirmed as a sock puppet at one point, I still would like to give them a second chance. However, if they continue to add WP:OR in BLPs, or use WP:FICTREF or unreliable sources, then an indef block is surely warranted. They have received enough warnings, not only from me but from others as well. Now, it's time to enforce these warnings. I also suggest BeauSuzanne is formally warned not to create articles in the main NS and instead use the AFC route. Because there should be no shame in using AFC; I do it myself despite being an AFC reviewer. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I did leave them a final warning yesterday for yet again adding unsourced content to a BLP (Yasmeen Tahir) after @Jeraxmoira reverted them which is astounding given this ANI complaint so I am not hopeful they really get it but sure, another chance. I agree they need to use AfC especially for BLPs. However, Saqib I suggest you leave it others to review them and stop accusing suggesting BS of is UPE. I get the suspicion because I too see behaviour indicative of UPE especially with their earlier activity but at the same time I can also see a TV/film buff and looking at their more recent creations, I don't get a UPE vibe. Even with the confirmed alternate account, there is little crossover between them and nothing that suggests WP:ILLEGIT. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, In this ANI report, I just mentioned that I suspect WP:UPE, not that I believe WP:UPE. Just to clarify, I'm not even monitoring their edits. If I were, I might have found several diffs, but I haven't had the time or interest to delve into their past editing history to see what they were up to. Frankly, I wasn't even aware they were once confirmed as a sock until you mentioned it above. It's just that I patrol new pages, and that's how I came across their recent creation Yasmeen Tahir. I'm generally not interested in non-Pakistani articles, so when a new Pakistani-related article is created, it really grabs my attention, regardless of who created it. Like I said, I'm open to giving them a chance as there are no ill-feeling towards them, but they should also take warnings seriously and use WP:AFC, as suggested repeatedly. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To extent I think that is a distinction without a difference when you include it in an ANI complaint and also tag their articles as UPE but I have amended my comment. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Vectormapper - Mass upload/edit of SVG maps, suspicious behaviour

• Updated name Kirill_Shrayber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Star Mississippi 00:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely sure to which admin board I'd post this, since this issue encompasses both Commons and Wikipedia.

To start; the user Vectormapper has recently uploaded a slew of SVG maps on Commons, and almost all of them display a prominent logo watermark promoting their website (example here on lower right corner), falling under unacceptable watermarking per COM:WATERMARK.

User defends the watermarks on their talk page as follows:

You see self-promotion in my publications. This is a misconception. The author's signature on the author's product is NORMAL. They've been doing this for hundreds of years. My ancestor, Johann Georg Schreiber [...] put his signature picture with his name in the corner of the map in the same way.

That user has then edited a number of city articles on Wikipedia to display these maps.

Furthermore, it seems that the user has also edited these maps into Wikipedia articles with the username Ilya_Shrayber. It seems that that user had been editing a number of city articles to include links to their own website back in 2016, and was engaged in some edit warring involving those links. (Next edits show a few back-and-forth reverts.)

Currently the user is engaged in some "discussion" about the maps on the Village Pump. Based on the user's replies there and on their talk page, they are not taking no for an answer, and treat established policies as opinions to brush aside with non sequiturs.
Ilya_Shrayber's user talk page displays similar problematic discourse reminiscent of Vectormapper's.

Not even considering the dubious usefulness of the maps — as they are completely unreadable in the infobox size to which they have been inserted, and since Wikipedia already has the Kartography plugin which does the same thing better (the user argues that Kartography is "not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media" nor editable unlike his maps) — they, at the very least, should be marked with {{Watermark}} where applicable and treated by the policies listed there.

And lastly, in the user's own words, if the maps are meant for creating prints and edited for in use in media, and as the user admits that the maps are unreadable in the infobox size ("Are you joking? These are vector files and can be scaled to any size. 300 pixels is a tiny preview. You can't see anything in this preview."), the maps do not belong in infoboxes, and the user should stop inserting the maps into them. —Nelg (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Block for self promotion, which is their goal and most of their actions citing their family's history. If there is a successful unblock request, they should be limited to one account. Star Mississippi 16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I have blocked the Vectormapper account as a username issue. They're welcome to use the Shrayber account, although I'd still recommend blocking based on promotion as I said above Star Mississippi 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Username issue is resolved (thanks @331dot) Star Mississippi 12:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought that the user ID was familiar. Vectormapper opened a case request at DRN on 23 June: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_246#Tulsa, saying that User:SounderBruce didn't like their username and was deleting some of their maps. I closed the DRN case because it was not an article content issue. I said that any objection to a username should be filed at WP:UAA, and that discussion about the addition or deletion of maps, or any article content, could be at an article talk page or a WikiProject. I also cautioned against labeling a content dispute as vandalism. As the Original Poster notes, there was also controversy at Commons about their maps. I haven't reviewed their edits further, and don't have any more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that they seem to have had a username change since this thread was opened, as the contribs links etc say there's no such account registered. jp×g🗯️ 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging, I've dropped a link at the top. @Nelg: if you'd like it elsewhere feel free to move it. Star Mississippi 00:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, all that aside, what are they doing, besides having small watermarks on the images? Aren't people supposed to be uploading freely licensed images like maps? It seems potentially useful (AIUI, Kartographer is an external service which could conceivably go down or not be accessible, like if a page is being viewed offline). jp×g🗯️ 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Melanatural and unsourced content

Melanatural seems to be a WP:SPA on Amber Anning and a lot of their editing is either mostly unsourced e.g. [73], adding sources that don't support content (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere [74]), and just replacing content or numbers inline which means they don't match the sources that were already in the article e.g. they made lots of edits in September 2023 which I reverted back to sourced content here. This user is only editing this page and is using own knowledge/WP:OR rather than adding proper sources, and is arguing and invalidating sourced content repeatedly. I am also suspicious of a WP:COI as almost all of their edits (80 of their 92 mainspace edits [75]) are on Amber Anning page, and this is a clear case of WP:NOTLISTENING when I've repeatedly asked them to use reliable sources rather than just change things with no sources added. I'm getting fed up of fixing unsourced content from this user, and having to go through and double check sources to verify that the changes they've made have been not what sources say. Lesser point, also multiple MOS violation including MOS:BOLD, MOS:DATE and WP:EL in body of text sometimes too. Administrator action is required to resolve this competency/not listening issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: You have the editor's username as "Melanaturaledit", but in fact it is just Melanatural. You may like to correct that. JBW (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed (bad copy/paste). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For context, Melanatural has said that Melanatural is her daughter. JBW (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That *Amber is her daughter, even. – 2804:F1...13:E752 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a COI doesn't justify unsourced statements like changing numbers on the article citing sources that don't even mention that stat (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of her obvious conflict of interest and the other problems noted, I have indefinitely pageblocked Melanatural from Amber Anning. She can make edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Star Mississippi I have been dding internal and external links to information about Amber which the complainant has been removing. There are errors in the information he has written and he has a problem whenever I have tried to correct. Amber is my daughter, but I am also a journalist so have not written or added anything that cannot be corroborated. For example, she has 12 All America First Team Honors, not the five listed. It is disappoiinting that I cannot change factually incorrect info and poorly written sentences and I would hope you will unblock me. HartBrown Melanatural 15:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You have a very serious conflict of interest regarding your daughter's article. If you believe things are incorrect, you can suggest edits on the article's Talk page, but you should not be editing it yourself. But you can't just say that it's possible to corroborate your claims, you need to provide reliable sources which support those claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Melanatural. I moved your comment to the correct section so it is more visible. As @HandThatFeeds and @Cullen328 said, you may use edit requests. I will not unblock you to edit about your daughter, and I doubt anyone else will either but you're welcome to file an unblock if you believe Cullen acted wrongly. Star Mississippi 15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

84.206.11.96

Ilaria Salis is an Italian teacher (now politician) who was arrested in Hungary after violence after a counter-demonstration against a neo-Nazi rally. This resulted in a minor diplomatic incident.

84.206.11.96 (talk · contribs) rewrote their article to suit their worldview, which I reverted for various reasons (e.g. WP:NPOV and the ones mentioned in my editsummaries), and then they asked 3 people for support and now they are editwarring to insert copyrighted content 1 & 2 & 3

They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.

Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that she and her companions attacked nine PERSONS. The current version says that they were neonazis. According to my sources :

Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or PERCEIVED as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement - The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/24/italian-anti-fascist-goes-on-trial-in-hungary-accused-of-attacking-neo-nazis

Salis is accused of attempted murder for allegedly being part of a group of anti-fascists that attacked people they BELIEVED were associated with the far-right event.www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/italian-activist-ilaria-salis-to-be-released-following-her-election-as-an-mep

and you deleted the source for the three Polish nationals, and deleted the video of her attack: https://magyarnemzet.hu/english/2024/02/incensed-italian-press-ignores-bloody-far-left-manhunt

Polygnotus insists on that they were alll neonazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.11.96 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is not what I said (or wrote). Both The Guardian article ("Italian anti-fascist goes on trial in Hungary accused of attacking neo-Nazis" and "allegedly attacking neo-Nazis") you linked to and the Politico article call them neo-nazis ("relating to an alleged attack on neo-Nazis." & "an alleged attack on neo-Nazis" & "alleged assault on neo-Nazis"). You can't use references that do not support the claim made in the article. In this edit you make it look as if those sources both support the claim made in the article, but Politico does not. And we can't just copypaste stuff, see WP:COPYVIO. Magyar Nemzet is close to Orbán, and it is not clear who owns the copyright to the video. Polygnotus (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Compare the content you added to the article:

"Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement and the indictement seeks a sentence of 11 years incarceration.

With what The Guardian wrote:

Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement”.

That is clear and unambigious copyvio (which is just one of many problems with your edits) so stop editwarring to edit it in. Polygnotus (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User Polygnotus keeps deleting well founded and sourced FACTs, with false pretexts, for example citing one thing between "" is COPYVIO according to him/her. I added that the person in question owes money to someone for not paying rent. I added two independent sources: one Italian, one English: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/en/ilaria_salis_occupations_and_debts_in_milan_s_public_housing-8166768.html plus here is a third one: https://milano.corriere.it/notizie/politica/24_giugno_27/la-lombardia-chiedera-a-ilaria-salis-di-saldare-il-debito-con-aler-deve-pagare-90-mila-euro-la-replica-non-mi-devo-difendere-da-niente-a243f951-531f-419f-94b4-30e344d91xlk.shtml

The article cites the father of the person in question, who claims that her daughter is kept under terrible conditions. The Hungarian Prison Service refuted this, showing the cell to the public. Again, Sourced with two different sources: https://bv.gov.hu/hu/node/8249 and https://www.blikk.hu/aktualis/belfold/antifa-bvop-cella-ilaria-salis-borton-olasz/3l8j0jp - Deleted again. No reasonable argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.11.96 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing is fine, but copy-pasting text from copyrighted material is a copyright violation -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the IP's argument here is that they used quotation marks even if extensive quoting is not the best idea. They forgot to include an end quote mark but they started with one so I think that was the intention. [76] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unattributed quotations in articles are copyvio and therefore not allowed. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good idea, I was just trying to understand their perspective since they said User Polygnotus keeps deleting well founded and sourced FACTs, with false pretexts, for example citing one thing between "" is COPYVIO according to him/her. I've restored to the last stable version here. I'm taking a wait and see approach to see if maybe this helps the IP "get it". Other admins are free to do more if they think this situation calls for it. Courtesy ping to Moneytrees who has much more experience dealing with copyright-related matters. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think they've clearly demonstrated that they are NOTHERE. But I don't mind giving them rope if the next time its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sadly that makes sense in a fluid and dynamic world where we are running out of ipv4. I am in favour of TNR programs. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The article seems clean now. As Clovermoss says, the added context was presented as a quote, which is an issue from a plagirsim point of view but not necessarily a copyvio. I have no comment on anything else in this dispute. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Thanks. I didn't think this rose to the level of I need to revdel stuff but it's always good to make sure. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing is fine, copyvio's are not. And adding sources that don't support the statements in the article is certainly not. And adding unsourced disputed claims to BLPs is also not. And editwarring to reintroduce copyvio is not. And using right-wing tabloids on a BLP is not. And using words like libel and libelous is also not. And being WP:NOTHERE is certainly not. We get it, you don't like her. That is fine. But we are trying to collaboratively write an encyclopedia here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just performed a bunch of edits to remove BLP violations and to make the language neutral.TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @TarnishedPath:! Great work. Polygnotus (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Consolidation of discussion elsewhere

Clovermoss asked for more info. This IP has been posting anti-lgbt and anti-enemies of Orbán-stuff for a long time (but has also made some good edits).

Orbán is Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010 and the most influential man in Hungary by far. He is similar to Silvio Berlusconi (who people are perhaps more familiar with) in that he and his friends control the media and are not afraid to attack those who disagree with them.

Orbán is anti-LGBT, anti-immigration, and a right-wing populist who controls the Hungarian press and the judiciary system.

Ilaria Salis was accused of violently attacking neonazis (despite being a tiny woman) after a counterdemonstration of a neo-nazi rally. She was was alleged to be "antifa" (I don't have evidence to confirm or deny that), which made her a mortal enemy of Orbán and his buddies. They (he controls the judiciary and the press) threw the book at her (11 years!) and smeared her name (although it was unclear who did what because some participants in the fight were hard to identify because of masks and low quality video).

In Italy, where almost all of the press is controlled by Berlusconi's right-wing buddies[77][78] Ilaria Salis also received quite a bit of negative press. (Berlusconi died in 2023)

Orbán loved Berlusconi[79] and vice versa. The far right in Hungary and Italy have a shared vision and often collaborate.[80]

There was a minor diplomatic incident because some (left-wing) Italian people were outraged to see Salis in chains in court.[81] They made her MEP and she gained immunity from prosecution.

International newspapers (the reliable ones) are pretty neutral about Ilaria Salis but most Italian and Hungarian rightwing newspapers will say whatever to make her look bad.

The IP used 84.206.11.96 and 84.225.152.139, if you use whois you get the CIDR and then you can find the other contribs where they do some weird homophobic vandalism and attack enemies of Orbán.

Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate the further context, but I'm not sure what to do here and so I'll leave that to someone more experienced. I only really commented at all because I was asked to on my talk page. I'd appreciate if someone could think of a better subsection title here because it kind of bugs me to have an ANI subsection named after me when it isn't about me. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

done JackTheSecond (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing several of the IP edits I semi-protected Ilaria Salis for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that means we are done here. I'll keep the article watchlisted and I have made a calendar event to check if the IP has returned. Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I was wondering if you had any advice on the admin angle of evaluating situations like this? When you decide to protect a page vs block IP addresses, for example. I'm trying to learn. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at several diffs and the wording was over-the-top. I don't think it's worth digging up diffs now but I remember one edit saying that the subject was "condemned" for something. Unless that word comes from a court or similar, or is an attributed and WP:DUE opinion, it's clearly a WP:BLP fail. There were other examples of over-enthusiastic phrasing showing that the purpose of the IP edits was to condemn the subject, not to build an NPOV article. On a practical level, a lot of admin action comes down to what is accepted after the fact. IMHO it is not worth protecting an article in a situation like this for a short period (a week or so) because the activists are usually very happy to wait until they get another chance. My aim is to have them get bored here and return to Twitter. Re protection or block, this IP is unusually coherent and I would need to take much more time to work out if a long block was warranted. Also, many activists will readily shift IPs so protection would be more effective. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Another tip is using a simple point system. If an IP shows up on a BLP to post negative information:

+10 points if the BLP subject is not male

+15 points if the BLP subject is not right-wing

+1000 points if the BLP subject is LGBT+

+1000 points if the BLP subject is not "white" or is Jewish

If the score is higher than 0 then the IP should probably be reverted and (if they repeatedly made the same edit without seeking consensus) the article should probably be protected. Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nota bene: The above was a joke (perhaps not a very good one). Polygnotus (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Come on, folks ... --JBL (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Polygnotus, I think CloverMoss was looking specifically for input from fellow admins with experience making these calls, and if I can be blunt for a moment, even if she wasn't, she could be forgiven for viewing the schema you recommend with a very critical eye. These situations call for a great deal more particularity of analysis and nuance of judgment than "Is the article in question a BLP for someone whom I personally would expect to be unduly criticized? If yes, then any 'negative' info added by IPs is presumptively revertible and protection is warranted." I can't even begin to express the number of ways that using that as your starting point is deeply problematic with regard to multiple of our core policies, and while you're not in the position of deciding RfPs, I would advise extreme caution in reverting IPs on that basis alone and without actual reasons based in our actual content and behavioural policies, or you could end up here at ANI in a very different capacity. I mean that in as positive a light as it can be taken and for your benefit as a good-faith contributor: I know you're just riffing impressionistcally about where you expect the trouble spots to be, but this kind of paint-by-numbers approach does not mesh well with the actual analysis that should be guiding your decision to undo another contributor's work, and which apply equally as much to IP edits as any other. SnowRise let's rap 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the level of tongue-in-cheekness wasn't clear enough for you? I assumed it was obvious without an "/s". Polygnotus (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I was taken aback by your "point" system and hoped you were not being serious. Wikipedia gets enough unearned grief about being "woke" that your comment could be used out of context to criticize the platform. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) No, it was in fact not at all clear to me: nothing in your post, textually or subtextually, suggested to me that you were being glib with these recommendations, particularly in light of your role as OP here, and the nature of your comments in the back-and-forth with the IP. It looked very much like a sincere effort at proposing a working rule-of-thumb that you thought was helpful in these circumstances. Mind you, I'm relieved to hear that you were just exaggerating for effect, but such self-effacing hyperbole and other forms of sarcasm do not translate well to text and either need to be significantly more marked if you want others to understand you intend a "true" meaning under the facial one, or, ideally, such hyperbole is best avoided altogether in an environment like this. You may think that your suggestion was so far over the top that the joke should be obvious, but we very regularly see worse in terms of people proposing their personal idiosyncratic standards in place of policy. Please don't take it personally if I took your apparently sincere comments at face value: I was only genuinely attempting to help you avoid a pitfall if you were serious--and as politely as I could under the circumstances. SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) What would be the point of a scoring system where the threshold is zero, the outcome is binary, no negative values exists, and the maximum is 2025 although any score above zero is treated the same? Sure, Wikipedia is "woke", if we use the original meaning of that word (aware of systemic inequality), but so is everyone with a functioning brain. No sane person believes this planet is fair. The opposite of "woke" is "bigoted". Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I saw your comment before the replies and enjoyed it! This might be a good time to remind people that stuff you read on the internet need not be taken seriously 110% of the time. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I doubt right-wing people make jokes where the punchline is that we need to protect BLPs about LGBTQIA+/non-"white"/Jewish people more than other articles because right wing people are likely to lie about them or vandalise the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) First off, I didn't say anything about "wokeness" or anything of the sort, so I'm not sure why so much of your response to me is directed towards that topic. Perhaps you accidentally misread Liz's comments and my own as one post? Because while I don't necessarily disagree with Liz's observation, it's a different point from the one I was trying to stress to you, and I assure you that I would have expressed to you the same exact concerns about your proposed approach even if you had inverted the terms of each line. Second, all of the metrics that you list there do not preclude the possibility (nor even the likelihood) that you were speaking candidly with your suggestion. You spent half the above thread trading accusations of bias with an IP. Then you proposed a system by which an IP with the same kind of bias you imputed to this IP should be summarily reverted. That looks worrying my friend. The "joke" it looks like you are making there is not that such a system would be ludicrous, but rather that most criticism of the topics you list is expected to be bunk. Which may very well be a valid world view in some circumstances, but just does not jibe with how we determine reverts on this project. Not only is that a perfectly valid possible interpretation of your meaning, but I submit to you that it's the much more reasonable read, especially given the context of when and where you said it, and the nature and tone of the dispute between you and the IP. The fact that you're taking such umbrage at the misunderstanding because you are so certain there is no room for alternative readings to what you said, in the context that you said it, only encourages me to reiterate that you should perhaps not lean heavily into sarcasm in such circumstances. SnowRise let's rap 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) If you miss a joke, it's not always the joke's fault. Levivich (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Yeah, and sometimes it is. Frankly that comment is all dubious sophistry without more to it. SnowRise let's rap 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) You don't feel bad for chastising someone because you missed their joke? Like you don't think maybe it's just you (and Liz)? That maybe if you missed a joke, the thing to do is just say oops my bad and move on, instead of giving unsolicited (and, I promise you, unwanted, and incorrect) advice? Because all I see here is ego, lots of ego. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kathleen's Bike

Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be very confrontational and unable to discuss civilly. Currently they are making extraordinarily strange comments which I cannot understand and which seem contrived so as to wear down resistance rather than to make a coherent argument based on the facts. For example when it serves their purposes they contradict sources they themselves had provided. I had hoped to resolve the issue at the relevant talk page, but they are being extraordinarily difficult; at times it feels as though they are gaslighting. BRMSF (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Very straightforward. I made a series of improvements to an article, including important corrections. BRMS, and their various IPs, have repeatedly reversed those changes. Despite the RFC at Talk:Thomas Niedermayer not having concluded, they chose to essentially reverse most of my changes again with a wholly misleading edit summary (the reversal of all the changes in the "Abduction" section aren't explained at all).

This editor is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning 78.147.140.112 for their previous disruptive changes to the article (this and this), as well as battleground behaviour, other disruption and sockpuppetry. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are thus far the only person to object to the changes I proposed, I felt as though a consensus was emerging, one which you disagree with so strongly that you are routinely contradicting yourself. BRMSF (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The talk page could benefit from a few more uninvolved users. The circumstances on Niedermayer's death are complex, but not as complex as all that. It seems to be impossible right now to discuss one change at a time and discussion's going on circles. I don't think there are behavior issues in play (yet), beyond the open WP:AE request, which can probably be resolved now that the IP editor has created an account. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both edit warring. I've protected the page. Please use the Talk to discuss changes. Star Mississippi 00:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Both editors, BRMSF and Kathleen's bike should take a small break from the article and talk page, at this point, they are just bickering back and forth with no productive discussion taking place between the two of them. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:RupertNY245 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

This user personally attacked me after I posted on their talk page. [82] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

31h block for that and a few others. New enough that I didn't want to INDEF Star Mississippi 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Not that new. See RobertFL1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom they admit is their account but they lost the password (despite the fact that the account has an e-mail address associated with it).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No issue with it being extended. They seem to be just trolling of late, which the rename may be part of. Star Mississippi 01:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Would someone who has time/energy to spare go sort out RupertNY245 and / or RobertFL1991 please? Clearly neither block did any good. Star Mississippi 00:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Star Mississippi: It's fairly clear from their comments that they are going to dig themself into an indefinite block without any help from anyone. For the moment, I'm taking no further action, but if they continue to double-down on the attacks, at a minimum I will revoke Talk page access and possibly increase the block to indefinite. Depends on bad they get.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I just assume they're going to scream Involved if you or I do anything. I tried to fix the unblocks, but content to let them self immolate. Star Mississippi 00:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  They can scream as much as they like...for now. I'm certainly not INVOLVED, so that doesn't worry me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks @Cullen328: for handling. Star Mississippi 01:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Star Mississippi, sometimes three administrators are better than one. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have no objection to your revoking TPA, but I don't understand why you didn't decline the unblock request. That's one thing I can't do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible breach of promotional guidelines

Requesting arbitration/intervention on INFINITY8 Official (talk · contribs) making persistent and potentially WP:NOTPROMO edits on the Standard Chartered Bank building, Penang article. Username itself is in breach of WP:CORPNAME. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HundenvonPenang Thank you for your message and for pointing out the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I will take immediate steps to correct my contributions and ensure they comply with Wikipedia's standards. If there are specific changes you recommend or further actions I should take, please let me know.

I appreciate your guidance and will be more mindful in future edits. INFINITY8 Official (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, for starters, not using ChatGPT to make your responses. Ravenswing 09:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Alexf. IznoPublic (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse troll back... again

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

---

14 novembre, the Teahouse troll, is back with 3 new accounts: Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio, Random username 1234567890, and Non so che nome scegliere. I was originally going to report this at the SPI but didn't per WP:DENY and how back in May, they created several new accounts each time a report was filed. Is there really nothing we could do...? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Block is clearly warranted. Admins do your magic.CycoMa1 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked both and a couple sleepers: User:Random username 1234567890 and User:No idea what username to choose. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyvio by IP user

Hello. I am here because of repeated copyvio by an IP user, which has continued to happen despite reverts and talk page notices. The user is 98.186.26.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Starting in June 2024. Of particular note is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_W._Mellon_Auditorium&action=history where they added copyvio which was reverted and then added it back in three times. All copyvio seems to be coming from https://johncanningco.com/ and they are adding info from the website to all the buildings that the company has remodeled, so there's maybe promotion or conflict of interest happening to? I wasn't sure if I could use CCI since it's been less than a month, and the changes are relatively easy to remove. But I'm concerned that this will be a continued problem as they've been putting their edits back after receiving warnings (can see on their talk page). The information is also sometimes inaccurate, ex. adding info about a remodel to an Iowa courthouse to the article Lyon County Courthouse (Nevada). See Earwig detector here: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1232190536&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjohncanningco.com%2Fportfolio%2Flyoncounty%2F. I found this problem using the Copy Patrol tool. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this IP user, having warned them in the past. Given the continued addition of copyright violations, I've blocked the IP for a year (taking in consideration the remarkable stability of the IP address). I don't want to keep them blocked for that long, but rather hoping that this will cause them to take the time to read and understand the copyright policy and COI guideline, formulate a good unblock request, and successfully appeal prior to the expiration of the block. DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate cut-pasting drafts to mainspace by User:SuperMightyBoy

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

---

SuperMightyBoy has performed numerous cut-paste moves of articles they've no connection to from draft into mainspace. They mentioned on their talk page they're doing this "just trying to get Autopatrolled rights" after DaffodilOcean notified them about the cut-paste issue and having their request denied a few days ago. At the very least, multiple history merges need to be done for the articles that meet notability requirements. Also strange, they modified their autopatrolled request to another user. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Macaddct1984: Gonna note that the user has been indefed due to technical evidence as seen on their talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LakesideMiners, now it's just a matter of getting the mess of new pages that were created in their wake cleaned up. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Better to move back to draft-space and delete the main (RBI) or hist-merge/etc to keep them in main? I lean the former (less work, don't trust their judgement by default) but want to get others' thoughts before pushing the buttons. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the drafts were rolled back and Discospinster nuked the mainspace pages, all done! -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Magentic Manifestations

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

---

I wish to comment on the attitude and behaviour of this editor (MM) in response to a failed GA review. The editor has shown unwillingness, per WP:IDHT, to accept the reasons for failure which all relate to key policy WP:V, and in one case to WP:NOR / WP:NPOV. MM has reacted defensively, which is understandable to an extent, but in an aggressive manner. Several of his comments are not only unconstructive but also breach WP:CIVIL and amount to personal attacks.

The review failed because none of six citations used for a spot-check sample could provide verification by directly supporting the material. Please see the terms of WP:GAFAIL within WP:GACR; also WP:GAN/I#R3 which says the reviewer must perform a sample source spot-check before moving on to the main part of the review. I explained my reasons for not accepting the citations as written.

The review itself is not the point here and I only mention it to provide background. The issue is MM's aggressive behaviour which needs to be addressed. Specific examples are:

• In his spot-check responses, MM accuses me of "feigning ignorance" and stating "dubious reasons". For some reason, his unsigned responses are in blue as if to highlight them.
  • In one of these, re the FN36 source, he says: The source clearly says that the "raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar,promised to Muhammad". Again an invalid rejection citing dubious and assumed comments.
  • The source author, Wayne Begley, was expressing an opinion but our article states with certainty that: The elevated marble water tank is called al Hawd al-Kawthar in reference to the "Tank of Abundance" promised to Muhammad. MM refuses to acknowledge that an opinion is not a certainty and accuses me of making "dubious and assumed comments" to support an "invalid rejection". The statement in our article is not only a WP:V failure, it is also WP:OR.

• Having amended some of his comments, MM went to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations where he requested a second opinion. This was provided by Thebiguglyalien (BUA) who commented here that he "probably would've failed this for original research as well"; and here that MM "doesn't mention some fundamental issues with OR and failed verification".

• Refusing to accept the second opinion, MM's comments included: "Are you suggesting that it should be an exact WP:COPYVIO of the source?" Re FN36, he states: "Again if the article does express certainty, it is at best a minor correction here, which can be made in a jiffy and not an issue of failed verifiability as projected". Statements like those are completely out of order. He is accusing BUA of endorsing copyvio in one and then rejecting WP:V in the next.

• At the GA talk page, MM answers BUA with this, in which he accuses BUA of "conveniently" failing to address his concerns, and completely ignores what BUA said about original research. In his point #2, he complains about "no comprehensive review on all the criteria", again playing the WP:IDHT card because, as per GA procedure, the citation spot-checks precede the review of the full criteria.

• After I posted my answers to the points raised by MM, he responded with this personal attack which accuses me of "insecurity", "hounding", and "mudslinging". He followed that with another mudslinging accusation and claims to be the victim of a "witch hunt"!

While I may have made mistakes in the GA reviews I've done, given my relative inexperience of WP procedures, I try to be polite and to give a rationale for any points I raise. If someone in the GA panel wishes to cancel my review of Taj Mahal, I will accept that, although BUA was supportive of my reasons for failing it. But, having consulted other editors and read some of the topics brought to ANI and ARBCOM, I think the attitude and behaviour of MM needs due consideration. I'm sure the site has key policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the best of reasons. PearlyGigs (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I thought this discussion was closed, but as this has been brought to the ANI now, the aforementioned user (user:PearlyGigs) does not seem to let go of it. I will present my view points.

1. I felt that the review was inadequate with respect to addressing all the GA criteria and I had voiced out the same at the appropriate notice board. Another of the co-nominators (User:The Herald) had also voiced a similar opinion. I do not see any issues with having raised the issue at the appropriate forum. While my revert would have come across as aggressive given that a lot of effort has been put on improving the article, it was not without basis.
2. With respect to the review, the reviewer (user:PearlyGigs) conveniently fails to mention all the points here and quotes only bits and pieces. in the first and third comments w.r.t FN 10 and FN 28, the reviewer had not asked for a clarification of sources which were not available in Google Books or accessible to the user, rather deciding that it was not sourced, which ultimately resulted in the overall failure as per the criteria mentioned. As per WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW, the citation had to be provided in the prescribed format and it need not be fully accessible in Google Books or anywhere, which was clarified by the another user (User:CMD) in the same discussion line. The reviewer was unwilling to accept the fact and ignored the same. While the onus is on the editor to provide with a reliable source, and if the older source was not accessible, this could have been done via a simple discussion or clarification. Things can more often that not be resolved with discussion.
3. In one of the points concerning FN 11, the reference was mentioned bluntly as "vague" and there was specific ask of particular word "commissioned" not being mentioned as such in the source provided, which was repeated again and again. A source is used as a reference and the line summarises rather what is quoted in the source. If it follows the same wording as such, it indeed becomes a COPYVIO. This was taken as a personal comment. So, when I quote a relevant policy, it becomes a personal comment and rather when the reviewer retrospectively accused of being against NPOV and OR, it seems to be all fine!
4. With respect to FN 36, while I completely agree that the author gives an opinion, and I certainly would have been happy to incorporate the same, given as a suggestion as it would simply entail adding the word "probably", the problem was that it was entirely mentioned as "unverified". A GA is done to incorporate/do minor corrections, this rather comes across as discounting citations as unverified (which is dubious!) rather than a simple correction, which would have in fact added value to the effort. The reviewer later accuses of being against NPOV and of OR retrospectively on the same as well.
5. In the aforementioned second opinion as well, there was no addressing of the points which were raised initially. Only other users clarified the same on the forum. I do not see anything wrong with having raised a clarification and mentioning as such that the second opinion did not give clarity on the issues raised.
6. The reviewer opened up on the notice board that he/she was open for discussion, and my opinion was that it could have been done before the review was closed. Another user (User:CMD) had also pointed out that the issues could have been sorted out by discussion. There were also multiple suggestions for the reviewer on the page that he/she could have taken a shorter/less traffic article to practice.

The issue was deemed closed as there was a suggestion to renominate the article for GA if there was no further improvements. Meanwhile, the reviewer probably felt offended that this was raised in a forum and took pains of going through my previous edits and review history. As the dispute was concerning a particular page Taj Mahal, the discussion ought to have been limited to the issues concerning the page. But the reviewer engaged in the act of pulling the history of my reviews and started commenting on the same (as evident from the discussion on the review page Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1). This was completely unwarranted and mudslinging pointing fingers saying that "hey, this is how you did it and you neither did it right!".

As the discussion was heating up, going nowhere and as another user (user:Herald) as well pointed out that it was going out of hand, the fact was accepted fact that the review was closed. I had ended the discussion on the same day as I saw no point in continuing with this further as it was not going to lead to any positive result and probably would have ended up wasting more time. This was clear in my reverts on the respective forum.

Now, as this happened nearly a week back, I can find no reason to rake up an old closed discussion unless the user concerned (user:PearlyGigs) does not want to let go of it and rake it up again, not sure to what end. Irony is that, I have been accused of not letting it go when it fact the conversation had ended a week back. It would probably save time, if the user specifies the expectation clearly as this to and fro is simply a time consuming one! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone has their own ways of going about GA reviews, even if the goals and criteria are the same. I have seen a lot of weight put on nominations that fail verification on one or two citations, with good justification, and it often leads to a quick fail. Even if such an outcome happens, it is fine to give an article some time for the editor(s) to look back and make sure they are familiar with all the material they are using before nominating again. The reviewer of the Taj Mahal good article nomination may have been new to the process, but failing the review at that point wouldn't be unprecedented if there were significant concerns (though I would hope an experienced reviewer would take a look at the result and pass their own judgment). Reconrabbit 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• ANI? REALLY???? EEng 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs: I understand your inexperience of WP procedures, but everything from the WP:OFWV pledge to the instructions at the top of this page should lead you to this conclusion: if you have an issue with an individual editor, try talking with them first. Assume that good-faith conflict can be resolved with polite discussion on their talkpage. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Replying since I was pinged here, and putting my replies in once place instead of peppering the discussion:

• Magentic Manifestations responded in a less-than-appropriate manner when the nomination was failed, misrepresenting the situation, twisting both PearlyGigs' words and my own, and making personal attacks against everyone who disagreed with them. They are continuing to do all of those things here. I've seen poor reactions to failed nominations, but this is probably the worst one yet. If they were a new editor, they probably would have been banned from GAN.
• PearlyGigs, bringing this here was ill-advised, and it might be a good idea to retract it and archive the discussion with Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom before it spins off and gets out of control. Bringing it up several days later makes it seem vindictive. The first thing newer editors should be told is never touch ANI if you can help it. Even if you're totally in the right, the regulars here tend to be bigoted against newer editors and automatically take the side of long-time editors. I'd say let someone else bring it here if it continues and becomes it "intractable".
• Reconrabbit, just noting that I was said experienced editor, and while the review wasn't perfect, I endorsed its conclusion.
• Jlwoodwa, such a discussion was attempted at WT:GAN (where Magentic Manifestations chose to have it), and they proceeded to make it clear that they were not willing to have such a polite discussion.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Concerns about a review: Taj Mahal was a dispute over the quality of the review, and resulted in mutual ANI threats, followed by mutual disengagement. After a week, and beyond the heat of the moment, PG decided to discuss user conduct as its own topic, apart from the GA review. I think that new discussion should have started at User talk:Magentic Manifestations. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Jlwoodwa. I can see where you're coming from but Thebiguglyalien (BUA) is correct that MM chose to start the discussion at WT:GAN. Both there and in the review, MM was not prepared to be polite, or to discuss things in a reasonable way, or to listen to others. That being the case, I did not see the point of taking the IDHT/CIVIL issues to his talk page. My understanding is that ANI is here for editors to lodge complaints about unacceptable behaviour, so I decided to come here. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. ANI is known for its occasional tempest in a teapot, but this is like a matryoshka doll equivalent of nesting teapot issues (each somehow smaller than the last) being blown way out of proportion. Alright, in order:

• Honestly, there were some issues with the GAN review. I can see how one or two of the elements of PG's responses might have come off as lackadaisical or ignorant of key sourcing policies, and it's vaguely understandable that they could contribute to a sense of annoyance that the full review was cut short on such criteria.

• But none of that excuses Magentic Manfistations' failure of perspective and the somewhat aggressive responses to both reviewers. There is WP:NORUSH for passing the GAN until good faith reviews suggest the content is well above the necessary threshold. And even if the article was in the proper state and the reviews were completely botched, the implications are beyond inconsequential in the long run. I don't know if this is a case of being too attached to the article (and the work they've done on it) itself, or taking the prospect of a GA as a status symbol a little too seriously, but anyone who wants to work an article through those badges needs to have a thicker skin for set backs than what was on display there. If you want that little bragging right, you have to deal with the sometimes onerous process that comes with the effort at quality control.

• At the same time, it's not like MM was hurling blatant vitriol and invective. I'm dubious about the suggestion that anything they said qualifies as a PA, or was even outright disruptive. It was merely a little hostile, and at most on the outer periphery of WP:Battleground. This issue of bouncing back and forth between multiple spaces and then ultimately arriving here is a complete overreaction, bordering on abuse of process and certainly qualifying as a waste of community time. For that matter, the act of going through MM's past GA reviews (in the context of the active review) looking for issues was inappropriate and unhelpful to the process (to say the least) and not a good look for Pearly Gigs.

Both the OP and MM would do well to listen to the advice TBUA has been giving them. Regardless, let's close this before it gets any closer to getting someone in trouble for literally no gain to themselves or the project. At most, there should be trouts for the two main parties here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I agree with everything TBUA has said above. Can I just point out to you that I did not "go through MMs past reviews". The big picture in review terms is the current GAN backlog drive. It was obvious that MM would not accept due process as outlined at WP:GACR and WP:GAI, so I checked his ongoing review in the drive to see if he was following due process there, and he was not. While the purpose of the drive is to reduce a backlog, due process must be followed. Raising that point in the GA review discussion might not have been wise in WP terms but it would be quite appropriate in the real world. Anyway, I will take on board what you say as another learning point, so I am grateful to you for that. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But as you've already pointed out yourself, one of the key things to take away from the situation is to recognize that there is a time and a place for raising those concerns, and bringing them up in the context of the GA review was just bound to conflate and complicate the existing discussion, which already had enough layers of bi-directional nitpicking of behavior. It just looks like a quasi-non-sequitor and arbitrary point scoring. Better to stay focused on the discrete issues of the review on that particular page.

That said, nothing that was said here by either you or MM is serious enough to warrant action or (if I may be so bold as to suggest) to even prevent you two from being able to close this little episode with mutual collegiality and a realistic expectation of a perfectly amicable encounter next time you run into one-another. Either way, thank you for receiving the feedback in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, all, and thanks for the comments. As I said above, there are a couple of learning points for me which I will take on board. I agree with everything Thebiguglyalien said above and I'm happy to close this now if everyone else agrees. TBUA said I should archive the discussion with Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom but, according to the template instructions, I cannot do that as I am an involved editor. Could someone else please oblige? Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully someone uninvolved may be along for a formal close at some point in the next couple of days, but if both you and Magentic Manifestations are relatively ok with how things have resolved, the easiest thing is to just let the discussion peter out and the archive bot will do it's thing. I know I and others suggested a formal close, but, speaking for myself (and I think the others too) it was just a suggestion to keep someone from sticking their foot in their mouth with a response and getting themselves into trouble. Since both of you at this point seem to be taking a much more restrained and pragmatic approach, it's not really necessary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, Snow Rise. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

De rien. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

OrangTangerang53

OrangTangerang53 (talk · contribs) - this user has twice been blocked before for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs, as well as numerous other warnings, but continues to do so. I think we need a significant block. GiantSnowman 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Gracias! GiantSnowman 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep being reverted on Karaganda Region and possible inappropriate warning by User:TylerBurden

I am a IP user using the IP range of 132.234.228.0/23. I was updating the time zone of the above page as the time in Kazakhstan was changed to UTC+5 on 1 March 2024. TylerBurden (talk · contribs) initially reverted my edits claiming that there were no source. I went to their talk page to talk about this. I said that there was source in the article time in Kazakhstan which can prove my change. They replied that I need to add it. I undid the revert citing the article on the edit comment as there are already a source in that article. However, they reverted again and post the {{uw-unsourced2}} on the user talk page of the IPs. Based on the fact that there are already source in the aricle time in Kazakhstan, I don’t think that the revert should be done based on only the fact that the article was citied. I currently will not revert it to prevent an edit war. 132.234.228.40 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse ANI. Each article here has its own sourcing requirement. If you want to add information that is already in another article, you may take the source provided there and copy it over - make sure you follow wp:cww while you're at it and give credit to the article you're copying from. Happy editing! JackTheSecond (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how this is helpful. A cursory Google shows that Tyler is reverting uncontentious fact. Reversions are not to be performed without cause. I have restored the contested edit. Is there anything more that needs to be discussed here, Tyler? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Very possible that I misread the context around recently changed information and sourcing requirements. JackTheSecond (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:MinorRefiner indeffed as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have not notified Tyler that there is an open ANI discussion. You are required to notify him as the warning on the top of the page says. Why have you not notified him? MinorRefiner (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I notified them at Special:Diff/1233627305 3 minutes after I posted here. Just because I did not used {{ANI-notice}} doesn’t mean that I didn’t notified them. 132.234.228.174 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Saying you will take someone to ANI isn't adequate. You need to inform them that there is actually a discussion. I could say I'm going to sue you, but that is meaningless unless I serve you legal notice. MinorRefiner (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Someone restored this so I'll just say: They didn't say they were going to take someone to ANI, they said that they already did, that's notice (though I do think the template is better, specially in a separate section). The part about making a legal threat being meaningless made me consider your response trolling to the point I removed it - but if there's others that don't think so, I'll defer to them, and I apologize. – 2804:F14:8081:3201:EC18:543E:106A:298E (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC) How is that trolling? I gave it as an example of unofficial versus official notification. MinorRefiner (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) A failure in assuming good faith on my part, which again, I apologize - I just couldn't read it in any other way than as you saying that if you yourself told them you'd sue them (in Wikipedia, as that's the only means of communication you have with them) that that is meaningless unless you actually sued them; and right after mischaracterizing what they said as future tense (it was past tense), as one of your first edits to Wikipedia no less. Clearly you didn't mean it like that though. – 2804:F1...6A:298E (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) No worries. MinorRefiner (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to WP:SELFBLOCK

Due to increasing harrsement from overseas 110, I have to quit from editting wikipedia. Please block me indefinitely to prevent my account from being overtaken.--Renamed user 63506961370 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Can be undone at any time via usertalk request. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's (ATG) hostility, editing to favor deletion and canvassing

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I have not been successful at communicating with ATG. Today ATG sent two articles that I started to AfD. In one AfD-related situation, [[83]] ATG has been edit warring the article to favor deletion, even threatening me with ANI if I add that this guitar player has been sponsored by PRS Guitars. I have tried to discuss with ATG but they just go about refactoring the article to favor deletion - tagging, erasing, and reverting - just now, ATG stubbed the article.

A talk page discussion with ATG did occur but it did not find resolution. I also see now that this topic was canvassed at WPO and that seems to be a recurring problem. Because I am involved with the "Did You Know" section, I was aware of the ATG/DYK discussions of last month; I observed that when ATG thinks they are right they can be very hostile. I think ATG referred to us all as "idiots". So I guess I am here to say that this all feels lousy for this editor. I understand that articles get deleted, and editors can disagree: today is making me wish for serenity now! Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Did he say anything that wasn't civil? If so, do you have a diff? If you want a third opinion for a content dispute, this is not the correct venue. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A one-off likely identity-evading IP doesn't get to police a veteran editor on what is or isn't a proper venue. The target is a well-known uncivil editor and frequent flier to this board, which is the proper venue. Zaathras (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of Andy's previous behavior, this appears to indeed be a mostly content-related dispute. Both users have made comments that might not be the most elegant (Andy talking about removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles and Lightburst saying You need to get a grip), but nothing really breaching the barrier of civility either. I wouldn't say removing primary-sourced claims of awards really counts as "editing to favor deletion" rather than standard cleanup, and I really don't see this point really deserving to be at ANI.
The WPO issue might be a little bit more concerning, but Andy doesn't appear to have been the one to bring it up (as far as I can see, he was only replying to another user by the name of Phantom), so I don't think it's fair to blame Andy for the canvassing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Since we are treating WPO as a sister project, ATG said, "Lightburst is an imbecile." "The imbecility continues." and here is the canvassing..."Bent's Camp Resort Another masterpiece by Lightburst" (he promptly sent it to AfD) and more canvassing by ATG "I've started an AfD on Robertson. As noted above". Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Under no circumstances would I recommend treating WPO as a sister project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is not a sister project. I don't know why you would think it is. TarnishedPath^talk 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is a project that we do not want to be a member of the family. So maybe we should call it a stepsister project. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is the traffic cop that monitors bad driving on a site that pays precious little attention to driving skill but wants everyone hopping behind the wheel to feel happy and actualized regardless of the highway mayhem. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is the crowd with pitchforks and torches looking for anyone they can throw on the bonfire. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WPO is a bunch of vigilantes who think they’re the police. Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanna do one too! WPO is a bar near a corporate campus where employees, ex-employees, and other interested parties socialize. There's shop talk, carpentry talk, garden talk, bears-in-trashcan talk, and more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if every discussion in that bar was transcribed, posted online, and searchable on Google. If they were, people wouldn't openly talk shit about their co-workers in that bar (or publicize names and photos of their co-worker's families and so on). Levivich (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, much of the names/photos aren't indexed by google (I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed), and if you've been watching the forum I'm sure you've seen the significant pushback against such activity. I guess we could all just read it clandestinely and have all of the same information published there by the same parties that are already not beholden to en.wiki policies?

I agree that some of the contributions cross the line, and when I see that I make a fuss. The other option of the same information being published but without any pushback or fuss doesn't seem like an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see significant pushback to this activity, almost none. I saw more people joining in as this thread and that one progressed. It was pretty ugly. But let's keep going with the whole after-work bar analogy. The public WPO forums (not to be confused with the private forums or the blog) are like an after-work bar that's livestreamed 24/7 and transcribed and the transcription is searchable on the bar's website. And on this livestream, "Billy" (not his real name) is caught calling his coworker "Joey" (not his real name) a bunch of names (none his real name). So Joey complains about it to HR, and then in the middle of the HR hearing, a bunch of regulars from the bar bust in and start calling for no punishment against fellow bar regular Billy, and instead for Joey to be fired, because it happened at the bar and that's not on company property or during company time. Any real HR would tell the bar regulars to get the f* out and what the hell are they thinking even getting involved in this?! But Wikipedia doesn't have a real HR. In fact, on Wikipedia, a bunch of the bar regulars are from HR. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is a pickle. The open source discipline issue means that at any HR hearing any number of people can smash in and and cause a ruckus, but I think in this particular case the numbers don't bear out an actual effect from the bar patrons versus the other employees shouting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The real pickle is that this bar has two rooms, and only one of them is livestreamed, so maybe you could ask your friends to take the bullshit downstairs so we don't have to have any more HR hearings about it, thx. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed. I was curious so I checked and the second public thread on WPO right now seems to belie that point. If, out of the half-dozen times I've opened the site, I've seen Wikipedians doxxed twice, I'm not really convinced it's as secluded as you claim.

I'm being vague to avoid suppression or accidentally OUTING a user. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course you’d say that. You participate there. This cute “WPO is just the pub where the boys go to have boys’ talk” facade is starting to crack. Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it seems to be in the spirit of this entire mishegas, I'll add thjs: Wikipediocracy is a boot, stomping on a human face -- forever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The real kicker is that Wikipediocracy is also the human face. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw your two delete !votes on the AfDs discussed here - unfortunately coming here gets that kind of !voting. It is tongue-in-cheek calling it a sister project. Last month an admin linked to them like a sister project and I complained to anyone who would listen. Nobody cared, and the link is still there, so what do you call a project like that? I can start a WPO account, call people names, dox them, canvass others, and then link to them here to show off my work. Seems like a sister project to me. Lightburst (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's front page makes it clear that its purpose is to be critical of what goes on here. When someone says that something is a sister project, to me that says the aims of both projects are mutually beneficial. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a 'sister project', an affiliate, or any other part of the official Wikimedia ecosystem. From what little of it I've seen linked in behavioural fora here over the years, it's not even a particularly cogent place for discussing Wikipedia, let alone an actual outgrowth of the project. So I'm sorry, but most of what transpires there is not within our purview to control or moderate--including even the grossest of insults, I am afraid. So your even bringing any off-project PAs is pointless. Besides, we hardly need to look off project to find examples of Andy violating CIV.

That said, there are off-project activities which do run afoul of our policies by more directly touching this site. For example, canvassing: if he's really attempting to generate !votes by advertsiting to/coordinating with other parties to abuse process, that's a brightline violation of policy.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

However, regardless of the limitations of our reach to conduct taking place at WPO, let me add this: Personally at this juncture I am absolutely willing to support any community resolution to indef or even CBAN Andy from the project--and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Andy's unremitting hostility to contrary views, complete lack of basic decorum and inability to adhere to our most basic of behavioural norms, his refusal to exercise self-control over virtually any aspect of his behaviour during conflict, and a bevy over other basic CIR issues has made him in my eyes probably one of the most clear-cut case of a net negative for the project of any legacy editor still allowed to edit here. And unfortunately for Andy, he's going to keep creating opportunities for a ban to happen, because he is still firmly lodged in his years-long and Wikicareer-spanning marathon refusal to ever acknowledge that there is any issue in his approach to conflict here.

Let me hasten to add here that I have no personal axe to grind against Andy; I've never run into him "out in the wild" of project space and had one of the editorial/personal run-ins with him that so much of our community has. My entire experience of him that I can recall has been here at ANI. But that's still been enough for me to be familiar with a good half dozen threads concerning his behavior over recent years (which is probably about 1/5 of the total reports here) in which his naked aggression and arguably unmatched propensity for personal attacks were on full display.

Many are the editors who have joked that at least Andy's name warns people of his disposition. Hell, I probably hand-waved away some of the first reports regarding him that I saw here in that fashion. But I don't believe I agree at this point: I believe his name would have to be AndyTheBully to fully prepare anyone (and I do mean anyone, as far as I can tell) for what is in store for them if they happen to disagree with him about something he cares about.

Is this thread the most exemplary demonstration of the issues with Andy's conduct here? Nope, but it still involves violations of CIV and canvassing, at a minimum, and I for one am unwilling to countenance his drain on the community's time, patience, and good will. Enough is enough. I'll be !voting to support any ban proposal until it either succeeds or Andy makes some sort of credible acknowledgment of the issues and commitment to stop treating the people of this community as viable targets to unload on anytime he feels personally outraged. And although it's been years in the coming, I'm pretty confident which one will come first... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that if Lightburst wants successful communication, this is a poor way to start it. [84]. As for the rest, I stand by what I have done in regard to the two articles. Neither is on a notable topic. Both were appallingly badly sourced. Both cited blatantly promotional sources in order to concoct 'notability'. And the Robertson biography in particular raised WP:BLP concerns, given that its subject matter is a fourteen-year-old boy who has done nothing beyond winning a couple of junior busking competitions. Lightburst is apparently under the misapprehension that articles subject to deletion discussions can't be edited to remove questionable material: this is entirely untrue, as anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should be aware. More so when the content has BLP issues, is improperly sourced, or is completely, utterly, and impossibly wrong. [85] I have no idea what motivated Lightburst to cobble together these two muddle-headed stubs, but whatever it was, it appears to have been done without even a minimal regard for encyclopaedic practice. If that sort of behaviour attracts external commentary, nobody should be surprised... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ATG's Nobunaga act needs to stop. MinorRefiner (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me for being doubtful of users finding the drama board on their second-ever edit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An identity-evading IP and a five day old account with only two edits, including the above reply? Call me Captain Obvious, but something strange is going on here. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

MinorRefiner, please sign in under your original account, or appeal your block/ban via UTRS. Many thanks. ——Serial Number 54129 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was an IP. The number changes frequently, so I created an account. I haven't been blocked. MinorRefiner (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"muddle-headed stubs" yikes - that language is the problem. I have written many articles including GAs, rarely ever stubs. The article in question was moved to main just hours ago so it was in progress. I have the NPP perm, I review and promote articles for DYK - I do not consider myself a poor editor. There are ways to work together and my point is that this way feels sickening. It seems like some of the drama is for this audience at WPO. I have not been reading there lately, but I checked today to see why ATG would AfD two of the articles I started in one day, and it became clear. For my part I do not even post to ARS because of previous canvassing claims. But canvassing and posting uncivil remarks on WPO is ok? Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If claiming that someone born in 2010 "won the Junior Coca-Cola Battle of the Young Stars" the same year isn't muddle-headed, I don't know what is. And I'm still trying to figure out why you thought that Bigfoot allegedly being spotted somewhere in the same county merited inclusion in an article on a 12-cabin lakeside resort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It was an error, and you punished this simple math error by erasing the award entirely and then you immediately went to WPO to let them know that I was an imbecile. I had just moved the article to main and missed an error, it happens. Collegiality advises that another editor would catch the mistake and correct it. I am a reasonable person and I respond to reasonable people. I erased the other concern on my own. But "gotcha you imbecile!" does not engender collegiality. Lightburst (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably it wasn't 'a math error' that led you to describe the thirteen-year-olds junior busking-prize wins as a 'career'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to believe that you cannot add value to the project. When you think you are right you blast away without regard for other editors. For some reason your aspersions and gleeful-takedowns are tolerated. I spent the majority of my day trying to respond to your AfDs, your many comments, your accusations and your erasures. I only came here because you threatened me with it so you could keep your preferred version of the article. I will take a break now. Lightburst (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, Andy is unblockable. He might get a 48hr rip, but that's it. Nothing more will come out of this ANI. MinorRefiner (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, did Andy go to WPO to further push harassment of Wikipedia editors, as he's done in the past? Can you link that thread, Lightburst? It's good to have his harassment activities be out in the open. Silverseren^C 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, I see you added it to the original post. Good to know. I doubt much will be done. The other members of WPO who are editors here will likely defend Andy's ongoing harassment activities. They usually do. Silverseren^C 06:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffs please. and read WP:HA#NOT AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever revealed that the WPO account is you? Is it? Because if not, then linking to it as is being done is probably an WP:OUTING violation.

– 2804:F14:8081:3201:EC18:543E:106A:298E (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

He has openly acknowledged it in the past, yes. Which banned WPO member are you, I wonder? Silverseren^C 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren Way to assume good faith, I have a dynamic IP (2804:F14::/32) give me a break. I saw this question be asked at Teahouse (well, they didn't mention AndyTheGrump) and just felt like checking. – 2804:F14:8081:3201:EC18:543E:106A:298E (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst is an imbecile

Sorry, is this you? Andy, you have a long term history of harassing and insulting editors, along with organizing said harassment on WPO and being involved in purposeful outing of Wikipedia editors. The diffs for that are the dozens of prior ANI threads about your actions. Your history is well known by anyone who has been on Wikipedia for any meaningful length of time. Silverseren^C 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked for diffs. Either provide them, or retract. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No to both. Anyways, I'm off to bed (it's 2 in the morning here). I doubt anything will come from this thread anyways. Apologies, Lightburst, but there's no negative activity Andy could do that would realistic result in any detrimental outcome (though the 31 hour block a couple weeks ago was one bright moment). Ultimately, though, nothing will be done. Many, many past ANI threads have shown that. Silverseren^C 06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=357135

Was off wiki. Found by putting "Lightburst is an imbecile" into Google in quotes. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While there do seem to be issues with the Noah Robertson article in general, as it looks like some of the articles suggested to me in the Newcomer Tasks, Andy's response of "I'm not going to stop removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles" and the backpatting on WPO seems like a bad combination. It looks like Andy sees something arguably/blatantly wrong and then blows up while being encouraged to do so elsewhere. While sometimes his points are correct, for example the SurrealDB issue last month, other times it's way more arguable, like coming to ANI over seeing a quote from Andrew Tate in the DYK box the month before. Civility is usually a concern when he is relevant in ANI discussions, and Andy takes the suggestion to be more civil as a support of whatever issue he's bringing up, like when someone pointed out that obviously saying "fuck off, you crooked little grifter" would lead to a block. If he's right, the incivility issues are sucking the air out of conversations about the other issues at hand. If he's wrong, he blew up at someone for no good reason. This is definitely a problem, and it seems like a pattern that's been building up for awhile. I'm not sure what the solution is since the 31 hour block hasn't changed much. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As a fellow grump I just wish Andy (and anyone else, for that matter) would stop reading and contributing to the childish Wikipediocracy and make any comments about Wikipedia at Wikipedia, where they could lead to improvements. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I am amazed at how often AndyTheGrump appears in this noticeboard, having upset multiple editors and creating a massive timesink. It seems very odd that he is repeatedly given so much leeway when other offenders are very swiftly dealt with. Orange sticker (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised I how often I've seen this name pop up here. This is something that back when I was a new editor would have absolutely probably scared me off. Even just by looking only at the recent ANI threads I'd absolutely support a longer block then the 31 hours one for incivility. Not to mention doing what seems to be Canvasing on an off-wiki drama forum. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how off-wiki canvasing has occurred. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Talking about an AfD on a site that is extremely "critical" of Wikipedia. Is absolutely canvasing. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Would you agree that calling an experienced user in good standing an imbecile on WPO violates WP:OWH? And that if that was on wiki it would violate WP:NPA? Nobody (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss the first sentence of that policy, which reads "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of hounding, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy"? TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No I didn't. Nobody (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, so do you have evidence that 1) ATG has inappropriate tried to either publicly or privately communicate with the filler of this complaint and that 2) this was following hounding? TarnishedPath^talk 14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

He is clearly publicly mocking them on the Wikipediocracy board. I guess you could argue it's not harassment if its done behind the victim's back, but that's both a feeble argument and a moot point, seeing as they're now aware of it. You keep mentioning 'hounding' but user:1AmNobody24 has only brought up harassment in general.

Also, your defence of ATG here is not coming across as constructive fwiw, simply argumentative. Orange sticker (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1. WP:OWH says "directed at another editor" not "with that editor", you can think that calling another editor an imbecile is not directed at them, but I disagree. 2. I didn't say anything about hounding. Nobody (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Directing words at someone means to try to communicate with them. ATG did not harass LB on Wikipediocracy by saying not nice things about him, and ATG likely didn't even realize LB was a regular Wikipediocracy reader. How would that constitute harassment? Off wiki gossiping more like it. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As the IP above states, "directed at another editor" means precisely that the other editor is trying to be communicated with. What's happened at WPO is akin to pub talk, with no obvious intention that the OP be part of their audience. It is not actionable under WP policy. TarnishedPath^talk 03:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether the appearance of the word oblivious here is intentional or inadvertent. EEng 06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@EEng, autocorrect doing its thing. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath No need to wikilawyer this. It's (Redacted)] why you would disagree with applying any policy to WPO comments. Nobody (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a link to register for wikipediocracy? I think you have to be signed in to see this, and most of us aren't members. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The link is to the profile of the WPO user named TarnishedPath. Nobody (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unable to see that, because I'm not a Wikipediocracy user like you. Are you outing an editor? I don't see a disclosure on their user page here. You aren't allowed to link to editors social media profiles without their permission. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Might have been a mistake by me, I've mailed WP:OS about it. Nobody (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You've just bewrayed the existence of your own Wikipediocracy account - only your account is not under your WP username. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Traumnovelle, I don't have an account at WPO (yet). Since many of the discussions are viewable without an account, you can simply use the search function to find out if a certain term has been used or quoted in a comment. Using that you can find specific accounts even without having one yourself. Nobody (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The page you linked (that is now removed) asked me to login to view it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In this edit - [86] - you linked to a members only view. You can't see the link even if it comes up in a search, unless you are a member. Why were you so confident this numeric id was this editor here if you couldn't see it? 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

All comments at WPO have a link to the respective editors profile. You can find a comment by using the searchand use the comment to find the profile. Finding a profile can be done without an account. Seeing the profile page can't (I also only see the login page on that link, as I don't have an account.) Nobody (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24, I suggest you strike that statement. Calling you on claiming ATG had violated WP:OWH when you haven't provided evidence of that is not wikilawyering by any stretch of the word. TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is the WPO comment of ATG that says "Lightburst is an imbecile". I get why you, who I believe is a WPO user, doesn't want that WPO comments can have consequences on wiki. But if you seriously believe that calling someone an imbecile is ok and not harassment, then we don't need to continue this as you cleary have a different idea of what civility and harassment looks like. Nobody (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

An insult on another website is not "harassment" jfc. And yes, also a WPO user, so I suppose you can toss out AGF for me as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that insults can be a part of harassment. But thats debatable i guess. I'm not assumg bad faith with all WPO users, I actually agree with what you wrote here. Nobody (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not evidence of WP:OWH. Other editors and myself have told you that, but you refuse to listen. Yes I've recently created an account at WPO, however that does not justify your WP:ABF. I didn't write anywhere that anything is OK. It's clearly not a WP:OWH violation though. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There's many comments in this thread that call it harassment, so don't say the me having a different opinion than you and a few other editor is WP:IDHT. WP:IDHT literally says "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"." I hope you see the difference. I've stricked the WP:ABF sentence as I agree that it was too much. Nobody (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with everything said by User:Silver seren. IMO anyone dog whistling on WPO should be blocked for disruptive behavior, plus a three strikes and indef. WPO is disruptive and intentionally subversive of this site's norms. -- GreenC 15:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. BorgQueen (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Andy is blatantly failing at the core behavior policy of assuming good faith that frankly that alone deserves a block. Off-wiki insults are clearly hostile, period. Frankly, Andy is being an unhelpful, hostile detriment. Time to boot him. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't help the claims of being unhelpful.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternate version of 1984 where there's no totalitarian government, Oceania is a liberal democracy where Winston just works for the government doing a normal job, but eventually gets fired (no torture, just a normal pink slip) solely because he goes on a message board to call his coworkers fuckwads like nine hundred times in a row jp×g🗯️ 16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Takes me back. When I was a teenager in the late Cretaceous quoting from the Principles of Newspeak was very hot. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a Disco Elysium quote Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is sad. I was hoping that your recent incivility block would have changed you for the better, but now I see that you were actually proud of your actions. I suppose it was foolish to have such hope. Wikipedia is not some Orwellian dystopia, but chronic incivility from long time editors could fool some users into thinking it is. The last block gave Andy a chance to change, but since he either could not or would not, I strongly support an indef block to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of WPO. I don't have an account there and I will not get one but I think having a site outside Wikipedia that scrutinizes Wikipedia is a good thing. I think having Wikipedia editors there is a good thing. I also think it would be a good thing for those editors to remember that your actions follow you. Calling a Wikipedia editor names off Wikipedia when you, yourself, are a Wikipedia editor does affect the community negatively. We can't police other sites nor should we, but we can police our own community and our own actions within that community directed at fellow editors, whether on Wikipedia or off, when it comes to light. There are a million ways to express dissatisfaction with someone's edits without calling them names, whether it's considered being brutally honest or not. Sometimes it can become more about brutality than being honest. When we get there then we lose all ability to remain collegial and if that happens the message about the quality of content is lost. --ARoseWolf 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• How'd you know that ATG was on WPO, Lightburst? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  ATG uses the exact same name on there. And considering Lightburst had been mentioned there in the past. Would make sense he wants to keep an eye on it. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• So its alright for editors to call AndyTheGrump a bully like User:SnowRose has done in this thread - which appears to be on Wikipedia? Why is no-one proposing any action for that?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free to to propose it then. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion was rapidly spiraling, so I close the subsections that were ready for it. The remaining ones need a little more time to cook or for a consensus to emerge, so I've left those open for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. This is clearly contentious, and I appreciate you trying to get it resolved quickly to minimize the drama. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'll say it here since the section was closed below. Nableezy says people will work with others after they called them an idiot and imbecile off wiki and they might, I will not. I will not work with someone that repeatedly trashes and insults me off-Wiki, on-Wiki, by emails or otherwise if I know about it. No one should be subjected to the demeaning position of accepting that behavior and quite frankly no one should be forced to, as you are suggesting, as a requirement to edit on Wikipedia. We have the civility policy to promote a collegial atmosphere of editing and when there are issues we have venues like this where all the drama (I wish there was less) and all the legitimate discussion goes to find solutions. I don't think it is a matter of growing up and accepting that not everyone is going to like you. I think we all know that and I think the answer is you better faux act collegial and work together and stop this nonsense or you don't belong on a project and in a community where civil interactions is required. --ARoseWolf 20:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree people need to fake collegiality here, I do not agree that this requirement extends beyond the domains owned by the WMF. We do indeed have a civility policy, but it itself says that it applies to interactions on Wikipedia, not anywhere on the internet. nableezy - 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy, Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). And our reaction? Oh, well, he was right to revert those things. He's apparently too valuable to be subject to our normal requirements for behavior. Valereee (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Then bring those up? I havent said one word about Andy's behavior on-wiki, only the idea that anything off-wiki that is not actual harassment is not relevant here. nableezy - 21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, I've just brought them up...? The behavior pattern isn't exactly a secret. Andy's been benefiting from an assessment of his high level of competence vs. his high level of disruptiveness for a very long time. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I note that while WP:CIV explicitly applies only on-site, WP:PA, which is also policy, does have a subsection WP:PA#Off-wiki attacks which states that off-site behavior may be considered aggravating factors [for on-site disputes]. This does seem to agree with you that off-wiki behavior is (absent egregious violations like outing) not, by itself, sufficient to sanction an editor on-site. It also invites debate. The policy says, Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, which suggests that some degree of off-wiki behavior is indeed considered a personal attack.

  I think we would all agree that a hate-filled diatribe, pseduo-psychoanalyzing an editor, demeaning them, etc. would constitute a personal attack. I think many of us would agree that if someone posted to their X account, "Man, EducatedRedneck is such a cunt", even if that account was clearly linked to a user here, a one-off and off-the-cuff statement like that isn't worth considering a personal attack, even if it would be had it been said on Wikipedia. So I suggest that there's a line somewhere, past which we consider even off-wiki behavior to run afoul of WP:PA.

  I also think that, per WP:BEANS, we shouldn't try to determine where exactly the line is in advance; this invites folks to tap dance right up to the edge. Instead, it's a judgement call over whether ATG's behavior has crossed this line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  The very first line of WP:NPA is Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. The section on off-wiki attacks says, in full, Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. While it certainly does create ill will among people here, being "harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship" is not a prohibition, and I do not believe Andy has violated an editor's privacy, though I do not claim to have gone through every post he has ever made at WPO. nableezy - 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I respect that your interpretation of that policy is that it applies only to on-wiki behavior. I believe that, given its placement in that policy page, and using language similar to the lede of that page (Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.) that off-site attacks are also prohibited. I hope you can see how someone might come to this interpretation.

  I mention all this so we can focus the discussion on the areas where we actually disagree. I don't believe others are saying we should police what our editors do everywhere else on the internet, or that ATG has doxed anyone. I don't believe you're saying that we should disregard personal attacks. I believe the crux of the disagreement is on this policy we're discussing now, how it should be interpreted and applied, and perhaps whether we should change the policy pages to clarify (to reflect whatever consensus develops here).

  I'm also going to plug SnowRise's point below that there would be a privacy concern to extending WP:NPA to off-site. In particular, it'd open a door for bad actors to try to dox editors by finding accounts that could be related which say mean things, and ask the editor, "Is this you?" Regardless of the answer, that editor and external account are now associated, and the bad actors are protected from reprisal because they were "just trying to enforce WP:NPA". This is what gives me pause about enforcing WP:NPA on off-site behavior, even if my interpretation of the policy is valid. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposals concerning ATG

Proposal: 1 week block for AndyTheGrump

Because there's no clear proposal above, I propose that AndyTheGrump be blocked for one week for incivility, with the understanding that further incivility in the future leads to an indef.

Above, some users have called for or supported an indef. They are welcome to propose their own, harsher sanction if they feel it appropriate. Conversely, if other editors feel his actions were in poor taste but do not warrant a sanction, they may wish to instead propose a not cool to express displeasure but that they do not believe it to be actionable.

I propose a one week block for these reasons:

• AndyTheGrump is a prolific editor. That does not warrant special treatment, but it does mean an indef would deprive the encyclopedia of his well-acknowledge expertise. (The consensus seems to be that he is generally right on content.)
• An escalating block would leave the door open for improvement. Conversely, if he does not improve, saying "he didn't improve after a 31 h and 1 week block" is more persuasive than only "he didn't improve after a 31 h block". Thus, it would also make it easier to indef in the future.
• There is disagreement over to what degree ATG's comments on Wikipediocracy constitutes off-wiki harassment or canvassing. A harsh sanction has a high burden of proof. A lesser sanction may be more palatable in an ambiguous situation. This may allow users hesitant to indef to express their disapproval of his behavior.
• This is a matter for the community because 1) the off-wiki nature of the alleged offenses requires interpretation of policy and 2) there is disagreement within the community on to what degree sentiments expressed off-site are disruptive within Wikipedia itself. Both of these make it less likely that an uninvolved administrator would be comfortable unilaterally issuing a sanction without the community clarifying its stance.
• This thread has the potential to be far more heat than light. I'd like to have a proposal on the table so we can resolve this situation more quickly and either let ATG get back to editing or else administer a sanction to prevent disruption.

EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 week as pointless/insufficient. Support indef. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, are you opposing because you see a one week block as preventing an indef, or because you see a one week block as worse than no block? (Or some third option I didn't think of?) I realize I was not clear in my post that I view any one week block as being automatically superseded by, rather than preventing, an indef. The one week is more, "Can we agree on at least this sanction" rather than "this is the only sanction." 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I support a block, and I also support a longer one than this, jp×g🗯️ 17:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But I do not think it needs to be forever. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef at this point it’s obvious he will never change.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• 3 week block; I don't really see how this particular case should end up in an indef. The logical reasoning is sound, and what's called canvassing above reads to me more like frustration over a clear-cut case for deletion at AfD. Andy obviously cares a lot about the project, if maybe not so much about the people running it... but 3 weeks are going to sting already. ~ If he gets a 3 week ban every time he steps this egregiously over the line of civility, things are bound to change. My main question is why that hasn't been tried before. I feel like the community is trying to make up for prior inaction instead of trying to seek appropriate punishment. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Switching my vote to a procedural oppose as links to only 1 off-wiki comment have been given. One comment might be interpreted as an unguarded moment. I'd need diffs of actionable behaviour concerns since the last block to change my vote again. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Do Valeree's 3 diffs toward the bottom of this section not qualify? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• A block for this? For what happened in this instance? Strong oppose. Is this really the time? Bishonen | tålk 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

Oppose: Much ado about nothing. The off-wiki stuff does not seem to fall within the remits requiring action. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Again ATG is in the right, that is a terrible article about a minor who is not notable (that's a separate discussion), and the response to it be nominated was uncivil, but ATG has to dial down they're responses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support...but more than a week. A month ...plucked from the air. As ActivelyDisinterested says, ATG is obviously right in the instant case. But does he have to do it like that? As someone else has said, it's amazing how the same stuff keeps reappearing at ANI about ATG on a regular basis. They seem to have a clean block log for the last decade or more [Subsequently added correction: until the 31 hour block last month]. I suspect that's more to do with the old story of the balance between supporters and detractors here. (Supporters, as often is the situation in cases like this, are doing few favours for the editor they are supporting.) I think the bottom line is that something like a month block to grab ATG's attention is worth supporting, otherwise, he's heading for a CBAN - maybe not now but perhaps in 2 or 3 future ANI reports time. It's now got that trajectory and that would be a shame. ATG, tone it down. I'm going to put 'oppose' in the indef section. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support a month, per DeCausa. Given their clean log I don't think we're at the point of an indef yet (unless there is evidence of doxxing), but it needs to be made clear to Andy that their behavior has to change. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Moral support although I know it's not happening. ATG's incivility is not new, and this block of any duration isn't going to prevent more incivility so I guess by that definition, this isn't block eligible. But WPO is a long way from a reddit or twitter discussion where the audience isn't wikipedia editors, which it is on WPO (blocked/former/active or otherwise). Andy knew what he said would get Lightburst's attention, and mission accomplished. To say it's not worthy of a block is the ultimate in unblockable nonsense because he's an editor of long standing when less tenured would be blocked for much less. @BilledMammal: he literally just came off an incivility/PA block. You may oppose but calling it a clean log is disingenuous. Star Mississippi 22:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Sorry, I misread DeCausa's comment. Struck. (Also, I supported). BilledMammal (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I misread that, apologies. And thanks for clarifying. Star Mississippi 22:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That's probably my fault - BilledMammal was probably following on from my comment that they hadn't been blocked for a decade. You're right of course - they had a 31 hour block last month. For PAs/harassment. The last block before that was 2013. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support although I'd prefer to see a month-long block. Andy, I've defended you several times before, and I've taken some rather harsh criticism for doing so. By continuing to treat other editors in an increasingly reckless and uncivil manner, you've made your defenders look foolish. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support for a month, I do not think ATG should be anywhere near the project and maybe one month will give them perspective to modify their behavior. ATG should have been blocked many times for worse. The project does not need anyone who cannot follow our core policies. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any block. See below. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any block. See below. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, even for a month, given the long-running incivility issues. Behavior at Wikipediocracy is very much impacting what happens on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be ignored. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient diffs which support this. The OPs claim is that ATG was following them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion and this is not substantiated. The WPO stuff is not within our remit to police. Frankly I think there should be some sort of discussion about OP continuing to have the autopatrolled given the two obviously deficient articles they produced which are before AfD. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support based on what is being reported here. I haven't read the actual WPO thread and don't plan to read it. ATG seems to have unlearned a lesson that served him well for a decade. Some sanction is needed, between 1 and 4 weeks. An indef is not warranted at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTPUNISH. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose after reading all this I'm more concerned by @Moneytrees report about Lightburst using multiple accounts to support his votes than anything here. What Andy said isn't polite, but much worse behaviour happens all the time, including from admins. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support I was not happy with the incivility directed at the DYK crew recently, and with this it is seeming like a pattern. Bruxton (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support I’m an uninvolved user with zero stake in this. But judging from this report, I do see that many of Andy’s comments are indeed uncivil and I’m a little surprised at how he’s able to get away with it for so long. I presume there is more leeway for experienced editors because if Andy hadn’t been one, I feel like he probably would have been blocked relatively quickly. While I understand that a sockpuppet might be a bigger issue (which will probably be taken care of if lightburst is indeed outed/proven to be sock), that doesn’t excuse Andy’s behavior. I think a week at the very least is needed. He’s been doing it for a long time so it’s clear he doesn’t have any intention to stop.

But that’s just my opinion. I have no ill will towards Andy and haven’t even interacted with him. I just randomly came across this and decided to give my two cents based on what I’ve read. I hope that with time he can come to the understanding that he can’t be uncivil here if he’s not indef blocked by the end of this. He’s a prolific writer so I hope he does come to terms and change. But we’ll see. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose LB's socking warrants an block, not anything ATG has said. Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support one-month site ban – this is unacceptable conduct. Not to the point of needing indefinite ban imo, but we can't let him keep doing this and significantly contributing to other editors' retirements because they had enough of attacks from this user. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – since this proposal specifically references "incivility" as the reason for the block, then evidence is required in the form of diffs that a block is needed and/or required for incivility in relation to Andy's interaction with Lightburst, here, on Wikipedia. The diffs that Lightburst provided up above do not warrant a block. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can all see the post on Wikipediocracy though, right? And we all know that it was Andy that posted it? How is this not the very definition of wikilawyering? – Joe (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support 1 week block to 1 month block I came across this thread thanks to a non-WPO offwiki discussion. The fact that ATG is uncivil is not under question at all, just whether or not he is "productive enough" to evade sanctions. This double standard, applied by so many admins and more, is too not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. I oppose sanctions based on off-wiki conduct. But even in this thread, he has skirted the civility line enough that I support sanctions. Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I read all the carry on here and I am disturbed that Andy was calling another editor "an imbecile" (regardless if it was off-wiki). It's good if Andy writes good content on Wikipedia but his behavior recently is inexcusable and he cannot continue to make comments like this. Then it might lead to an indef block. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the indef proposal falls through I will support literally any other sanction there is consensus to implement. My personal fallback proposal is 1 year followed by indef for next infraction. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as over the top, although I understand the community's concerns for one of our founding principles. However, I also note that civil incivility is far more intrusive, far more common and frankly, far more damaging to said community. Civility is often seen as being a cement that glues it together; but, rather, passive incivility—greater concern for words rather than meaning?—is a solvent that eats away at that cement. ——Serial Number 54129 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know what you’re on about. Andy is notoriously difficult to work with because he lashes out like this regularly, and this is openly tolerated and even defended. That is corrosive to the community. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose A block of any type for such a puny, off-site slight would be nothing other than punitive. Here's a radical idea: How about spending an order of magnitude less time wailing about feeble scoffs like this and, instead, spending that time constructing a well-sourced, reliable encyclopedia? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's a consistent pattern that is not changing in the face of previous sanctions, than an indef (not another timed block) becomes preventative and not punitive. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  How does an indef ban prevent someone calling someone names offsite? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't, it prevents the rest of us from having to interact with them on this site. I don't want to have to work on this website with people who harass or regularly talk shit about me or other editors in public off-wiki fora, as a general principle. I think it's an overreaction in this particular case, but in other cases -- where what people said was worse -- I think an indef from this website can be an effective preventative measure, preventing disruption to people on this site. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support and log my disappointment at the resistance from members of the community to holding editors accountable. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support now that it’s become clear an indef will never happen. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support as second choice to indef now that that's not happening, I guess. But I see a timed block as more punitive; no less hope that we see real change going forward. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support since the indef seems to have had no consensus. 1 week block I guess. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - While the indef doesn't have consensus, I still believe something needs to be done. As Valereee points out, Andy has been calling people idiots and morons this month on-site. He's been warned in the past about this behavior, he's been blocked recently for this behavior, and still hasn't made any noticeable changes in how civil he is on-site since the warning or the block. And, as I pointed out earlier, the incivility takes the air out of conversations that should be happening. You can see it here, where in some arguments calling the pattern of incivility unacceptable might as well be a defense for "making bad articles", "COI issues", "sockpuppeting and vote manipulation", and so on. He's been warned about it, there's been no acknowledgement of this issue or want to change, and it's a drain to have to fight through it. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been suggested above (I guess assuming maybe people aren't aware of the ongoing issue) that I bring up that Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). So there it is. Were the reversions correct? Sure. Should Andy learn to adult? IMO, yes. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Purely for the fact that it will at least log the discussion and the community's continued exasperation with his behaviour. Based on the extensive record of Andy's failure to to acknowledge community concerns or adjust his approach, I entertain not the slight wisp of a hope that this will actually result in a tangible adjustment of his perspective or behaviour, and anticipate that we will be back here (if the pattern holds, within a couple of weeks or months at most) soon, with another voluminous timesink of a thread and much acrimony--in which I suspect 40+% of commenting community members will still somehow fail to see that this user is WP:CIR-incompatible with the baseline level of self control expected of our contributors. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef Block for ATG

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

---

Better to have Indefs in its own section. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef based on what I have read here. It's clear ATG won't change. The community has delt with his abhorrent behavior long enough. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". Copied from above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Let me be clear, since the Unblockable Turn has begun. This is not an indef merely for calling Lightburst an imbecile, but for long-term intransigent incivility mixed with a healthy does of canvassing (yes, in case there's any doubt, canvassing applies to (a) partisan audiences, (b) off-wiki recruitment, and (c) non-neutral messages -- take your pick -- and Andy has both participated and been willing to be canvassed). If putting on blinders to the past with an incredulous "block over this one thing??" isn't already part of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, it should be.
  Even if we do look at this one thing, here's what happened: Lightburst has been harassed at WPO in the past, with users diving into a range of personally identifying information that, to the best of my knowledge, LB never disclosed on-wiki. Andy knows about this because he participated in not just that very thread but the thread where that personal information was copied over on-wiki. This is all just context. Now someone posts a link to an article Lightburst wrote and Andy was only too happy to be canvassed to nominate it for deletion. Then Andy dug into LB's contribs and found another problematic article, canvassing on WPO and overtly insulting LB in the process -- again, in a forum where Andy knows LB has been targeted in the past. When confronted on it here, Andy not only fails to display any sort of self-awareness or contrition but but continues to dig in. I would spend time, as anyone should, taking a stroll through the noticeboard archives to link to some of the copious past discussions where Andy is asked/warned/pleaded with, but I'm skeptical those opposing don't already know about all that, so I'd want to know exactly what sort of pattern would be convincing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That thread discussing Lightburts's RL identity revealed that he had been editing articles to which it could be reasonably construed he had a conflict of interest. Obviously Lightburst felt harassed by the (off-wiki) disclosure of his personal information necessary to reveal the COI, but I don't really think it was an attempt to harass him, as he wasn't the intended audience of the conversation. Obviously, getting the balance right between properly investigating COI and trying not to harass Wikipedia editors is tricky, but I think discussing personal information of editors off-wiki is reasonable when there is the reasonable suspicion of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• "He was not the intended audience for his own doxing". I think I'll take a break from this place for a little while. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for completely misrepresenting my comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not like everything on WPO is evil, but this is easily the least defensible and most stupidly excessive thing that happens there. He "felt" harassed when he got doxed on a messageboard by people who afterwards followed him around to call him nasty names and make fun of his articles indefinitely? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a joke. I don't agree with the tone of all the comments and threads made about Lightburst by the various Wikipediocracy users, but there were legitimate COI issues that were worth discussing in an off-wiki venue, and that required discussing his personal information, which is completely impossible to address on-wiki. Were Nihonjoe or Thmazing "harassed" by the Wikipediocracy discussions exposing their real-life identities that led to them being sanctioned for COI issues that couldn't otherwise be discussed without understanding their real-life identities? Also, as recently revealed Lightburst is a sockmaster who engaged in deliberate and deceptive votestacking in dozens of discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That is a complete bullshit report, opened, closed, and concluded by Moneytrees based on zero evidence. I welcome any checkuser looking at my account. I have no socks and I have asked Moneytees to have the integrity to retract his half-assed accusation. And BTW, I am glad that you and I have not feuded in years. At the same time I am saddened that you are still jostling around with the WPO crowd. You are a better editor than that. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was double-parked across a handicapped spot and a bike lane." I mean, true, it's bad to do that, but I don't really see a connection between the two. There wasn't any other action available? What was even the connection? jp×g🗯️ 23:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Given one of the articles that started this was about a non-notable minor and originally contained the name of they're younger sister I think it's more "Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was drunk driving down the street erratically." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef per what I said earlier.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef - Over a decade of civility issues with no signs of even an attempt to improve means I cannot support anything less than an indef. This has gone on long enough. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) (moved from 1 week block proposal section)
• So, if I'm against any block at all over this contretemps with Lightburst (in which I'm surely not alone), am I supposed to oppose twice? OK. Strong oppose. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
• Oppose I can't stop foolish overreaction, but I can turn my face from it. ——Serial Number 54129 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unneccessary. I don't see why calling out Lightburst's incompetence (which wasn't even done on-wiki) is deserving of an indeff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Calling out incompetence and calling someone an "imbecile" are two very different things. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that every time something like this happens, the WPOsters will show up to say stuff like this about how it's a gigantic witch hunt, but nobody (or at least nobody worth taking seriously) is saying that everyone should be put under 24/7 offsite surveillance, or people should be indeffed for having a drink with their mate and saying "that guy on wiki sure is a dick eh?", or that all WPO posters should be blocked, or that the site should be seized by INTERPOL, or that all pseudonymous WPO posters should be dramatically unmasked, or whatever other dumb strawman -- just that you shouldn't make an account with your same username on WPO and then say indef-worthy stuff to other editors there, continuously, for months/years. I feel like even a child could understand not to do this. Is it really that complicated? jp×g🗯️ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You should probably re-read the definition of "straw-man". And "irony". Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a really great point, thanks. jp×g🗯️ 20:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: An indef for what's presented here would be ridiculous. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef at this point. While the specific issue reported probably isn't enough for one, it's moreso the long track record of incivility, consistent failure to assume good faith/resorting to insults and biting, and seeming utter failure to learn from past sanctions (Seriously, quoting 1984? Using that to imply that you're being "silenced" isn't a great way to defend yourself). The WPO thread (insulting another editor, on another website entirely) is a cardinal sin, at least in my opinion. As I've stated in numerous other forums here, we cannot continue to let experienced editors perennially get a pass for policy violations solely because "their content contributions are too valuable" or "but they were correct." If ATG had <1,000 edits, an indef wouldn't even be a question here. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  So THAT'S what he meant by the quote. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The off-wiki comments cited as the justification for this don't merit an indef. If all folks who have ever thought me an imbecile were to be blocked, there would be only tumbleweeds remaining here. Lightburst needs a thicker skin. Deor (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't have a firm opinion on the section above, but an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here. And he's not perfect. I'm not condoning the over-the-top use of "imbecile", but I do understand the frustration. I'll also note that a couple of the people anxious to see Andy punished, while not saying the word "imbecile", sure are free with the personal comments themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here

  There's been countless examples of "valuable" editors getting away with policy violations that newbies would be immediately indeffed for, purely because of some conception of opportunity cost that their contributions outweigh their bad behavior. The buck has to stop somewhere - the completely arbitrary class system this treatment enforces, in which users gain effective immunity from punishment if their contribution count can outrun their violations, will ultimately harm the project in the long run. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm required to support an indef, rather than something else, or else I'm some kind of class warrior letting Andy "get away with" something? Ugh. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, but it’d be nice if you acknowledged that Andy is basically abusing his status as BMOW (big msn on wiki) to get away with literally anything. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Kip. The histrionic reaction to be called out for failing to work collegially and engaging in detrimental behavior shows a lack of comprehension of the problem in itself, let alone atonement for the issue. This is just obvious as an uninvolved editor seeing just what's in front of me here. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose complete overkill. Agree with FLoquenbeam, Andy actually does some good work here. And that some of the supporters are at least very close to making personal attacks. Yeah, no free passes, but a block won't be a free pass. @Deor:, I love your comment. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller as Deor rightly observed, personal attacks build character, and the sixth pillar of Wikipedia is the nobility of struggle. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND and being right isn't enough. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  If this thread is closed as no consensus I would suggest going to ArbCom which has historically been more willing to ban productive-but-disruptive editors. See eg. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. What's the point? Blocks are preventive, not punitive. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  You might want to read some of the other comments in the thread first, regarding the fact that he has been doing this for a very long time, was blocked for it previously, and responded to people asking him to stop calling other editors imbeciles under his same username on WPO by posting a 1984 quote about totalitarian censorship. What, of this, makes you think he's stopped doing this, or has any intention to stop? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's no fucking way I'm clicking on links to hate websites. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  So to clarify: you are asserting the stuff he said is not blockworthy, but you have also literally have not read the stuff he said, and refuse to do so, even though the site he said it on was apparently so bad as to make anything posted there presumptively hateful (but not bad enough to block people for posting it)? jp×g🗯️ 20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, LilianaUWU’s case seems to be “I’m looking the other way, again” if I’m reading it correctly. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Floquenbeam and others. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support not because of any specifics but for violating WP:JERK for the 10 millionth time and because it would set a precedent that talking shit about editors elsewhere is not tolerated. There are always more potentially good editors, but they’ll always be driven away by the toxic culture created by ATG and his fellow unblockables, creating a vicious cycle where we can’t block people considered valuable to the project because there’s no-one else to take their place. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. Escalating blocks may make this necessary, but it's skipping steps to go here at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not skipping steps if Andy should have been sanctioned a long time ago. Dronebogus (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  But they weren't, however they have recently been blocked for 31hr due to incivility. We're in the middle part of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it". If we back here again in a month's time, I will agree with a stronger sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I also support a month-long block instead of an indef, I think the message of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it" is only conveyed by an indef block. A time-limited block will expire whether or not Andy has stopped it. And there's realistically little reason to believe that he will. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I worried that wasn't very clear, were at no really stop it (the middle part). The you can't edit again til you stop it part is the next step if we're back here discussing the same issue next month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  By my math, it looks like we're at the end of Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it. The lead-up to the 31hr block, when he came to ANI about the Andrew Tate DYK, came with a Stop it, saying if it happened again it was a block. Then the SurrealDB instance happened, which put us at no really stop it with the 31hr block. This right now is step three, we're at you can't edit again til you stop it. If that means nothing should happen, and we wait until step 4, that's different. But it looks like we're at the end of the line. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm distinctly discussing blocks so your maths is off. If you want to judge it differently that's fine, but it's not what I'm saying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. In retrospect, I should have inferred that from the italicization. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - as whatever happens outside of en.wp, outside of actual off-site harassment, is not something that en.wp has the jurisdiction to police. See nothing on wiki that merit an indef or even a long block. nableezy - 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  What do you consider necessary to constitute “off-wiki harassment”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Doxxing, coordinating hounding campaigns, email spamming. Somebody said something mean about me in a public forum is not that. nableezy - 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty sure Lightburst was doxxed and hounded to some extent Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lightburst was doxxed by ATG? I won't ask you to link it, but if you can maybe email the evidence to ArbCom? If true, that would warrant a site ban in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It’s discussed above, make of the evidence what you will. Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've not seen evidence provided for that specific claim. I've seen some editors opine that WPO is not a good place because doxxing occurs there, however no evidence of ATG doxxing LB. TarnishedPath^talk 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• After thinking about it, support indef. I think I've had enough of WPO people talking shit about us, and off-wiki harrassment should be punished the same as on-wiki harrassment. Criticism is fine, but calling us imbeciles isn't. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @LilianaUwU: So thankful you saw reason Dronebogus (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Who is us here? Is Andy, or am I, not of this body because of our participation in a forum that discusses Wikipedia (and its many faults)? nableezy - 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Andy is part of this community. That's why we are having this discussion. When you agree to edit you agree to afford other editors a certain level of respect, even when you absolutely disagree. We are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki. You don't stop being part of this community when you log on to another website, with your WIkipedia username by the way, and trash talk specific editors and tear then down no matter what validity the content claims have. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You can shit talk off Wikipedia but to claim that when you do, it should no affect on how fellow editors interact with you here because they should just ignore you shit talking about them is just absurd. We aren't policing those websites. We are policing our community, regardless of where comments are made when it comes to light. There is nothing we can do if we can't prove it is you and you deny it but we can in this case. We have the evidence Andy trashed talked another member of his and our community. We can not tolerate that if we are to be taken serious, if we are actually here to build the encyclopedia and improve on it according to foundational principle. Andy wasn't discussing Wikipedia and it's faults, of which their are many. Andy wasn't even only discussing bad edits by Wikipedians, of which we can agree there are issues. Andy was trash talking a specific Wikipedian and fellow member of this community, degrading their intellect in a manner he knew would be found almost as if in defiance of previous blocks he has received for this very action. He shouldn't be a part of this community if he doesn't want to police his actions on or off Wiki or have his actions policed when he presents himself with his Wikipedia username on those sites where it can be linked and everyone knows it is him. --ARoseWolf 14:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Re We are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki. WP:CIV specifically says it governs interactions on Wikipedia. Of course people are going to look at Andy a certain way when they know what he thinks about them, but part of being a grown up is understanding that not everybody likes you, some people think you're an idiot, and you work with them anyway. I am 10000% certain that people I edit with despise me. That is a normal part of having conflicting views and ideas. I do not think requiring people to maintain a faux respect for one another outside of the four walls of Wikipedia is a reasonable thing to ask for. nableezy - 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - Even leaving out the WPO stuff, it's pretty clear that the incivility on-wiki is a recurring problem. As I mentioned before, it sucks all the air out of the problems being brought up (the articles do seem genuinely not good! There are obvious issues with COI here!) and then issues with his incivility are treated as de facto defense of whatever issue Andy brings up. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that the civility is an issue, and it largely seems like Andy views the incivility as justified. He's already been blocked once, and already had major issues with civility before said block, and is still having these issues. It's clear something needs to be done to keep this from happening again. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 21:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per nothing actionable here in the initial complaint. Seems clear to me that Lightburst was hoping for another round of drama with ATG at ANI, and they got their wish. The article they created should have been nominated for deletion, which is in delete snow territory now, and getting pissed off about an AfD, isn't a good look for Lightburst. It also seems obvious to me the only reason LB brought up WPO was to fan the flames, which again, isn't a good look for LB. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support for the shorter block above. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef I'm seeing actual harm being caused here, both to the project as a whole in the time spent on the multiple debates over his behaviour and the precedent it may set in regards to acceptable levels of civility, and to individual editors who are being bullied both by ATG and his supporters. There is no amount of positive contributions that could ever outweigh this. Orange sticker (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this would be shooting the messenger and pretending the actual problems (articles which the community is producing a strong consensus to delete being created) are not problems. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how holding Andy accountable for chronic incivility (for which he has already been shown considerable grace) is tantamount to ignoring the other issue. The article problem is being dealt with at AfD; why should that preclude us from dealing with the behavioral issue here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef The community has spent far too much time dealing with Andy's incivility. You don't get to ignore the fourth pillar of wikipedia just because you're right. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef. Though being right is not enough, is an indef really warranted because of ATG's repeated usage of the word "idiot"? I've heard worse from elementary schoolers. I'm aware NPA reads Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. However, this implies that the severity of the attacks matters. If Andy were to call someone an idiot in every diff, I'd support. If there have only been less than a dozen occurencez this year, a block is overkill. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef, mostly per the opposers because it's clear they won't support any accountability for Andy and Andy won't change on his own. Separation from this project is really the only option left. Being right isn't enough. Plenty of people manage to be right without being offensive, with the side benefit that those people aren't creating a distraction and making the issue about themselves, instead of whatever the real issue was. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. See below. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• support. it seems that if andy thinks someone is in the wrong, he must reply with abuse. ltbdl (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. I can count on one hand the number of times I've supported an indef that amounts to a CBAN for an established editor. If anyone wants my impressions on why I think Andy represents a more than large enough cluster of issues and timesinks for this community to justify one in this case, I have a post towards the top of this thread that should more than adequately explain my impressions. I'll only add here (and I don't normally like to made broad stroke observations about my fellow community member's !votes, but I think it's necessary on this occasion) that a number of the opposes I have seen here seem to have not done very much in terms of due diligence in looking at the long term behavior here. When looking into the current issues, I opened Andy's contributions history and I couldn't even find the edit I was looking for on the very first page before stumbling across an edit summary where Andy called someone an idiot. In fact, this kind of hostility is peppered throughout the history, and those are just the edit summaries.
  I mean, people, it was less than two months ago that Andy opened a thread here at ANI titled "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?", while there were already multiple threads open on the page examining his conduct. It's like he's flaunting his belief that he will never face consequences for this kind of thing. Honestly, if someone were to present me with evidence tomorrow showing that Andy's entire tenure at Wikipedia was part of a social experiment to examine just how broken our processes are for arresting the disruption of serial civility violators once they have achieved a certain level of social cache here, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. It's no wonder the WMF and the broader movement is slowly encroaching on our independence in the area of moderating abusive conduct. I don't agree with it, but you don't need to look beyond this situation to understand why some feel it is necessary.
  It's not just that Andy is unrelentingly hostile in the face of the least amount of conflict; he also just never seems to have given so much as a syllable's worth of acknowledgment that there's anything in his approach that needs addressing. I'm sorry, but if you think he hasn't earned an indef at this point, you either didn't really put much effort into looking into the history of issues involving him, or you might as well just support the codification into WP:CIV of a standard that it doesn't apply to longterm contributors. Because arguably nobody has been wiping their ass with it longer and with less consequence than AndyTheGrump. Bluntly, it's an embarrassment for all of us on an equivalent level of Andy's own inability to control his temper. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No diffs have been presented which would justify an indef. The OPs claim is that ATG followed them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion. That claim is not substantiated as nominating obviously deficient articles for deletion is not evidence of following someone around. At best we have some minor incivility which does not justify an indef. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef at this time. ATG seemed to have learned a lesson for a decade. One final warning is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  final warning? really? ltbdl (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Much ado about nothing or much ado about very little. The drahmabordz need their pyres periodically... Carrite (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per established procedure where actions off-wiki can be reported to Arbcom but are not a breach of Wikipedia policy. The diffs presented of on-wiki events do not warrant this sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• support; being right isn't enough & per SnowRise. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose LB's socking warrants an indef block, not anything ATG has said. Mztourist (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – I think a one-month block would be enough. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  If we aren’t indeffing could we at least make it a little less of a slap on the wrist? Maybe a block of one year, with an indefinite block on the first offense (no matter how minor) after that? We cannot tolerate Andy racking up moderate infractions any more because he’s already racked up so many and refuses to change. My patience has personally run out, but I’d tolerate him if he can contribute without further incident. Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I do agree that some sort of non-small action definitely should be taken against ATG here. I feel that a one-week block is too small, but that a one-month block might be enough to turn them around. They edit everyday regularly enough that missing out on 30 days of editing would probably suck a lot. Also consider that they were blocked once previously for personal attacks last month, for 31-hrs, and the last blocks before those were more than 10 years ago, and so don't count towards my ban length decision here. From 31-hrs to 1-month seems like a good step up in length for repeat offending to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't much care for taking sides in these kinds of things, but I am concerned that there is even a suggestion that an editor who, all agree, does a good job might be indefinitely banned because of comments they made off wiki about an editor who brought it here, and, per Moneytrees, has a long history of evading responsibility. This is not indef worthy. Also concerning would be the aninymous editor(s) who jumped on to this with talk of 'unblockables' to manipulate for some kind of decusive action. I don't think we should be manipulated. No indef for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  This attitude of “it’s okay for a good contributor to be abusive if their target is bad” attitude is why we’re here in the first place, and why we’ll back in a month if nothing is done. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  39 comments from you and rising. If we are back in a month with something banworthy, we will deal with it then. But not for this. No, no, no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not put up straw men. The oppose voters largely maintain that 1) off-wiki discussions are not in the purview of on-wiki behavioral norms, and 2) insufficient evidence has been presented of on-wiki incivility. Both of these are valid points, even if I'd disagree with their premises. I would suggest that your desired outcome is more likely if you find on-wiki diffs of incivility by ATG and present those. If no such diffs exist, it's time to accept that this isn't a "right vs wrong" situation, but just two groups with different interpretations of what the guidelines encompass. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - site ban for calling someone an imbecile is an overreaction. There are options to choose from between "do nothing" and "death penalty." There are options between "be perfect" and "be gone." Levivich (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the the argument for the site ban is a long-term pattern of incivility, not just this latest incident. Snow Rise sums it up best above. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that but didn’t want to look like I’m bludgeoning. Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

By posting a comment anyway, you have failed in that endeavor. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-mistaken indentation comment) Highly experienced WP:BLUDGEONing continues: cf. as DB knows well. Quote: persistent bludgeoning of the debate. Echoed above by Sirfurboy. ——Serial Number 54129 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose dragging up old crimes is a reoccurring theme here. Dronebogus (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, while calling somebody a gump is well worthy of a site ban and this user does so repeatedly on a daily basis, not piling on community pilings on frees up time to pursue other fresh meat. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  A gump? Dronebogus (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Run, Andy, run. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - due to continuous pattern of OWH and insulting editors for no other reason than because he thinks he's right. The more I think about it, the more I realize that WPO is a worthless rag and waste of bandwidth. Purge this incessant drama for good by giving timeouts to both editors lasting until they can explain why they should be let back on. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose See section immediately above. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Quit trying to win content fights by bringing up the same nonsensical whining about what happens other places. If this was anywhere but WPO, people would be calling for heads due to doxxing. Lulfas (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy's on-wiki actions were nominating two subpar articles written by Lightburst to AfD and trying to bring one of those articles, on a minor, into some sort of BLP-compliance pending deletion. I'd be frustrated too. An indef for this particular incident is not warranted, in my opinion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Andy has made it very clear over the years that he considers WP:CIVIL to not apply to himself. Any editing dispute can quickly turn into an excuse for him to insult, berate, and otherwise put down those who disagree with him. Carrying it over to WPO is just icing on the cake. I do not believe that the community must simply pretend it didn't happen because it's on another site, especially since what happend on WPO is just an extension of his behavior here. Enough is enough. His history of good editing should not allow him to ignore one of our central pillars. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - the civility policy applies to everyone, and it dictates that all Wikipedia editors deserve dignity and respect from their colleagues. Publishing juvenile insults about a specific identified editor is unacceptable, and it does not magically become acceptable just because it's done on a "criticism" website. That's an absurd argument, just as absurd as arguing that recruiting editors to support your point of view isn't canvassing if you do it on Reddit. On that note Andy has also very clearly violated the sockpuppetry policy by recruiting users from WPO to support their deletion crusades. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:CIV: apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia (emphasis added). nableezy - 18:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Does WP:OWH matter or does it not? That’s what I’m wondering here. Either you can make abusive remarks off-wiki, because OWH is functionally toothless due to “not being our jurisdiction”, or you can’t, because it’s valid and enforceable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I fundamentally agree with your points, but be careful not to venture into WP:BLUDGEON - you’ve been more than a bit active in this discussion. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think having a plurality of edits (including trivial edits like agreements and jokes) in a very active discussion is bludgeoning— to me bludgeoning is a very narrow offense that consists of aggressively replying to every single opposing vote or statement. But everyone is clearly getting itchy in the trigger finger so I’ll back off now. Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  As has been expressed multiple times - it’s one thing if it’s someone anonymously complaining on Reddit, or if their WPO account isn’t explicitly connected to their Wikipedia account. It’s something else entirely, and IMO sets a terrible precedent, if one is allowed to:

  • Go on a Wikipedia-focused site
  • Under their Wikipedia username
  • On an account that they expressly declare is the same person as their Wikipedia account
  • To repeatedly insult/belittle other editors
  • And does not receive any sort of sanction.

  At least to me, it’s in effect letting one off on a near-technicality - the idea of “well, it’s the same person, and they’re personally attacking another editor, but because it’s not on Wikipedia itself it’s perfectly fine” seems ludicrous.

  Again, this isn’t a call to police off-wiki behavior entirely - most of the time, such policing would venture into doxxing, and that’s obviously a non-starter. It just feels as if the “it wasn’t on Wikipedia” argument here is a weak/technical defense when ATG is explicit about his identity on both sites, and not to mention, is wholly unapologetic of his comments. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support; long term pattern of personal attacks and incivility. I think both sides should come out blocked/banned here. Cheers, Queen of Hearts ^talk 18:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Queen of Hearts, you may want to read WP:CHEERS. 143.232.226.130 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per shoot the messenger. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposals concerning Lightburst

One-account restriction for Lightburst

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

---

Perhaps only marginally related to the above, but per @Moneytrees: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightburst: If this had been discovered at the time, the Lightburst account would have been indefinitely blocked. LB was engaged in votestacking at AFD and at RFA. The fact that it wasn't noticed until just now means a block would be punitive, but I don't feel like we should just act like it never happened. Frankly I'm profoundly disappointed, whatever differences LB and myself have had, I didn't expect this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I think a more in depth discussion of Lightburst's behavior is also warranted, particularly WP:IDHT. AndytheGrump's behavior has been contemptible, but that doesn't mean their underlying point isn't valid. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Well, I know I literally just said blocks aren't punitive, but this is proving the point about unblockables, and how experienced editors will get less sanctions than newbies. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of a long, complicated oration about how this is a regrettable and shameful betrayal of the community's trust: "lmao". jp×g🗯️ 23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also "smh". jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also support. jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all three parts of the above. JPxG has the right idea here.Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also, I don't really know why this is in question at all, but I believe Moneytrees to be a thoughtful editor and a good arbitrator who is actively trying to promote the best interests of the project and the safety of its editors. And I am supposed to believe he is maliciously persecuting Lightburst??? See, this is why we need Wikipediocracy. It's not just the lèse-majesté of a credibly accused sockmaster making an accusation like that. I like a bit of lèse-majesté myself, sometimes, with a nice wine and a bit of cheese. I am sorry. I will come back when I have stopped laughing. A sitting Arbitrator is competent to make that finding. Of course he is. Lightburst really should be quiet now for the sake of his own dignity, and should get something just for being here after spending all day flouncing out, and being here to trash-talk an honest Arbitrator to boot.

Support. Seems preventative, allows that Lightburst hasn't socked in four years, but has teeth if there's recidivism. (I didn't realize WP:3X only applies if the sockmaster has already been indeffed.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It is 100% BS, and Moneytrees has no integrity. Moneytrees used 4 year old inferences to convict me in absentia. JSS, you lost your arb flag for your participation on WPO, and now you are degrading the office of admin by taking your marching orders from WPO with this meaningless proposal. I only have one account, please check. This is my last day on the project, and you can insult and dox some other editor who wants??? to volunteer. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody on WPO told me to propose this, which I'm sure you know because you obviously read it religiously every single day. I don't believe I have insulted you and I certainly have never doxxed you. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I thought there was in effect such a restriction on all of us, absent good reason, a declaration, and no double-dipping in discussions? So: duh? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - This is extremely poor behavior. I know Lightburst believes this SPI was done incorrectly, but assuming that this is a correct finding that's definitely something that cannot happen again. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, sockpuppetry is sockpuppetry, and even if this happened years ago, it would still be preventative to put Lightburst on a one-account restriction per this precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Per others. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per what everyone else has said.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Lightburst says they have left the project, scrambling their password on the way out, which mean there is little or no practical value in pursuing this proposal. Can we close it and move on to other things? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Malcolmxl5 I would like to leave a comment in the meantime please, thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's not that scrambled. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I never would have expected this. - ZLEA _T\^C

• Support precisely because the Lightburst account has allegedly been retired. A one-account restriction will be a useful reference should they attempt to avoid further scrutiny by editing under another account. And listen, I completely believe Moneytrees. Insulting their integrity is garbage behavior. Confession time: I drafted a Wm/LB SPI report in 2020 and didn't file it because I got sidetracked by the global pandemic, then didn't bother later because the Wm account stopped editing. Same evidence plus some IP info from logged-out editing. Absolutely slam dunk obvious sockpuppet behavior. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if I had filed in 2020, so my apologies for not doing my duty then. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I can't be the only one who suspects that Lightburst may not have scrambled their password username (?). Regardless, they did violate the community's trust, and if they decide to return, they should be restricted to a single account. This obviously does not change my opinion of Andy's actions. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, they claim to have scrambled their username, so look out for Brightlust I guess. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nice Indignant Flamingo. you have always been so mean to me. I have not quite closed the door at the moment and I corrected the username gaffe. FTR your report would not have revealed anything about at all about socks. I encourage you to file an SPI report. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
obligatory spongebob LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC) ^This might violate copyright. Lightburst (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) You might want to reread WP:COPYVIO, and US copyright law while you're at it. - ZLEA T\C 07:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Oh, for Christ's sake: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. jp×g🗯️ 08:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You know, there's no reason the Badsites Brigade can't link to Wikipedia's own masterful article on the dastardly website in question. Here, I'll do it: Wikipediocracy. Don't type it three times, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support the restriction as a minimum. We already know that Lightburst has a history of evasive conduct, and will be back somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert that is certainly an aspersion. I have no history of evasive conduct. You are usually much more careful with your words. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hasn't actually left. [87][88][89] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's civil but obnoxious. Leave it alone. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Andy, I’m impressed with the ballsiness of someone being scrutinized for their unacceptable behavior dancing on the line of acceptability. That doesn’t mean I condone it. This is exactly why you should be blocked— this impunity, your belief that you can say whatever you want in the middle of an ANI case against you with zero consequences or even raucous support. Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support and I'd go further insofar that if they would have been indeffed back then, why aren't they now? Socking is one of the biggest betrayals of community trust and I'd think that they should go through the process of having to request having a block lifted after a period of time like anyone else who has been found to have inappropriately used a sock. TarnishedPath^talk 04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• look I am obviously angry over the MT conclusion. I never have had or plan to have a second account. I was very upset over an SPI report with like five year old inferences. Imagine DoRD already communicated with me years ago over a shared computer, and then MT comes back years later and changes the outcome. It was out of left field. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Though LB should be indeffed for socking. Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for this restriction and strongly support a ban for this account / person behind it. Acalamari 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum and SUpport CBAN. Blocking would indeed have been punitive as JSS has noted, but as far as I know no such restriction exists for community bans. Their comments in this thread alone, as well as the alleged password scrambling antics, indicate to me that they are no longer interested in contributing constructively, and therefore I also support a CBAN. Pinguinn 🐧 08:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Confused Aren't we only supposed to have one account anyway unless they're WP:GOODSOCK accounts? So, is the proposal really saying Lightburst can't have a GOODSOCK account? DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think so @DeCausa. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 09:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose on a technical basis because we aren’t supposed to have more than one account unless it’s a GOODSOCK, which LB obviously isn’t using. So this is like telling a robber they aren’t allowed to steal. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Query. I realize now that I know even less about wikipolitics than I initially thought. I'll be asking a few questions (in my own userspace) once this has all been resolved. My pressing question is: what precisely is a 'one account restriction'? I was under the impression that we were permitted only one account (unless, for example, an admin testing account). *Flees from this noticeboard and scurries back to WikiProject Denmark* Svampesky (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  You can have multiple accounts if they’re disclosed appropriately. I think some people have like one for mobile or something; others just have them because reasons. Why we’re arguing about whether a sockpuppeteer can have such an account is beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Presumably the restriction would also prevent Lightburst from abandoning the Lightburst account and creating a new one for a WP:CLEANSTART. Is that the intention? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would presume that's the case. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Still opposing all these little incremental sanctions. Just ban them and be done with it. Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the CBAN gets up it's still subject to the WP:STANDARDOFFER and so they could be back after six months. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of question whether they will be back, but with LB it’s hard to tell. Add on socking and subsequent denial and we’ve got a whole new can of worms. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically prevent any new litigation over new accounts. No messing. ——Serial Number 54129 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Oh look, complaining about violating rules while violating rules. Lulfas (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This gram of flesh is more performative than anything else--a way to say "See, they're contrite and have suffered a sanction". A sanction for the sake of a sanction (I don't feel like we should just act like it never happen is pointless. If Lightburst decides to sock illegitimately, this measure is hardly likely to stop them. On the other hand, if Lightburst needs a LEGITSOCK in the near future, this does harm but no good. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum – severe votestacking. Queen of Hearts ^talk 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment since a few have asked: users are normally allowed to create multiple accounts, full stop. I have three. It's when they use multiple accounts problematically (as described by the sockpuppetry policy) that they may draw sanctions, and it's not that unusual for repeat multiple account offenders to be sanctioned with a single-account restriction, if their behaviour has not already warranted banning. I don't think it's the right move here, we're talking about an incident from five years ago with no evidence that any problem has continued past that report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Moneytrees report about Lightburst

@Just Step Sideways et al. Two things: 1; when I made this block I wasn't intending it to derail the discussion here, I've only read like 10% of it and I'm not sure of the block's relevance to the rest of it-- I discovered Lb's sock back in the middle of May, and only have had time to block it now. I didn't think he would deny it, as I think the evidence is pretty definitive, I thought he would admit it and apologize, and an ANI section or anything further wouldn't be necessary.And as far as I know, we were on good terms before? So I'm not sure if this discussion needs to happen here?

2; does this really address the problem though? Lb is right; This was ultimately about some socking that stopped four years ago. I purposefully didn't block Lb's main because I legitimately don't think it's fair in most cases to block someone for socking that old-- no matter how "big or small" they are. As far as I know, Lb hasn't socked since October 2020. But that's the thing.

He denies the socking here in the face of overwhelming evidence. He said in this talkpage message, where he "scrambled his password" (he is still arguing with people here as I type this though), that I didn't provide any evidence. There are over a hundred diffs which implicate him in the EIA I cited. "355"-- the socking is literally in the name, but Lb denies it. He accidentally admitted the socking with the screenshot he uploaded in 2019-- and any Commons admin can confirm this-- and now he's denying it. He says above that I have "no integrity". All I did was tell the truth. There were no rebuttals to what I said, just empty attacks and aspersions. I don't actually care if someone attacks me or whatever, But that's the thing.

Lightburst is anti-accountability and has evaded several sanctions because of this. This Tban is just another notch in that. In June 2019, under his previous username, he narrowly avoided an indefinite copyvio/disruptive editing block in this giant mess of an ANI thread (compare Levivich’s comments to this discussion), and then was later blocked for copyvios and edit warring; the comments at User talk:Lightburst/Archive 6-28-19 indicate nothing has changed over the years. An indef was only avoided because WP:CCI was mostly inactive at the time. Further copyright issues were found, and I know close paraphrasing continued into at least 2022. Then, there was the socking from 2019–2020. Then, there was the six month AfD Tban in November 2021, where Lightburst "retired" for just a bit over six months after the result. It seems like this was to dodge the sanction. Then there was the 2022 COI issues; Speaking on what I've seen as a functionary, Lb was cleared for it moving forwards and it deserved to go away, but if some of it had been brought up earlier in his editing career, I believe it is likely he would have been sanctioned. Then there was the 2023 AE warning for GENSEX/BLP issue, where Lb skirted a TBan. Then there was the May 2024 ANI thread on the same subject. Then there was the early 2024 RfA Tban vote; would that have passed if thegameplaying and votestacking was known about? If this edit warring to add suppressed content at RTH's RfA had been cited? If this oppose from Spicy's RfA had been cited?

Review the discussions I have cited, little has changed over five years when it comes to the way Lightburst interacts with others. Look up "lightburst" through the archives of ANI, or any WP: space, for the last few years, and you will find plenty of other warnings, examples of evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. This is happening in this very discussion right now. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over, there have been countless pointless dramas, and it is a tragedy that so much time has been sunk over someone who is only partially here in good faith, and should’ve already been blocked three or four times over. Anyone who is a regular at Wikipedia noticeboards knows this, and something is only happening now because I have the “time” and "evidence" and the "social capital" (the only time I'll ever say that phrase) to say something and be "safe" afterwards. And that's not fair for anyone else, it's against the spirit of this website. I rarely post to ANI because I hate writing at length about this kind of stuff, but that's what this kind of drama does; it wastes time, it drains people. Lb has been harassed, and there has been bad conduct from various other parties, but that does not justify the attacks and the evasiveness.

I want to give leeway to Lb, who is someone I see as a contrarian, which I think we need more of. We need editors who can say the unpopular thing, or point out the overlooked error, or the unfair policy. But there is overwhelming evidence that that is not the role Lb has ever played. I do not trust Lightburst when they say they are not coming back, so I think he should be either community banned, or topic banned from everything sans uncontroversial GA and DYK work. We need to end some of these narratives of people getting away with things again, and again, and again. It’s not cool that there’s one rule for people who know how to “play the game”, and another for those that don’t. That does not preclude anything else going on in these discussions-- please don't let this derail them, because that would go against the point I'm trying to get across right now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 09:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That EIA presented by you above is damning. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that damning. It's very easy to create a new account, follow someone around and agree with them on various things, and then -- viola! -- an EIA that looks "damning." The EIA isn't Money's only evidence -- there's apparently a deleted Commons upload, for example -- but EIA's are very easy to joe job. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I spent a while yesterday reviewing the connection between Lightburst and Wm335td, and the evidence I found (not the same as Moneytrees' evidence) makes me basically 100% sure they are the same person. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst's report about Moneytrees report

I have only been editing since Sept 2018 and I guess it is clear I was not very good. We should be proud that our systems work because like everyone, I am a work in progress.

1. 5 months after I started editing I was accused of CCI. - it never happened again
2. 8 months after I started editing, I was blocked for edit warring a blockquote - it never happened again
3. 3 years after I started editing the community did not like the way I operated in deletion discussions - I was TBanned for 6 mos - It never happened again
4. 3 years after I started I was accused of a COI - a functionary decided I did not have a COI - Moneytrees disagrees wants it reopened? More about that later - anyway it never happened again
5. Last year I was warned about Gensex after I questioned a hook we were going to run at DYK about a trans person - I never did that again.
6. My RFA behavior - I will own it. I stick up for the minority voters and I also vote angular to the majority sometimes - Not really sure what else to say about it, but I vote my conscience and it irks some editors
7. Some of this - I am not even sure how to respond to what seems like hyperbole and aspersions evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over...countless pointless dramas and some editorializing like skirted a TBan, and - dodge the sanction

And now a full 6 years after I started editing, I have gotten pretty good at it. But Moneytrees goes all the way back to the start. And back to a five year old closed case, where the presiding admin did not accuse me of being a sockmaster and took no action against me. On their own, Moneytrees reopens this closed case and labels me the sockmaster. Next Moneytrees connects me to a username that has guitar numbers in it; the folks at WPO are always talking about my alleged guitar collection. Do you know how many 300 series guitars there are, just in the Gibson line? The ones I can remember: 320, 330, 333, 335, 339, 340, 340, 345, 347, 355, 359, 369, 390. Then all the other guitar companies that have 300 series? And cars? And who knows what other significant numerical combinations are relevant to an individual? Also this connected account has been dormant for four years? The other evidence is that this account edited in areas where I edited. And the screenshot? I remember sending a screenshot to the admin (five years ago) to show the locked screen on a shared computer because the browser was locked.

So we have inferences and a five year old closed case that Moneytrees was compelled reopen and overturn. I am wondering why is Moneytrees is going back so far to reopen a 5 year old case about me. And then insted of just defending the sock investigation, they bring up all of these old cases where my editing and behavior was improved by the process? Why now, and why is this seemingly directly from the WPO's longstanding socking accusation against me - and with the same exact accusation? And why is Moneytrees trying to connect me to a dormant account on slim evidence. Again this is from a half a decade ago. And now moneytrees has indicated they would want to overturn the results of the COI conclusion? This exact COI claim is a long running accusation against me on WPO. So thanks to all who made me a better editor, everyday is a new opportunity to learn. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of Lightburst's autopatrolled right

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

---

It is clear that Lightburst has created two very obviously deficient articles given the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Robertson (musician) and the extremely likely result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. Given that it's not clear to me that their articles should be marked as automatically patrolled and I think that any future articles they create should be subject to the usual NPP. They've stated on their user talk that they've scrambled their username (Not sure what that means. Do they mean password?) and left the project, however I don't think we can guarantee that they won't be back and I don't think we should leave to chance. TarnishedPath^talk 04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Seems like an overreaction. Check my contributions before making a proposal. Would you propose that I unreview the GAs that I have reviewed, or unreview the hundreds of articles I approved during new page patrols? Or maybe that I not be allowed to review and promote content to the main page as I have done almost 500 times? At this point you are being punitive. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal of autopatrolled privilege. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support though LB should be indeffed for socking. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Mztourist on both parts of that sentence. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have worked with the editor and they are competent in content. Looks like that second article mentioned by the OP Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort is getting fixed up by an editor now. Bruxton (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that that AfD/article is fixable (at least on current evidence), but I agree with the general comment that the article was a less egregious failure. Yet it has existed for a year and the creator is now saying they don't have time to go looking for sources to show notability. After it has existed a year. It should not have been created without such sourcing by an auto patrolled user. So no, they should not keep autopatrolled. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy: This Bent's article may be a close call, but as I said, I have worked with Lightburst and they are competent. If they applied for the NPP perm without the backdrop of this place it would probably be granted. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  The point that another editor is fixing it now is actually a point in favor of removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled has no effect on the actual editor, if LB isn't really retiring it seems clear his creations benefit from being reviwed by others. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for all other support reasons. Acalamari 07:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. TarnishedPath^talk 07:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping @Cabayi: who granted the right. – Joe (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal for all reasons mentioned in this section and the one above. Pinguinn 🐧 08:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose anything else you want to bring up? Have you checked if Lightburst has ever made any spelling mistakes? Are they up to date with their taxes? Any outstanding parking tickets? Would you have ever brought this issue to ANI if they hadn't had the audacity to criticise ATG? This is a very obvious attempt at obfuscating the issue at hand, which is ATG's conduct. It should not be Lightburst's contributions that are under examination here, but the way they are being targeted by a WP:TAGTEAM organising off-wiki - and this just proves that point. Make a new thread if you are so concerned, and let the issue of ATG remain the topic here. Orange sticker (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Al Capone did get busted for tax evasion Dronebogus (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. When I posted about their NPP, I thought maybe I should check whether they were autopatrolled. Thanks are due to Carrite for improving one of the articles, but Lightburst is wholly responsible for their quality when they moved them to mainspace. Like any editor starting a new article, it was up to them to demonstrate notability and to make sure the article reflected the sources, followed BLP rules, and didn't contain embarrassing errors; or at least to catch and fixdeficiencies as soon as possible. Most editors don't have the autopatrol right, which is for the benefit of NPPers so they can skip articles by such editors if they choose to, because those editors can be trusted to almost always get it right. Lightburst has been getting it wrong, or been in too much of a hurry to mainspace their work, or something. Whatever's happened, their articles should be checked as is usual for new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically grandfather in. No messing. ——Serial Number 54129 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose on a technical basis LB is a sockpuppeteer. He shouldn’t be coming back ever unless he sufficiently apologizes for his bad behavior so throwing a minor sanction on top of a very likely CBAN is pointless, borderline punitive. It could be part of their unblock conditions that they will lose not only autopatrol but arguably even the ability to create pages, but that’s purely hypothetical. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I created the below section after Moneytrees report, because until that time I didn't think about proposing a CBAN. When I created this section what I was clear on was that there were two AFDs for shocking articles and when looking at the articles I saw purple ticks, indicating that they had been created by an autopatrolled editor. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support given the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Changing vote to neutral. I no longer support nor oppose indeffing LB so my original vote is moot. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. WP:APAT is a privilege (which I hold) designed to reduce the workload of the volunteers at WP:NPP. No-one who holds it should be putting dreck like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Robertson (musician) {WP:SNOW deleted) into mainspace. Narky Blert (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

...let alone defending it against deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I was just about to do this - it has no actual effect on LB, and the consensus seems quite clear - when I realized (a) Lightburst probably thinks I'm biased against him, and (b) due to my post below, everyone else probably thinks I'm biased for him. I don't think I'm involved, but it would still probably be unwise. But someone uninvolved should enact consensus here, to prune the open subthreads on this mess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two articles. Two obviously deficient articles that have no place in this encyclopedia, but I am far from convinced this is a long-term problem. Queen of Hearts ^talk 17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support This merely means that articles they create will get looked at by NPP. This is the norm in Wikipedia, not some type of severe measure. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support not a punishment, merely the standard level of scrutiny on new article creations. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support/this doesn't actually need a vote anyway Any single admin can take a look at users' page creations and determine whehter they should have the autopatrolled right, it isn't a big deal to revoke it as it doesn't have any actual effect on the users' ability to edit or create new pages, but it does seem there is a grwoing consensus here to revoke it, so if LB should want it back in the future it would need that would need approval from the community. From what I've seen I do think his creations benefit from being reviewed by others and if it were up to me I'd revoke it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal: indefinite WP:CBAN of Lightburst

For the evidence presented by MoneyTrees at Special:Diff/1233865430 above, I propose an indefinite WP:CBAN of Lightburst. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are all the section headers necessary @TarnishedPath? There’s already editors voting to ban in the Tban subsection… but whatever I guess… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 09:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would really prefer someone merging the sections. All it did for the above sections was create a false appearance of consensus against. Just make one "Sanctions on ATG" section and one "Sanctions on Lightburst" Soni (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soni, I've reorganised all the sections so that the proposals for each editor are together under headings for each one of them. Does that look better? TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, blocks and bans should be preventative, not punitive. The socking took place four years ago, so "warning" Lightburst with a one-account restriction should be enough, barring evidence of more recent socking. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby My comment is supporting a preventive ban, independent of the socking. There’s years of evidence of disruptive behavior which Lb has continued to engage in— the socking revelation just brought more of it out. So a ban is not punitive. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I really feel like these multiple proposals to sanction Lightburst, regardless of their individual merits, are not in good faith, and seem like a blatant attempt at obfuscation and possibly also intimidation to show the consequences of criticising ATG. This entire thread has long stopped being productive and now reflects incredibly badly on the community as a whole. Orange sticker (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Orange sticker, I would have went straight with this proposal if Moneytrees had written the comment I reference above before I proposed the the removal of autopatrolled. There's no bad faith here at all. I'd presume that most editors know that when they file a report here that it could very well turn into a WP:BOOMERANG because their own actions will also be subjected to scrutiny. I'd suggest you strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Boomerangs usually come as a result of the reporter's conduct in the thread itself or the edits/articles being disputed, it seems here there's been an attempt to rake up old dirt. The timing of the SPI is very strange and the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, so I stand by my belief this is an example of bad faith reporting. Orange sticker (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, this is not bad faith reporting. And the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, is simply not true as evidenced by at least a dozen comments/!votes being made today (so far), in the sections pertaining to the proposals for ATG. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support I believe that a ban for the misconduct of socking should be implemented as we ban socking editors regularly with WP:3X which does not apply to this case. Nevertheless, we should stop turning a blind eye to Lightburst's repeated misconduct, we should not continue to put up with such behavior just because they contribute to building an encyclopedia. Lightoil (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support persistent problematic behaviour that is not outweighed by useful contributions. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN with WP:STANDARDOFFER after 6 months (with a preference that a CU confirms this SPI, behaviourally or directly). Moneytrees gives strong evidence and Lightburst's accountability-evasion isn't something new. I am particularly reminded of ExclusiveEditor as a counter-example, where an editor willingly disclosed socking, was not disruptive at all since, and still had multiple admins oppose any unblocks. Here we have someone who clearly should have been blocked much before for various reasons, refuses to accept their socking, and continues to prove the unblockability. You do not handle that with "Okay now pinky promise to only have one account", you treat them like you would any other user caught socking. Otherwise what's the line Lightburst needs to cross to really get blocked? Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my !vote in the other section and per Moneytrees' detailed analysis. Pinguinn 🐧 10:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, with standard offer after six months. What Moneytrees detailed above suggests that the editor is a net negative to the project. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support LB has already been T-Banned in the last couple of years for disruption; They are the bull that has been in the arena more than twenty minutes. I'm not sure that six months will be enough, to be honest: several of these problems, including those with ARS and deletion, as well as passive-aggressive incivility (see ANIs passim), go back well before my time and are still dragging editors back here on a semi-regular basis. I do not see a CBan as incompatible with PUNITIVE: indeed, policy regarding the latter makes no mention of the former, for the very reason that it only applies to blocks. And in this particular case, I could have supported an argument for a block on the grounds that not withstanding time passed, it was still preventative. Of future socking, of course. But that's by the by. The CBan is where it's at, and Moneytrees' indictment os convincing. Sorry LB! ——Serial Number 54129 12:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• This proposal relates to a ban, not a block, and neither WP:NOPUNISH nor WP:BANPOL refer to punishment or punitive at all. So arguing that a ban needs to adhere to the conditions of a block is a misinterpretation. Probably wilful? Happy days! ——Serial Number 54129 16:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's a valid point that it's not explicitly required by policy, but WP:PUNISH (essay) well-describes why it may be worth acting as if it does in this case. Reasonable minds may, of course, differ. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support we have a zero tolerance policy on sockpuppeting. Unlike other things it’s not something you can ever “get away with” by not doing it for x years or having good contributions. Unless Lightburst openly admits and apologizes for betraying the community’s trust they have no business here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't, actually. First time and/or not very disruptive sockpuppetry is frequently met with just a short block or a warning. The standard offer is also often extended to sockpuppeteers, even serial offenders, meaning that they can expect an unblock after six months without abusing multiple accounts. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’m putting LB in the “should know better” category. If it was some newbie, yes I’d let an isolated socking incident slide, but not such an established user as LB Dronebogus (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  If I'm not mistaken the socking happened in 2019 and 2020. Lightburst started actively editing in late 2018. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Without abusing multiple accounts" is not the only criteria when considering an unlock request, from what I've seen, they are also expected to acknowledge that they engaged in socking. So far, LB has not done that, and instead, has insisted that the didn't sock in spite of the overwhelming evidence. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, had LB been blocked for sockpuppetry at the time, I doubt they would be extended the standard offer unless they admitted it. I was just commenting that our policy towards sockpuppetry is quite far from "zero tolerance".

  Since they weren't blocked, however, I think it's easy to understand (without defending) why they didn't subsequently own up to it: doing so would have no benefit, and carry a substantial risk of getting them blocked after the fact, as is happening now. I'm sitting on the fence here but I think it's important to be clear that what Moneytree's has proposed is banning Lightburst for a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour and evading accountability – not for just sockpuppetry that happened four years ago. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  For me it’s more about him using the Shaggy defense after his sockpuppetry was discovered. Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - this is an overreaction to something that stopped over four years ago. Levivich (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Moneytrees report detailed more than socking. If it was socking alone, it would still be problematic, because LB has refused to acknowledge it in the face of indisputable evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Four years is a long time. What's the recent disruption? Levivich (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ehh denying it happened is up there Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Denying an accusation is not disruptive at all. It literally does not disrupt anybody from editing anything. "Admit it or we ban you!" is fucking witch hunt stuff. Way over the top. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The longer an ANI thread goes on, the closer the probability of someone accusing someone else of a witch hunt gets to 1 Dronebogus (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for creating needless drama- Lightburst is always the first to run to ANI when AtG does something they feel is bad, never hesitates to call for sanctions. The attacking of Moneytrees here is also telling. They have added "retired" banners to their userpage now rather than admit any wrongdoing of their own; at this point, we should assist them in that endeavor. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm worried about the chilling effect of banning editors for bringing up issues with other editors at ANI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I sympathize with that (I also have a still-open ANI thread here), but my support comes from the totality of the situation, including the user's own placing of a "retired" banner in the face of overwhelming votestacking accusations. FWIW, I have also supported the proposal for an indef of AtG. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. The editor has left the project and disabled their account but they will come back. Let's presume that. I can not not presume it because I know what it feels like. I had also left the project by locking myself out impulsively. So ... how should Lightburst return? Can someone describe a plausible scenario of their return that is also a desirable scenario? I can only imagine one such scenario: A return to editing that coincides with a return to good standing. Lb should have something to appeal to be able to return. That's a much easier path for them to return than any alternative. Banning (or blocking) Lightburst is actually leaving the door for them to return. It signals: "When you decide to return, there is a clear process for you to use". A one-account restriction for a user who has locked themselves out is not a clear process. Imagine: "Hello, I am an editor who socked and refused to admit it, and was also disruptive in other ways, and I left and locked myself out of my account, and then I got a one account restriction, so now can you please lift the one-account restriction so that I can edit again using a new account, which will be my only account as my existing account is non-functional?" Total joke. We need to recognize here that locking yourself out is disruptive in itself, as it complicates things for everyone. The only way to come back is to appeal and say that the ban is no longer necessary because what will follow are only productive contributions, and that the editor has learned how not to repeat past mistakes, including that when they are under stress in the future or under threat of sanction, they will accept what's coming for them and not lock themselves out again.—Alalch E. 12:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Lightburst apparently scrambled their password and walked away. Do we take them at their word for this? Who's to say they don't create another account? The CBAN isn't on the account, but the person behind it. As with others here who support the block, regardless of the fact it happened 4 years ago, its not just the socking that's the issue. it's persistent behavior that's already led to a topic ban. I'm of course not against lifting the ban if implemented in 6 months, with the understanding that their behavior MUST change in order to continue to edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, so the sock was found in May, hasn't edited in four years and no evidence LB has socked since October 2020 per Moneytrees. What problem are we solving besides punishing Lb for raising an issue at the noticeboard? This seems a ridiculous overreaction to this whole thread. Star Mississippi 13:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  How should Lightburst return now that they have made themselves lose access to their account? Create a new account and start editing again, just like that? —Alalch E. 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  They didn't actually do it. jp×g🗯️ 13:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support I've had conflicts with Lightburst in the past, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt, but in my opinion Lightburst continuing to deny responsibility for socking in the face of basically overwhelming evidence that they did shows that they cannot be trusted. In order to continue to be a member of this community, they actually need to acknowledge and apologise for socking. There are also long-term competence issues with editing as demonstrated elsewhere in the thread. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't understand why we can't just have a modicum of grace here. LB has (if I understand correctly, I haven't visited WO to verify, but if I'm generally right then details don't matter) been at least partially outed fairly recently. Sure, they've created 2 articles on non-notable people, but that's not why we're talking about a cban. They're a gadfly - an inclusionist gadfly - and that drives people up a wall. Socking from 4 years ago is a useful thing to latch onto, but they're really being cbanned because they're annoying. I would like to live in a world where we don't indef Andy or cban LB, we just smooth the rough edges enough so we can continue to have contributions from both. WP:ANI WP:Votes for banning seems to be set up to only use sledge hammers, even when some WD40 is what's needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  This entirely. While I believe Moneytrees' comment that they only read 10%, actioning a sock now that you found in May that was long stale even then is a bad look because regardless of how it was intended it comes across as looking for dirt on a reporter. Also, Lightburst's behavior now or in May is no different to ever. It's the same reason Andy likely won't be blocked either, oddly enough. (And yes, I say that as someone who believed Andy should face a short term but not indef block). Star Mississippi 15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a net negative to the project. Moneytrees linked to the old CCI discussion, and I see in re-reading it that I argued then that the copyvio issues were significant enough that LB should've been shown the door at that time. If anything, LB's behavior in the years since have only made it clearer that the drama they bring to WP outweighs any value. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. Enough is enough. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I believe we are going way too far with this proposal. I am sad to see a process that sprawls out looking for ways to punish, based on old news. I am not sure who would have enough street cred to survive this process. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per Star Mississippi. There is no ongoing disruption, so a block seems like WP:PUNISHment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as obviously punitive. Also interesting is that the blocking admin "didn't have time" to take action for months, but found it hours after this unrelated report was made. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The fact that Lightburst avoided repercussions for so long is baffling. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as punitive. I don't often agree with Lightburst. My only NPA violation was against them. However, the socking (if true) is ancient history; this prevents nothing. If I were Lightburst and were CBANned, I'd be more likely to sock (block/ban evasion is one of the most common reasons for socking, after all). If, in the future, it turns out they are still socking, I'll support a ban. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Acknowledging I've seen Serial Number's point that BANPOl does not mention punishing (though I was not aware of that prior to this). However, I still maintain that using blocks or bans to punish is contrary to their purpose. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Changing vote to neutral. I’m still feeling insulted and betrayed that Lightburst refuses to acknowledge he was engaging in socking but it’s obvious to me now the socking was not bad enough to justify an indef and neither is lying about it. If people think LB is sufficiently disruptive to ban him for general conduct that’s fair but I washed my hands of that crap a long time ago. Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per Star Mississippi and Dilettante. Considering their sock hasn’t edited in almost half a decade, it doesn’t feel like it meets the bar for “chronic and intractable” behavior. That said, I’d support a temporary block/sanction, simply because sockpuppeting is a bright-line rule and they failed to disclose they used one. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Weak support, regrettably. While I greatly appreciate Lightburst's DYK and GA work, I am unconvinced that this negates his copyvio, inability to not stir up drama, and sockpuppetry. Cheers, Queen of Hearts ^talk 17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support - sockpuppetry from five years ago would be pretty much entirely irrelevant, if not for their obstinate denial of what was confirmed by a checkuser at the time, which has included a number of over-the-top personal attacks. It's also just such a waste of time when editors bring their WPO drama here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nuclear option is overkill here. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like an overreaction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support This isn't just about the old socking (although if they'd just admitted it we probably wouldn't be here), it is about the ridiculous amount of time the community has spent trying to get this user to drive between the lines. Their own "report" above details one instance after another where they caused needless drama, saying "this exact specific thing never happened again" doesn't cut it when the user just caused a different problem the next time around. And their attitude has always been terrible. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overkill. Even though I'd be a fairly extreme deletionist and find LB a bit much at times, I don't think any of the incidents listed above individually deserve more than a weeks block, much less cumulatively an indef. LB is a net positive, and I can understand recent - at times - erratic behaviour given the off-site scrutiny, which is bound to be very upsetting, and perhaps perplexing given they are undoubtedly acting in good faith in their volunteer time. To put it another way, I really don't want LB's countless hours working here to be capped by a ban notice on his talk page, but at the same time, if he's going to choose to create articles on the edge of notability, then he has to choose his battles and accept that he in turn doesn't have to go nuclear for all. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Star Mississippi. LB is now subject to the 1 account restriction, and the socking is stale (albeit it would have been much better if they admitted it). I think that's enough, and the full indef CBAN looks a little punitive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree that this feels like it is a bit too much of a reaction for the moment. There is no impending danger of disruption, so I think it's best to wait and see if the stern reactions and restrictions they are receiving here has a corrective effect. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Much ado about nothing or about very little. But the Drahmabordz needs its pyres... Carrite (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments in off-wiki forums

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

---

Per WP:OWH, can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? At times, our ability to enforce this may be limited, but turning a blind eye to it isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Whenever someone proposes this, one of two things happen.

a) Someone with a WPO account shows up to say "Strong Oppose requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"

b) Someone with a WPO thread shows up to say "Strong Support requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"

I would aver that both of these are extremely dumb, and we should instead establish some dead simple bar-is-on-the-floor baseline like:

"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"

I don't think we need to set up some kind of Inquisition -- WPO serves some purpose and is not pure evil. It would be very dumb and paranoid to demand that everyone disclose their entire Internet posting career -- but it's deranged to have people just lean their heads out the window to shout сука блядь пиздец иди нахуй, it's obviously them, no sane person could possibly doubt that it was them saying this directly to the other person, and then they say "neener neener my head wasn't in the room so it wasn't against the rules". We came up with all kinds of stupid stuff like this in second grade, and by the end of second grade I think we figured out it was silly rules-lawyering. jp×g🗯️ 20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much having the same username but rather the user here linking that the account there is theirs. Also it doesn't matter if it's WPO or Reddit, it's still disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean: WPO, Reddit, Xanga, AIM, whatever. If I make a freaking YTMND called jpxg-enwp and say "yeah, that's me" and then go off on huge rants daily about how User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat, I feel like it requires some serious mental cartwheels to say that I, specifically, am not breaking any rules by doing this. Like, disregarding anything else -- if someone else responds with "👍" maybe that's in poor taste but who cares -- how could me saying that in public to all and sundry not be against the rules. jp×g🗯️ 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support cracking down on off-wiki misconduct and abuse. Sites like WPO may not be “pure evil”, but they’re still used by big-name users to say what they really want to say about other users without fear of repercussions, and probably worse misbehaviors like canvassing and harassment as well. Dronebogus (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And just exactly what is wrong with saying what you really want to say on a site that is not affiliated with Wikipedia, and takes a bit of effort to actually find some of the threads there? If you're venting on Twitter or Bluesky, those are highly public forums, and it's easy to run across something directed at you. WPO at least makes an attempt to keep some of the discussions for members only. What's next, saying that if you want to vent, it has to be on a Facebook post set to Only Me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you’re on a site about Wikipedia, using your Wikipedia username, you’re one step away from outright saying it on Wikipedia. You’re only saying it there because you know it’s hurtful and/or defamatory but still want as many people as possible, who are colleagues of the target, to hear it. Can you not see how this is inappropriate and wrong? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, my proposal is the thing I said, not this other dumb thing you have made up.

"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"

Is it really that difficult to just have the account on the shit-talking forum be named "John Doe" or whatever? I feel like even the most minimal imaginable token gesture is being given the same amount of resistance (and indeed met with the same response) as an expansive proposal. jp×g🗯️ 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this approach, especially because it's so easy to defend against. If someone says to me, "Hey, there's this account EducatedRedneck on this other platform, talking shit about editors you interacted with. Is this you?" All I have to do is say, "No." Even if I'm lying, that promotes civility within Wikipedia by, on-site only, disavowing incivility. This firmly establishes that, at least on Wikipedia, we cannot endorse harassing messages, just as we wouldn't allow racist dog whistles on a user page.

I also disagree that this is policing other websites. It is not. It is simply saying that if a user has obviously been linked to an external account, and that behaves in an uncivil manner, Wikipedia does not want an uncivil editor. There's nothing stopping them from saying what they want elsewhere, but as with all things in life, there are consequences for actions. If I go on a racist diatribe on X, which I acknowledge as me and do not disavow, I would expect to be indefed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 21:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it seems like a case-by-case basis thing. In general, it seems like the way WPO talks about people they dislike, and the gleeful doxxing of those people, is Kiwi Farms adjacent. In this specific instance, it seems like Andy gets a lot of support on WPO for being so rude and mean, which then causes issues on-wiki when he brings that same energy here. However, I could see an instance where someone is off-site in general, complaining about specific biases on Wikipedia or criticizing a specific user's on-wiki bigotry or any number of reasonable criticisms, and having that brought up for unrelated issues or disputes on-wiki. So while it may be useful to bring up off-wiki instances you see, by that point it would just serve as further evidence of a larger on-wiki issue. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who doesn't care about the conflict above, I strongly oppose policing other people's behaviour on websites that are not part of Wikimedia. People have the right to bitch about people they don't like in venues that allow for such. If there is a coordinated effort to harass someone (as in directly contacting them; not just saying [So-and-so] is a mean poopyhead) that's a different story. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am so weary of seeing Andy's name here. AndyTheGrump, I do not understand why after all these years you haven't learned to control yourself. I guess it's because nothing ever actually happens? We value you so much that you can get away with basically anything? Are we really sure Andy is a net positive at this point? I know he does a lot of really good work, but the amount of time spent dealing with his inability to just flippin' act like he understands his colleagues need to be treated with even a tiny bit of respect is ridiculous. Andy, you don't have to actually respect people. All you have to do is pretend that you do. And Bishonen, Floq...no, it's not this. It's the ongoing neverending...I'd call them 'little straws', but from any editor who wasn't otherwise as valuable, they wouldn't be considered little straws. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems to me that would be impossible to police. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That attitude is why we’re here in the first place Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  How so? If it’s provable that "Andy the Grump" on WPO is "Andy the Grump" on WP, then policing it should be pretty easy? Of course, when it’s not provable policing it will be impossible, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eyes to the cases we can address just because there are some cases we can’t. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I do get what you're saying, but I'm just wondering what's to stop one of the members of my fan club from going to another forum, setting up an account with my user name, posting a bunch of inflammatory crap, and then coming here and complaining about it? Additionally, there are times when I have gotten absolutely fed up with some people on here, but hold my tongue because that's the policy. But I wouldn't want to be brought here for venting elsewhere. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It would be policed like this:

  • Someone sees a LiveJournal from jpxg-wiki saying "User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat."
  • I have the LiveJournal account linked on my userpage, or I have explicitly said this is me on-wiki.
  • Someone makes a thread called "JPxG is doxing xXx_sephiroth_xXx and calling him a deletionist twat on LiveJournal".
  • I am blocked for some amount of time, or at the least told very unambiguously to cut it out.

  This seems very possible, and indeed easy to me. The only difference is that the block/warning would happen without eighteen thousand words of jurisdictional argle-bargle. jp×g🗯️ 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  The end result of this is that people will just not link their user's elsewhere with WP. You create a dual tiered enforcement system where people who are upfront are held to a different standard than people who are not. Beyond that, WP:BADSITES is not a new idea, and it was not a good one back then and it is not a good one now. nableezy - 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why I'd prefer "provably the same person", rather than "disclosed the connection on Wikipedia", but either way - why should we tolerate identifiable editors harassing other editors, just because they are using a different website? It isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Harassing doesnt mean what you think it means. nableezy - 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is it a "dual tiered enforcement system" to forbid shitting on the floor, while looking the other way when people shit in the toilet? They're different things!

  One of them is anonymous peanut-gallery trash talk which nobody is under any obligation to take seriously, the other is a scanty fig-leaf over mafioso-larping nonsense which would get you blocked in two seconds on here if not for the fact that every time somebody does this, there's a thread on WPO about it, where everyone with an account there gets flashed the Bat-Signal to show up here and talk about it's not canvassing unless it's made with genuine hemp otherwise it's just canvas-weave cotton etc etc etc jp×g🗯️ 23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it is ignoring some people shitting on the floor and then demanding others who are shitting on the floor be strung up at ANI. I wasnt flashed a bat signal anywhere, I have ANI on my watchlist. Does that make my view less worthy than yours? I dont even think Ive seen a thread on WPO about this for that matter. You keep saying the same nonsense expecting that people will just accept it if you repeat it enough, but it remains nonsense. nableezy - 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's no way to prevent 100% of murders either, yet we still arrested the guy that shot a bunch of people and was like "Yep, that was me, I shot all those people, it was awesome". Objectively speaking, this was a better choice than letting him go and saying "gee whiz there's just no way to know for sure whether anything is good or bad".

  You're right though: it is probably coincidence that post count on WPO has a mysterious and unexplainable positive correlation with the uncanny tendency to incessantly notice totally unrelated procedural issues with any proposal regarding it. jp×g🗯️ 23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that comment made more sense in your head than it does written down. nableezy - 00:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with BilledMammal (I don't know if I've ever said that before). Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• I agree too, subject to the WP editor explicitly acknowledging that they are the off wiki forum user in question. Because of that it may have limited application. But so what? There's no reason to tolerate it. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• No - Wikipedia should not try and take on the role of policing the internet. If off site behaviours are affecting on-site activities, then it should be dealt with privately by the appropriate channels (i.e. Arbcom or T&S) - otherwise we will just turn the Admin boards here into a reflection of the worst bits of the so called criticism sites.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  hmm, I don't see it as policing the internet. If I make it clear here on Wikipedia that it's me saying things off wiki that I wouldn't be permitted to say on wiki then I would see it as more of a loophole to get round our on wiki rules. It's just plugging that loophole. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think we would really need to have a discussion at VPP to implement something like this, rather than an ANI thread. I don't think something like this is a good idea. People should have a broader behavioural remit for what they can say off-wiki rather than on-wiki, and that includes forthright criticism of other Wikipedia editors, unless they are engaging in a very deliberate and intentionally targeted harassment campaign like what got Icewhiz ArbCom blocked, which is not what has happened in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• What an outrageous notion. We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website. What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? I don't care for the name-calling either, it is not really useful criticism to just say "so and so is dumb" or whatever, but, with certain exceptions of which I am all too aware, what is said on WPO has no relvance here. I would add that in general, the specific thread where the name-calling took place is actually one of the best ongoing threads over there, as it is usually aimed at problems with actual article content as opposed to going after spoecific users. I can tell you for certainty that its existence has resulted in real improvements to content. It's an unfortunate reality that many threads over ther wander off topic, there's even a custom emoji for tagging it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It feels like it makes no difference at all what people are actually proposing, because nearly every time WPO is mentioned you give virtually the same response.

  • We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that.
  • (What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? Well, here's my genius plan: we won't do that because it's stupid and nobody wants to do it.
  • what is said on WPO has no relvance here Later in the same comment, you say that that "its existence has resulted in real improvements to content". Well, which is it -- does it have no relevance whatsoever, or is it resulting in real improvements to content?

  You really think that calling people imbeciles on here is blockworthy, but if the same guy goes onto wikipediocracy.com and types the same thing, under the same username, directed at the same person, on a website read by all the same people, a one-week civility block brings us a hair's breadth away from the Fourth Reich? Come on. jp×g🗯️ 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I will even go further than that, and wager that if I made a gigantic twitter thread/public facebook post/etc cussing out a bunch of people here, or registered www.[username]-is-a-dumbass.com, I would probably be blocked within an hour, regardless of policy quibbles -- there's really only one public website I know of where this wouldn't be the case. jp×g🗯️ 23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that. Did you not read literally the first sentence in this section? ...can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? seems pretty clearly aimed at that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors. If someone wants to harass or attack other editors, then they can do so - but if they want to retain their editing privileges they shouldn't connect their harassment or attacks to their Wikipedia account. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would compare it to a teacher being sanctioned by their school for inappropriate comments made about their peers on Facebook.

  Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

  Wouldn’t this apply to that Wikipedia-related forum?

  — macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of that; I think it very clearly does. BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Doxxing someone over a Wikipedia-related beef is a very different animal from insulting them. If you have already compromised the privacy protections of this project with regard to a fellow editor, then there's an argument to be made that there is a net gain to enforcement of said protections by taking action against the offending editor here. However, I have mixed feelings even about that. For one, no sanction placed here is going to have the effect of restraining the individual in question from continuing the off-project disclosure--in fact, in most cases it might arguably trigger continued disclosures and harassment. But either way, it definitely is more of an edge case than acting against someone on-project over an insult made elsewhere. And all of that said, Macaddct1984, you didn't label where this comes from? Could I trouble you to provide the link. Because actually, we had community discussion about this very topic on the Village Pump about two years back (an admin had been undertaking an off-project investigation that the community felt very uncomfortable about) and as I recall, the exact idea presented here was kind of roundly rejected. (FYI, I'll also link to said discussion when I have time to find it). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: ah apologies, I should have done that from the start: Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, macaddct1984! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  "We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors." In this respect, I think you're right, BM. This isn't about whether or not we can enforce our will over other websites. It's about the advisability (and frankly, feasibility) of this community following it's members off of the four corners of the project in order to monitor their comings and goings, associations, views and opinions, and actions and then judge all of that for compliance with our expectations of how they should conduct themselves. It is a bridge way too far. It violates an essential dichotomy that this project is built on. We hold eachother accountability for conduct taking place within our collective volunteer work environment. But not one inch outside it. It has nothing to do with the practical limits of our technical abilities off this project. It's about our own self-restraint and a longstanding community value not to follow our fellow editors into their off-project lives outside of any occasion other than where they expressly invite us. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Except that we're already acknowledging that off-project activity can affect on-project matters. If, say, a user goes on another website to canvass people to an AfD, they can still get blocked on Wikipedia for this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and I agree that this seemingly blurs the lines a little, but I think the distinction is to be found in the fact that the results of that off-project conduct create direct impacts upon process here. Anyway, if the choice were to be between doing away with penalizing people for off-project canvassing or enabling and encouraging our community to dig into off-project PAs (for the sake of some sort of sense of uniformity), I would elect for the former. Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way.

  I agree, but I don't see that as applying to this case. We're only talking about cases where the editor has chosen to erase that division, and if the editor has chosen to do that then we shouldn't pretend that the two are separate - it's a legal fiction that harms our efforts to create a safe and congenial editing environment.

  If they don't chose to do that - if, for example, they want to rant on Twitter about an editor under a different identity - then absent doxxing, threats, or other matters of concern to T&S there is no reason for us to care. It doesn't affect our editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey BM: I think my thoughts on that distinction are fully covered in the response I just made to JPxG below. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Let's walk this out. "X is an editor in good standing who publicly attacks other editors on a third-party website. We know this and think this is fine and he should face no consequences. I also post on that website and I deplore that attacks occur, though not these attacks in particular." When we went through this cycle with #wikipedia-en-admins fifteen years ago it was fun and interesting. Now it's just boring. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bizarre suggestion. If you lay with dogs you rise with flees. But that doesn't mean you bred them in the first place. ——Serial Number 54129 23:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• I rise in defence of the right to call a spade a spade on Wikipedia and a bloody shovel in off-site fora. Providing it is a spade, which is the test that matters given our mission is not to be a support group but to jointly produce a reference work. This brouhaha arose because Andy used the term "idiot" followed by the term "imbecile" in a sub-thread on WPO that was started by a different person. Unfortunately, the two articles highlighted in that off-wiki conversation were very poor work. One Lightburst moved to mainspace last October when it looked like this. The other was a draft when it was first highlighted off-site, and Lightburst nonetheless moved it to mainspace in this state. I would rarely be as robust in my choice of words as Andy, especially the second term, but as others have also noted, he was right about the articles. Thinking either of those was ready for mainspace was stupid, and moving the second to mainspace with the name of a non-notable minor relative in it (even if I'm the first to highlight this at this noticeboard, IMO that should be rev-deleted in case the article is kept) and with the claim that the subject won a singing prize in the approximate year of his birth, after that or a similar error had been pointed out in the WPO thread they had just read was cavalier at best. Lightburst has lost their way as an article creator (and IMO shouldn't be judging others' work at NPP). I'm sorry to say that this kind of poor work is one of the best arguments for the existence of an off-wiki criticism site. I wish it wasn't needed. I wish friends and associates had pointed out the problems with their articles to Lightburst first. (Checks self for fleas, flees AN/I for yardwork.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. BilledMammal, I want to preface this by saying that I like you and that I know that your often ambitious suggestions on how to shake-up policy on this project since you joined come from a good place. But that said, I have to be honest with you that this is not just the worst of the major changes to longstanding policy that you've proposed, it is quite possibly the single-most ill-advised and potentially destructive to the project's core ability to function that I have ever seen proposed by anyone in my time here.
  That might seem like an unnecessary preamble to my thoughts on this proposal, and I hope I have judged your character correctly in that you will understand it is for emphasis, and that you will not take the observation too personally. But I very much mean it. This community installed precisely the firewall you are proposing dismantling (with very conscious intent from its earliest days) for a bevy of reasons impacting everything from the functionality and culture of the project to the safety of its contributors. I honestly don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that without a strong conceptual divide between a person's on-project work and off-project identity (and the bulwark of privacy protections with regard to the latter) the whole endeavor of this project may never have reached a fraction of its size, in terms of user base and accomplishment.
  I honestly don't have the time today to even begin to list the ways in which such a change as you propose would create knock-on effects which would drag our administrative spaces in a morass of privacy-invading drama and unmitigated, unprecedented harassment which would extract a toll on our already hurting editor retention numbers. It would eviscerate privacy protections; encourage unceasing efforts at outing; proliferate on- and off-project joe jobs (the latter of which we would lack the technical tools to properly assess); instantaneously create the single largest category of administrative overhead and headaches that the community would then have to try to manage on a daily basis, to the detriment of other vital areas already underserved; and in rare but non-trivial (in number and level of consequence) incidents, present numerous, varied, and uncontrollable risks of real world harm for our contributors. To say nothing of the fact that allowing such behavior would directly conflict with numerous existing policies, further amplifying the chaos.
  And again, that's the most slap-dash, meager summary of the possible...no, pretty much certain, knock-on effects of turning the aggregate surveillance capacity of this project and it community lose on it's editorial base. And no, I don't think that is an unfair or hyperbolic description of the behavior your proposed change would unleash. No matter how tightly you imagine you are going to construct the rules for when and where members of this community are allowed to follow their fellows off-project and monitor them for "good cause", the abolishing of the strict dichotomy between our on-project and off-project conduct will absolutely enable and encourage a flood of investigation, tracking, and harassment of users.
  And on a purely personal level, I have to tell you, if this change were to come to pass, for me it would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back in convincing me that this community had lost its way and abandoned both its most basic cultural values and good sense, and I would, with great reluctance, probably have to abandon the project. And I would expect that I would probably be part of a larger exodus of experienced contributors in doing so. In short: no, no, no--a million times no to this notion. This is not just your average case of the cure being far worse than the disease; it's akin to injecting someone with ebola on the grounds that it will certainly take care of their tape worm...eventually. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, how about my proposal, which applies exclusively to people who have confirmed their offsite identities on public sites. Yeah or no on that one jp×g🗯️ 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, this is what I mean by "provable". If, for example, you've disclosed your Wikipedia identity on WPO. If it requires more effort to connect the two than that then I don't think it matters for this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  That would be significantly less worrisome to me than a standard that allows free-roaming investigations and reports here, but I still don't think that would be a good idea. At the end of the day, we would still be loosening our privacy rules to allow scrutiny of off-project conduct and opinions. And let's be honest, for many of the most tendentious parties in our community, they will quickly embrace this opportunity as encouragement to stalk their rhetorical opposition or editors who represent their longterm bugaboos. Any realistic advantage that our community could extract from permitting such snooping (and I believe it would be minimal in the aggregate, but even if it weren't my overall opinion about allowing this would remain the same) cannot possibly justify the abrogation of our privacy standards and the safety of our users--nor indeed the many headaches it would unleash on the community as a whole.

  Even if a user has previously acknowledged a non-wikimedia account as belonging to them, WP:OUTING and privacy concerns with surveilling that account's activity do not disappear. And consider also the situation in which a user is asked to confirm a connection between accounts and, to protect their privacy, disavows it (which for the record, I've seen happen here); are they thereafter subject to accusations that they tried to obfuscate prohibited conduct relating to the unkind opinions they disclosed about other editors? We are not meant to have the ability to force editors into difficult choices like that which make them elect between doing the right thing under policy and endangering their privacy (and in some cases, their livelihoods, relationships, safety, or freedom).

  One is not prohibited by the terms of their involvement on this project not to have unkind, unflattering, or even downright unsavory opinions about their fellow editors, nor from sharing such opinions. They are merely meant to not share those opinions in offensive terms that would rise to the level of a PA while operating in our shared communal workspace on this project. That is all that we do, should, or realistically can ask of our community members when it comes to self-moderating their behaviour or expressing their opinions in their private lives--most definitely including other online spaces.

  Any additional level of looky-louing into the lives and heads of our volunteers would have prevented this project and this community from becoming what it is today, and would quickly begin to rot it from the inside out if we began to allow it now. Anything else runs the risk of allowing the substantial capabilities of our crowd sourcing and organizational systems to be weaponized to do great potential harm to people who came here to serve our collective vision of free knowledge. Many of whom rely upon our guarantees of privacy being as ironclad as possible. Even when one of them has chosen (perhaps unwisely) to disclose information which expands the community's knowledge of their identity, we should not take that as an invitation or excuse to bring any information that such disclosure allows us to gather into the workings and public view of this project. It's not reasonable, it's not safe, and it's not healthy for us as a community. That firewall needs to stand as whole and unbroken as it ever has: pull even a few bricks out, and you're going to find that said barrier crumbles in important places a lot faster than you can possibly anticipate, I guarantee you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Dronebogus:, every time WPO gets mentioned here, you try to revive some version of the old, failed WP:BADSITES proposal, when really, it's none of your business. Really, all they would have to do is turn more of it into a closed forum, and then they could malign people in perfect peace, at least until someone registered there under false pretenses. The whole "they're being mean to us over there!" thing comes under the heading of "well, you don't have to read it." Really, if you don't like it, you can ignore it. You are allowed to ignore it. And as I seem to have to say every time this comes up, they are under no obligation to play by rules that you make, no that "consensus" on WP makes. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Mangoe: This goes beyond randos bitching about me or whoever on a random unrelated forum. We obviously can’t sanction that. This is users, respected users, going on an anti-Wikipedia forum under their own names to insult, dox, and stir up hatred against users they don’t like. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:OWH does not cover what has occurred at WPO. TarnishedPath^talk 03:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree in principle with BM and JPxG wrote above. "Don't talk shit about editors in public forums" is not a big ask. At least don't do it routinely. Take it to private forums if you must. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Lev. And maybe don't swim in the cesspool if you are an admin/arbiter who later adjudicates matters involving the proletariat. Much of what happens is in real time, like JSS and ATG getting marching orders and then bragging on WPO. Lightburst (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

marching orders?? is there any evidence whatsoever that anyone in those AfDs came there as a result of a Wikipediocracy thread? As someone who uses the same user name on both sites, let me clarify that the reason is simple. I yam what I yam and I said what I said. I don't think it's a good idea to police what usernames Wikipedia users may use on other fora, and a) I can't imagine a world where this would be good for editor retention b) requiring hypocrisy as a condition of membership seems like something Wikipediocracy is very unlikely to implement. I can hear Jake and Tarantino laughing from here. Some Wikipediocracy members use another screen name, and I assume they have their reasons, but if it boils down to where I can use the name Elinruby, I am sorry, but I am not on board, Wikipedia should not flatter itself on being the reason for the name, geez. If I change my username anywhere it would be at Wikipedia, and in fact I have often considered doing so. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Randy from Boise says he is going to fix up the article about the camp. I just noticed that. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Opposed to extending the civility policy in that way, for the practical reasons mentioned above as well as broader philosophical ones. That said, this is a big pivot from the common reluctance to discuss off-wiki activities at all, we do not need to move that far to be able to consider public behaviour elsewhere as part of discussions here. CMD (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment while this seems like an issue that needs addressing, I think this topic is becoming to unwieldy to deal with all the various issues that are cropping up. However, I will say, when you look at this thread and the WPO page side by side you can see that this doesn't feel like your regular, organic kind of WP:BOOMERANG by Lightburst and more a case of brigading/tag teaming, doxxing and harassment that is being organised off-wiki then transferred wholesale over here. It wouldn't be fair not to look at the two together Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  This whole thing is a shitshow, a tiny thread the issue of unhealthy WP/WPO entanglement. This is where I have a problem: people use WPO to get around inconvenient rules “for the good of the wiki”, basically treating it like a shadow-WP, and then flip around and say it’s an unrelated site that happens to discuss Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many issues with this - firstly, you can never be certain that someone with the same username on WPO actually is the WP editor. It could be a troll seeking to cause problems or get a legitimate editor banned. Secondly, clamping down on this would only drive WPO editors to edit under alternative accounts making the new rule unenforceable anyway. I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. There is certainly a lot of unpleasantness there and things that constitute harassment of WP editors, but there are also many contributors who are motivated by a genuine desire to make Wikipedia a better place and to air good-faith views about what's wrong here without being bound by certain WP policies that make such criticism difficult.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. A great editor was doxxed by WPO in April and stopped editing Wikipedia almost immediately after. For me, that was a wake up call about the dangers of websites that facilitate off-site doxing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion Only on case by case basis. Only when one can determine beyond reasonable doubt that the account offwiki making the personal attack on another editor to the editor onwiki, we should then sanction the editor in question. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, a case by case basis sounds fine. There should be a simple two-step test: “can we be reasonably sure editor X is making this comment/action” and “is comment/action clearly a personal attack or otherwise a violation of basic decency (i.e. doxxing)” Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Next Stop ArbCom?

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

---

I am not at this time recommending that these disputes should go to ArbCom, but this thread now consists of at least two disputes that need to be resolved, and, if the community cannot resolve them, then ArbCom should. ArbCom is the last stop for conduct disputes that the community cannot resolve. The two distinct disputes are the alleged civility violations by AndyTheGrump, and the alleged past sockpuppetry by Lightburst. If there is rough consensus for a time-limited block for ATG, then that matter does not need to go to ArbCom. A statement has been made that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry four or five years ago, and Lightburst denies it. Either the community should accept the conclusion of Moneytrees that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry in the past (and I was taking the word of Moneytrees as trusted when I said that Lightburst had engaged in evasive conduct), or the rest of ArbCom (with Moneytrees recused) should look into the claims and counterclaims.

Can the community resolve these disputes, by acting on ATG, and by accepting the finding of Moneytrees, or does this dispute need to go to ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Admins find socks all the time, and very often socks deny being socks. Business as usual. What's special about this case which means it needs to go to Arbcom? Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This does not require ArbCom. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're basically saying that unless your position is adopted this should be escalated to ArbCom. Which I suppose you are free to do, but if the consensus of users is that ATG doesnt merit a block for his comments off-site that doesnt mean that we have failed to resolve the issue. It just means that your preferred resolution isnt what others think is necessary. nableezy - 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the LB situation needs to be escalated, he’s almost certainly going to be blocked anyway. I don’t know if ATG will be blocked as much as he deserves it, but I think if it ends no consensus (likely) then it should be taken to ArbCom as part of a broader case against ATG’s abusive behavior and lack of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be with ArbCom now. There is a lot more that could be said about Andy's activity on WPO, but as I understand it we should not be linking to or quoting posts from there per WP:OUTING (though many editors above seem to be getting away with it, is oversight asleep or have they changed their standards?). A full and fair hearing of a matter that involves off-wiki conduct has to happen at ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless there's further private evidence related to the socking that can't be discussed here I don't really see where ArbCom would need to come in. Pinguinn 🐧 08:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

About Lightburst, I meant that if anyone wanted to challenge the finding that Lightburst had been socking, ArbCom was the only appeal, and could hear private evidence. Since it appears that the community accepts or agrees with Moneytrees, ArbCom is not needed there. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

About ATG, I meant that the case should go to ArbCom if the community was unable to decide on a sanction, as due to a deadlock between a block for a time and an indef block, not if there was a consensus with which I disagreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would only proceed to Arbcom if this thread gets closed with no proper consensus formed. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Time to deprecate WP:NPA?

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

---

We have a policy, called no personal attacks, which says do not make personal attacks. Yet above we also have multiple experienced editors—admins, people with decades of combined tenure—saying that a blatant personal attack (Lightburst is an imbecile), doesn't matter: it's much ado about nothing, a contretemps, not an actual problem, call[ing] a spade a spade, acceptable as long as you do it less than twelve times a year. The recipient just needs a thicker skin. I understand acknowledging the personal attack but not thinking that a block is the right response, or worrying about the jurisdictional implications, but this isn't that. And this isn't the first time this this has happened. Can we really can still claim that "no personal attacks" is a policy this community follows? – Joe (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would very much support WP:NPA being actually enforced, as civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. We don't get to avoid our responsibilities to make this a healthy, collaborative environment just because we have enough edits/contributions/tenure. ArbCom itself stated that being right isn't enough (WP:BRIE), and I would prefer to see people (in general) care more about working together in respect, rather than about thinking they are exempt from civility for being on the right side of some issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

NPA is a Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia policy does not extend outwards to all the corners of the internet. If such a thing had been said on Wikipedia then sure, thats a NPA violation. The very first sentence of WP:NPA reads Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Nobody, as far as I know, has made any such attack anywhere on Wikipedia. nableezy - 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, them making personal attacks is what led to this very AN/I report. It's just harder to enforce on prolific editors, because they are "unblockable", you know. New / less experienced editors would easily get an indef with this kind of conduct. And also, "unblockable" doesn't happen to just editors making attacks, but also those engaging in edit wars and other policy violations too. Deprecate NPA policy? No way. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be NPA-free days, on religious holidays for example. I don't think NPA, even if was rigorously enforced, can make this a healthy, collaborative environment. You need healthy, collaborative people to do that. It seems more like a "You know, we're living in a society" reminder that works most of the time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The blatant personal attack here was done offwiki. If it was onwiki, I have no doubts that there would be admins pulling the trigger on the block button. The question should be if the said policy should be extended to what was said offwiki in an open setting if it is well established that the account/person offwiki making that statement is the same person behind the account onwiki. – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that.[90][91][92] – Joe (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Didnt he get blocked for that? nableezy - 10:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

He got blocked for the third. The first two came made a couple of weeks after that block expired. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

These two should be up in the main thread or one of the subsections calling for a block of ATG as a support for the block. – robertsky (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• This section should be closed. WP:NPA can not be deprecated by a discussion here at ANI. If you want to ask or discuss if it is "Time to deprecate WP:NPA?", then the first place to start is at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  No I think this is the best place, and there seems to be a rough consensus. I'll go ahead and delete WP:NPA now. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is the best time or place for WP:POINTy humor, especially since tone isn't necessarily well-conveyed in writing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently not. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Since my collapse of this thread was reverted: This is an unfunny modest proposal and should be collapsed by an uninvolved editor because it’s clearly not helping this already bad situation Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's neither a proposal or a joke, Dronebogus, as everyone who read past the title and isn't terminally literal-minded seems to have understood. Discussion of our repeated failure to enforce WP:NPA is highly relevant to this discussion, where we are failing to enforce WP:NPA. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Then just say that, don’t veil it with irony and satire. Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is broad disagreement on where the exact lines of NPA should be drawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  The bottom of the argument pyramid is a good starting place: “sounds something like: ‘you are an ass-hat’”. So yeah ATG violated NPA plain and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a failure to enforce NPA. I see the community enforcing NPA here by taking the NPAs very seriously; there a number of proposals made to deal with the NPA, up to and including a site ban, which has received non-trivial amounts of support. If all the proposals fail, then perhaps, but it's too soon to tell. Levivich (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Some members of the community are, at least. My argument is really directed at those denying that the PA is a problem at all, the most egregious example of which would be telling Lightburst to grow a thicker skin. In a functional conduct process, those arguments would be discarded in assessing consensus because they blatantly contradict an existing policy (i.e. WP:NPA). That's not how I've observed ANI working. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I obviously and wholeheartedly agree with your argument, just the way you made it was way too WP:POINTy to be constructive. Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s become bluntly obvious at this point that one can gain immunity from sanction so long as their contribution count can outrun their violations, so unfortunately yes.

As has been raised above, the constant badgering of “well it wasn’t on Wikipedia so we can’t judge it” is almost hilariously technical/nitpicky when the insult was made on a related site, under their own username, on an account declared to be run by the same person - it’s barely a step away from saying it on here. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's leagues away and the distinction is no mere "technical nitpick" but rather a cognizant, calculated, and robustly discussed and validated principle embraced by this community from its earliest days. WP:CIV and WP:PA were never meant to be guarantees that you would be treated with respect by your fellow editors off of this site, such that one can flaunt vitally important privacy and outing considerations, which have often serious real world implications and do not disappear for us merely because someone has decided to disclose ownership of a non-wikimedia account. Which is why prohibitions against such behaviour were woven into our policies, including as express limitations of NPA and other behavioural policies, also from the very start and also in a very knowing and considered fashion.

WP:CIV, WP:PA, and related principles were never meant to reach beyond the four corners of this project. They exist to keep our communal work environment relatively sanitized and free from acrimony and abusive behaviour. They do not, never have, and never should guarantee to you that no one, anywhere is being uncivil towards you for your work here. Bluntly (and I don't relish saying it, but it's the simple truth) if one cannot countenance the idea that someone (sometime and somewhere and possibly in full view of the internet) is going to speak harshly, disparagingly, or even offensively about their contributions or their character, then that concerned person simply should not contribute to Wikipedia. Because they simply are not prepared to assume the risk to have to weather a very likely (if not certain) consequence of contributing to this open, public project.

And we cannot shift our policies on privacy and outing enough to accommodate anything approaching the kind of shield that would be necessarily to grant such protection from all such behaviour. And it's more than just the fact that we don't have the resources and tools to police off-site interactions (though that's true, even if you just imagine addressing such conduct in discussions here, and with sanctions here). Rather the more fundamental reason that such off-project oversight is nonviable is that it would necessarily require abrogating policies and protections which serve to prevent much more serious forms of potential harm than rhetorical personal attacks. We simply cannot do that just to make everyone who chooses to participate here secure in the notion that their fellow editors will always treat them with respect, off-project. It's not feasible, and the effort to even try to do so would profoundly damage our privacy protections and our community culture in a litany of ways.

And I say all of this as someone who, as I was just telling a new friend, believes CIV to be one of our most necessary and well-advised community principles, and who is more than satisfied that there is a need to support an indef for Andy based on his on-project incivility alone. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

102.88.0.0/16

• 102.88.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all anonymously edit from the IP range 102.88.0.0/16 are disruptive since July of this year. I've reverted some of them, however, there's still some IP editing constructively from them.
Is it possible to block such a large range? Or is there any sysop who are familiar with range block can block a subgroup of them? -Lemonaka 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out: the date of birth on the infobox of the last article this range was editing is still vandalized. – 2804:F1...6A:298E (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

It's the second time I come here over this (thanks for ignoring me last time). Is this allowed [93]? Is this IP allowed to remove secondary sources and employ primary sources to rebut criticism? If I am wrong tell me so. I am mostly sure I am not and thus I am coming here. If I am not please block this IP and protect the page. The IP is likely a sockpuppet. For more details see the page's history [94]. Super Ψ Dro 11:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you were ignored it probably means you were at the wrong board. Looks like a content dispute with some edit-warring. Maybe RSN and AN3 is the place to go. SPI for the sock allegation. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So the use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES by the IP is appropriate? If so, yes, it is a content dispute I guess. Super Ψ Dro 11:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: whether primary sources are or are not allowed is not a black-and-white question, and is one that needs to be resolved by discussion and consensus, by posting at WP:RSN, and using the avenues suggested by DeCausa above. What it definitely is not, is a matter for WP:ANI. As it says at the very top of this page, this board is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". An editor using primary sources at an article does not constitute that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But I believe an IP edit-warring to get secondary sources removed is such a problem, and I also find their use of primary sources evidently inappropriate, because they are citing the website that the article is about to respond to information cited by secondary sources in a Criticism section, a type of section that should be subject to extra care by editors as it does not deal with objective information. Is this practice, really, not blatantly unencyclopedic? I am kind of baffled that I am going to have to look for a formal dispute resolution procedure over an edit-warring IP that is removing academic sources and replacing them with really low-quality ones. Super Ψ Dro 12:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As DeCausa said above, for edit warring: wp:an3; for socks: wp:spi. And you're right, and you're going to get help there. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically, Super Dromaeosaurus, you should read Kafka first. I recommend Der Process for how it works; it's effectively a Haynes Manual for AN/I. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Super Dromaeosaurus, if I came here every time I bumped up against something like that opening ANI threads would be a full time occupation. Isn't that just the daily to and fro of being a regular WP editor, which makes it such a...ahem...fun hobby? As Amakuru already quoted, this is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". What you've got isn't even close. If you're finding them really annoying you might get the article Semi'd over at WP: RPPI. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, being told this is out of ANI's scope is better than being left in the air as last time. So at least there's that. Thanks everyone for your replies. Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

IP asking me to edit a protected page on their behalf

2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 sent me, earlier today, a talk page message asking me to add content to an extended-protected page (Ahir). They had already put a related edit request on Talk:Ahir a few months ago, and were apparently blocked in the meanwhile. After myself and Sohom Datta both told the IP that this behavior wasn't constructive, they proceeded to make a disparaging remark about Sohom's nationality. I'm really not sure what to make of this situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Don’t, not only is that editing by proxy, they might be evading a ban or block. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I wasn't going to implement their edits either way, just wanted to know whether further action was needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I didn't really think you were, just an excess of caution. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, to underline what Doug said, I would just ignore this editor and hope that they go away. I see that the IP geolocates to Mumbai, India, so don't know what point they were trying to make about Sohom Datta. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, Thanks for raising this issue here, I am very disappointed when I see Ahir article because the article is creating confusion which is wrongly added by some editors who are anti Ahir/Yadav community, in the article The first misconception is that the Ahirs adopted the name Yadav in the Since late 19th century to early 20th century. I would like to refute this with some of my own facts. In the 1881 British census of India, the Yadavas were identified with the Ahirs.[95] So this false claim is refuted. The second false claim is that the Ahirs were Sanskritised, this claim is not supported by any authentic source nor have modern scholars mentioned the Sanskritisation of the Ahirs. In fact, this is a false narrative which has been being spread for a few years. And because of this, some people insult the people of Yadav community and defame them by saying that you are not Yadav but Ahir who has stolen or adopted the Yadav surname wrongly. 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

...and again

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

---

For context. Testimoni di Geova, A user of english wiki, and likely another, since they tend to create 3 accounts at once. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You would be correct. Blocked those two and User:11 Luglio 2021 Italia vince gli Europei contro gli inglesi a casa loro! as a sleeper. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, @RickinBaltimore, could you revoke TPA too? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, should have done that from the start. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Samuel Claesson

Someone should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Claesson. A lot of personal attacks, accusations, possible sock/meat puppetry, etc. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, the problems have pretty much died down by the time this got here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, though I would like an admin's opinion. There were a lot of attacks and non-trivial allegations thrown around and I do think it strange that within a couple hours of the nomination being made, four different accounts/IPs, all of which are new and have only edited in areas relating to Samuel Claesson, show up and start saying similar stuff in favor of keeping the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed as G7 with a side of IAR as it's a BLP. SPI won't do anything with the IPs, but it's likely resolved with the article deleted. I'm not going ot take action against the subject at this stage as I believe frustration ends with the article. If someone else feels it's necessary, feel free Star Mississippi 23:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Noveske Boss on Death of Nex Benedict

Noveske Boss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pretty blatant transphobia ([96] [97] [98] [99] [100]). Probably an LTA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Daniel Quinlan blocked them by the time I finished making this. Good riddance. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was about to semiprotect that article since it seems like there's been disproportionate vandalism there recently, but I was beaten to that. I don't know of any specific LTA whose patterns fit, but it may just be a random troll. In the future, WP:AIV might get faster responses for clear-cut vandals like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I say it should be indef semi-protected per WP:CT/GG. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it was ECP'd. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol they got blocked.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see UTRS appeal #90658 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss11 incivility

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Numerous times in the same discussion at WT:CFB yesterday, Jweiss11 used incivil remarks to belittle/attack Cbl62:

• You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with the reality of this situation.
• Cbl, when it comes to broad project management, competence is required.
• Once again you're completely out touch with reality about the dynamics here, and defensively contorting history rather than examining your own shortcomings. You're out of your depth. Let someone who else who is competent enough to understand what's going on here take the lead.
• Are you ready to admit you're FOS, or did you just misremember what happened?
• It's incredibly pathetic what you're still carrying on with this confabulatory charade, even when I've plainly laid out the evidence for you. You are either lying or you're not competent enough to assess the reality of the sequence of events here. Which one is it?
• What will it take for you to cease with these lies and distortions?
• You need to stop with the repeated lies and alternate histories. It's almost Trump-like.
• But you last comment contains yet another distortion, or an inability to follow what's going on. [...] Perhaps it is our personal rivalry that has rendered you unable to make sound and sensible moral judgements. But whatever the ultimate cause, your distorted and confabulatory tales of fake culpability ensue.

Cbl62's tone/comments in the thread aren't great in responses either, but based on my interactions with them this seems more isolated than Jweiss11's behavior. As an example, Jweiss11 recently labeled a couple editors who nominated college football-related pages "obstructionists" at nomination pages:

• We can file this as another time-wasting, obstructionist XfD by Let’srun, the sort of behavior of his that is currently being discussed at ANI.
• Let'srun, this is another obstructive nomination by you. I am getting very close to seeking a remedy for your behavior.
• No, the problem is the way in which you are trying to apply these standards bluntly even when they obstruct the advancement of the project. (this one was directed towards me)

Jweiss11 has also been warned by several users recently about mass-creating unused templates ([101], [102], [103]). In a couple recent AfDs ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1895 Pacific Tigers football team), Jweiss11 !voted to merge the articles to non-existent articles. They then created the new articles and unilaterally merged the content during the discussions, creating debates within the AfDs about whether to !vote to have the article merged or redirected. They were subsequently warned about this behavior here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, Jweiss can be abrasive, and we have a history of some heated disagreements. I do wish he could be less abrasive, but he is a fantastic contributor. He rubs me the wrong way at times, but I am not asking for any intervention here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Other editors, particularly inexperienced ones, see those types of comments and learn that that is how editors talk to each other. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. User:Cbl62 should read the Andy the Grump shitshow a few sections up to see where this attitude leads when taken to its logical conclusion. Dronebogus (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's not that I enjoy being belittled. It does bug me (the stress kept me up til 3 a.m. this morning). I just don't want to stir things up again here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty charitable of you Cb162, and while I substantially agree with the sentiments of Schazjmd and Dronebogus in responding to your restraint, I still think you are to be credited for it. We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude. Of course, it's also possible that you just recognize that Jweiss11's conduct speaks for itself and that by not piling on, you only enhance your own position by comparison. But frankly even if that reasoning was a part of your mental calculus, I would still appreciate your tact here. Don't change (is my advice, not withstanding the reasonable concerns of Schazjmd above): these traits you are exhibiting are the kinds of psychological reserves that help anchor this project amongst the buffets from more tempestuous behaviour.

  Edit: And yes, I do see at least two people here have noted that you can give as good as you get in these discussions, so I'm not suggesting you are a paragon of restraint. But even the occasional decision of an editor to not go for the throat or come out at the bell throwing rhetorical haymakers is refreshing, especially in this space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude.

  Just FYI, this is called adversarial collaboration, which I recently tried to do with Jweiss11, but failed to accomplish. What I noticed during that discussion is that Jweiss11 is somewhat inflexible and uncharitable to his opponents, which makes it unlikely to succeed. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Eagles247, this is Kafka-esque nonsense and it's beneath you. The thing with the AFD is completely contrived as I followed the the advice of Liz in creating the merged article, so as to bring coherence to my vote. And it's a move we've done before in the past with analogous college football season articles. The difference between and merge and redirect was entirely academic, and some editors may have been confused by technical details, but no one involved had a problem with the ultimate merge effort. The exchange with Cbl62, was unfortunate, but when people advance falsehoods, I know of no other reasonable course of action other than to plainly dispel them. At this point, with that episode, I'm with Cbl, and I'm ready move past that. I'm currently working on putting all those templates into use. See my edits today at Texas Eastern Conference. That effort was delayed in recent days by the Newspapers.com outage at the Wikipedia Library, but I just signed up for the free trial to temporarily get back access. You've appeared at times to have a hostile, bad-faith attitude with respect to a lot of WP:CFB efforts which is puzzling considering your excellent contributions in the past in that topic area. I can point to your disparaging opening of that TFD with "The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy...", and your spurious accusation of canvassing here after you failed to notify me of a TfD for templates that I had created. Yes, at the TFD, you were applying standards bluntly in a way that did not best serve the advancement of the project. That's in large part why the TfD ended in a keep. This looks like retaliation for losing that TfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see that you emailed me, please note that Wikipedia:Emailing users advises Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public and I will keep my conversations with you on-wiki. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss, I don't care if God himself comes down and says that you were correct in this argument. That doesn't change the fact that if you keep wantonly belittling the intelligence of other editors, the community will eventually decide that the value of your contributions is outweighed by the risk of you chasing away editors, each of whom will potentially have contributions just as valuable as yours. You can't handwave legitimate criticism of your actions by describing it as "Kafkaesque". And I'll add that Eagles is entirely correct that a WikiProject doesn't get any sort of special say over anything in its scope, including templates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I don't think anyone involved here is stupid. Can you explain why Wikipedia:Competence is required exists if it can't be cited when apt? Attempting to wade through another editor's falsehoods and misunderstanding should not be conflated with belittling their intelligence. Smart people make big errors all the time. This is a critique of their editing behavior. Yes, the stuff above about AfDs and related merges is Kafakesque. 1) I vote merge in two AfDs 2) Two other experienced editors suggest that my merge vote wont count if I don't execute the merges myself, so the merge has a target. 3) So I execute the merges. 4) Eagles247 described this sequence as some sort of unilateral action on my part in contravention of the warnings from other editors. Pretty clear that's a Kafka-trap. It's a distortion, a dishonest statement, which is far worse than a harsh criticism. Dishonesty will also chase away editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not "Kafka-esque," that's simply a disagreement between editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As has been cited in another discussion above, WP:BRIE applies here. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss, I can appreciate that a string of pointy comments taken out of context is not necessarily the full context here, but I'm going to add my voice to what I hope you can recognize as an emerging consensus here, and a soft warning you should heed: there is definitely something of through-line of hostility and intimidation running through those comments. You're correct that you aren't technically falling fully into PA territory with most of it, by avoiding outright ad hominems, but you're still dancing not on but in fact over the line of incivility, imo. It's probably a safe bet that you won't face a sanction for the above this time, but this is not what we'd call a collegial response to conflict, by any stretch of the imagination. Please try to moderate your tone. A bit of this can be tolerated, but even slightly padded insults can quickly add up to something the community will view as a problem in need of redress. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Both Jweiss11 and Cbl62 are fantastic editors that are needed and among Wikipedia's best. I think both of them could be a bit more civil in noting their disagreements, but I don't think the WT:CFB discussion is something that rises to the level of needing ANI discussion. As for !voting "merge" at two AFDs and then creating the articles to which it was suggested merging, I see no issue with that at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Logue (surname)

Indefinite block requested on IP 193.95.146.196 for repeated unconstructive edits over a protracted period, but lately on this one article. Doug butler (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. IPs aren't blocked indefinitely. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:RupertNY245 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Already blocked; now spamming their own talk page with more personal attacks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked RupertNY245's talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN Concern

Hello, I have a WP:OWN concern regarding the editor @Shinealittlelight: and an apparent watchful possessive behavior of the article The Antioch International Movement of Churches article. In my brief encounter with editing the article, every attempt to contribute has been met with a swift revert or extensive deletion by Shinealittlelight whether it was valid or not. Be that as it may I must assume the edits were made in "good faith". However, Shinealittlelight likes to utilize the optional WP:BRD technique. Unfortunately with this technique, even proper content, grammar, and spelling corrections get reverted. I found this response to be rather unfriendly and frustrating. According to WP:Revert only when necessary, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia.

After extensive talks in the talk section, we were able to civilly work edits out but I found meeting Shinealittlelight's requirements exhausting. They did not feel like mutual compromises, they were meeting another editor's demands. I'm a relatively new editor, and truth be told, I felt very discouraged and feel like quitting. Every edit seemed to required this editor's strict and particular approval.

Shinealittelight's authorship consists of a vast majority, 50% of page edits since March. However, the average editor to this page ranges between 3-7% of authorship, 7% being the second highest authorship. With such a high degree of watchfulness and contributions to this page, it's not unreasonable to respectively raise a WP:OWN concern. I haven't checked the history of all the edits but if it is anything like what I experienced, (extensive deletions, swift reverts, particular requirements, high degree of watchfulness, authorship) I think the article is being overly guarded by a single editor. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic an editor cares about—perhaps they are an expert, or perhaps it is just a hobby; however, if Shinealittlelight's watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then Shinealittlelight is overdoing it.

I attempted to discuss my concern with this editor initially on the article's talk page but got no response. WP:OWN says "you can bring it up on the associated talk page." Eventually, we left messages on each other's talk pages. Now I'm a relatively new editor and am still learning the ropes. Shinealittlelight accused me of making an much earlier unrelated personal attack much earlier on the talk page, which I did not and will not. While I did state some strong feelings over the denial of conversion therapy, I did not personally attack any editor. No editor has replied, no editor has taken ownership of the denial of conversion therapy, no editor was named, nobody's feelings were hurt, this is a non-issue and is off-topic. Forgive and forget. Back to the real concern at hand, Shinealittlelight denied being possessive over the article and did not see ownership as a concern. I think we still have had interactions that were civil, but were a chore for me to work through, due to the extensive requirements, and arguably possessive particularities Shinealittlelight demanded to contribute to the The Antioch International Movement of Churches article. I can always give Shinealittlelight the benefit of the doubt but if anything I think Shinealittlelight should give it a lot more reflection. Not just on watching a single article and overworking it but on extensive swift reverts, deletions on other editors' entire contributions. It is a concern to be aware of, reconsider, and perhaps change behaviors on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pride2bme (talk • contribs)

• NO comment on merit, but noting this is also posted at Teahouse#WP:OWN_concern and the HD. Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is some important context about the recent rather challenging history of this page: [104]. As I see it, Pride2bme and I have had somewhat adversarial but productive conversations that have improved the article. I'm glad to continue with that, and I am glad to have a different perspective on the page. But the fact that we are generally coming from different perspectives means that this will take effort. I did suggest following BRD once, which is my preference, but I'm fine with taking a different approach (though it would be helpful to hear what approach this editor prefers!). I would also ask that this user not continue to engage in negative commentary about me on the article talk page (see for example this editor's negative commentary about me in these diffs: [105][106]). Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued unsourced statistics changes at Botola

An edit war where no side is uding sources was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive362#Page. This continued after the most recent protection expired. The {{More citations needed}} template is also being repeatedly removed [107][108] by users who are changing the statistics.

The user 41.251.223.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also overwrote a notice about this issue left by one of the participants on my talk page, but they are not involved in the actual dispute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi 2 months. – robertsky (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One removal of the tag happened during the last protection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing by The First Legionnaire

The First Legionnaire (talk · contribs) - this user has a very odd editing pattern, and almost none of their ~1,800 contribs seem to be constructive in any way. The vast majority simply go against the manual of style and are not helpful at all: this includes changing articles to use American English when they are explicitly tagged to use British English, removing links or adding ones that are unnecessary for no reason (see that this user has never once used an edit summary despite many of their edits being reverted), deleting or adding blank space that is not visible to the reader (and is not mandated by the MOS), changing the first letter of a hatnote to a capital letter (e.g. {{see also}} → {{See also}}), or doing the same with wikilinks, often going against MOS:CAPS; the most frequent example of this capital-letter-changing is on "battle" and "siege" articles, where this editor frequently changes, again going against MOS:CAPS, the lowercase "s" in "siege" or "b" in "battle" to a capital just because the article title starts with a capital letter. You can see how adamant this editor is on changing these letters by going on any article of a popular battle or siege and seeing their presence there: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] and these are only the first results that come up when I search "siege of". This is a "typical" edit by The First Legionnaire: [116]

Despite being warned of their bad editing habits on their talk page multiple times, The First Legionnaire has never written on their own talk page, or commented on any talk page for that matter.

Many of this user's edits should be mass reverted, even if they aren't really "vandalism", and I would suggest some sort of (maybe indef) block unless this editor starts communicating why they make these edits. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Riizwaan111 and copyright infringement past fourth warning

Over the past few weeks, User:Riizwaan111 has been inserting copyright violations into the article Mojo (soft drink) and Draft:Atsushi Okuda. I removed the violations from the Atsushi Okuda draft after a copypatrol report a few weeks ago. Later that day, Riizwaan111 added the violations back in, and I took them back out a few days ago. A very similiar pattern of behaviour is now showing itself on the Mojo article- another user removed the violations, and I went in and removed the WP:TRANSVIOS they'd missed. Earlier today, somebody placed a WP:PROD tag on the article- so Riizwaan111 added more copyrighted text in this edit, from the cited BBC article. They also seem to have copied material in Draft:Pamir Cola from the product's official website. I haven't checked the foreign language sources yet.

Again, they've been warned several times not to do this, but have yet to respond to warnings on their talk page- or cease adding copyright violations. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And I believe there's also WP:UPE involvement as well. @GreenLipstickLesbian, I'm glad that you're monitoring their edits and raising the issue here, because my warnings to this user were instead interpreted as harassment by a LOUTSOCK IP. Courtesy ping: Diannaa — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice/help for good faith editor making a mess of some articles

The editor is User talk:Intichkanmi7378, see their contributions here. Their first edits were translations of unsourced articles from es.wiki to userspace.

Their next edit changed the spelling of the name of an Incan god so that it no longer matches the title of the article. This type of change has continued since, most probably not reverted.

A few edits later I see this[117] with the edit summary "I modified the article to contain information from the "divergent duplicate" article "Mama Oqllu" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Oqllu I also modified the names to conform with the modern runa simi orthography." {good catch by the way, we don't want two articles on the same deity! The Oqllu version was created in 2020 but never turned into a redirect, see User talk:BrittniG2445

These "orthography" changes continue as does the creation of draft translations, again unsourced and some categorised which of course we don't do with drafts. They also started adding Wiktionary links, which are not a reliable source and may be adding more problems.

I've mentioned these issues to the editor, as has User:Skyerise but it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

It looks like a lot of reverts are going to be necessary and the editor convinced to stop and hopefully help fix their edits. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just make redirects for the differing orthographies? Secretlondon (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As they contradict the spellings in the titles and other places, no. Leads need to use the same spelling as the title of the article. I think they also found some redirects so that articles now show the wrong spelling (not in the lead) but redirect. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Doug, I'm a bit confused as to why you chose now to come to ANI regarding Intickanmi? They did recently add Wiktionary to multiple articles, and reverting all of them was a nuisance (I would know), but they've barely edited since then, unless there's something I'm missing? Sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to be punitive. I would hope we've made it abundantly clear at this point that citing Wiktionary is unacceptable, and Intickanmi hasn't made any notable edits since that point (that I see), so why sanction them now? Thanks for enlightening me! DonIago (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago I was careful with my section heading, which starts "Advice/help for good faith editor" - not "with good faith editor". I'm not asking for sanctions. I did tell them I'd have to block if they didn't reply (after a number of warnings, including yours), to which they never responded. But they have responded. But done nothing. I don't understand this - here we have an editor fluent in English, but even their response was short and didn't attempt to explain their edits (although their copyright question was a good explanation of their problem with copyright). It would be great if they asked for more details as to why their edits were problematic, but they haven't done that. It would be even better if they reverted them. I myself am not going to take any Admin action against them and am here to ask for help in avoiding that. I hope they at least stop. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that User:Plastikspork also reverted them for changing spellings. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that they asked what you wanted of them on July 8 and you responded on July 9 (Eastern time). They didn't reply to you, but they also only made one edit on July 9 and haven't edited at all since then, so I still don't see why this needed to be escalated now. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago Not editing since means that they haven't undone any of their edits as asked. I didn't come here until talking to another editor yesterday. see User talk:Skyerise for her strong response agreeing that ANI would be appropriate. Are you saying that the editor doesn't need help of advice? I don't think you are. I didn't want to see another string of 80 bad edits in one day that needed reverting and was hoping someone else here would have an idea. Should I have waited? Doug Weller talk 14:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, they'll edit in long bursts and then take off days or weeks off until they return to edit again. So, I guess, if it was me, I'd have waited until they started editing again. Some editors, when comments start piling up on their User talk page, will take a break from editing especially should they see a discussion header like It is with regret that I have had to report problems with your editing. If they are relatively new or not used to posting on talk pages, they might not come back for a while or not come back at all.

I also wonder given the many notices they have already received, what do you think we could come up with here that would cause their approach to change? They have already received ten corrective talk page messages in ten days telling them their are problems with their editing, I think they don't need an 11th message at this point. They have gotten plenty of feedback telling them there are problems, let's see if it sinks in. I'd also change the header for the ANI notice which really sounds ominous rather than an invitation to come discuss things here. I know you probably didn't mean for it to be, but I'd be intimidated if I was a new editor (and even a not-so-new editor). ANI notices always sound like a student is being summoned to the principal's office. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Ok, I could have/probably should have done all those things. I did think the ANI notice I gave them was not ominous, but I'd appreciate suggestions for changing it. But note that they were still editing about 12 hours after I told them what I wanted, so they had plenty of time to reply. I just hope when they return they will have listened and at least ceased the problematic edits if not helped deal with them. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago Just noticed that they made 2 edits on the 9th and had plenty of time to respond to me again. Still, water under the bridge now. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago I see you reverted them here[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Qurn&diff=prev&oldid=1233230746] when they added "" Looks like they copied it from Meretseger#Meretseger's hill and it is a good source.

Doug Weller talk 16:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't change the section heading on the talk page, but I tried to make it clear that I think they could be a valuable editor. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to undo my edits in whole or in part, but I don't have access to that source and I'm uncomfortable adding a source that I can't verify for myself. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago quite right, I would not restore it either. I don’t know if this editor had access but I’m assuming they just dis a search on Wikipedia. A lot of editors do assume you can do this, so I’m not condemning them. I am going to bed however. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Seeking info about a LTA

I don't want to name any names here, but have run into a newly created suspicious account that perhaps others might recognize by behavior as Long Term Abuse

• Possibly from Australia (uses "mate", "bro")
• Focus on criminal articles
• Removal of the word "Mugshot" from image captions
• Needlessly combining and splitting paragraphs
• Deleting entire blocks or sections of text as "unsourced". While also adding unsourced statements.

Anyone seen someone like this before? -- GreenC 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Name names or do this in a different venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And make sure to notify the name you're naming using {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~; we're not a star chamber here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hold up: I don't see the harm in GreenC's approach here? So long as they're not making an immediate report of a behavioural violation, there's no need to inform anyone, and this might be the best approach when trying to identify a sock or LTA, so that the report can be based in the evasion and/or prior history of disruption, rather than dealing with potential argument that the present behaviour is weak tea for justifying a sanction. And above all, there may be WP:BEANS reasons for approaching a look into disruption in this way. Under what principle, policy, or rationale should we shut this seemingly reasonable call for input from others with experience in the LTA realm down? What forum could possibly be more appropriate for such a request than ANI? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to report a moderator/editor who I fear has the power to intercept messages such as these.

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

---

I want to report a malicious moderator.

He has come up as an issue in the past, but please read this collated report (link below) on his malfeasance with fresh eyes.

If wikipedia won't take action against this very obviously bad actor, publicly ripping all moderation and editing power from their hands, then I will no longer trust wikipedia, and will do everything in my power to make sure nobody else in my circle does either.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin

Caseythezahima (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseythezahima (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

see some additional discourse surrounding this here: https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1811049889284886811

and here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ai-72-denying-the-future?open=false#%C2%A7the-wikipedia-war Caseythezahima (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Caseythezahima (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia actually does not regard itself as a reliable source. As for the linked report, I clicked it, got partway through, and gave up as WP:TLDR. If you could please present WP:DIFFs of the alleged misbehavior and summarize it in one to three paragraphs, that would make it more likely that the report is taken seriously. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You cannot expect a report of many years of bad behavior from a malicious actor to be terribly short. You are not making a case for wikipedia being taken seriously as a community or source. It is 13k words, regarding a moderator with a nontrivial amount of power over wikipedia itself. Caseythezahima (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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