Revision as of 01:47, 10 November 2024 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,441 edits →User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:01, 10 November 2024 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators759,137 editsm →Hindu News: MENext edit → | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,171: | Line 1,171: | ||
:::{{ping|Blaxstocatamazon}} I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read ]. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | :::{{ping|Blaxstocatamazon}} I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read ]. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
::::While ] does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that ], and because the edit itself implicates ] ]. IP editor: Anything said specifically to ] is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are ]). —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | ::::While ] does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that ], and because the edit itself implicates ] ]. IP editor: Anything said specifically to ] is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are ]). —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
:*Did anyone besides EEngs read through ? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ThornlessCookieReal == | == ThornlessCookieReal == |
Revision as of 02:01, 10 November 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administratorsNoticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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 Centralized discussion- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
Elijah Pepe's article creation
Unanimous consensus to ban ElijahPepe from creating articles in mainspace for six months. He may submit new articles through the articles for creation process. charlotte 18:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have never reported a user to ANI before to so bear with me if I do anything silly or this is the wrong venue.
User:ElijahPepe is a proflific article creator who's quick creation of current event articles have been problematic. His userpage is littered with deletion notices and editors making similar arguments over their creation of articles. Just in the last few months, 2024 Houston helicopter crash was deleted through a PROD, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was speedy deleted (with an additional comment from User:sawyer777 about Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted), 2024 Zamfara State boat accident (a two line article) was moved to draftspace, 2024 stock market decline was deleted at AFD (see these comments from User: Liz and User:Soni on Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted and ) and Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a one line article) was moved to draftspace.
Elijah certainly has created articles that are notable, and I would be wrong to not mention that, but too many times they have been warned about their article creation, or their articles have been deleted, with no change in behavior. I think some sort of sanction might be useful in this case to prevent this from continuing to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I recall a recent noticeboard thread on this same topic with this same user: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User_needs_autopatrolled_revoked, which was closed with their autopatrol being revoked on account of doing this too much. jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed this as well. It almost feels like he's creating them just to claim "First!" Here he made an article about retaliatory strikes against Iran that didn't even happen until nine days later. Procyon117 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- If Elijah was actually doing due diligence on articles (Confirm there isn't another article, check notability, actually add sufficient sourcing and content), we wouldn't be here. He does not, and nearly all of his articles are one sentence each, way less than anyone would expect. When repeated consistently, this shows a problem.
- Note that I have past strong opinions on Elijah and saw this primarily thanks to the ping. I respect his mainspace contributions (as someone who has not contributed much there myself recently), but they are not supposed to be a substitute for due diligence. Soni (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- the issue is also his lack of communication; he rarely uses edit summaries even for huge sweeping changes, and doesn't meaningfully respond to feedback from other editors. see also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus & Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#ElijahPepe New York Times issues, and this interaction on his talk page User talk:ElijahPepe#Tesla Network. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have nominated Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations for deletion. It was also created by this user. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear what ElijahPepe has to say about this. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- To explain: I have never claimed that there is anything special about creating articles. I create them because I find them necessary, either as notable entries or for another reason. Since the article about the helicopter crash in Houston, I have tried to reduce articles on one-off events; this morning, a roof collapse in Serbia killed eight people, likely more since I checked, yet I don't intend on creating an article for it. The articles Esolo cites are not good examples of the claim he is trying to make. I agree with the deletion of 2024 Houston helicopter crash, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was a specific case in which consensus changed and that article no longer needed to exist, Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was a duplicate that was technically created before the current article, 2024 Venezuelan political crisis. 2024 stock market decline was a mistake that will never occur again, though I believe that the consensus was a misunderstanding of what I intended to cover. 2024 Zamfara State boat accident was an aforementioned one-off event. As for Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, I created the redirect, but the final article was not mine; editors determined a split was necessary and performed one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- these are some of the current or future event articles Elijah has created (and did not start as redirects) just from the last month and a half or so:
- 2024 Tel Aviv truck attack
- 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak
- Tesla Network (future)
- Tesla Cybercab (future)
- Assassination of Hashem Safieddine
- Proposed acquisition of Dish Network by DirecTV (future)
- September 2024 Birmingham shooting
- 2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq (perhaps the most ridiculous example of a future event article)
- nearly all of them were created as single-sentence, single-source stubs with no indication of notability. there are more to be found at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/ElijahPepe/all#0
i and others have suggested Elijah simply make these current/future events articles in draftspace, as is fairly common, mostly to no avail. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)- If using the draftspace, which I did at 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak, is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's still an article about a one-off thing of little significance, made up of WP:PROSELINE collecting a few news stories and other primary sources that don't carry any meaningful analysis. This whole topic should be one or two sentences in History of McDonald's, but it's been source bombed to make it look notable when it's not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- before this gets archived without action (as threads about Elijah tend to do), i'll say i agree with this. the issue is the creation of these articles which have no indication of notability. starting non-notable articles in draftspace and then moving them to mainspace is no better. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's still an article about a one-off thing of little significance, made up of WP:PROSELINE collecting a few news stories and other primary sources that don't carry any meaningful analysis. This whole topic should be one or two sentences in History of McDonald's, but it's been source bombed to make it look notable when it's not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- If using the draftspace, which I did at 2024 McDonald's E. coli outbreak, is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- these are some of the current or future event articles Elijah has created (and did not start as redirects) just from the last month and a half or so:
- i've been mulling this over a bit, and while i'm not going to propose any sanctions or anything (i don't really know what would be appropriate & productive here), i'd like to expand on my issue with his article creation habits. the last time this particular issue was brought to ANI (by @Trainsandotherthings in april), as jpxg mentions above, the complaints from other editors were as follows:
creating one-sentence stubs
: they're now usually two or three sentences by the time Elijah stops working on them. from the examples i listed above, see 22 Sep, 1 Oct (slightly longer but still only one source), 4 Oct, 11 Oct, 11 Oct, 22 Oct, 27 OctHe also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations
: see above revisions; they do not have categoriesthey're still not using edit summaries for content edits
: since april, his edit summary usage has hovered between 25.3% and 38.1% (link); nearly 70% of his edits are in mainspace (link)
- in that ANI, Elijah said
Ecrusized did not provide a policy against creating one-sentence articles and did not follow up after my comment; his clarification was that it was acceptable given the article was being worked on before being linked to a high-traffic page. Obviously, I'm aware now that is not acceptable.
make of that what you will in light of his more recent article creation habits.
as mentioned above, other editors have been raising issues with this for months. Liz & Soni commented in august/september, and Elijah repliedAnd I have used the draftspace where appropriate since this comment.
i'm not really sure what to make of his above commentIf using the draftspace is all you're asking for, then I can oblige by that
in light of that.
i'm focusing on his underdeveloped article creations (of which there are so many that i won't name them all here), but there have been other issues as well. above i linked to two previous ANI threads about the NYT debacle from march-april, and i will also link to User talk:ElijahPepe#April 2024 which includes many similar concerns about poor collaboration. the other thread which i linked above is also pretty revealing in my view; Elijah saysAs far as I know, "Tesla Network" is a placeholder name. I'm not against merging the article because the topic has no coverage, but I created it in order to maintain an article about the Robovan.
- that is fundamentally not why or how articles should be created on wikipedia. i pressed him about this, but he did not respond to the substance of my concern and instead just corrected me on a mistake i made in my comment. i also asked him to use draftspace then, which further makes his comment in this thread confusing. again, i don't know what kind of solution this situation needs, but this is frustrating ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Since I've been pinged, I'll offer a solution: a ban on creating articles in mainspace and a requirement to use AfC for all new articles. Take it or leave it, many people have agreed there is a problem but nobody else has proposed a remedy thus far. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would support something like this. Procyon117 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I usually don't take positions on proposals at ANI but I think this is reasonable as it doesn't look like it's a problem that is going to go away. What do you think of a 6 month ban on mainspace article creation? I think a formal Proposal has to be made in a new section of this discussion. Liz 07:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- We're beating around this bush too much, and there needs to be a clearer path forward. So I'm creating TBAN as a formal proposal. I just don't think elijah should be given a dedicated babysitter (again) so this feels like the only logical step to me. If the TBAN fails, it fails.
- Full disclosure, I have followed off-wiki discussion on this, but I was independently following this thread anyway thanks to the ping. Soni (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was not made aware that categories were required. If I am not barred from creating articles, I would implore you to examine my edits for six months in which I will meet all those criteria and create them in the draftspace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since I've been pinged, I'll offer a solution: a ban on creating articles in mainspace and a requirement to use AfC for all new articles. Take it or leave it, many people have agreed there is a problem but nobody else has proposed a remedy thus far. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposed TBAN from creating new articles
Proposal : ElijahPepe is TBANned from creating new articles in the mainspace for 6 months. He needs to go through WP:AFC for any created articles.
- Support as proposer. Soni (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, regretfully. EF 18:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN. Procyon117 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- support per my above statements ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support TBAN. Clear this has gone on for too long without action. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per my earlier comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Improper vanishing and restoration of a deleted article
Last year, I had a protracted debate at an AfD with Errico Boukoura. TLDR: the nominated article, which was written by him, used unencyclopedic language and the author bypassed proper AfC, after several failed AfC submissions, by removing the controversial parts and adding them back after passing AfC. At the AfD, everybody, except the author, agreed with deletion. After the deletion, the author vanished.
Today, I noticed the article (with a slightly differently spelled name) exists again. The unencyclopedic language is similar, if I remember well, to the original article. It was created just a few days after the closure of the AfD by IlEssere in their very first edit. Some historical revisions even use phrasing I remember from the original article:
The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene.
The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects
Today, the building of Keramikou 28 stands as a symbol of the Athenian art scene through the numerous exhibitions, performances, and projects hosted within its walls
Also note that the current article passed AfC, albeit in a much shorter version than the current text.
Pinging editors who participated in the AfD: @Explicit, Star Mississippi, S Marshall, XOR'easter, HandThatFeeds, and Daniel. Also pinging @ToadetteEdit, who approved the current article at AfC.
– Janhrach (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I forgot to note, to avoid confusion, that the current article is not a verbatim restoration of the deleted one. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just got pinged; I didn't remember reviewing the draft and didn't noticed the AfD, but to be clear, doesn't the article meet G4 of speedy deletion? ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I thought that G4 applies, eligible page should be identical, and the substantial addition since the acceptance makes it ineligible, if I interpret policy properly. Other than that an AfD may be appropriate as I fail to verify any qualifying sources in the article that makes the building notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not sure if you’re referring to the original page or the one I created. Regarding the page I created, the articles in Greek are the ones that mention the points you're addressing. IlEssere (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I am referring to your (recreated) article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- All information added to the page is referenced, though most sources are in Greek, as this building is in Athens and has primarily gained attention locally.
- You can share which specific parts you are referring so I can help with the transition of the reference. IlEssere (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Translation IlEssere (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I am referring to your (recreated) article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not sure if you’re referring to the original page or the one I created. Regarding the page I created, the articles in Greek are the ones that mention the points you're addressing. IlEssere (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion, I meant this edit, which happened after the AfD. You reviewed the recreated article, not the original one (that which was deleted). Janhrach (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Saw the diff, just realized that G4 would have applied, given that it was not caught by the helper script nor PageCuration to the least (given that Atlantic306 had given the article a pass) I am not sure whether G4 applies now or not with the current expanded version. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I thought that G4 applies, eligible page should be identical, and the substantial addition since the acceptance makes it ineligible, if I interpret policy properly. Other than that an AfD may be appropriate as I fail to verify any qualifying sources in the article that makes the building notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm new to Misplaced Pages and still learning some of the terms, so I'm not familiar with what AfD means. I actually started using Misplaced Pages because of Keramikou 28. I came across an article related to it that had incorrect information and was poorly written, but I unfortunately lost track of it before I could figure out what happened to it.
- After some research, I created a new page myself to provide accurate information on the topic. IlEssere (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- AfD=Articles for deletion ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification! It seems others have also noted that the original page may not have been properly written besides me.
- As for the page o created, I'd really appreciate any guidance on ensuring the page I created meets Misplaced Pages's standards. If you have suggestions or would like to make any corrections or add relevant information, please feel free to do so. IlEssere (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please see this. Janhrach (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- What about this? IlEssere (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you lost track of what happened to the article that
had incorrect information
, then whyitshistorical revisions of your article contain text fragments from the old, deleted article? Janhrach (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)- As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Misplaced Pages. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.
- Please feel free to make any corrections you find necessary on the page I created. If you have any questions about the Greek references, I’d be happy to help with translations for verification. IlEssere (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- The notice about the AfD discussion was on the top of the article for two weeks. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don’t remember if I saw the AfD notice or not, as this was about a year ago. A friend told me that the had gone through some conversations about the relation of the page, but didn’t know what happened. I’m still quite new to Misplaced Pages and learning how everything works, so there’s a lot I’m still figuring out. IlEssere (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- So you say that the author of the deleted article is a friend of yours? Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I said a friend that had gone through some conversations. IlEssere (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- What conversations? Do you mean they participated in the AfD? Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I said a friend that had gone through some conversations. IlEssere (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- So you say that the author of the deleted article is a friend of yours? Janhrach (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don’t remember if I saw the AfD notice or not, as this was about a year ago. A friend told me that the had gone through some conversations about the relation of the page, but didn’t know what happened. I’m still quite new to Misplaced Pages and learning how everything works, so there’s a lot I’m still figuring out. IlEssere (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- So this is substantially a recreation of the deleted article, and should be G4'ed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that while past revisions would certainly qualify for G4, the current one contains a lot of content not present is the deleted article, so it is not eligible. Janhrach (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is not a copy-paste of the previous page. I used the structure of the original as a framework, but I worked on it and made changes to create new content." IlEssere (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- The notice about the AfD discussion was on the top of the article for two weeks. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- AfD=Articles for deletion ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Long story short: Last year, @Errico Boukoura: created a draft for the topic, It was submitted 5 times and it was declined by 3 distinct reviewers including a rejection by @Greenman:. Apparently the decline was due to the article's tone. It was then reviewed by an experienced reviewer and accepted it, vbut later it was sent to AfD and deleted on grounds of wp:tnt. A few days later, another created the draft and was accepted five months later. Based on this, the article is plausibly notable, so the issue should be around the prose and/or the editor. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info. Could you provide some guidance on how I can improve the prose? IlEssere (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is important to note that reviewed version of the original article was significanly abridged, and the removed content was re-added after review. Janhrach (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, and I’ve made changes to this. I’ve significantly abridged the content and removed unnecessary details to make the article more concise and focused. IlEssere (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- My comment was about the original article created by Errico Boukoura. Janhrach (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I admire your honesty, but it is impossible to verfy without the ability to view deleted revisions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were an admin, so you could verify my claims. Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, and I’ve made changes to this. I’ve significantly abridged the content and removed unnecessary details to make the article more concise and focused. IlEssere (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion (thanks for the ping), this is not a G4, but nor does it address the issues which go far beyond prose. I have opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28 where the content is best discussed. If IlEssere's conduct needs assessing, this should remain open. If this is deleted, a note should be relayed to AfC reviewers to keep an eye out for spelling variations and that it's best left for experienced reviewers. Star Mississippi 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you share the present issues t on the current Keramikou 28 page that go beyond prose? Understanding these factors would be helpful in addressing the article's suitability. Additionally, are there specific elements (like sourcing or content focus) that you find problematic in its current version? IlEssere (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- IlEssere, article improvement is not a subject that is dealt with at ANI. I recommend asking any editors who reviewed the article for Articles for Creation if you went through that process or asking at the Teahouse. I also recommend participating in the AFD linked here so you can hear the critique of the article by editors, that might provide guidance on how to improve it. Good luck. Liz 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am currently participating in the AFD discussion, but I've been advised to come back here to understand what the specific problems with the page are. I'm feeling a bit confused because the opinions on here seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the main concerns are. Could someone help me understand the key issues that need to be addressed for this article? IlEssere (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- IlEssere, I'm not sure why anyone would tell you to return to ANI. This noticeboard deals with editor conduct, not content issues. This is not the forum to come to for advice on improving this article and your time is best spent elsewhere. Liz 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi IlEssere (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz I did send @IlEssere back here and the prior AfD to read all of the arguments already made about why the article should not have been re-created. IlEssere it's fine if you disagree, but you really do need to listen to the other editors' input especially in the prior discussion. Liz's suggestion about the AfC declines will also help. Star Mississippi 04:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing. I'm genuinely trying to figure out the best approach for the article and understand how to move forward. IlEssere (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- IlEssere, I'm not sure why anyone would tell you to return to ANI. This noticeboard deals with editor conduct, not content issues. This is not the forum to come to for advice on improving this article and your time is best spent elsewhere. Liz 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am currently participating in the AFD discussion, but I've been advised to come back here to understand what the specific problems with the page are. I'm feeling a bit confused because the opinions on here seem to overlap, and I'm not sure what the main concerns are. Could someone help me understand the key issues that need to be addressed for this article? IlEssere (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- IlEssere, article improvement is not a subject that is dealt with at ANI. I recommend asking any editors who reviewed the article for Articles for Creation if you went through that process or asking at the Teahouse. I also recommend participating in the AFD linked here so you can hear the critique of the article by editors, that might provide guidance on how to improve it. Good luck. Liz 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you share the present issues t on the current Keramikou 28 page that go beyond prose? Understanding these factors would be helpful in addressing the article's suitability. Additionally, are there specific elements (like sourcing or content focus) that you find problematic in its current version? IlEssere (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a situation where the spelling of the title of an article has been changed when it is recreated after a deletion. This is an all-too-common practice, in particular when the name of the subject is transliterated from a non-Latin writing system. This is a situation in which it is difficult to assume good faith, because it appears to be gaming the title, which is a conduct issue However, since the article has been nominated for deletion, we can focus on the content issue at the AFD and ignore the conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank for clarifying this. I tried to clarify the problems with the page at its AfD, but @Star Mississippi directed me here to find the reason why the article was AfD. IlEssere (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @IlEssere, you cannot understand the point. The article was sent to AfD because it is a recreated article that is not a G4 and neutrality as on the old deleted one is still disputed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand what the problem is now. I confused since other things where mentioned on here. IlEssere (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @IlEssere, you cannot understand the point. The article was sent to AfD because it is a recreated article that is not a G4 and neutrality as on the old deleted one is still disputed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank for clarifying this. I tried to clarify the problems with the page at its AfD, but @Star Mississippi directed me here to find the reason why the article was AfD. IlEssere (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- The article should be, of course, discussed at AfD. But I think conduct should also be discussed, as there are plenty of reasons to think that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person:
- The new article was created only a few days after the deletion of the old one. IlEssere explains this by saying that they copied the old article, worked on it, and uploaded their more-or-less finished work after the deletion. But the oldest revisions of Keramikou 28 do not seem to indicate this. They look like IlEssere restored verbatim fragments of the original article (Some passages are familiar to me, some less so, so I am not absolutely sure.) and worked on them on-wiki.
- IlEssere claimed they didn't know what AfD means. However, they mentioned the AfD process in this Teahouse post. I find it highly unlikely that they would forget about the existence of AfD. Even if they had forgotten the name, I linked the AfD discussion above. I think it is very unlikely that they wouldn't remember even after visiting the AfD page.
- Do not see a good-faith reason why would IlEssere leave the significant expansion of the current article for after the AfC, especially noting that they claim to be a completely new and unexperienced editor.
- The language of the current article is similar to the previous one.
- Both IlEssere and Errico Boukoura claim to speak English, Greek and Italian on their user page.
- Notice the "Articles contributed" list on IlEssere's user page. It seems to be a list of all article they have edited. They list the article Theodoros Stamos there. However no edits have been made to the article by IlEssere. The last edit to the page is by Errico Boukoura.
- IlEssere hasn't defensed themselves convincingly yet.
- – Janhrach (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve addressed most of these concerns previously.
- I discovered the Keramikou 28 page around the time it was deleted and noticed it had a lot of misinformation and was poorly written. Since I was new to Misplaced Pages, I copied the entire page and began working on improving it on my own with more accurate information, better tone, correct references, and a more suitable image.
- As for AfD, until it was brought up again, I wasn’t entirely sure what it was. When I first posted in the Teahouse, I only knew from a tech-savvy friend who followed the original Keramikou 28 AfD process that the page had been deleted due to poor references. To clarify, as @Janhrach mentioned, I am *not* connected to the previous creator.
- Could you clarify what you mean by “similar”?
- If you are talking about the tone, I disagree that the new version resembles the old one, which I remember as being highly promotional.
- While I do speak English, Greek, Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Arabic, I don’t think that sharing some of the same languages as Boukoura means we are the same person.
- Lastly, I have made improvements to each article listed on my profile, including the Theodoros Stamos page.
- IlEssere (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say that this was the result of your offline work?
- You said "I'm not familiar with what AfD means." and when ToadetteEdit responded "AfD=Articles for deletion", you were satisfied. This is not consistent with your reply that you weren't "entirely sure what it was".
- As for the language in the old article, I will quote S Marshall:
The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear.
- This description also fits the current article.
- Can you please post the diff in which you edited Theodoros Stamos? Was it this one or this one?
- – Janhrach (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn’t even remember this, I thought you were referring to the current page. I'm not sure when I created that one, it was likely early edits in my Misplaced Pages.
- What I tried to do was; copy the original page and make corrections, intending to update to how the current Keramikou 28 page looks.
- As for AfD, I now know what it is, so lets focus on the current page.
- Concerning my edits on Theodoros Stamos, I need to review them, as I can't recall when I made the edits. As you can see on my page, I have been editing numerous entries recently. But please give some time since I am busy in real life. IlEssere (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- This contribution is remarkably similar in key words and editing style to a number by Errico Boukoura seen at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28. I find myself agreeing with Janhrach's hunch above, for whatever that is worth. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- The diff I presented is extremely important – it is your very first edit and the edit that created the page that is now nominated for deletion. You said:
As I mentioned earlier, Keramikou 28 is what motivated me to start using Misplaced Pages. I initially copied the entire page to work on corrections offline, intending to upload them later. However, when I went to add the updates, I found that the page was no longer there, losing track of what happened.
- This diff, at least seemingly, disproves this claim. I really fail to see how the text added in it, or in the few following edits, could be seen as a suitable replacement for the now-deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve addressed most of these concerns previously.
- Backlink: Misplaced Pages:Teahouse § Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28. Presented without comment: el:Special:History/Κεραμεικού 28, it:Speciale:Cronologia/Keramikou 28. (Indentation level chosen arbitrarily). Folly Mox (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Remarkable how el and it are both languages that User:Errico Boukoura has listed on their userpage as proficient or native, and IlEssere happens to create articles on this topic on both those wikis. At some point, we need to accept what is staring ourselves in the face. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would welcome an uninvolved editor taking an action (be it warning or whatever else) against the bludgeoning of quite big proportions on the AfD. Janhrach (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you share more details on why this is bludgeoning? It doesn’t sound like bludgeoning on the AfD. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Quote from the essay explaining bludgeoning:
attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions.
Janhrach (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- I know what bludgeoning is in Misplaced Pages. I was referring to the article and which parts are bludgeoning in this specific page. I’ve went through the references and everything seems to be correct. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the AfD discussion, more specifically to IlEssere's conduct in it, not to the article itself. Janhrach (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. In my opinion, the article looks okay and thoroughly researched. I'm not sure why it received an "Adf" since minor details need to be improved. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the AfD discussion, more specifically to IlEssere's conduct in it, not to the article itself. Janhrach (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know what bludgeoning is in Misplaced Pages. I was referring to the article and which parts are bludgeoning in this specific page. I’ve went through the references and everything seems to be correct. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- IlEssere, did you forget to log in? Jauerback/dude. 20:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? IlEssere (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quote from the essay explaining bludgeoning:
- Can you share more details on why this is bludgeoning? It doesn’t sound like bludgeoning on the AfD. 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What to do next? Almost everybody who participated in the AfD agreed that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same person. Should I write a note to the AfD for the closing admin to also consider closing this ANI thread? Or should we wait passively until an uninvolved admin comes by and takes an action? Or should a SPI be filed? Janhrach (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I had read this ANI first, I would have have blocked IlEssere per WP:DUCK, because the quacks are loud and obivious, IMO. However, since I participated in the AFD as editor, I'm now considered involved to take any admin action. I was hoping another uninvolved admin would come along and come to the same conclusion that I did, but so far, none have. So, maybe I'm wrong. You can try filing a report at WP:SPI, but it's likely that since Errico Boukoura hasn't edited in 10 months, nothing will be concluded as the data will be stale. Of course, I could be wrong on that. Maybe they have logged in. Maybe other sleepers will be found. Jauerback/dude. 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this and I don't think SPI is a good idea. The evidence is very strong, so they will probably refuse CU. It would just waste their and our time. I have decided I will leave a note at the AfD for the closing admin to consider taking an appropriate action. Janhrach (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I created a SPI case. @Rotideypoc41352: you wanted to mention something on SPI. Janhrach (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. On second thought, my evidence is not as strong as I had originally thought. You've lain out your case with clarity, and I don't want to distract from it, especially when the SPI backlog puts pressure on the admins to work quickly. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I created a SPI case. @Rotideypoc41352: you wanted to mention something on SPI. Janhrach (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this and I don't think SPI is a good idea. The evidence is very strong, so they will probably refuse CU. It would just waste their and our time. I have decided I will leave a note at the AfD for the closing admin to consider taking an appropriate action. Janhrach (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I had read this ANI first, I would have have blocked IlEssere per WP:DUCK, because the quacks are loud and obivious, IMO. However, since I participated in the AFD as editor, I'm now considered involved to take any admin action. I was hoping another uninvolved admin would come along and come to the same conclusion that I did, but so far, none have. So, maybe I'm wrong. You can try filing a report at WP:SPI, but it's likely that since Errico Boukoura hasn't edited in 10 months, nothing will be concluded as the data will be stale. Of course, I could be wrong on that. Maybe they have logged in. Maybe other sleepers will be found. Jauerback/dude. 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
It's quite obvious that IlEssere and Errico Boukoura are the same user. If you choose to WP:VANISH, you go away and don't come back. If this was an attempted WP:CLEANSTART, you should have avoided trying to recreate this article. Besides the obvious connection with the recreation of this deleted article and the timing of it, what are the chances that they are both from New York City (Special:Permalink/1226370017 and User:Errico Boukoura), are native speakers of English, with same proficiencies in Greek, Italian, and Spanish (User:IlEssere vs User:Errico Boukoura)? One is a professor and the other an "art historian"? Now, 2601:249:9281:ED10:9185:7724:F13C:799C comes out of no where and finds this ANI discussion using the same "Can you share..." language? I'm not buying it. Jauerback/dude. 21:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoroughness, but I believe we've already spent considerable time discussing this topic. For the record, (and this is the last time I am talking about this topic) I speak seven languages, two of which seem overlap with the previous user’s according to Jauerback. Additionally, I don’t live in New York City, so I’m not sure what led you to that conclusion.
- @Jauerback I’m not entirely sure why, but as I review the AFD of the original article alongside what you’ve shared, the AFD of the new version, and your edit history, it seems you have a strong focus on Keramikou 28 for some reason. IlEssere (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's an interesting answer. New York City was listed in a previous version of your user page, linked above. I don't really care how many languages you claim to speak, but both of your user pages list the exact same languages with the exact proficiencies. That's a helluva coincidence. I'm curious, what leads you to believe that I have a
strong focus on Keramikou 28
? Is it all of my edits to the article (none)? Or is it my single comment in the current AFD for it? Or maybe my (now) three commments on this ANI? Please share. Jauerback/dude. 21:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Okay, I'm going to log off for the day and will be back online tomorrow, I have to much work to get down. You seem quite agitated, and I want to clarify that I'm not looking for online conflicts. My intention is simply to have open and honest conversation about our perspectives. I value communication and hope we can discuss this calmly.
- But to clarify and address your question before I log off, my concerns extend beyond your focus on Keramikou 28 page. I've observed that your edits appear somewhat random and don't convey a clear interest in the subject matter. As a result, without additional art-related or building-related edits, you are the only user connecting Keramikou 28, both directly and indirectly to Adf.
- In addition, there is a consistent effort to find problems with the page or with me personally, regardless of the evidence provided. This ongoing scrutiny raises concerns and feels somewhat suspicious to me. Misplaced Pages is about collaboration and resolution rather than continual criticism. IlEssere (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- done IlEssere (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- This makes close to zero sense. Are you using a LLM? Also, both you and your IP should get the acronym right. It's AFD, not ADF.Jauerback/dude. 03:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think their comments about you were meant to be addressed to me. Janhrach (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- This makes close to zero sense. Are you using a LLM? Also, both you and your IP should get the acronym right. It's AFD, not ADF.Jauerback/dude. 03:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- done IlEssere (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's an interesting answer. New York City was listed in a previous version of your user page, linked above. I don't really care how many languages you claim to speak, but both of your user pages list the exact same languages with the exact proficiencies. That's a helluva coincidence. I'm curious, what leads you to believe that I have a
- Correction: IlEssere said he lives in New York City whereas Errico Boukoura only says New York. Jauerback/dude. 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like it's getting close to outing. If sockpuppetry is involved, it should be discussed at WP:SPI. Liz 09:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that an an SPI might be in order, but how in the world is this close to WP:OUTING? Everything linked is from the involved users and what they've posted on site. Jauerback/dude. 11:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are connecting a registered editor with a location. In SPIs, Checkusers won't connect IP accounts, which reveal locations, with registered editors because of privacy concerns. Unless an editor discloses where they are from on their User page, I think tracking down where they live is a step that shouldn't be taken. If Checkusers won't reveal this data in SPI reports, I don't think it should be posted to a highly public noticeboard. Liz 06:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Permalink/1226370017 looks to me like
an editor disclosed where they are from on their User page
. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) - Sorry, I have to disagree. The locations of the IP and what both registered users have revealed as their locaiton on Wiki don't even match up, so that was never even part of my argument. As you know, getting a different IP to get around Misplaced Pages isn't exactly rocket science, so between that, and the fact that original user hasn't edited in 10 months, an SPI would probably be fruitless. However, this quacks like a WP:DUCK and any passing admin who isn't involved can see that and take action. Jauerback/dude. 11:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Permalink/1226370017 looks to me like
- You are connecting a registered editor with a location. In SPIs, Checkusers won't connect IP accounts, which reveal locations, with registered editors because of privacy concerns. Unless an editor discloses where they are from on their User page, I think tracking down where they live is a step that shouldn't be taken. If Checkusers won't reveal this data in SPI reports, I don't think it should be posted to a highly public noticeboard. Liz 06:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that an an SPI might be in order, but how in the world is this close to WP:OUTING? Everything linked is from the involved users and what they've posted on site. Jauerback/dude. 11:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like it's getting close to outing. If sockpuppetry is involved, it should be discussed at WP:SPI. Liz 09:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Was digging through some old edits and found Special:Diff/1246695560. I prefer to save a detailed explanation for SPI if possible. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
User with systemic bias
Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs) has a track record of editing Misplaced Pages solely to push a pro-Syrian and anti-Lebanese agenda with disregard to actual academic standards.
Whatsupkarren seems to have an obsession with removing any mentions of figures related to Lebanon as evidenced here (This is only the tip of the iceberg and there are many other articles that follow this pattern some of which I probably have not even found)
This wouldn’t be an issue if Whatsupkarren did similar edits for other articles but they hyper fixate on only removing any mentions of Lebanese/Phoenicians in articles but are fully capable of adding sources for Syrian/assumed to be Syrian figures. Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search so it's obvious Whatsupkarren is being biased in only removing, and never adding, sources related to Lebanon/Phoenicia but doing the exact opposite when it comes to Syrian/assumed to be Syrian articles.
Furthermore, when Whatsupkarren doesn’t get their way they just dismiss articles they don’t like as “unreliable” even if they were published through universities or other academic sources (They don’t seem to understand that an article/books reliability is based on the original publisher not an online website it can be found on) and just adds original research when they don’t get their way. . Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable” but an article that uses Misplaced Pages as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable.
Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research as they admitted themselves "I'd like proof that the Oxford source which I added cites that source, as I wasn't able to access it." (in regards to the Oxford source which they themselves added) and also here where it seems they just typed a phrase without actually providing a page or quote.
Their obsession with removing anything related to Lebanese goes as far as asking for advice on how to delete entire categories related to the subject.
I suggest a topic ban in relation to Lebanese and Phoenician related articles as there is not really an explanation for this behavior outside of ethnic discrimination which is not what Misplaced Pages was intended for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Phoenician (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm free and allowed to edit any article on wikipedia as long as I'm sourcing my edits with reliable sources & engaging in discussions to resolve potential issues as I have done so many times and also not being as offensive as you have been with me for a while. It was you who started using rude language with me by calling me an illiterate, ridiculing me for making typos, calling my edits trolling even though I was using reliable sources, and trying to provoke me by claiming that I was incompetent. This can be seen in this discussion. Which Red Phoenician refused to continue and refused to answer my concerns which I had raised.
- -There's been a trend on Misplaced Pages for years, where editors have been classifying notable figures as Lebanese without sources. And also classifying common Levantine/Arab/Middle Eastern cultural elements as distinctly "Lebanese" even when they don't have any Lebanese ancestry or when the subject is actually common to the broader Levantine/Middle Eastern region. It seems like this has been going on for quite some time. While I'm sure similar situations might occur with other Middle Eastern countries, the Lebanon-related instances seem to stand out the most. I've been trying to fix that for a while; I'm not racist; I want historical accuracy. If you have any issues with my edits, you could've simply started
discussions on the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns. I am ready to discuss with any user every single one of my edits. It was me and not you who started the two discussions we had.
- -Red Phoenician has been wikihounding me for months, very often disruptively, adding sources that are not reliable or don't accurately reflect what they added 1 and 2, using a rude & provocative language with me.
- -Red Phoenician has been misusing sources and not adding accurately what the sources they add say.
- For example: in the Frumentius article, I removed content that wasn't accurately supported by reliable sources, the article used to say Saint Frumentius was "described as ethnically phoenician", that wasn't & isn't backed by reliable sources. Red Phoenician later reverted my edit and added sources that, still, didn't state that he was described as ethnically Phoenician. Using "ethnically phoenician" is very problematic historically. Later I added a more accurate representation of what Red Phoenician's sources say. And that he might have been Greek too since a book published by Oxford described him as such. Red Phoenician thought my edits were disruptive and show possible trolling.
- -Regarding Marina the monk, yes, the source which I removed still isn't working, at least with me. The link seems to be dead. Many saints, who were not from modern day Lebanon used to be in the category of Lebanese Saints. Red Phoenician previously added a saint from what is today Syria to that category and also a saint from persia. No sources anywhere say they were Lebanese. saints who were not from what is today Lebanon were also in this category. The category was a mess, and still is, up to a point. None of the saints in the category are described as Lebanese by cited sources or reliable sources, far as I know, which I think violates WP:NOR. I also didn't want to delete the category as Red Phoenician claimed, more modern saints, for whom we have sources that actually call them Lebanese could be added to this category.
-Red Phoenician added that the city of Byblos had a reputation of being the oldest in antiquity, the source they used doesn’t say so, it doesn’t say the city had a “reputation”, the word reputation implies a belief held by people in general, not only one person. This shows yet again, that the user doesn't show accuracy in a lot of his edits.
- -Regarding Jounaton Roumi, in a cited interview he says that his father's father was from Syria. Not Lebanon. Syro basically is a combining form of Syrian-Lebanese. The man said that his grandfather was from Syria. Regardless. I later kept the article as you edited it.
- -Regarding, Pamphilus of Caesarea, the sources simply did not say he was Phoenician. So I removed this unsourced claim, and opened a talk page asking whether anyone has sources that call him Phoenician.
- You really find that annoying, right?
- -"Most of the sources I find to revert this take a 2 minute internet search" although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.
- -Regarding this, you misused your sources, again, your sources, apart from one that you couldn't prove to be reliable, and which I showed wasn't reliable enough, didn't accurately support continuous occupation. This is the main issue and this is why I reverted your edit. Me claiming that researchgate isn't reliable wasn't what led me to remove your edits.
- -Not sure how this is original research? This is literally what the source says. Any issues you have with my edits could've been raised on the talk page but you did not do so.
- -"Notably they removed a newspaper source that quotes Pope Francis and a bishop as “unreliable”"
- First off, why did you not raise your concerns on the talk page discussion that I started?
- Secondly, I could not find evidence that the newspaper you had cited is a reliable source, you could've simply explained on the talk page why you think it is. Thirdly, your source doesn't quote Pope Francis, who isn't a subject matter expert, to begin with, it talks about what a Maronite Archbishop who is said to have been a friend of Pope Francis, said.
- -"but an article that uses Misplaced Pages as its source (WP:WINARS) is reliable."
- How does this article use Misplaced Pages as its source? The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Regardless, you could've simply raised your concerns in the talk page discussion which I started. Again, this proves your unwillingness to engage in productive discussions.
- -"Whatsupkarren also seems to add sources without even looking at them which is essentially original research"
- No, the source which I used provides a quote which I provided in the discussion. Without the need to download the whole book.
- Regarding the Aleppo book, no, you're wrong again, and you could've simply asked me to provide the page which I would've definitely done. You simply didn't. I copied and pasted the link of the page but Misplaced Pages links sometimes do not work.
- I think this report proves Red Phoenician's unwillingness to engage in discussions to resolve issues, Red Phoenician seems to hold a grudge against me and doesn't like how I've been accurately following Misplaced Pages's policies. The user also has been engaging in original research for years.
- I suggest this user be at least punished for the rude language they used with me. Whatsupkarren (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is not rude to point out a user's (WP:COMPETENCE), it is obvious English is not your first language and there is nothing wrong with that but when you constantly mess up pages with grammar issues as you have done just now with “Jounaton Roumi” and “Other non Lebnaese saints” it becomes hard to tell if these are genuine mistakes or some weird form of insult.
- There was no point addressing you in the Frumentius talk page as you admitted to original research and asking to access sources you yourself added.
- Regarding my addition of Saints to the Lebanese Maronite saints category that was because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category…until I created it. I didn’t contest these or the manakish edits so I don’t see the issue.
- “although I'm not responsible for adding a source to an unsourced material, I often do my research before removing them.” This isn’t true as I clarified before because you’re perfectly capable of finding sources of things NOT related to Lebanon/Phoenician but seem incapable when this is the case.
- As for the Wikihounding accusations many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist don’t think you’re so special. Of course once I saw it was just removing everything Lebanese ever I reverted those with sources as this is constructive and nothing else.
- Rest of this is them acting like they’re not aware of their actions/acting as if the issue is a personal attack and not an issue with the contributions so I hope an admin gives their insight into the issues. Criticism of competence is not rude and they are the only one taking it personal “You really find that annoying, right?” and “Duhh” among others. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground for passive aggressive ethnic squabbles it’s based on reliable academic sources not getting upset for things such as a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also it seems they're just trying to get me banned now on baseless accusations instead of accepting any criticism. Red Phoenician (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- You too made grammar mistakes in the past ( I won't call you illiterate though ) even native speakers often make typos and grammar mistakes; that doesn't make it okay to call or even imply someone is illiterate or incompetent when you know that they're able to communicate effectively with you. It is obvious that this language was intended to provoke me. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made fun of me for fixing a typo. The mistake I did on Gibran Khalil page is a typo, not a grammar mistake, I mistyped the name of a Lebanese city. And no I'm not constantly messing up articles, you'd like others to believe so, so that you can justify your rude language.
- I did not admit that I engaged in original research, let me explain this to you again, I couldn't access the book, but a quote from the book is provided by Oxford references https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?btog=chap&isQuickSearch=true&q=Meropius+Greek
- I already provided the quote on the talk page.
- "because there never was a standalone Maronite saints category"
- That still doesn't justify adding them to such a category, you should've created a standalone maronite category if you really wanted to add them to a maronite category
- "many of the pages you edited were on my watchlist"
- But also many, so many of the articles I edited hadn't been touched by you until I stepped in.
- most recently this one where you added an unacceptable source per Wikiepdia policies.
- Sifting through Red Phoenician's edit history, it becomes obvious that the user has had a pattern of removing the term Arab from articles
- 1, 2, 3, 4. However, I won't claim that you're ethnically discriminating against Arabs, if I had issues with any of those edits, I would've simply raised my concerns on the relevant talk pages.
- I wasn't getting upset over a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest, i was upset by your inaccurate edits, you keep misusing sources by adding claims not accurately reflected in the sources, you, yourself added. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Stop with the crocodile tears over the typos nobody is insulting you, you are the one going “Duhh” as you view this as a personal issue. You just admitted you couldn’t access the source again…and I said I created a category, you aren’t properly reading what I am saying. As for Massad again I did not contest your removal but added a more reliable source since you ignored Caldwell’s. Yes Maronites are Syriac not Arab and dabke is an ancient Levantine dance unless you are now going to argue that the Canaanites were Arab. As for Byblos if you had an actual issue you would’ve gone to the source dispute resolution instead of only removing the Lebanese/non-Syrian cities from the list while keeping the Syrian ones even without proper sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- You won't even admit that you used a rude language with me.
- -Yes again, for the millionth time, I can't access all of the book, I can access a quote from the book, which means it wasn't original research. You also refused to provide me with the link in the discussion which showed your unwillingness to cooperate, I wanted to verify what you were claiming in that discussion.
- -I know that you later created that category, but you shouldn't have added them to the Lebanese category in the first place as that violated wikipedia's policies" AND btw it was me and not you who eventually removed them from that Lebanese category, why ?
- -I wasn't trying to make a point about Maronites' ethnicity, and I really am not interested in doing so. I was trying to show you that by your logic, not mine, you also are discriminating against a group of people, and have an obsession with removing anything related to Arabs.
- -It was me who asked for a third opinion, I asked user Demetrios1993 who has proved to be very knowledgeable, if they could provide input, they did. You could've simply taken it to the dispute resolution page, no one told you not to do so. And again, you want me to be punished for not editing x too, I don't have to. The sources that were used with the Lebanese cities did not show continuous occupation or weren't reliable enough. If you had issues with my edits, engage in the discussion on the talk page Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Stop with the crocodile tears over the typos nobody is insulting you, you are the one going “Duhh” as you view this as a personal issue. You just admitted you couldn’t access the source again…and I said I created a category, you aren’t properly reading what I am saying. As for Massad again I did not contest your removal but added a more reliable source since you ignored Caldwell’s. Yes Maronites are Syriac not Arab and dabke is an ancient Levantine dance unless you are now going to argue that the Canaanites were Arab. As for Byblos if you had an actual issue you would’ve gone to the source dispute resolution instead of only removing the Lebanese/non-Syrian cities from the list while keeping the Syrian ones even without proper sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rest of this is them acting like they’re not aware of their actions/acting as if the issue is a personal attack and not an issue with the contributions so I hope an admin gives their insight into the issues. Criticism of competence is not rude and they are the only one taking it personal “You really find that annoying, right?” and “Duhh” among others. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground for passive aggressive ethnic squabbles it’s based on reliable academic sources not getting upset for things such as a Lebanese city having claims to be the oldest. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Red Phoenician, I have to say, having briefly looked into some of these, it sure looks like you're throwing stones from inside a glass house. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- After reading my most recent response could you provide some examples please. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glass house indeed. I had a brief interaction with Red Phoenician last year on Lebanon. From what I could see looking at their edits at that time they appeared to be here to push a WP:FRINGEy POV that the Christian Lebanese are not Arabs but, somehow, ancient Phoenicians. See Phoenicianism. I haven't looked at the dispute they have with this particular user but any accusations from them of "systemic bias" takes chutzpah. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't recall this interaction specifically but I assume it was related to the infobox note which was cited by three sources. But yes Lebanon is a diverse country with various ethnicities with some claiming descent from Phoenicians as has been proven genetically, but arguing over self-determination is outside the scope of this dispute. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I remember your liberal use of WP:SYNTH to support your tendentious WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this relevant? I don’t think tarring a party without a goal of sanctions is fair to do at ANI—bring diffs or stop raising unsupported accusations; it’s derailing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I have not noticed any significant problematic behavior from Whatsupkarren. On the contrary, I think the problem is Red Phoenician. I have followed Red Phoenician's contributions for years and it is immediately noticeable that many of his contributions on Misplaced Pages are guided by very strong ideological positions (Phoenicianism and ethno-nationalist ideas). You can see that the user in question makes ethnonationalist comments even here (the idea according to which "Maronites are Syriac not Arab" is indeed WP:POV and WP:FRINGE). I believe that this behavior is irreconcilable with Misplaced Pages (I am a regular contributor to the Italian Misplaced Pages and I can assure you that a user with this kind of behavior would have been blocked there years ago). It is a dynamic very similar to that of User:Chris O' Hare, who was finally blocked months ago. --Syphax98 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so you are admitting you obsessively stalk me. Maronites being Syriac is the official position of the Church and Patriarch, hardly fringe. Editing another Misplaced Pages doesn’t mean anything. This has just become a dogpile of personal attacks by users who have grievances with me unrelated to the original matter. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Devaluing other users' comments as personal attacks and accusing others of stalking you is not a constructive interaction. I'm not stalking you, but it's the nature of your contributions that is raising red flags. I have no grievances against you; I don't even know you as a person. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the source you cited, I note that many of these churches are rooted also in Kerala; the Christians of Kerala also have a Syriac identity which is reflected in the liturgy and religious traditions, but no one denies their Malayali identity. The same goes for the Maronites, who have a strong Arab identity, which you are keen to deny (the source does not). Anyway, this has nothing to do with this discussion. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quite. The source says that Maronites are a branch of Syriac Christianity. It says nothing about ethnicity. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This just goes to prove what I said earlier, Red Phoenician keeps misusing sources, adding claims not accurately represented in the sources they use. Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quite. The source says that Maronites are a branch of Syriac Christianity. It says nothing about ethnicity. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the source you cited, I note that many of these churches are rooted also in Kerala; the Christians of Kerala also have a Syriac identity which is reflected in the liturgy and religious traditions, but no one denies their Malayali identity. The same goes for the Maronites, who have a strong Arab identity, which you are keen to deny (the source does not). Anyway, this has nothing to do with this discussion. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Devaluing other users' comments as personal attacks and accusing others of stalking you is not a constructive interaction. I'm not stalking you, but it's the nature of your contributions that is raising red flags. I have no grievances against you; I don't even know you as a person. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so you are admitting you obsessively stalk me. Maronites being Syriac is the official position of the Church and Patriarch, hardly fringe. Editing another Misplaced Pages doesn’t mean anything. This has just become a dogpile of personal attacks by users who have grievances with me unrelated to the original matter. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I have not noticed any significant problematic behavior from Whatsupkarren. On the contrary, I think the problem is Red Phoenician. I have followed Red Phoenician's contributions for years and it is immediately noticeable that many of his contributions on Misplaced Pages are guided by very strong ideological positions (Phoenicianism and ethno-nationalist ideas). You can see that the user in question makes ethnonationalist comments even here (the idea according to which "Maronites are Syriac not Arab" is indeed WP:POV and WP:FRINGE). I believe that this behavior is irreconcilable with Misplaced Pages (I am a regular contributor to the Italian Misplaced Pages and I can assure you that a user with this kind of behavior would have been blocked there years ago). It is a dynamic very similar to that of User:Chris O' Hare, who was finally blocked months ago. --Syphax98 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this relevant? I don’t think tarring a party without a goal of sanctions is fair to do at ANI—bring diffs or stop raising unsupported accusations; it’s derailing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I remember your liberal use of WP:SYNTH to support your tendentious WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't recall this interaction specifically but I assume it was related to the infobox note which was cited by three sources. But yes Lebanon is a diverse country with various ethnicities with some claiming descent from Phoenicians as has been proven genetically, but arguing over self-determination is outside the scope of this dispute. Red Phoenician (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glass house indeed. I had a brief interaction with Red Phoenician last year on Lebanon. From what I could see looking at their edits at that time they appeared to be here to push a WP:FRINGEy POV that the Christian Lebanese are not Arabs but, somehow, ancient Phoenicians. See Phoenicianism. I haven't looked at the dispute they have with this particular user but any accusations from them of "systemic bias" takes chutzpah. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- After reading my most recent response could you provide some examples please. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Fastily
WP:Administrator recall/Fastily has been opened and I don't see anything productive in keeping this open. charlotte 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have some concerns about how Fastily deletes U5s. I have talked about this to them already but that conservation did not resolve my concerns (see User talk:Fastily#U5s). According to the speedy deletion crtieria, a U5 is Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages
. I came across Fastily because I received a mentorship question where a newcomer asked why their page was deleted (User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Bristlepaddy (12:02, 21 October 2024)). It's a fairly commonplace question and usually such deletions are warranted. However, I was surprised when I actually looked at the page in question to see that it looks like the average draft from a random newbie. I undeleted it because I'm under the impression that this is obviously not a U5. I pinged Fastily in the discussion, hoping they'd say it was an oversight, but they didn't comment on my talk page, hence the conversation I started on theirs last night. In response to my concerns, I was told: This looks a lot like a promotional piece/resume for a non-notable individual created by an SPA with the sole purpose of increasing this individual's SEO visibility. If I'm wrong in this instance, I'd love to know why, but it's worth noting that I encounter dozens of similar attempts every single day. I don't think Bristlepaddy has the purest of intentions here.
I became concerned that Fastily comes across similar situations frequently. That's the gist of it, I encourage others to read these discussions in their entirety. I am also concerned that their response to me trying to nudge them in the right direction was this: . I admit the possibility that I may be wrong. But I would like other admins to give their opinion on whether these are inappropriate deletions, because I believe them to be:
- Draft:Patrick Marmion (the situation described above)
- User:Harunss1977 – clearly someone working off of Template:Biography. Not a good draft, but not a U5.
- User:Pealoei – two sentence draft about a provincial electricity service in Thailand. This is not unambiguously promotional, which is a requirement for G11.
- User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox – draft about a historical election
These are just within the past few days, it's quite possible that there's more. If these are indeed inappropriate deletions, ANI seems like the proper venue, as improper speedy deletion can be bitey. I realize that Fastily does a lot of good work combating spam and I don't want to disrupt that. I just want these concerns to be addressed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox was a hoax, as was the user's userpage, which I just deleted as a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clearing that one up. It looked fine as a glance to me and seemed confusing why it would be U5'd. Hoaxes are a different criteria, maybe it was somehow a misclick? I don't feel welcome providing feedback at Fastily's talk page anymore, so I felt like this was the best place. I also didn't want to seem too vengeful or anything, so I really did only look at stuff from the past few days. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt it was a misclick because the two criteria aren't close together when using a drop-down, and I believe the U5 was a tag by a user, meaning you just delete it and the software fills it in for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- A sandbox hoax can fall under U5 or G3, since the intent to create a hoax (G3) isn't known, and it might just be fucking around (U5). I've deleted entire alternate histories people have written as U5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh, can we change the U5 policy to "fucking around"? I'd support that!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who tagged that sandbox (intentionally as U5). There's a long-running issue of user pages/sandboxes being used for fake articles about nonexistent or not-as-they-actually-happened elections, and CSD tagging is a little tricky for them. They're not really hoaxes per se - they seem to be used for alternate history forums of some sort, and not intended to be moved into mainspace - and sometimes it's not clear at first glance whether or not they're fake. However, if the users have made any positive mainspace contributions, then they don't fall under the letter-of-the-law for U5 even though they're misusing Misplaced Pages as a webhost. I tag a fair number of them since I delete a lot of the images on Commons (a more significant issue because they're mixed in with non-fake images). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your diligence and explanation. I think the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are good (and they do a lot of them, which is why I was having a hard time going through their deletion log)! I've been going through even more of it the past hour or so and am not finding any massive red flags, so unless someone else is aware of something I'm not, all I'm really looking for is a "I'll err on the side of caution in more ambiguous situations". I'm a big believer in holding admins accountable, so ideally when editors bring up concerns about admin actions.... they're not insulted, you know? That response to Fathoms Below kind of pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to file this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's examine the facts here. You keep going off about assuming good faith, yet your first reply to me is accusatory, so yeah, of course I'm going to respond the way I did. Up until that point, I was willing to discuss the possibility that I could be wrong, because being human and all (unfortunately the upgrade to FastilyGPT hasn't landed yet), I do make mistakes. Back to the story, holding my tongue here, I again asked you to explain your reasoning and you responded in an accusatory way. Are you really surprised you got the response you did? I take enough abuse from vandals/spammers/LTAs, the last thing I need is abuse from my colleagues. I see some feedback below that I was heavy handed here, so if that's what the community consensus is, then I have no problem admitting to the error. -Fastily 03:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am incredibly surprised that this was how you decided to reply to feedback. I disagree that anything I said could be described as abusing my colleagues. I asked you a clarifying question, which is only natural when your response to a draft that shouldn't have been deleted is I see dozens of similar situations every day. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having fun twisting the narrative there? I suppose this will also be a shock to you: baseless accusations of bad faith aren't constructive feedback. I've been both patient and cordial with you, yet you have exclusively responded with vitriol and hostility. Well cool, I'll do the same, or wait, it's only okay when you get to be the one that does it huh. I called you out on it above and I guess that stings because it's the truth. Here's some friendly advice, don't run around throwing stones at others' houses when you live in a glass house yourself. -Fastily 05:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having read most of these discussions, Clovermoss is absolutely not the editor coming across as hostile. You need to dial it back. Parabolist (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but worth noting that I wasn't the one who went around looking to pick a fight in the first place. -Fastily 05:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily, if you see
I'm a bit concerned that you said you see dozens of similar situations to this one every day. Are you saying you delete all of these as U5s?
as so "accusatory" as to justify a response ofIf you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page
(where the thing she couldn't do was prove a negative), and then escalating to casting aspersions against someone else who tried to get you to chill out, you have misunderstood WP:ADMINACCT even worse than you've misunderstood WP:U5. Now is the time to hear the wake-up call, not to double (triple, etc.) down. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 05:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- That makes no sense, this has nothing to do with "proving a negative". I asked for an explanation as to how I might be wrong. I have never once said that I'm infallible. I did not get an explanation, only someone accusing me of making a mistake (in bad faith I might add) but then refusing to explain why. -Fastily 05:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh come on. You said, based purely on vibes, that it was SEO spam, and then asked her to somehow prove that it isn't. If you can't see how absurd an expectation that is, I don't know what to tell you. There's no accusation of bad faith. An accusation of bad faith would be something like "You frequently delete every page in CAT:U5 at once, such as here, 9 pages in 3 seconds, starting 6 seconds after the previous deletion you made (a G7). While yes, there are various workflows where this could occur innocuously, when combined with your tendency to erroneously delete things under U5, the fact that you seem to never challenge bad U5 taggings, and your inability here to justify this challenged speedy of a viable draft, sure tends to give the impression that you're mass-deleting by script while either not looking at what you're doing or only taking the most cursory glance." -- Tamzin (they|xe) 06:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was literally an accusation of bad faith made against Fastily. Grandpallama (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh come on. You said, based purely on vibes, that it was SEO spam, and then asked her to somehow prove that it isn't. If you can't see how absurd an expectation that is, I don't know what to tell you. There's no accusation of bad faith. An accusation of bad faith would be something like "You frequently delete every page in CAT:U5 at once, such as here, 9 pages in 3 seconds, starting 6 seconds after the previous deletion you made (a G7). While yes, there are various workflows where this could occur innocuously, when combined with your tendency to erroneously delete things under U5, the fact that you seem to never challenge bad U5 taggings, and your inability here to justify this challenged speedy of a viable draft, sure tends to give the impression that you're mass-deleting by script while either not looking at what you're doing or only taking the most cursory glance." -- Tamzin (they|xe) 06:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That makes no sense, this has nothing to do with "proving a negative". I asked for an explanation as to how I might be wrong. I have never once said that I'm infallible. I did not get an explanation, only someone accusing me of making a mistake (in bad faith I might add) but then refusing to explain why. -Fastily 05:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having read most of these discussions, Clovermoss is absolutely not the editor coming across as hostile. You need to dial it back. Parabolist (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having fun twisting the narrative there? I suppose this will also be a shock to you: baseless accusations of bad faith aren't constructive feedback. I've been both patient and cordial with you, yet you have exclusively responded with vitriol and hostility. Well cool, I'll do the same, or wait, it's only okay when you get to be the one that does it huh. I called you out on it above and I guess that stings because it's the truth. Here's some friendly advice, don't run around throwing stones at others' houses when you live in a glass house yourself. -Fastily 05:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am incredibly surprised that this was how you decided to reply to feedback. I disagree that anything I said could be described as abusing my colleagues. I asked you a clarifying question, which is only natural when your response to a draft that shouldn't have been deleted is I see dozens of similar situations every day. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's examine the facts here. You keep going off about assuming good faith, yet your first reply to me is accusatory, so yeah, of course I'm going to respond the way I did. Up until that point, I was willing to discuss the possibility that I could be wrong, because being human and all (unfortunately the upgrade to FastilyGPT hasn't landed yet), I do make mistakes. Back to the story, holding my tongue here, I again asked you to explain your reasoning and you responded in an accusatory way. Are you really surprised you got the response you did? I take enough abuse from vandals/spammers/LTAs, the last thing I need is abuse from my colleagues. I see some feedback below that I was heavy handed here, so if that's what the community consensus is, then I have no problem admitting to the error. -Fastily 03:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your diligence and explanation. I think the vast majority of Fastily's deletions are good (and they do a lot of them, which is why I was having a hard time going through their deletion log)! I've been going through even more of it the past hour or so and am not finding any massive red flags, so unless someone else is aware of something I'm not, all I'm really looking for is a "I'll err on the side of caution in more ambiguous situations". I'm a big believer in holding admins accountable, so ideally when editors bring up concerns about admin actions.... they're not insulted, you know? That response to Fathoms Below kind of pushed me over the edge and encouraged me to file this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was the one who tagged that sandbox (intentionally as U5). There's a long-running issue of user pages/sandboxes being used for fake articles about nonexistent or not-as-they-actually-happened elections, and CSD tagging is a little tricky for them. They're not really hoaxes per se - they seem to be used for alternate history forums of some sort, and not intended to be moved into mainspace - and sometimes it's not clear at first glance whether or not they're fake. However, if the users have made any positive mainspace contributions, then they don't fall under the letter-of-the-law for U5 even though they're misusing Misplaced Pages as a webhost. I tag a fair number of them since I delete a lot of the images on Commons (a more significant issue because they're mixed in with non-fake images). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh, can we change the U5 policy to "fucking around"? I'd support that!--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clearing that one up. It looked fine as a glance to me and seemed confusing why it would be U5'd. Hoaxes are a different criteria, maybe it was somehow a misclick? I don't feel welcome providing feedback at Fastily's talk page anymore, so I felt like this was the best place. I also didn't want to seem too vengeful or anything, so I really did only look at stuff from the past few days. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- After reading the user talk page discussion, I am very concerned about the responses from Fastily with statements such as:
Ok that's utter nonsense and you know it.
Sounds like you have trouble discerning between constructive contributions and spam, which I find troubling given that you're an admin.
If you can't (or won't admit to your mistake), then please kindly get off my talk page.
Very convenient for you to show up here, presumably at the behest of Clovermoss.
Both you and Clovermoss have been around long enough so your inability to understand the issue is not my problem. This has been a waste of my time and I won't be participating any further.
- These statements appear to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Talking about AGF is nonsense when the context is dealing with SEO spam. Two admins on a user talk page should be able to exchange opinions without a need to sugarcoat everything. Fastily handles a lot of bad stuff so it is always possible that they were wrong in this case. I don't know about that but I do know that this is not an ANI matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about AGF on the deleted articles. I'm talking about Fastily's comments aimed at Clovermoss and Fathoms Below rather than the deletions. The worst WP:AGF issue is the canvassing accusation (the fourth talk page quote). There's also a difference between being direct and being uncivil. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since Clovermoss rode in accusing Fastily of assuming bad faith, I'm pretty sympathetic to Fastily's response. I'm not seeing an ANI issue here, except perhaps a trout to both parties. If Clovermoss doesn't like getting salty responses, Clovermoss shouldn't prompt them. Grandpallama (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's salty to say that you're concerned about inappropriate deletions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe when it's done in good faith, no. But that's not what you did, or how. Grandpallama (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think it's not possible for me to have done all of this in good faith. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because of the lack of good faith behavior exhibited at that discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think it's not possible for me to have done all of this in good faith. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe when it's done in good faith, no. But that's not what you did, or how. Grandpallama (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clovermoss isn't the person calling attention to the responses so I'm not sure why
If Clovermoss doesn't like getting salty responses
is part of your response. Both Clovermoss and Fathoms Below were civil in their comments on User talk:Fastily. And that discussion was not the first time Clovermoss tried to express her concern about the deletions to Fastily. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Bullshit. Clovermoss opened the discussion by scolding Fastily and then with their first reply, implied bad faith behavior on Fastily's part from the outset. That's neither particularly civil nor especially constructive. This disingenuous "I don't know why Fastily reacted like they did" nonsense is insulting to anyone who reads that exchange. The fact that one of Clovermoss's choice examples is a glaringly obvious hoax should be so embarrassing as to make them rethink this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- From the perspective of an uninvolved observer, your comments in this discussion read as hostile and combative. I recommend you tone it down a bit. genderBiohazard (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- And I strongly recommend you gain more experience onwiki before making recommendations to other editors pointing out serious concerns with a false narrative. Grandpallama (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess Fastily should learn from mistakes he recently occurred. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't intend to overstep my boundaries as a newcomer and I apologize if I've slighted you in some way. It is not my place to comment regarding the main topic of this discussion. I was merely suggesting that you remain civil in your responses. genderBiohazard (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Heated =/= uncivil. Grandpallama (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should tone down the heat then. Opening up a reply with
Bullshit
is pretty aggressive. Saying that Clovers's statements isnonsense
and that they should beembarrass
does not help maintain a "pleasant editing environment" from the first paragraph of WP:CIVILITY. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC) - I would call your responses both heated and uncivil. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- And I would counter that there is an increasingly troubling trend at enwiki that attempts to equate "people saying things I don't like" with "uncivil". This thread showcases a serious double standard at play in the number of editors who are concerned about the incivility of one admin, but who are willing to completely overlook the behavior of the other admin, to the degree that the course of the discussion at Fastily's talkpage has been repeatedly misrepresented and there is now a recall petition for him over events a decade old. I think I've said my piece, but I soundly reject any notion that my comments were in any way uncivil because they called bullshit on bullshit. Grandpallama (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Allow me then to be yet another person to say that your comments have been too hostile and uncivil, and it's not because you're saying things I don't like, it's because of your tone and word choice. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's rich. Grandpallama (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- +1 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to call something bullshit in the first place. How does that maintain a positive editing environment? TheWikiToby (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Allow me then to be yet another person to say that your comments have been too hostile and uncivil, and it's not because you're saying things I don't like, it's because of your tone and word choice. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- And I would counter that there is an increasingly troubling trend at enwiki that attempts to equate "people saying things I don't like" with "uncivil". This thread showcases a serious double standard at play in the number of editors who are concerned about the incivility of one admin, but who are willing to completely overlook the behavior of the other admin, to the degree that the course of the discussion at Fastily's talkpage has been repeatedly misrepresented and there is now a recall petition for him over events a decade old. I think I've said my piece, but I soundly reject any notion that my comments were in any way uncivil because they called bullshit on bullshit. Grandpallama (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should tone down the heat then. Opening up a reply with
- Heated =/= uncivil. Grandpallama (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- From the perspective of an uninvolved observer, your comments in this discussion read as hostile and combative. I recommend you tone it down a bit. genderBiohazard (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Clovermoss opened the discussion by scolding Fastily and then with their first reply, implied bad faith behavior on Fastily's part from the outset. That's neither particularly civil nor especially constructive. This disingenuous "I don't know why Fastily reacted like they did" nonsense is insulting to anyone who reads that exchange. The fact that one of Clovermoss's choice examples is a glaringly obvious hoax should be so embarrassing as to make them rethink this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's salty to say that you're concerned about inappropriate deletions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since Clovermoss rode in accusing Fastily of assuming bad faith, I'm pretty sympathetic to Fastily's response. I'm not seeing an ANI issue here, except perhaps a trout to both parties. If Clovermoss doesn't like getting salty responses, Clovermoss shouldn't prompt them. Grandpallama (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about AGF on the deleted articles. I'm talking about Fastily's comments aimed at Clovermoss and Fathoms Below rather than the deletions. The worst WP:AGF issue is the canvassing accusation (the fourth talk page quote). There's also a difference between being direct and being uncivil. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Talking about AGF is nonsense when the context is dealing with SEO spam. Two admins on a user talk page should be able to exchange opinions without a need to sugarcoat everything. Fastily handles a lot of bad stuff so it is always possible that they were wrong in this case. I don't know about that but I do know that this is not an ANI matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not at all seeing a reason to consider Draft:Patrick Marmion promotional, nor how U5 would apply. There are bits that could be written better (I removed the external link for the surgeon father), but those issues just seem like someone new to writing Misplaced Pages articles and not knowing the best way to structure biographies. And the subject definitely looks to be notable, I'm finding a number of reviews for a variety of his plays. Silverseren 01:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't found the outside coverage that you mention, but the first few sentences describe my general surprise when I read this page. As I said in my response to the newbie:
I have undeleted your userpage. I am unsure why Fastily deleted an article draft as not aligned with our goals when writing content is pretty much the entire point of everything. Your draft isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be. It also isn't so egregiously promotional that another deletion criteria would apply
. In later replies, I encouraged them to seek out adequate independent sourcing. A lack of notability is not what U5s are for. Plenty of newbies have no clue that we have standards for this stuff but we should at least give them a chance to figure it out. An improper speedy deletion is going to make it less likely they'll even try. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Here's just a few example from many options and there's many more besides from those. So notability as a playwright is definitely not in question. I do agree with you completely though. Notable or not, we don't just delete drafts someone is working on by misusing CSDs like U5. Silverseren 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't found the outside coverage that you mention, but the first few sentences describe my general surprise when I read this page. As I said in my response to the newbie:
- User:Pealoei was tagged for G11 but deleted as U5. A
two sentence draft about a provincial electricity service
belongs in a sandbox, not the user's main page, and would thus be an appropriate U5 deletion under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Considering they were hardblocked a couple hours later for a promotional username, I can only assume it would have qualified for U5 anywhere in userspace (as paid spam rather than a legitimate draft, which wouldn't be consideredclosely related to Misplaced Pages's goals
). C F A 💬 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- You're correct on the tagged/criteria deleted under distinction. I don't think this would necessarily count as U5 anywhere else in userspace because it isn't obviously paid spam. I genuinely believe a good faith newbie could write these three sentences:
The Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) (Abrv: กฟภ. RTGS: kofopho; Thai: การไฟฟ้าส่วนภูมิภาค, RTGS: Kan Faifa Suan Phumiphak) is a Thai state enterprise under the Ministry of Interior. Established on 28 September 1960 by the Provincial Electricity Authority Act 1960 (BE 2503, it is currently headed by Chayabol Thitisak. PEA is responsible for providing electricity in 74 provinces in Thailand—all except Bangkok, Samut Prakan, and Nonthaburi)—which are served by the Metropolitan Electricity Authority.
But I do appreciate that we're actually having a discussion on all this. That's what I wanted from Fastily, an open and honest discussion on the merits. But instead they doubled down instead of considering that maybe I was right. Silverseren explains what my reaction to that draft was. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Fastily doesn't delete user pages as G11, no matter what they're tagged as. Like, ever. The six (count 'em!) exceptions since his resysop, compared to 103,304 labelled U5, prove the rule. —Cryptic 02:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I would not have deleted that. Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a U5 anywhere. How is that not plausibly a draft of an article? What does WP:FAKEARTICLE have to do with anything, unless you've somehow come to the conclusion that it was meant to "indefinitely" stay in userspace despite lasting barely seven hours between creation and deletion? What difference does it make that it was created on the base user page, as new users are wont to do, instead of /sandbox or some other subpage, as users who've been editing Misplaced Pages for decades do? Just what on earth do you think Misplaced Pages's goals are, if they don't include trying to write articles? —Cryptic 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This was obviously an illegitimate spam draft. Their username was the group they were writing about. Yes, it's theoretically possible it was an innocent newbie who got confused, but that's not very likely, is it? Regardless, deleting "drafts" on the base user page is common practice for a lot of admins. I move them to a subpage unless it's obvious it would qualify for U5 elsewhere, but that's not what everyone does. I think the issue here is with how broadly U5 is able to be interpreted. I would support getting rid of it altogether. C F A 💬 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Illegitimate spam drafts are explicitly not deletable as U5, and pages written neutrally are explicitly not deletable as G11. Not even when the sourcing sucks or when the author has a COI as obvious as a Sherman tank. —Cryptic 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Do you think spam is
closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals
? C F A 💬 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Right on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5. Do you think writing articles is not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals? Do you think that would have been deleted if someone had put it in mainspace instead? —Cryptic 22:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Plausible drafts" ≠ userpage spam. They weren't writing an article — they were just advertising on their user page. The mainspace article exists at Provincial Electricity Authority, which is in fact where the "draft" is copied from. C F A 💬 22:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5. Do you think writing articles is not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals? Do you think that would have been deleted if someone had put it in mainspace instead? —Cryptic 22:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Do you think spam is
- Illegitimate spam drafts are explicitly not deletable as U5, and pages written neutrally are explicitly not deletable as G11. Not even when the sourcing sucks or when the author has a COI as obvious as a Sherman tank. —Cryptic 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This was obviously an illegitimate spam draft. Their username was the group they were writing about. Yes, it's theoretically possible it was an innocent newbie who got confused, but that's not very likely, is it? Regardless, deleting "drafts" on the base user page is common practice for a lot of admins. I move them to a subpage unless it's obvious it would qualify for U5 elsewhere, but that's not what everyone does. I think the issue here is with how broadly U5 is able to be interpreted. I would support getting rid of it altogether. C F A 💬 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're correct on the tagged/criteria deleted under distinction. I don't think this would necessarily count as U5 anywhere else in userspace because it isn't obviously paid spam. I genuinely believe a good faith newbie could write these three sentences:
- I've posted on Fastily's User talk page about U5 page deletions several times over the years. My main complaint is that it doesn't seem to matter what the User page is tagged for (it's frequently G11 and even G12), Fastily always changes the CSD criteria to U5 for some reason.
- My other problem involves our patrollers, it seems like some can't abide by any content on User pages. I've seen User pages that just had an editor's name and occupation tagged for CSD U5 speedy deletion and other times there are what are clearly article drafts that have just been mistakenly placed on a User page that are tagged for CSD U5 speedy deletion. In these cases, these drafts should be moved to a Sandbox or Draft space, not tagged for deletion.
- I think there is fundamental vagueness on what "webhost content" consists of because, to me, it means content that should be placed on an editor's personal blog or website, not article drafts or a simple bit of biographical information which is explicitly allowed to be present on User pages. But, like I said, this involves educating our patrollers, not just admins who review these pages. But, honestly, I've stopped reviewing pages in the CSD U5 Candidates category because I found myself untagging pages because I thought the taggings were inappropriate. Liz 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Mentioning "web host" in WP:U5's section header is very probably the worst wording ever to deface WP:CSD; it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual text of the criterion except for the matching template and category name. I've joked for years that we should just replace the text of U5 with "Any page in the User: namespace written by someone without enough social capital to get anywhere when they complain after you speedy it". Because the implication about it applying to new users - sometimes not even specifically "has made few or no edits outside of user pages", like the criterion reads - seems to be the only part people pay attention to, and policy is supposed to be descriptive, right? —Cryptic 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- As for User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox, it is really astonishing to me that an administrator would not immediately recognize with one or two clicks, that Gideon Blackburn did not win the 1816 United States presidential election. Blackburn existed but was not a politician but rather a religious and educator figure. The winning candidate was James Monroe, of course, who won an overwhelming landslide victory. Similarly, the losing candidate was not John Henry Miller, who also existed but died in 1782. The actual losing candidate was Rufus King who is not remembered much these days, but was a prominent American patriot of that era who was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States Senator and later ambassador to the United Kingdom. So, this sandbox was a blatant hoax that fooled the reporting adminstrator. Some people generously call such hoaxes alternate history but Misplaced Pages is not a platform for hosting deceptive forms of fiction and I will support any adminstrator who quickly deletes such obviously inappropriate garbage content. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it were at least labeled as a hoax instead of "U5" then administrators - and anybody else, even without viewdeleted - would be able to recognize it without even those one or two clicks. —Cryptic 04:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Erm... Not all administrators are Americans. – robertsky (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- As for User:PresidentOttoBraun/sandbox, it is really astonishing to me that an administrator would not immediately recognize with one or two clicks, that Gideon Blackburn did not win the 1816 United States presidential election. Blackburn existed but was not a politician but rather a religious and educator figure. The winning candidate was James Monroe, of course, who won an overwhelming landslide victory. Similarly, the losing candidate was not John Henry Miller, who also existed but died in 1782. The actual losing candidate was Rufus King who is not remembered much these days, but was a prominent American patriot of that era who was a member of the Continental Congress, a United States Senator and later ambassador to the United Kingdom. So, this sandbox was a blatant hoax that fooled the reporting adminstrator. Some people generously call such hoaxes alternate history but Misplaced Pages is not a platform for hosting deceptive forms of fiction and I will support any adminstrator who quickly deletes such obviously inappropriate garbage content. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this discussion? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, Clovermoss, I was unaware of that discussion. I am talking about the fact that in this case, you failed to detect that the deleted page was utter hallucinatory bullshit and instead chose to benignly describe it as a
draft about a historical election
when it was the exact opposite of that. Fretting at ANI about which precise CSD tag should be used to delete clearly inappropriate content seems like a poor use of all of our time. To be clear, I agree that some of Fastily's comments were overly prickly and I encourage that editor to be more careful with their phrasing and interactions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- And which CSD criteria should be used to delete the obviously notable draft of Draft:Patrick Marmion that Fastily attempted to get rid of and which is the actual originating article topic for this discussion in the first place, which you haven't addressed at all, Cullen? Silverseren 05:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to. I concur that I may have been heavy handed here and I thank you for providing the references above. I usually do some cursory research on any page before deleting, but I clearly missed the mark here. Thanks for pointing that out. -Fastily 06:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My response was to Liz in this instance, since she brought up talking to Fastily about her concerns and I wanted to make sure I found the right discussion. I realize now that specific example (and not the main focus of what went wrong here) is a hoax, but it would've been slightly easier to realize that if it was deleted under the proper criteria. I'm not American and my general instinct towards newbies creating drafts on historical elections is that they're probably not lying about who won. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clovermoss, I am aware that you are from the north side of the Niagara River but when you say that your
general instinct towards newbies creating drafts on historical elections is that they're probably not lying about who won
, that was obviously wrong in this case, and is probably a gullible attitude that you should reconsider. I admit that I am an American political junkie and immediately saw this as a hoax, but this draft had obvious indicators of fraud, such as piped wikilinks to entirely different people, and mention of alternate history in file names. You should do a modicum of verification before using a draft like this as an example of misconduct by another administrator. That's my view at least, but I also believe that you are usually a good administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- This specific example was a mistake, yes. I just don't want it to overshadow the larger concerns here. As for elections, I'm mostly used to seeing people write about obscure elections that don't have articles when it's something like the 1800s, so it didn't raise as much of a red flag to me as it did to you, especially given the other U5 concerns. I was also using the "view diff" and preview feature of the last revision instead of looking at the source code directly. I will definitely keep your feedback in mind for the future, as those are good tells to watch out for. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clovermoss, I am aware that you are from the north side of the Niagara River but when you say that your
- And which CSD criteria should be used to delete the obviously notable draft of Draft:Patrick Marmion that Fastily attempted to get rid of and which is the actual originating article topic for this discussion in the first place, which you haven't addressed at all, Cullen? Silverseren 05:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, Clovermoss, I was unaware of that discussion. I am talking about the fact that in this case, you failed to detect that the deleted page was utter hallucinatory bullshit and instead chose to benignly describe it as a
- Mentioning "web host" in WP:U5's section header is very probably the worst wording ever to deface WP:CSD; it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual text of the criterion except for the matching template and category name. I've joked for years that we should just replace the text of U5 with "Any page in the User: namespace written by someone without enough social capital to get anywhere when they complain after you speedy it". Because the implication about it applying to new users - sometimes not even specifically "has made few or no edits outside of user pages", like the criterion reads - seems to be the only part people pay attention to, and policy is supposed to be descriptive, right? —Cryptic 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Admins should absolutely not be telling people to "get off my talk page" for raising legitimate concerns. That's really disappointing behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily didn't tell Clovermoss to get off their page for raising a legitimate concern. They told Clovermoss to get off their page after Clovermoss accused them of
assuming the worst faith possible
. Grandpallama (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Assuming that someone's completely normal draft made by a new editor is "SEO spam" is "assuming the worst faith possible". Silverseren 05:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That "completely normal draft" reeks of COI and SEO. Clovermoss is the one who created this situation as a result of engaging with a deliberately combative and provocative approach. Fastily asked for explanations, civilly, which were not provided. Grandpallama (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, to you, "deliberately combative and provocative" is saying
I hope this is just an oversight but if so, please be more careful. Speedy deleting article drafts as U5 can be bitey
? If yes, then I question your judgement on what "combative" means in every scenario. Silverseren 06:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Starting with the assumption that Fastily had made an error and warning him is combative, yes. You are questioning my judgment? You are the one defending as perfectly kosher the article about Patrick from Bristol written by... Bristlepaddy. Yeah, no red flags there... Grandpallama (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- So, to you, "deliberately combative and provocative" is saying
- That "completely normal draft" reeks of COI and SEO. Clovermoss is the one who created this situation as a result of engaging with a deliberately combative and provocative approach. Fastily asked for explanations, civilly, which were not provided. Grandpallama (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming that someone's completely normal draft made by a new editor is "SEO spam" is "assuming the worst faith possible". Silverseren 05:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily didn't tell Clovermoss to get off their page for raising a legitimate concern. They told Clovermoss to get off their page after Clovermoss accused them of
- Not criticising or making personal attacks, just want to point out, but I've experienced the same thing. Unfortunately, Fastily seems to not be very civil towards users. Once on his talk page, he replied to me
What exactly are you hoping to achieve by coming here and continuing to complain? I'm literally not your therapist. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, you're not the only one who edits here. So yeah, you should expect to receive constructive criticism from time to time. If that's too much for you to handle, then it's high time for you to find a hobby that that doesn't involve Misplaced Pages. I know plenty of editors (admins included) who are on the spectrum but don't use their disability as an excuse to justify incompetence and/or bad behavior. Knock it off.
in October 2024. Since he is an admin, he should know better than this. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- As for User:Pealoei, I am the administrator who blocked that editor for "promotional username, promotional edits", and I stand by that block. I believe that poorly referenced content directly related to a blocked promotional username ought to be deleted. Personally, except in the most blatant cases, I do not myself delete content created by editors with overtly promotional usernames. I believe that "two administrators are better than one" in such situations, and I am very happy that other administrators like Fastily are willing to clean up such messes. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since PEPSI697 is bringing up something posted on Fastily's user talk page, I think it's probably a good idea to provide a link to the relevant discussions to add context. It started when PEPSI697 requested to be granted Rollback rights, didn't like Fastily's response and then decided to remove Fastily's response from the the page basically saying it didn't count. PEPSI697 than posted about the matter here on Fastily's user talk page. The next day PEPES697 started a new thread about the matter on Fastily's talk page here, and then started Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237#Can somebody please help me - I don't feel safe here about 20 minutes later. So, it's important to understand the entire context of things leading up to that Fastily post. PEPSI697 has sort of a disclaimer posted at the top of their user talk page, which is fine I guess for their user talk page; however, Fastily's response to their Rollback request was none of those things and seemed perfectly fine per WP:TPG. Moreover, PEPSI697 doesn't really get to apply their own conditions to posts made by others on community talk pages/noticeboards and doesn't get to remove posts made by others just because they're "sensitive" to criticism. I don't mean to try and derail what's being discussed here, and I'm not trying to make light of users who have ASD; I do, however, think it's important to understand the context of what PEPSI697 is quoting above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. However, I'm not really thinking strongly about the rollback request "incident" for the moment and haven't worried about it for a month now. It has been all good since about 3 October 2024. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're claiming that everything is
all good
, but you're trying to use this "incident" as an example of poor behavior by Fastily without even seeming to consider that it was your inappropriate behavior that started things. Your removal of Fastily's comment and statement that it didn't count was wrong and this was pointed out to you on his article talk page. You could've simply apologized to Fastily for removing the post at that point and that would've probably been received positively. Instead, you continued to post on his user talk page about how he was making you feel unsafe and that you didn't want to get blocked/banned, and then continued the same discussion at the Teahouse. You were doing all of this before Fastily had even responded to your first post; so, it's not hard to understand why he responded the way he did. Several of the posts you received at the Teahouse even pointed out the fault lied with you, but you still seem to think otherwise and still seem to think that your behavior wasn't an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- See this discussion I made last Wednesday. I've apologised for the actions I did if you didn't see it. What I mean by "all good" is that I haven't thought strongly or worried about it. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your apology thread was archived and I didn't see it; so, my apologies to you for saying you didn't apologize. However, you still felt the need to bring up this "incident" here again even though you and Fastily apparently worked things out amicably, which seems a bit odd to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- See this discussion I made last Wednesday. I've apologised for the actions I did if you didn't see it. What I mean by "all good" is that I haven't thought strongly or worried about it. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're claiming that everything is
- Thanks for bringing this up. However, I'm not really thinking strongly about the rollback request "incident" for the moment and haven't worried about it for a month now. It has been all good since about 3 October 2024. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to comment that you probably should have just kept the discussion to the very inappropriate responses by Fastily on their talk page (and not just to you, but many others over time) and the Marmion draft's obviously inappropriate deletion attempt, Clovermoss, instead of bringing up other deletions. There is a long-standing tendency by many at ANI to obfuscate a discussion to avoid the actual topic brought up and instead go into long tangents about any minor inaccuracy that can be pointed out to prevent that primary topic from being addressed. As many are doing up above with things like the hoax election article. Silverseren 05:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: Who specifically are you talking to? Just curious as there are lots of users in this thread here. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone who is not addressing the actual Fastily talk page discussion raised by Clovermoss that is the reason for this thread and/or not discussing the actual draft at issue that was inappropriately deleted. Anyone who is trying to harp about the hoax election draft or the electrical facility draft without actually making mention of the aforementioned topic of discussion is just derailing from the subject matter so it doesn't get addressed. Which is very common in ANI threads. Hence why I suggested just above that Clovermoss should have just focused on the former when making the report to not give leeway for such derailment to be done by others. It's unfortunate that such things are necessary, but past experience in threads here has shown me that it is. Any form of minor inaccuracy or misstatement in one's filing of a thread here, no matter how inconsequential it is to the topic being presented, will be frequently used as a method to prevent the main topic from being addressed. Silverseren 06:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Silverseren, personally, I have already advised Fastily that
I agree that some of Fastily's comments were overly prickly and I encourage that editor to be more careful with their phrasing and interactions
. But the hoax election draft example and the COI electrical utility draft example were two of the four examples of the alleged misconduct raised by Clovermoss. Are you arguing that the weakness of these two examples should have no effect on this conversation? Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- I'm saying they aren't the reason for this thread, the draft discussed on the talk page and the biting of a newbie who wrote a perfectly fine article is. Hence why I suggested above that Clovermoss probably shouldn't have included those other examples as they would inevitably derail from discussion of that issue. Since if Fastily is going to claim that that draft is "SEO spam", then I question their capability to analyze other such drafts and also question whether they have been driving away a number of other new editors trying to honestly contribute to Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 06:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's quite possible I'm missing this within the wall of text, but may I ask what you think is wrong with the utility draft example? I still think someone here in good faith could easily write that and that's what matters. That making a mistake like this has an invisible cost, not that I'm immune to somehow not impacting others with my own decisions. Anyways, I really should go to bed (it's quite late) for now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I assume just because they had a COI username that matched the name of the utility company. I agree that that's not a reason why they can't make a draft for a notable company. Just that there should be more scrutiny for that. Silverseren 06:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will say the "User:Pealoei" standing for "Provincial Electricity Authority" is a bit more subtle than what I usually encounter. I have deleted some spam myself and usually only do it in the most blatant of cases. Those three sentences, even from a COI editor, are mostly neutral. They could've theoretically submitted that as an AfC draft even if it would've been rightly declined for a lack of sourcing. But I don't think deleting it as a U5 is under the spirit of the criteria. It's possible I'm wrong, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, and that's definitely not my read of things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I assume just because they had a COI username that matched the name of the utility company. I agree that that's not a reason why they can't make a draft for a notable company. Just that there should be more scrutiny for that. Silverseren 06:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Silverseren, personally, I have already advised Fastily that
- Anyone who is not addressing the actual Fastily talk page discussion raised by Clovermoss that is the reason for this thread and/or not discussing the actual draft at issue that was inappropriately deleted. Anyone who is trying to harp about the hoax election draft or the electrical facility draft without actually making mention of the aforementioned topic of discussion is just derailing from the subject matter so it doesn't get addressed. Which is very common in ANI threads. Hence why I suggested just above that Clovermoss should have just focused on the former when making the report to not give leeway for such derailment to be done by others. It's unfortunate that such things are necessary, but past experience in threads here has shown me that it is. Any form of minor inaccuracy or misstatement in one's filing of a thread here, no matter how inconsequential it is to the topic being presented, will be frequently used as a method to prevent the main topic from being addressed. Silverseren 06:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: Who specifically are you talking to? Just curious as there are lots of users in this thread here. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- As it happens, I agree these should be speedies. (I even consider it a feature, not a bug, that "other" social media - and these users do consider Misplaced Pages social media - has taught them to inadvertently disclose their COIs by naming their accounts after the company that's paying them.) But the community doesn't permit individual administrators to delete pages like these on their own recognizance. It permits individual admins to delete user pages about "writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals" with the explicit exception - as if trying to write articles weren't one of our primary goals, but only vaguely connected! - of anything that looks like a draft; and it permits individual admins to delete pages that that are exclusively promotional, again with an explicit, redundant exception that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". Intent, even when obvious, doesn't enter into it, or else we'd have a whole lot fewer mainspace hagiographies about Kazakhstanian businessmen. —Cryptic 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with lots of what's been said above. It's important that folks responsible for speedy deletions have an opportunity to discuss how each of us might apply these criteria in real time. I've been working the speedy list myself recently. Draft space is maintained as place for development, and I've performed some G11s in egregious cases. It's obvious that even trusted servants will disagree, but in this case, I'm agreeing with Cullen328's and Cryptic's statements immediately above. I would have deleted these myself. Perhaps I would have been in error. But such choices are well within my trust of any other sysop. This thread is an unfortunate overreaction and shouldn't end, IMHO, with action against Fastily. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't see the attempt at an article as blatant promotion, especially if they're a governmental body, which means the block should have been a softblock for a username that represents an organization (in this case the Provincial Electricity Authority in Loei, I assume). That said, I've made a lot of deletions and username blocks so I'm sure there would be some borderline cases other editors and admins would disagree with. Differences in judgement are expected, but WP:ADMINCOND calls for civil discussion of our administrative actions which isn't quite what we saw here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have a petition for Admin recall against Fastily, based mostly on stuff that happened 10 years ago. This is freakin' awesome! BusterD (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Historical information was presented to provide context and establish a pattern. I put the petition itself forward due to concerns with how they were handling themselves today, and whether or not that was in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. I sincerely apologise if it appeared to be based on the 6 previous ANI threads surrounding Fastily's deletion-related conduct. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread. So you have that, and six ANI threads each going back before the editor's return. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread
- Yes, I noticed. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was alarming to read, and that's why we have recall now. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Several admins including myself have come to the conclusion that there's nothing actionable in the above thread. So you have that, and six ANI threads each going back before the editor's return. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Historical information was presented to provide context and establish a pattern. I put the petition itself forward due to concerns with how they were handling themselves today, and whether or not that was in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. I sincerely apologise if it appeared to be based on the 6 previous ANI threads surrounding Fastily's deletion-related conduct. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's an WP:ADMINACCT/WP:CIV issue and a deletion-related issue here, and they're both harder to resolve when taken together. On the behavioral side, I think a lot of this case may have been fueled by a simple misunderstanding (I think Fastily may have perceived Clover's "that's assuming the worst faith possible" about that one draft as instead a broader judgment on their deletions and/or a denial that we should ever see things as spam, and responding to that in an overly defensive manner). Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, the exchange with Clovermoss and a couple other examples above give us enough to resolve that part of the discussion with a trout or formalized reminder or something. Regarding deletions, I find Tamzin's and Liz's comments/evidence most concerning as they point to patterns rather than examples. Specifically, that it doesn't seem like Fastily declines many U5s, sometimes changes CSD tags, and carries out deletions at a speed where it would be impossible to fully evaluate the content. Whether someone should switch tags seems like a subject for a different forum, which leaves us with the classic problem of how to effectively evaluate deletions of an admin who has made 634,791 of them. Fastily has donated an awful lot of volunteer time focusing on deletion, so we'd really need pattern-level evidence or a good sized sample. If people want to go that route, I'd recommend closing the behavioral issue and creating a subsection to focus on evidence. Personally, I think I'd be fine just deprecating U5. Spam, historical fiction, etc. already fit under various G-type speedy criteria, and I agree with some others that we make it too easy to delete newbies' drafts, practice sandboxes, notes, wikimarkup experiments, etc. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites I'd support deprecating U5, or at the very least making an explicit carve-out that the criterion doesn't apply to sandboxes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- What about the records of someone's fantasy football league? That isn't a hoax, isn't promotion, isn't vandalism, but it also isn't anything to do with Misplaced Pages. I've always seem U5 as the NOTHERE of user page CSDs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't see what's so urgent about that that it needs summary deletion. Would I delete that if U5'd (and not in a sandbox) right now? Yeah, sure, I believe it fits the criteria. Do I think it was worth the time for someone to tag it and for someone else to delete it? No, not really. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be more clear-cut if the records of the fantasy football league were just placed in the sandbox, someone didn't edit it for how many months and the user left, and another user tagged it for deletion after discovering it. Deprecating U5 might have the unintended consequence of flooding MfD with nominations like these, but just a hypothetical. Anyway, this is beginning to get out of scope of ANI. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we're talking about a user that's WP:HERE, I don't see why
another user
doesn't have something better to do than digging through userspaces looking for 0-views silliness to delete. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- @Rhododendrites eh, lots of accounts with not that many edits start out with small things like fixing typos and then they might experiment in the sandbox since they're new, not knowing exactly the purpose of the sandbox since PAGs are hard to learn at the start. Another user might find the sandbox among the first user's contributions by accident after said user is long-gone, since they saw the person fixing typos or doing something else and looked at their contributions page. I wouldn't automatically assume people would be searching out for pages like these but this hypothetical might be a bit of a stretch. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we're talking about a user that's WP:HERE, I don't see why
- Maybe it would be more clear-cut if the records of the fantasy football league were just placed in the sandbox, someone didn't edit it for how many months and the user left, and another user tagged it for deletion after discovering it. Deprecating U5 might have the unintended consequence of flooding MfD with nominations like these, but just a hypothetical. Anyway, this is beginning to get out of scope of ANI. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are we talking about someone who's only here to make fantasy football pages in their userspace? If so, that's a behavioral issue and they should be blocked per WP:HERE. If we're instead talking about a good faith contributor, I have no trouble viewing some random userspace page with fantasy football information as either a place to experiment with wikimarkup, tables, templates, etc. or as falling into the leeway we tend to provide good faith editors to include some personal detail in their own userspace. If the context is unclear, what is so urgent about such a page that it needs to be not just deleted but speedy deleted? This is, in part, what I'm saying about U5 -- it's rare there's a clear-cut case such that speedy is called for but not covered by other criteria or by WP:HERE. More often than not it's just someone's random nonpromotional inoffensive sandbox, where we don't stand to gain anything in exchange for the user demotivation upon deleting a page almost nobody would ever see if they weren't looking for NOTWEBHOST violations in other people's userspace. YMMV. All this said, there's probably a better place to argue about U5 in general (my fault). — Rhododendrites \\ 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't see what's so urgent about that that it needs summary deletion. Would I delete that if U5'd (and not in a sandbox) right now? Yeah, sure, I believe it fits the criteria. Do I think it was worth the time for someone to tag it and for someone else to delete it? No, not really. -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- People already ignore, almost universally, the existing carve-out for drafts (let alone plausible drafts). What makes you think they wouldn't do the same for a new carve-out for sandboxes? —Cryptic 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just have admins follow the rules? I'm really confused that I've just randomly stumbled across this discovery that what's written and what's enforced can be dramatically different. I don't like it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The rules are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If it turns out that everyone is ignoring this it is the policy that needs to change to reflect the reality. MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- We haze prospective admins for a week and get pissed at them if they draftify too many articles, but if admins ignore the explicit carve-outs in CSD criteria that's... just to be expected? -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I came across as if I thought this were a good thing, it wasn't intended. My point was that this isn't a problem with the criterion; it's a problem with the people applying the criterion, and changing the criterion won't make them apply it any better. —Cryptic 23:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just have admins follow the rules? I'm really confused that I've just randomly stumbled across this discovery that what's written and what's enforced can be dramatically different. I don't like it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- What about the records of someone's fantasy football league? That isn't a hoax, isn't promotion, isn't vandalism, but it also isn't anything to do with Misplaced Pages. I've always seem U5 as the NOTHERE of user page CSDs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites I'd support deprecating U5, or at the very least making an explicit carve-out that the criterion doesn't apply to sandboxes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think Rhododendrites makes a good point regarding the importance of looking at reasonably large samples when evaluating the conduct of highly active admins (since even a below-average error rate will create a large number of errors if applied often enough). This also seemed like a good opportunity to procrastinate on actual work, so I drew a random sample from a subset of this query (which looks for deletions by Fastily whose summaries match
\bU5\b
). Specifically, I recoded the summaries to indicate whether deletions happened solely under U5 or under U5 and another deletion criterion, subset the data to the time range between 2024-01-01 and2024-10-04today, (pseudo)randomly drew 300 deletions, and dumped the result to a wikitable. The table is atSpecial:Permalink/1255380976Special:Permalink/1255383709, if someone wants to look through. I'm also happy to rerun my script with a different sample size or time range, if desired. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- (ec) Edit: I realised that I had unintentionally set the wrong end date (4 October instead of 4 November), so I've fixed that and repeated the process. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this. Despite my concerns, I don't necessarily have it "out" for Fastily, I really just want to make sure my concerns are not indicative of a way larger problem. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, I'm just curious, what was the pool size of User page deletions that this subset of 300 was taken from? I wonder about the total number of CSD U5s over a period of 10 months. By the way, I forked your query and am running it on my own page deletions and it is still running. I might not have gotten the code written correctly. Maybe if you have a second, I could get your opinion on it. Liz 01:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, the total for 2024 was 16371. The overall total from the quarry is 103310. Here's a table. Re the Quarry: I'm by no means an expert (I cobbled it together by from existing queries by Cryptic), but if all you did was switch out the
actor_name
, it should run just fine. It's tough to say more without knowing what exactly you're referring to, though. Since this thread is already ballooning somewhat, it might be best to take that elsewhere, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- I use Quarry throughout the day but most of my queries were written by other editors. You're right though, this is off-topic, I'll ask you on your User talk page.
- Liz, the total for 2024 was 16371. The overall total from the quarry is 103310. Here's a table. Re the Quarry: I'm by no means an expert (I cobbled it together by from existing queries by Cryptic), but if all you did was switch out the
- Blablubbs, I'm just curious, what was the pool size of User page deletions that this subset of 300 was taken from? I wonder about the total number of CSD U5s over a period of 10 months. By the way, I forked your query and am running it on my own page deletions and it is still running. I might not have gotten the code written correctly. Maybe if you have a second, I could get your opinion on it. Liz 01:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- But on the subject of CSD U5s, I have raised the question at WT:CSD in the past over its liberal overuse and misinterpretation (including one embarrassing discussion where I keep referring to it by G5, not U5) but if our patrollers used their tagging skills to reevaluate the User pages of our senior editors, many of them would be tagged for CSD U5 as they contain biographical content that is not directly related to their editing work. There is very, very little tolerance towards new editors who have any biographical content on their User pages. Since most new editors think of their User page as a profile page, let's just say that I think the vast majority of these pages are tagged for speedy deletion as soon as they are spotted by a patroller. In instances where it is a CV, I agree but in most cases, the content is harmless. Liz 01:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's an overenthusiastic patrolling of user space, imo. I've seen a lot of U5s that were clearly attempts at drafting articles which just need moving to a subpage, but I get pushback from patrollers declining these sufficiently often that, tbh, I've started to pass on them. I don't recall it particularly, but I seem to have looked at User:Pealoei and failed to decline it. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like there needs to be action taken in regards to the patroller community as a whole if they are consistently bad at the task when it comes to user pages. Enough so that multiple admins and editors have brought up this being a long-standing issue. Silverseren 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is so good to read, Espresso Addict. I thought it was just me. I rarely review the CSD U5 category when I look at CSD-tagged pages because I was removing taggings I thought were inappropriate and some patrollers came to me protesting. I get enough complaints on my User talk page already so I just don't review U5s. I think admins patrolling CSD categories are outnumbered by patrollers and it is harder to change their behavior than adapt our own. If I think it is egregious mistagging, I will post a message to a particular patroller but I think, in general, the judgment on U5s is just overboard. These taggings are sometimes warranted but in most cases, I don't think so. And it is especially bothersome because it affects brand new editors more than veteran editors. Very BITEy. Liz 04:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that it is extremely, extremely bitey. I see so many U5s that are just... drafts. The taggers could simply move the thing to draft! -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is so good to read, Espresso Addict. I thought it was just me. I rarely review the CSD U5 category when I look at CSD-tagged pages because I was removing taggings I thought were inappropriate and some patrollers came to me protesting. I get enough complaints on my User talk page already so I just don't review U5s. I think admins patrolling CSD categories are outnumbered by patrollers and it is harder to change their behavior than adapt our own. If I think it is egregious mistagging, I will post a message to a particular patroller but I think, in general, the judgment on U5s is just overboard. These taggings are sometimes warranted but in most cases, I don't think so. And it is especially bothersome because it affects brand new editors more than veteran editors. Very BITEy. Liz 04:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like there needs to be action taken in regards to the patroller community as a whole if they are consistently bad at the task when it comes to user pages. Enough so that multiple admins and editors have brought up this being a long-standing issue. Silverseren 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's an overenthusiastic patrolling of user space, imo. I've seen a lot of U5s that were clearly attempts at drafting articles which just need moving to a subpage, but I get pushback from patrollers declining these sufficiently often that, tbh, I've started to pass on them. I don't recall it particularly, but I seem to have looked at User:Pealoei and failed to decline it. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- But on the subject of CSD U5s, I have raised the question at WT:CSD in the past over its liberal overuse and misinterpretation (including one embarrassing discussion where I keep referring to it by G5, not U5) but if our patrollers used their tagging skills to reevaluate the User pages of our senior editors, many of them would be tagged for CSD U5 as they contain biographical content that is not directly related to their editing work. There is very, very little tolerance towards new editors who have any biographical content on their User pages. Since most new editors think of their User page as a profile page, let's just say that I think the vast majority of these pages are tagged for speedy deletion as soon as they are spotted by a patroller. In instances where it is a CV, I agree but in most cases, the content is harmless. Liz 01:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment re Blablubb's
even a below-average error rate will create a large number of errors if applied often enough
point. This comes up quite a bit with very active editors, but I'm not convinced that 'number of errors' is a useful measurement in all contexts. Whether it's an admin responding to speedy tags, non-admin patrollers working the recent changes queue, NPP reviewers looking at new articles, AfC reviewers, or whatever: if you have a queue of things that require action, and a pool of people who respond to the items in the queue, it's the error rate of the individuals in that queue that determines the number of errors that will be made (which is what we should be interested in, rather than who made them). If ten people with an error rate of 5% work the queue, they will collectively make more errors than if a single person with an error rate of 3% does the same work; that single very competent person will rack up far more errors as an individual than any of the ten less competent ones however, and may end up copping a disproportionate amount of flak as a result. Girth Summit (blether) 10:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- @Girth Summit: Yes, that's what I was trying to say – hence my support for looking at samples. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apoliogies - I've reread your post and it's clearer to me that that was exactly what you were saying. I must have misinterpreted it the first time, I think we're in agreement. Girth Summit (blether) 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Yes, that's what I was trying to say – hence my support for looking at samples. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Taken a few days to reflect. Lately I've been under tremendous stress/pressure IRL and that's made me much more irritable than usual, so I apologize to anyone that I may have offended. Not that it's an excuse or anything, but I'll make an effort to watch my rhetoric more closely and recuse myself from situations where I might be tempted to break WP:CIV. I also see concerns about the way I'm handling U5/G11, so I'll stop handling these and take a very conservative approach towards them should I resume activity in this area in the future. -Fastily 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it, @Fastily, and I'm really sorry to hear about the rl pressure. Hope it lets up. Luckily, we've got a whole new set of brand-new admins who can take over on the CSDs. :) -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily, I'm sure this process hasn't helped with that real-life stress. I think this statement is a good start. I know most of the issues I brought up were about the U5 criteria and how it is applied and it looks like we might be having a discussion on that subject now. Liz 07:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: I have started a proposal at the Village Pump idea lab that attempts to reduce the volume of inappropriate user pages needing patrolling. It may be hare-brained (which is why it's at the idea lab), but I have some hope it'll help — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
General comment
Doesn't it seem counterproductive to have two discussions about the essentially the same thing simultaneously taking place at two different places? Since the recall petition against Fastily is required to be open for 30 days, maybe this one should be closed. There's a lot of overlapping of participants and comments which seems (at least to me) as being unnecessary. If an administrator feels sanctioning Fastily over what is described above is warranted, then perhaps such a thing should done sooner than later. Letting the discussion go on until it ends up being archived due to inactivity seems (again at least to me) pointless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Concerns over interference in US elections by POV-pushing of FALSEBALANCE
Can someone please reinsert the template: {{Political POV}} at the beginning of the article? ] the template was deleted by a user who does not follow WP:BRD, emphasizing the POV and created the WP:FALSEBALANCE, At least 9 users have raised the issue of the political neutrality of this Article, and the election interference concern has been ignored without consensus of many users.
]
From my understanding, Template removal criteria - All three criteria are not met: 1)Consensus through discussion, 2)neutrality concerns are satisfactorily resolved, and 3)there was no existing talk on the issue.
- I want to record that there is a neutrality dispute in the US presidential election article, but other users claim that there is no neutrality dispute because WP:FALSEBALANCE or the biased article has been agreed to maintain it.
- However, as I understand it,NPOV is a basic principle of Misplaced Pages and other Wikimedia projects, so this policy is non-negotiable and the principles that form the basis of this policy cannot be changed by the agreement of users. For this reason, I would like to ask for advice on whether the neutrality issue template above can be recorded in the article. If it is okay to insert the neutrality issue template,
The template I inserted was excluded by another user 5 hours ago, I wonder if it will be applied to ""1RR"" if I insert it again later. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- You already started a thread for this on the relevant talk page. ANI isn't really the place for content disputes. — Czello 12:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- In addition, in response to
I wonder if it will be applied to ""1RR"" if I insert it again later
, I recommend you don't re-add it without consensus. This is already a contentious article with abitration remedies engaged, so it's best you talk it through on the talk page rather than ignoring the existing consensus. — Czello 12:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I understand, I will follow the suggestion. my inquiry was related to Misplaced Pages policy. I was wondering if it is possible to apply a Neutrality exception through user agreement.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nah you can't get an exception to 1RR just because you personally think a lede is non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Simonm223, Please note that my inquiry about
Neutrality exception issue - it is about basic principle of Misplaced Pages and other Wikimedia projects, so this policy is non-negotiable and the principles that form the basis of this policy cannot be changed by the agreement of users.
If there is an existing agreement, the content of the agreement has not been shared. User:Prcc27 is concerned about the fact that there is no neutrality issue. However, I think that the neutrality issue raised by more than 9 users should be respected.
Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC) - I think we need to consider a topic ban for @Goodtiming8871:, they have consistently POV-pushed and have been disruptive on the article in question. Prcc27 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Prcc27, can you make your case with diffs? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. But will probably be too busy today since it’s Election Day. Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been cases where more than 9 users have raised the neutrality issue of the article and tried to improve and improve the Misplaced Pages article together, and there have been actual cases where improvements have been made. I think it is unfair to limit the topic when people are trying to improve the article with good intentions. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Goodtiming8871, I am under the impression Prcc27 is talking about the last four or so months of various discussions and not just this one issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. I couldn't 100% meet everything the user asked for, but I tried my best. However, this time, I hope that the template for improving the biased document will be attached, and that the demands of many users will be respected. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Goodtiming8871, I am under the impression Prcc27 is talking about the last four or so months of various discussions and not just this one issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been cases where more than 9 users have raised the neutrality issue of the article and tried to improve and improve the Misplaced Pages article together, and there have been actual cases where improvements have been made. I think it is unfair to limit the topic when people are trying to improve the article with good intentions. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. But will probably be too busy today since it’s Election Day. Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Prcc27, can you make your case with diffs? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Simonm223, Please note that my inquiry about
- Nah you can't get an exception to 1RR just because you personally think a lede is non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand, I will follow the suggestion. my inquiry was related to Misplaced Pages policy. I was wondering if it is possible to apply a Neutrality exception through user agreement.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know I'm kinda new to Misplaced Pages but I just thought I'd add that I do agree with @Goodtiming8871 in that there is a decent level of concern about people missing Misplaced Pages policy to defend an article that is being heavily debated. If the article is so bad it ended up on an administration form, then it's probably worth having a "neutrality disputed" sticker on it for a time in my mind and understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. Take that as you will DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- misusing, not missing
- DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I hope that the template attached to the article will help improve neutrality by showing that many users are asking for improvements. Of course, I understand that it will take time for the neutrality that users are requesting to be improved, but I think it's meaningful because it provides a direction for the Misplaced Pages community to respect each other's opinions and constructively improve Misplaced Pages articles. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
At the very least, wait until after the 2024 election is held, before re-adding the template. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- In line with the suggestion that adding the template after the 2024 elections are over will be reviewed, I will follow the feedback from user. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Having the accusatory phrase "election interference" in the header is not helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since the neutrality of Misplaced Pages cannot be changed by consensus of users, and many users have raised neutrality issues, I added that phrase. I wrote it in the title, including the "Concern" , to make it more gentle.Goodtiming8871 (talk)
- Because it wasn't stated at the beginning of this complaint, I thought I'd mention that this discussion is about the 2024 United States presidential election article. Liz 07:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Superb Owl edit-warring again
User:Superb Owl is edit-warring at Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign. They has added contentious material and re-added despite warnings. See and The editor has a history of edit-warring.User:Namiba 17:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Namiba, the first editor who deleted that addition did not have a strong opinion about it and expressed that in their comment - I attempted to explain why it was relevant by adding more context. You then reverted the entire thing (which I assumed was because you took issue with the additional explanation not the part that had been there for several weeks), so then I restored the original piece that had been there for some weeks. Now that is seems clearer that you may have taken issue with the entire thing, I have self-reverted. Superb Owl (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Superb Owl, In the second edit diff, you had the edit summary of
restoring previous consensus version
but I was unable to find an RfC on the talk page. Do you have proof that this was a consensus decided version? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- @Cowboygilbert, I thought there was 'implied consensus' since it had been there - there was no RFC Superb Owl (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is only when you have editors agree upon something, it can't simply be "implied".Striking my comment, thank you for the replies. Don't need any more on the same policy. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Implied consensus is, more often than not, how Misplaced Pages works - see WP:IMPLIED.-- Ponyo 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Oh yes it can. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus can be implicit, but I don't see any evidence this is an implicit consensus version either (e.g. being left in place a couple days); it just seems to be the editor's previously-preferred version. In addition, please see WP:STABLE; reverting to a previous stable/"consensus" version is not an exception to 1RR.
- I'll mention that I've had some issues with this user edit-warring over POV in the past. That said, I would not classify their behavior as especially egregious, because the discussion was heavily derailed by another user following me around and casting aspersions about me being a vandal or POV-pusher (which understandably left @Superb Owl feeling pretty hostile/skeptical). After finding a neutral mediator, @Superb Owl was willing to accept the final compromise version, and did not edit-war further over it. I'm also seeing mitigating behaviors in this case—once the topic was brought to ANI, the user self-reverted to their less-preferred version, which I think shows restraint and a good-faith attempt at following the rules.
- Given how stringent 1RR is, I'd recommend avoiding formal sanctions as long as the editor voluntarily makes some pledges that keep him from overstepping 1RR in the future. @Superb Owl: would you be willing to commit to avoid reverting on contentious topics without opening a talk page discussion first? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just to make things even clearer, my edit was only in response to Cowboygilbert's statement. I have not looked into the original subject of this report. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing WP:Stable and the contentious topics guidelines - I just read both top to bottom. I did not see any mention of 1RR for all contentious topics (this article did not have that restriction) but can hold myself to a higher standard of caution (like 2RR or 1RR) on contentious topics if that is recommended. Superb Owl (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh, thanks. I misread the policy as applying to all contentious topics, so I thought it was applied here. I think a WP:Don't re-revert pledge would be good. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert, I thought there was 'implied consensus' since it had been there - there was no RFC Superb Owl (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Superb Owl, In the second edit diff, you had the edit summary of
User:YuelinLee1959 - WP:NOTHERE
User:YuelinLee1959 is pushing their gamergate views in their editing of Game Science by inserting information based on unverified rumors. Across edit comments and Talk:Game Science, they've been repeatedly warned and reverted by an editor for displaying rumors as facts. After repeat reverts, they continued to push rumors as facts against journalists based on Reddit comments that were then reverted by an editor. Continuing to push claims that IGN reporters are part of a consultant company based on rumors in both their edit comments and edits.
YuelinLee1959 later added unsubstantiated rumors of IGN manipulating a vote on their website. This was reverted by another editor. They've since doubled down on the sources they're including from aggregator websites as being attributed to the owners of those websites, such as NetEase, Tencent, and Sina. Many of these references like others they've added to Game Science are based on social media comments. I tried explaining that their sources on aggregators may be unreliable and they continued to push that the owners are making those claims, by sending me more aggregated content.
Upon failing to have their biased rumors included, they removed factual reporting from reliable sources. I attempted to resolve this discussion in Talk:Game Science but after no longer feeling the conversation was genuine, I went to the WikiProject Video Games for dispute resolution and was directed here. Yuelinlee1959 no longer appears to be reading my replies and is instead prioritizing pushing their narrative and removing what they don't like. This is why I stopped responding in Talk:Game Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakester95 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- YuelinLee1959 hasn't edited Misplaced Pages in nearly a week - how come you're coming here now with this? It's hardly urgent if they've stopped. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was recommended to post it here, should it be on WP:AN instead? The reason I didn't post here immediately is because I brought it to a dispute resolution first. Snakester95 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone back and restored some of the deleted content as a 3rd party opinion after having reviewed sources. Right now, as YuelinLee1959 is apparently inactive I'd say there's not really much else to do. Sanctions are preventative, not punative, and, unless they start edit warring again, that means we really shouldn't do anything. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not an active Misplaced Pages editor by nature, so it’s completely normal for me to be inactive for a period of time. I can’t edit Misplaced Pages daily like some of the more regular editors. As for why I didn’t continue replying in that discussion, it’s because, after I responded, there were no further replies, so I didn’t keep the discussion going. Seeing that I was @-mentioned in the incident thread, I’m here to respond.
- First, I’m very surprised to be accused on Misplaced Pages
- ' noticeboard/Incidents. Simonm223, please take a look at our previous discussion in the Game Science section. Initially, it was just me, Cold Season, and FMSky discussing it, and the three of us reached a consensus to delete that entire section. After reaching this consensus and deleting the section, Snakester95 only joined the discussion three days later. In other words, we had already concluded the discussion and removed the section based on consensus when Snakester95 expressed opposition.
- My actions were entirely based on the consensus with Cold Season and FMSky. I really don’t understand why actions based on consensus are being questioned here.
- Let’s look at the context of my removal of that section: FMSky replied, “Would actually agree that wiping the entire section should be considered as it's only really sourced to a single IGN hit piece.” Cold Season responded, “In any case, I would support the removal of it all per the above comment.” My own opinion was, “I've mostly kept your changes, trying to make it as fair and neutral as possible. If it needs to be deleted, I fully support removing the entire section.” FMSky then responded again, saying, “I would be in favor of removing this entire pesky section.”
- I made the decision to remove the section after gathering the opinions of all three of us. In other words, I deleted the section in line with the consensus reached in the discussion. After I removed this part, FMSky even thanked me for the edit.
- Snakester95 only expressed opposition on the discussion after we reached consensus and finished the removal. I reviewed the discussion, obtained agreement from Cold Season and FMSky, reached a consensus, and then performed the removal. Was there anything in this action that violated Misplaced Pages principles? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover, I don’t believe there was any edit war involved. When I removed that section, I did so based on the consensus reached with Cold Season and FMSky, who both supported its removal in the initial discussion. As for Snakester95, he only came in to express his opposition after we had reached consensus and completed the removal. When I removed the section, I had no idea he would disagree. Therefore, since consensus had already been reached, there was no edit war before Snakester95 expressed opposition. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, YuelinLee1959, can you provide a link to where this consensus was reached? It could be on an article talk page or user talk page. Thanks. Liz 03:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note the version of the page I restored was based on the last edit by FMSky - the only thing I changed from that version was the addition of a header. So if the consensus version is based on an agreement struck with them as a party then my actions seem to be in support of that consensus version. However I think this discussion is best had at article talk and not on a noticeboard.
- Other than that I'd politely ask YuelinLee1959 to try and be more concise with their replies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @LizI went back through the article talk history rather in-depth and here's what I can find: there is a rough 3-2 split about whether to remove the IGN article with YuelinLee1959 advocating either to include various opinion sources from Chinese media that are critical of IGN or to remove the IGN article, Cold Season and FMSky seeming to advocate to removing all mention of the controversy and Snakester95 and a dynamic IP arguing for the inclusion of the IGN reportage. The dispute largely hinges over what constitutes a WP:RS and what is WP:DUE although nobody involved has been very explicit regarding Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. In this discussion the IGN piece is incorrectly described as an opinion piece by some editors. This is not the case - the IGN article is what passes for investigative journalism in the video games industry. It's of low quality but that's because games journalism is uniformly of very low quality and mostly consists of regurgitating press releases. As such it's about as good as games journalism gets. Unfortunately. However the two things I will say here:
- 1: There is not a clear consensus for any given course of action on the article talk page unless the IP editor is one of the involved editors working while logged out. This is a possibility that I wouldn't immediately discount but which I hope is not the case.
- 2: Assuming no sock-puppetry is going on here this is entirely a content dispute and should be addressed at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz@Simonm223Let me explain the consensus I observed at that time. First, regarding the IP user you mentioned—I actually hadn't noticed any IP user participating in the discussion.
- Here's the timeline, as well as why I saw a consensus at that time:
- On September 24, 2024, I initiated the discussion.
- On October 5, 2024, at 08:55, I proposed either deleting the entire controversial section or neutrally adding some media accusations against IGN, alleging they were targeting Game Science intentionally.
- On October 5, 2024, at 09:44, FMSky replied, “Would actually agree that wiping the entire section should be considered as its only really sourced to a single IGN hit piece.”
- On October 5, 2024, at 10:55, Cold Season responded, “In any case, I would support the removal of it all per the above comment.”
- At that point, the three of us had reached a consensus to delete this section of content. I didn't see the IP user you mentioned and wasn't aware of their presence, while Snakester95 hadn't joined the discussion at all. From September 24 to October 5, 2024, during the ten-plus days of discussion among myself, Cold Season, and FMSky, Snakester95 was absent.To be more precise, during those ten days, Snakester95 did not participate in or appear in the discussion at all. On October 5, we reached a unanimous agreement, and even then, Snakester95 still hadn't appeared in the discussion.
- So, my first question: was it reasonable for me to believe we had reached a consensus at that time?
- Let me reiterate: from September 24 to October 5, during the ten days in which FMSky, Cold Season, and I reached an agreement, Snakester95 never appeared or participated in any discussion. I didn’t even know this person. So, given that all participants in the discussion at the time were in agreement, was it wrong for me to believe that we had reached a consensus?@Liz@Simonm223
- At that time, the only people involved in the discussion were the three of us, and all three of us agreed to delete the entire content. Snakester95 was not present in the discussion page at all.
- Then we began to make deletion edits, with FMSky deleting part of the content. On October 8 at 8:55, Snakester95 joined the discussion, but at that point, he did not express any opposition to our prior consensus to delete everything.
- I was away for a while, and later, based on the results of the October 5 discussion, and the fact that Snakester95 had not expressed any objections as of October 8, I went ahead and deleted the section. Only after I completed the deletion did Snakester95 raise an objection. This objection came after the deletion was already done.
- From September 24 to October 5, in my discussions with Cold Season and FMSky, Snakester95 never appeared. How could I have foreseen that someone would come forward to oppose it in the future, and only after I had completed the deletion? Since Snakester95 only objected after the deletion was completed, and he had not participated in the prior discussion, while Cold Season, FMSky, and I had already reached an agreement, was there any error in my assumption that we had reached a consensus at that time? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus can change - especially when an article suddenly gets new eyes on it for whatever reason. Please note that the version of the page I restored was the version edited by FMSky on October 23. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even if you believe that consensus can change, was my action of deleting content based on the previous consensus in any way against Misplaced Pages's rules? What I cannot understand is why, when my actions were clearly based on consensus, Snakester95 accused me of WP
- on Misplaced Pages'noticeboard/Incidents. I am genuinely confused and do not understand why I am being accused of violating Misplaced Pages’s principles. I believe that the accusation against me is entirely unfounded. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are also discounting that Snakester95 was heavily engaged prior to October 5; you don't arbitrarily delimit consensus to the period of time when one person wasn't around and then say, "well they didn't say anything between these two dates." Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This sentence is incorrect. The discussion started on September 24 by me and reached a consensus by October 5. During this period, I did not see any comments from Snakester95. If there were any, please let me know what Snakester95 said between September 24 and October 5. I never saw any of his/her comments during this period. Please help me quote them or provide a link. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are also discounting that Snakester95 was heavily engaged prior to October 5; you don't arbitrarily delimit consensus to the period of time when one person wasn't around and then say, "well they didn't say anything between these two dates." Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Going back to what you said about restoring the page, can I interpret that as you having joined the discussion and thinking that the content should not be removed? If so, may I ask if we could revert to this version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252864623. In that version, none of the content was removed, and it also included articles from certain media outlets criticizing IGN for targeting Game Science. Additionally, we could incorporate IGN's own response to these accusations.
- If you believe this version only includes sources in Chinese, I can also add this link from Medium: https://medium.com/@marno.lucas28.com/is-ign-manipulating-goty-votes-to-eliminate-black-myth-wukong-998730a5fae0 and IGN’s own response: https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please go to article talk for this discussion. AN/I is not the appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I will go to the talk page. But can you answer my last question about what Snakester95 comments between September 24 and October 5. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Snakester95 made no less than 17 edits to Game Science and its related article talk page in the month of August alone. They took a wiki-break - that doesn't mean they can be ignored indefinitely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- What I mean is that from the time I initiated the discussion until October 5, when I reached consensus with Cold Season and FMSky, I did not see any comments from Snakester95. I couldn't predict the future, nor could I anticipate who would join the discussion. Just like now, you’ve joined the discussion, but on October 5, I couldn’t have predicted that you would contribute, and I couldn’t wait for you to finish your comments before making changes. The same applies to Snakester95. I could only base my actions on who was actively participating in the discussion and their opinions at the time. Since Snakester95 was not part of the discussion during that period, I naturally could not have predicted that they would later join and express opposition. This discussion may well have other people joining in later, but that’s something I can’t predict right now. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the essence of WP:BRD: you had your discussion, you took action, and then someone objected and reverted. Whether they were there at the initial discussion or not is irrelevant. At that point, you go back to discussing to see what the issue is and whether or not there is actually consensus for the change.
- That's where we are now, so I suggest you return to the talk page to suss things out. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- What I mean is that from the time I initiated the discussion until October 5, when I reached consensus with Cold Season and FMSky, I did not see any comments from Snakester95. I couldn't predict the future, nor could I anticipate who would join the discussion. Just like now, you’ve joined the discussion, but on October 5, I couldn’t have predicted that you would contribute, and I couldn’t wait for you to finish your comments before making changes. The same applies to Snakester95. I could only base my actions on who was actively participating in the discussion and their opinions at the time. Since Snakester95 was not part of the discussion during that period, I naturally could not have predicted that they would later join and express opposition. This discussion may well have other people joining in later, but that’s something I can’t predict right now. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Snakester95 made no less than 17 edits to Game Science and its related article talk page in the month of August alone. They took a wiki-break - that doesn't mean they can be ignored indefinitely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I will go to the talk page. But can you answer my last question about what Snakester95 comments between September 24 and October 5. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please go to article talk for this discussion. AN/I is not the appropriate venue. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus can change - especially when an article suddenly gets new eyes on it for whatever reason. Please note that the version of the page I restored was the version edited by FMSky on October 23. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, YuelinLee1959, can you provide a link to where this consensus was reached? It could be on an article talk page or user talk page. Thanks. Liz 03:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone back and restored some of the deleted content as a 3rd party opinion after having reviewed sources. Right now, as YuelinLee1959 is apparently inactive I'd say there's not really much else to do. Sanctions are preventative, not punative, and, unless they start edit warring again, that means we really shouldn't do anything. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Borsoka's hidden agendas, bludgeoing and aggressiveness
- stated that my "aims seems to be to smith enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour."
- argued that I seized/edited an FA "via attrition", and referred to my "bludgeoning tactics"
- accused me of "embarrassing double-speak"
- argued that I am "an egotist that wants to collect scalps"
- stated that I "have acted aggressively against" most reviewers .
If Ceoil were right, I should be severely punished, so I am calling them to present their case against me. By the way, I have suggested him at least twice that they should take me to ANI for misconduct. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is almost sad. My last comment on the FAR was encouragement I for one want this article to in some venue retain its star and be something the project can be proud of. But nonetheless its not reviewed in its current state at present, you have acted aggressively against any reviewer save AirshipJungleman who has now has bowed out. What do you honestly expect from here; please please please submit at FAC where you will get a far better and less cranky spin at the wheel, where everybody would more geared up for a promotion. That you have acted aggressively against most reviewers is a pity but fact. I now want you to back away from that approach at FAR and move towards a more positive FAC. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just to say, expatriating as he is, in no world I want to see Borsoka "severely punished". Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please add differences proving your above accusations. Otherwise, I must assume you baselessly accused me of several forms of misconduct. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you have been quite belligerent in approach over the years at Middle Ages and my descriptions are describing your behaviour towards others. Again I urge you to stand to a more robust review at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of repeating your accusations without evidence, please add differences. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you have been quite belligerent in approach over the years at Middle Ages and my descriptions are describing your behaviour towards others. Again I urge you to stand to a more robust review at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please add differences proving your above accusations. Otherwise, I must assume you baselessly accused me of several forms of misconduct. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just to say, expatriating as he is, in no world I want to see Borsoka "severely punished". Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- A simply mad complaint, which if it goes anywhere may well WP:BOOMERANG. Borsoka's language & aspersions, by no means restricted to Ceoil here, are at least as agressive. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod:, examples please.... Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Double speak: There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- "bludgeoning tactics" - +400 talk edits Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was proposed to list all the problems in the 2013 FA version of the article on the Talk page. Two huge archives (, ) document my findings. Would you refer to the ones that were baseless? Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am also a bully, according to Ceoil Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm put in mind of Paul Newman from The Verdict: "your honor, if you're going to try me case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it." Borsoka, you can't take yourself to ANI and demand satisfaction. This won't be a constructive use of anyone's time. You should withdraw this and return to the featured article review. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do not demand satisfaction. I request a fair investigation against me. Or do you think that an aggressive bully who uses bludgeoning tacts should be allowed to edit in the future? Or, alternatively do you suggest that I could regularly call Ceoil, for instance, as "Don Quijote's immature and aggressive caricature whose hunger for vengeance is extremly hilarious"? Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do not disrupt. I only want to know either bullies, etc can edit WP, or editors can regularly call each other bullies, etc. If the answer is no and no, what is the solution? (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, it's the confusing way you set up this complaint. Instead of focusing on the other editor, you are asking editors to investigate you but offering examples from the other editor's edits. I guess you thought this was a clever approach but I think it left editors wondering what they were supposed to do with this information since you made this complaint about you, not them. Liz 02:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, because I think bullies are to be sanctioned. If I am a bully, I must be sanctioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can see that you are unwilling to give up this counter-productive approach. I predict that there will be no action taken here and this complaint will be archived. Liz 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz this is a fair comment. On the other hand it might well be productive if third parties looked at the FAR Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Middle_Ages/archive1 and gave a view. It is the rather long and boring result of the nom heavily editing a FA, then submitting to FAR. It seems to be in an intractable impasse that is preventing its closure what ever the result. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess my question is why are editors continuing to debate and post on an archive page? This has been going on for months. Liz 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's not an archive page, because of historical reasons to do with automated processes it's the live FAR page that's called archive1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. In fact it has just been closed as "Delist". If you want a really long one, try Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3, which is still open after a year. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's not an archive page, because of historical reasons to do with automated processes it's the live FAR page that's called archive1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess my question is why are editors continuing to debate and post on an archive page? This has been going on for months. Liz 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz this is a fair comment. On the other hand it might well be productive if third parties looked at the FAR Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Middle_Ages/archive1 and gave a view. It is the rather long and boring result of the nom heavily editing a FA, then submitting to FAR. It seems to be in an intractable impasse that is preventing its closure what ever the result. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can see that you are unwilling to give up this counter-productive approach. I predict that there will be no action taken here and this complaint will be archived. Liz 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, because I think bullies are to be sanctioned. If I am a bully, I must be sanctioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, it's the confusing way you set up this complaint. Instead of focusing on the other editor, you are asking editors to investigate you but offering examples from the other editor's edits. I guess you thought this was a clever approach but I think it left editors wondering what they were supposed to do with this information since you made this complaint about you, not them. Liz 02:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do not disrupt. I only want to know either bullies, etc can edit WP, or editors can regularly call each other bullies, etc. If the answer is no and no, what is the solution? (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
1RR / abitrartion violation by Morgankarki
Bringing this here as it's fairly clear-cut and I'm hoping to avoid the bureaucracy of WP:ARE.
The Donald Trump article has a clear arbitration enforcement restrictions: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.
This is evident both on the talk page templates but also when you open the editing pane. Morgankarki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made this edit, which I reverted. They immediately restored it, which violates the arbitration enforcement. I requested both on their talk page and the article talk page that they revert, but they have not done so.
Requesting this be reverted and Morgankarki be warned on this topic. — Czello 12:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The edit in question has since been reverted. Morgankarki has not edited since their revert, and judging by Special:Contribs/Morgankarki it's not unusual for them to go days or weeks between edits – they've made only 154 edits in 2024 to date. It's quite possible that they have not yet seen your request to revert. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I didn't see that it had been reverted (and even now can't see which diff it happened in, but perhaps I'm being blind). Happy for this thread to be closed. — Czello 14:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also can't find the diff. I've given them an AMPOL alert here; per WP:CTOP I believe that an admin could still give a logged warning to someone who was not previously aware of a contentious topic, but I don't know that it's necessary if you're happy that this is resolved. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I didn't see that it had been reverted (and even now can't see which diff it happened in, but perhaps I'm being blind). Happy for this thread to be closed. — Czello 14:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- They did it again. A short block or topic ban may be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- They have been warned, let's see what they do. I say this because most of their edits involve Nepal, not U.S. politics, this seems to be an anomaly for them. Liz 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think I block is required. They don't seem to be paying attention to any warnings. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- They have been warned, let's see what they do. I say this because most of their edits involve Nepal, not U.S. politics, this seems to be an anomaly for them. Liz 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd consider this to be a legal threat. LilianaUwU 23:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, while
don't repeat otherwise under behalf of trump administration I can take action
is a threat, I don't see it as a legal threat and I'm 100% certain it is a baseless threat as I doubt this editor represents the Trump administration, past or future. Especially because they seem to be from Nepal, not the U.S. Liz 07:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)- Nonetheless, it's definite WP:NOTHERE behaviour, especially given the edit warring in a contentious topic. (Although I personally would have agreed with Lilana that it was a legal threat). — Czello 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, while
Disruption; mass edits; insults: Shooboo23
Sockpuppet blocked. If you see this same argument being made about what to call Home Secretaries, head directly to WP:SPI. Liz 02:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shooboo23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been disrupting a great many pages by adding pipes to the names of UK government offices. They've been advised by numerous editors this is unhelpful and not appropriate. They've now moved on to gross insults against other editors: "no need to be a stupid rude prick
", when that attack is objected to the response "can you read?
" Cambial — foliar❧ 20:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've a feeling that this might be a VosleCap/Unityguard sock. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- feel free to check my IP, im not a 'sockpuppet' as you might label me. im here to make meaningful contributions and conflicting edits on british government pages and other items which this editor who is referring me might reference are a result of my genuine desire to improve wikipedia with my knowledge area. i would point out that ive also engaged with other editors on the talk page to figure out solutions to conflicting edits and you should read that whole conversation, as the editor who i called a prick was being unnecessarily disrespectful first. Shooboo23 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, but it is reminiscent of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Benga502 and VosleCap, which CU results confirm. DatGuyContribs 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
A wave of politician portrait removal by Seattle IPs
Someone using IPs from Seattle has been removing lots of images from the biographies of politicians.
They are currently blocked as Special:Contributions/50.227.46.210, Special:Contributions/2600:100F:B205:0:0:0:0:0/48 and Special:Contributions/2601:601:C82:2F10:0:0:0:0/64, and they were recently blocked as Special:Contributions/174.233.17.11, but they have also been using the IP ranges Special:Contributions/174.231.128.0/19, Special:Contributions/174.215.112.0/21, Special:Contributions/174.224.192.0/21, Special:Contributions/2601:601:C80:6F30:D00B:9CB0:8F0B:263D/64 and Special:Contributions/73.109.165.4. The Dow Constantine biography saw a ton of disruption from this person.
They have edit-warred extensively over the historic grocer's apostrophe in the band name the B-52's, trying to remove it from articles pertaining to the time when it was used.
Can we put Dow Constantine in protection? Can we rangeblock some of the 174.x IPs? Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Protected Constantine for a week, I'll leave any rangeblock to smarter people than me. charlotte 03:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
User:CyberIdris
The article on "Yukio Mishima" was subject to trolling from multiple IP addresses believed to be the same person, and the administrator recently took action to semi-protect the page. But the exact same trolling has now resumed again, this time by User:CyberIdris, who is likely to be the same person as 45.128.80.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
I won the FA for my article on Yukio Mishima in the Japanese edition, and I make accurate edits based on reliable academic sources, but this person alters parts of Mishima's history that he does not like, and insists on exaggerating and labeling him as an "ultra-nationalist." I explained to him in User talk:45.128.80.181 that "ultra-nationalist" and "restoring direct imperial rule" are wrong view that is not found in any source, but this person has not listened at all, and now he has repeated the same trolling as User:CyberIdris, at the same time he continues to changing the correct titles of Mishima's works that are the official English titles to wrong.
In the first place, Mishima's final suicide appealed for Japan's independent defense through the amendment of Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, the user's edit itself, inserting the phrase "restoring direct imperial rule," is strange, and at the same time, it is an addition that reveals ignorance of Japanese history. This is because even before the war, the Emperor had not direct rule.
This user probably does not have accurate knowledge about Mishima or Japan, in spite of he is comfortable making changes and deleting words from articles that have proper academic sources. I just looked at the edits of this user on other articles, and in other articles about Japan, he also omits sources for no particular reason, calling it "trimming." ()
I have explained the same thing to User talk: CyberIdris, but I think there is a high possibility that he will troll again with his incorrect views. I think he is also violating the rule of multiple accounts. In order to preserve proper, high-quality articles, I would like you to put an end to this trolling that ignores sources and is done by people who have no knowledge of Yukio Mishima. Thank you. みしまるもも (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, みしまるもも, as it says all over this page, you need to post a notification to this editor on their User talk page, alerting them to this discussion. Please do so. If you think they are a sockpuppet, you should file a case at WP:SPI. Liz 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Liz, Thank you for teaching me. みしまるもも (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not true. First みしまるもも's accusation of trolling is uncivil and unnecessary.
- Second @みしまるもも appears to have a emotional connection to this topic and has been treating the article as if he owns it personally. みしまるもも 's userpage suggests a heavy conflict of interest.
- From what I can see on the talk page みしまるもも was lectured harshly https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yukio_Mishima#Original_research for pushing original research and acting like he is a self-proclaimed "Mishima expert" to oppose all improvements.
- He seems to be interested in pushing nationalist viewpoints. CyberIdris (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did not do any original research. The other party only asked for secondary sources, and I later provided the secondary sources and resolved the issue. From my perspective, Mr. Ash-Gaar was doing some original research, so I pointed that out to him, and he responded in that way. I have now reconciled with him, and it has nothing to do with your case. And Mr. Ash-Gaar also reverted your edit, and when I corrected a mistake in his edit ("to restore direct imperial rule,"), while explaining the reason, I received a thank you notice.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- What usually helps in situation where two editors are locking horns is to get feedback from other editors who are interested in the article. Have you tried talking about your differences on the article talk page, Talk:Yukio Mishima? Liz 03:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Liz, thank you for mediating. I have explained it in Talk:Yukio Mishima now.
- He misguided understanding and alteration of Mishima's final act is clearly vandalism. Besides that, he even change the official English titles of Mishima's works to incorrect ones, and edit to remove "Mishima has been recognized as one of the world's most important literary persons of the 20th century," which I edited based on the academic literature source of Donald Keene. Also, he reverted the notice I posted on his talk page.()
- What usually helps in situation where two editors are locking horns is to get feedback from other editors who are interested in the article. Have you tried talking about your differences on the article talk page, Talk:Yukio Mishima? Liz 03:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
みしまるもも (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds frustrating. But it's also a content dispute and ANI handles misconduct. I'm not convinced their edits are vandalism. If discussion on the article talk page doesn't lead to a resolution there are other forms of dispute resolution if CyberIdris is willing to take part in them. But if you have more than suspicions about sockpuppetry, then you might head to SPI. In a complaint there, you will be expected to produce evidence that editors are editing in a similar manner, they are pretty strict about that there. It's not for "fishing". Liz 05:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Possible Gatekeeping/Disruptive censoring on Teahouse Question
Filing editor has been blocked for DE. If others feel there is merit, please be sure you're eligible to participate in a CT area and open a new discussion. Star Mississippi 02:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here because I believe that my recent questions on the Misplaced Pages Teahouse were subject to inappropriate gatekeeping. I had asked why there is no Misplaced Pages article about AIPAC’s involvement in the 2024 U.S. elections, particularly regarding its influence on prioritizing Israel's interests. My question got immediately removed without sufficient reasoning, and when I restored it, it was removed again by the same editor, who stated it was "not helpful."
But I feel my inquiry was handled in a disingenuous or stonewalling manner that prevented me from receiving a fair response to a fairly reasonable question. I understand the need for Misplaced Pages’s civility and neutrality policies, but I believe I posed my question in a reasonable and constructive way, seeking only information. I also asked if there are specific rules restricting discussion of AIPAC activities oeahouse, because it appears my entire question was removed despite no consensus that all topics relating to AIPAC are not allowed to be discussed on Teahouse.
It’s also my understanding that the Teahouse is meant to support open dialogue and assist new editors. And why I’m concerned that this approach - deleting my 2 questions outright - may not align with Misplaced Pages’s commitment to transparency and constructive support for new users seeking clarity on complex topics.
Could an administrator please review this situation and provide guidance? And also point to the specific rule that AIPAC influence on US 2024 elections cannot be discussed by new users on Teahouse despite it's really gatekeeping or overly strict or lofty criteria specifically to limit participation of people questioning AIPAC. 49.181.58.245 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the removal (more than I have elsewhere), but please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – 2804:F1...4A:3386 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! The wider Arab–Israeli conflict is considered a contentious topic and has been placed under a special set of restrictions, limiting discussion to logged-in users with at least 500 edits to avoid disruption. I think a newcomer question at the Teahouse should still have had a polite response explaining the situation, although this comment you made could be seen as casting aspersions and should be avoided in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:Helpdesk
Evening, Theres ongoing disruption on the helpdesk pages, have reverted and blocked what I'm sure (and I'm sure i've seen more evidence of) is an ip evading editor. Ive slapped pending changes on the page as a stop gap measure so that editors who are trying to post appropriately can do but could probably do with a second set of eyes/more input on it as this seems to be an ongoing problem. Any thoughts/suggestions on the matter would be useful, edit filter with a disallow might be useful but that's outside of my areas of expertise. Amortias (T)(C) 02:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Amortias, is this general trolling or is there a focus to this disruption? Does it seem like one editor? Liz 02:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I cant confirm its one editor but its basically a duck with a megaphone and a flashing neon sign going "quack".
- They keep replacing the exact same message over several days, their banned from irc and i believe from passing memory they were originally blocked for making death threats. Amortias (T)(C) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Evening. Yup, that's DarwinandBrianEdits/MidAtlanticBaby, who is most well known for making death threats against everyone and wondering what the problem is. Edit filters are probably just going to get worked around (which already explains their ridiculous fonts). I'm generally opposed to protection of the help desks. Of course hardliners will say DENY REVERT. Another solution is to just answer the question. I know some people have tried that and it doesn't seem to get through to this one that harassment and death threats are out order. Yet another method is to wait half an hour, then revert. Without immediate reversions there would unlikely be any need for protection. Really slow reverting of plain nonsense, or a single clear response, is ever so dull and cause much less collateral and disruption. Just my 2c. -- zzuuzz 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could just semi-protect the page for 12 hours since they are all IP accounts. They seem to move on when their efforts are frustrated. But they might just find another page to post at. Liz 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Semi was my first thought but that would also preclude other editors, pending changes would at least let non-autoconfirmed editors post prior to approval. Pending changes seems to have stemmed the activity for now. Amortias (T)(C) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be completely honest, even though they are sockpuppets, I thought their question ("How do I contact WMF?") is a legitimate question that could be easily answered by linking to the contact page. Maybe then they would stop posting. Liz 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Been tried, didn't work.Amortias (T)(C) 03:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have run across various manifestations of this LTA many times in recent weeks, and the person says that they have emailed the WMF hundreds of times and they just won't answer. That's not surprising. I think their grudge goes back to some ancient dispute about Michigan license plates. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Been tried, didn't work.Amortias (T)(C) 03:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be completely honest, even though they are sockpuppets, I thought their question ("How do I contact WMF?") is a legitimate question that could be easily answered by linking to the contact page. Maybe then they would stop posting. Liz 03:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who frequents the Help Desk, I can say that their efforts are persistent even after multiple page protections. I too am against protection of the help desk; maybe put it under pending changes? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, Amortias mentioned in his initial message in this discussion thread that set up pending changes so that was a good guess. Liz 05:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Semi was my first thought but that would also preclude other editors, pending changes would at least let non-autoconfirmed editors post prior to approval. Pending changes seems to have stemmed the activity for now. Amortias (T)(C) 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- IIRC, MAB uses VPNs/open proxies almost exclusively, and when blocked he will just hop to another one, a la Nate Speed. Answering the question does nothing because he's not interested in any sort of answer; we've had the displeasure of dealing with him on IRC (and staff treat him as kill-on-sight). I haven't been harassed yet, but I'm not worried about it because I've had to deal with far worse than anything he can cook up. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 19:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should start proactively blocking everything listed on https://www.vpngate.net/en/? I've seen a bunch of their IPs blocked as VPNGate proxies. C F A 💬 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could just semi-protect the page for 12 hours since they are all IP accounts. They seem to move on when their efforts are frustrated. But they might just find another page to post at. Liz 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Evening. Yup, that's DarwinandBrianEdits/MidAtlanticBaby, who is most well known for making death threats against everyone and wondering what the problem is. Edit filters are probably just going to get worked around (which already explains their ridiculous fonts). I'm generally opposed to protection of the help desks. Of course hardliners will say DENY REVERT. Another solution is to just answer the question. I know some people have tried that and it doesn't seem to get through to this one that harassment and death threats are out order. Yet another method is to wait half an hour, then revert. Without immediate reversions there would unlikely be any need for protection. Really slow reverting of plain nonsense, or a single clear response, is ever so dull and cause much less collateral and disruption. Just my 2c. -- zzuuzz 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is my fault - I reverted their edits a few days ago which made them furious, and since I've been harassed across en.wiki de.wiki meta and commons sporadically. Thanks to all the editors/admins for reverting and banning.
- However... it is vaguely concerning there wasn't a LTA page on this editor, apparently its a case of WP:DENY, but for unexperienced editors like myself with no context it was disconcerting being the target of the vitriol and seemingly other editors and admins knowing what was going on, while leaving me in the dark. qcne (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You've had an account for 18 years, you are about as far from inexperienced as you can be. I also don't know how you came to the conclusion that most other editors and admins knew who this IP account was. Their identity hasn't been confirmed and I sure didn't recognize who this editor might be. And if you have been the target of a rampaging editor, bring it to ANI or to the attention of an administrator so that other editors are aware of it. Liz 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Only been active for the last 18 months, however. Thanks for the advice. qcne (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You've had an account for 18 years, you are about as far from inexperienced as you can be. I also don't know how you came to the conclusion that most other editors and admins knew who this IP account was. Their identity hasn't been confirmed and I sure didn't recognize who this editor might be. And if you have been the target of a rampaging editor, bring it to ANI or to the attention of an administrator so that other editors are aware of it. Liz 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is MidAtlanticBaby, nothing but an attention troll. WP:RBI is the best approach. There is no LTA page because it would not help, but we are keeping some info on the private checkuser wiki. Ivanvector (/Edits) 21:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Vandal editor
OP admitted being a sockpuppet. Closing complaint. Liz 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Anjum_saniya They are breaking the formatting of articles on purpose Sage of Knowledge (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You gave them a first warning at 6.29 and they haven't edited since. No need to report to ANI, just keep an eye on their future edits to make sure they've developed their understanding of article design. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Spam account
OP admitted being a sockpuppet. Closing complaint. Liz 04:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Sujata trivedi bollywood playbacksinger Sage of Knowledge (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely a misuse of a user page, but an explanation of WP:UP is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This user account was registered < 5 hrs ago, and has already reported three users here at ANI, one at SPI, and a few at each of UAA and AIV. This must count as some sort of record, surely? I'm sure it took me months if not years to even know those fora exist. (AGF, I'll say no more than that.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It could be a sock making this report, but assuming good faith they're probably a long-time IP. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized that you are referring to Sage of Knowledge, not Sujata trivedi bollywood playbacksinger. Liz 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wish people would stop assuming the worst when a new user knows their way around Misplaced Pages. We admonish them when they do something wrong, but accuse them of being sockpuppets when they do things right. Yes, this may be a sockpuppet, it may be someone who has edited unregistered before, and it may be someone who just checks that they are doing things right before editing. We don't know which. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Phil, that is the silliest claim ever. If someone knows how to do stuff right automatically as a nee account, the only reason someone would go after them is because of queer editing behavior. more often than not, strange editing behavior from new accounts that know it all are socks and whatnot. No questionablr editing behavior? no ANI report. BarntToust 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger my first edits as a registered account was literally developing Pedro Pascal on screen and stage, and I'd been Misplaced Pages-ing for maybe 3 or so years as an IP doing random stuff. I got a template saying "you can just create articles yourself now you are auto-confirmed, no need for AfC"; I didn't get an ANI report. Know why? Making a performance list for Internet daddy isn't questionable or concerning. BarntToust 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @BarntToust, rather than accusing me of making "the silliest claim ever" you might like to first check (it's not difficult) who reported whom. And I was unaware that Misplaced Pages declared anyone reported at ANI automatically guilty of wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I exaggerate, sorry. Though, I must say I'm arguing for the principle, not the context. BarntToust 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @BarntToust, rather than accusing me of making "the silliest claim ever" you might like to first check (it's not difficult) who reported whom. And I was unaware that Misplaced Pages declared anyone reported at ANI automatically guilty of wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger my first edits as a registered account was literally developing Pedro Pascal on screen and stage, and I'd been Misplaced Pages-ing for maybe 3 or so years as an IP doing random stuff. I got a template saying "you can just create articles yourself now you are auto-confirmed, no need for AfC"; I didn't get an ANI report. Know why? Making a performance list for Internet daddy isn't questionable or concerning. BarntToust 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Phil, that is the silliest claim ever. If someone knows how to do stuff right automatically as a nee account, the only reason someone would go after them is because of queer editing behavior. more often than not, strange editing behavior from new accounts that know it all are socks and whatnot. No questionablr editing behavior? no ANI report. BarntToust 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wish people would stop assuming the worst when a new user knows their way around Misplaced Pages. We admonish them when they do something wrong, but accuse them of being sockpuppets when they do things right. Yes, this may be a sockpuppet, it may be someone who has edited unregistered before, and it may be someone who just checks that they are doing things right before editing. We don't know which. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized that you are referring to Sage of Knowledge, not Sujata trivedi bollywood playbacksinger. Liz 18:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It could be a sock making this report, but assuming good faith they're probably a long-time IP. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sage of Knowledge was blocked as sock by Ponyo. Conyo14 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Aimaqpedia
Aimaqpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a single-purpose account pushing unsubstantiated claims on Aimaq people including after being warned by Sumanuil. I blocked them on Commons for repeatedly uploading a fake flag of the Aimaq people. See also this edit on Commons. I suspect the person they're referencing is themselves. It looks like they are not here to build an enyclopedia. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- They haven't edited since October 20.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
IP tag-teaming with globally locked sockmaster
IP addresses in the 2409:40F3:1000:0:0:0:0:0/40 range have been adding images uploaded by the account Chrymedia on the Commons, an obvious sockpuppet who does not have an EnWiki account. This is likely an IP proxy scheme. Besides being effectively banned by this SPI, the images are copyright violations. I'd like to see the IP blocked from the articles Raphael Thattil, Thomas Tharayil (archbishop of Changanassery), and Joseph Perumthottam. If someone who can has interest in doing so, please also request a global lock on Chrymedia; I do not have the necessary permissions to edit that page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Clioos
BLOCKED for personal attacks and disruptive editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Clioos has recieved multiple warnings on their talk page for uploading non-free images to articles about Youtubers and still persists in doing so despite the warnings. This is in addition to their constant resubmission of a draft to AFC without improvement until it was finally rejected (where they proceeded to recreate it under a different title). I think this is a chronic case of not getting it, which wouldn't be such an issue if not for the continued copyright violation.
I'm posting this here as neither AIV or AN seemed appropriate, so apologies if this isn't the right venue. CoconutOctopus talk 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like WP:NOTHERE from this person. I'd generally be inclined not to WP:BITE the newbie but this editor has declined to engage with any of the multiple warnings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clearcut racist vandalism here Doug Weller talk 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was also this edit. But this was at the beginning of their editing career. Liz 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- User:Clioos removed a speedy delete tag here from a copyright-protected photo of rapper Julio Foolio, stating "I'm his mother". --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since this editor has resorted to personal attacks against another contributor, had one of their drafts deleted as a G3, vandalized here and has numerous warnings, and recreating the same draft at a slightly different title, I have blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was also this edit. But this was at the beginning of their editing career. Liz 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clearcut racist vandalism here Doug Weller talk 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
IP on a Personal attack-filled spree on US election related articles
68.196.5.168 has been attempting to POV-push since their first edit, with personal attacks mixed in for good measure from the second edit . I could give a detailed analysis but I think edits and edit summaries such as these do the music themselves. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- While their comments are sharply worded, 2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden is an article that draws editors with strong opinions. The only personal attack directed towards a specific editor is a CIR question and that is a charge that gets raised on ANI all of the time so I'm unsure about sanctioning an editor for raising that. I think we have to watch their comments about Judaism but right now it looks like it's a comment about political support, not antisemitism. They are clearly anti-conservative but we don't block editors based on their political stance but based on their behavior. That's my take, other editors might see this differently. Liz 20:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly the point about Judaism was phrased unclearly. To clarify, the point was simply that there is no logical connection between the statements A) "Trump enjoys more support among Orthodox Jews than Harris" therefore (somehow) B)"Trump is not a fascist." A does not imply B; A is not even in any way evidence for B. And even if it somehow was, that would be synth since the source cited makes no mention of fascism. the bit about Nazism was just my idle speculation as to why that editor fallaciously suggested that Trump's support in the Orthodox community was at all germane to the question of whether Trump is a fascist, but this statement was unclear and unnecessary to my overall point. As for the suggestion that there were competence concerns about a particular editor, I just looked and that user was banned as "Not here" so it would appear others shared my assessment. The deletion discussion statement was surely a bit hyperbolic but I was trying to indicate just how obvious it was that this topic is notable. There is a mountain of academic literature on it, as well as other similar neo-fascist and illiberal pseudo-democrats around the globe, most of whom Trump regularly fetes with praise and who cheered his return to power. I do maintain that there was no reason to have that deletion discussion since no one ever raised any challenges to the notability of the topic. The user who sent me here (and somewhat rudely did not provide a link to the discussion leaving me to find this topic) appears to just be upset that he lost the debate. Chin up, mate. You can get through this. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
"I would like to raise WP:Competenceisrequired concerns about Mr. Britton. The above sentences clearly illustrates the basic competences needed to edit articles on political topics are missing here."
"Please clear out the trolls, like both of the above editors, especially the nutter going on about "bolshie elitists who run this site."
"No offense, but your (Fantastic Mr. Fox) position is palpably absurd.
"Speedy Keep and I propose that all “delete” votes take a 7 day ban to read and reflect upon WP: Competenceisrequired"
- This IP ran into the thick of Meta Misplaced Pages disputes and quickly starts ordering users against him to be banned. He is hardly here to set to provide a extra set of contributional helping hands? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to second this as I have noticed it quite a bit and it is becoming an increasing issue Artem P75 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am making comments on the content of articles and making substantive points about article content. You, on the other hand, appear to be engaged in some sort of strange personal vendetta. Just let it go, man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.5.168 (talk • contribs)
"You, on the other hand, appear to be engaged in some sort of strange personal vendetta. Just let it go, man."
- In this very comment, you implicitly cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Content is not an issue. WP:PA's are. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know WP:Boomerang friend? You've sure been blocked an awful lot of times for engaging in similar WP:Battleground behavior as you are right now to be so confident in calling in the administration. Has that typically gone well for you in the past?68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
"You've sure been blocked an awful lot of times for engaging in similar WP:Battleground behavior as you are right now to be so confident in calling in the administration."
- This falls under WP:ATONED. I don't think I need to elaborate much more here on IP's behaviour.
- If the IP wishes to be a positive member of Misplaced Pages, I suggest he seriously reconsider his attitude on this platform. I will and have had disagreements with members, but we move on and work positively to find a solution because we assume each others intentions are WP:GOODFAITH. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should certainly all move on. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- 68.196.5.168, do you agree then to speak with more civility towards other editors, especially those you disagree with, and stop casting aspersions? This is necessary if you wish to continue to edit here. Behavior that is common on most discussion boards is not tolerated here. You need to treat your fellow editors with respect and they, to you. Liz 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should certainly all move on. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know WP:Boomerang friend? You've sure been blocked an awful lot of times for engaging in similar WP:Battleground behavior as you are right now to be so confident in calling in the administration. Has that typically gone well for you in the past?68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am making comments on the content of articles and making substantive points about article content. You, on the other hand, appear to be engaged in some sort of strange personal vendetta. Just let it go, man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.5.168 (talk • contribs)
- Fine, i’ll do as you suggest. But a couple of things. Please permanently ban that editor who was complaining of “the bolshie elitists who run Misplaced Pages” and now openly declared himself an anti-semite on the article talk page. If you don't want me to have to get down in the mud, please clean up your own trash. And Mr. fox should really reflect upon his own behavior towards other editors, which seems to have undergone no improvement since his previous many blocks for battleground behavior and other behavioral issues, despite his claims to atonement. I shall do my best to not be baited by conduct like his again. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- You claim here "I'll do as you suggest" then immediately ask for someone to be permanently banned (the highest punishment possible), say you will only stop if Misplaced Pages 'cleans (its) own trash' (very WP:RGW-esque), and then subsequent fire off some more unbacked WP:ASPERSIONS about behaviour from a block that nobody has ever brought up or mentioned since.
- IP, nobody 'baited' you into going into discussions with WP:BADFAITH. I am a person who enjoys giving rope to editors who at least try to communicate collaboratively. I haven't seen you once make a comment without attempting to aggressively POV-push, mention 'x should be punished for y' or straight up refuse to acknowledge any point the person they are replying is making. To me, the IP appears to be WP:NOTHERE with no real signs him changing his standpoint. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
now openly declared himself an anti-semite on the article talk page
- This direct personal attack deserves an immediate block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- So you're stumping for the user who called themselves an anti-semite to not be permanently banned ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1256086637)("I am 100% antisemitic and definitely considered my options for voting...Unified Reich you say? Expell blood poisoners? Sign me the fuck up")Reconsider that view, friend. Try to take the time to understand what is going on before commenting. I didn't call anyone an anti-semite, that user quite literally boasted of being one. Considering that you are engaged in the very behavior you falsely accuse me of, some self-reflection might be in order on your part. See also WP:Boomerang might be useful for you to consider. Evidently you're very upset about something I said (though I can't see why) but I think everyone would prefer if you just moved on. I'm very sorry if I upset you greatly when I called your position "palpably absurd" in that deletion debate where no one agreed with you. Let it go. 68.196.5.168 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- 68.196.5.168 is not making a personal attack; please see the edit history of: 124.169.133.156, who is in fact blocked now. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the address is blocked. We do not block IP addresses permanently for the reason that they can be reassigned to anyone at any time. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since you did not provide any context, I could only assume you were attacking Fantastic Mr. Fox. Rather than condescending with
Try to take the time to understand what is going on before commentin
, you need to be very careful to provide diffs when making accusations against other editors. - In fact, the rest of your comment appears to be aimed at Fox, since I have never interacted with you before this moment, yet you're claiming you
called position "palpably absurd" in that deletion debate
. You are so locked in attack-mode that you're not paying attention to whom you're speaking. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)- It was not directed at you. In fact, I had no idea you existed until just now. But thank you very much for your contributions. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- 68.196.5.168 is not making a personal attack; please see the edit history of: 124.169.133.156, who is in fact blocked now. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- So you're stumping for the user who called themselves an anti-semite to not be permanently banned ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1256086637)("I am 100% antisemitic and definitely considered my options for voting...Unified Reich you say? Expell blood poisoners? Sign me the fuck up")Reconsider that view, friend. Try to take the time to understand what is going on before commenting. I didn't call anyone an anti-semite, that user quite literally boasted of being one. Considering that you are engaged in the very behavior you falsely accuse me of, some self-reflection might be in order on your part. See also WP:Boomerang might be useful for you to consider. Evidently you're very upset about something I said (though I can't see why) but I think everyone would prefer if you just moved on. I'm very sorry if I upset you greatly when I called your position "palpably absurd" in that deletion debate where no one agreed with you. Let it go. 68.196.5.168 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, i’ll do as you suggest. But a couple of things. Please permanently ban that editor who was complaining of “the bolshie elitists who run Misplaced Pages” and now openly declared himself an anti-semite on the article talk page. If you don't want me to have to get down in the mud, please clean up your own trash. And Mr. fox should really reflect upon his own behavior towards other editors, which seems to have undergone no improvement since his previous many blocks for battleground behavior and other behavioral issues, despite his claims to atonement. I shall do my best to not be baited by conduct like his again. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
MPN 1994 disruptive behaviour
MPN 1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has a long history of poor behaviour and a fairly long block log. On 3 November, I issued a final warning to this user due to their repeated disruptive behaviour on 1936–37 Maltese FA Trophy, 1937–38 Maltese FA Trophy and 1938–39 Maltese FA Trophy - essentially reverting the AfD closure without permission. I reported this to WP:RPP in the hope of getting the redirects protected but was told to take it here instead. They have also been disruptive while logged out - see here and here. The latter example was after I had already issued a final warning on MPN's talk page. Spiderone 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's worth noting @MPN 1994 has a habit of removing warnings from there talk page , which has removed most of the Christmas shopping list of notifications and warnings Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Without assessing the validity of this complaint, I'll just point out that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their User talk page and that alone is not an action that would call for sanctions. It's pretty common behavior. Liz 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- And to add onto @Liz has pointed out: while it's important to assume good faith about removing user warnings, taking it as a neutral sign that they've read it, it's also okay (and sometimes important!) to point out when someone has done this, like @Fantastic Mr. Fox has done. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Without assessing the validity of this complaint, I'll just point out that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their User talk page and that alone is not an action that would call for sanctions. It's pretty common behavior. Liz 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@MPN 1994: please can you respond to my complaint? User:Liz asked you to respond 2 days ago and you've carried on editing since. Spiderone 10:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I Got the Information From the Malta Football Association from the Headquarters. They don't have any History of Knockout Rounds on the Internet. But they gave me an Excel Sheet. So I was giving them the teams how they Qualify and who they Played. But there are Some People didn't Understand me what I was Doing. And I Did Not Logged Out and make it Back. MPN 1994 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- MPN 1994 I commend your commitment to making the article, but are you Misplaced Pages aware of policies around original research? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Listen what I do I am Not Making any Fake news. I know all about Maltese Football. And What I Do I am Saying the Truth. MPN 1994 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Click the words "original research" in Fantastic Mr. Fox's message and read that policy. City of Silver 19:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Listen what I do I am Not Making any Fake news. I know all about Maltese Football. And What I Do I am Saying the Truth. MPN 1994 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- MPN 1994 I commend your commitment to making the article, but are you Misplaced Pages aware of policies around original research? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
User ΓΚΝΟΥ keeps adding misleading block notices
ΓΚΝΟΥ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps on adding this message onto editors' talk pages that whom have not edited in a while, and also messes around with other people's comments. I've gave them a final warning yesterday but they continued today. Pinging Rosguill who is aware of the situation. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are they this LTA? Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross? Knitsey (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like HR. Usually Hamish uses sleeper accounts and adds Template:userpage and Template:talk header and gibberish. But I know that Hamish's behavior has changed recently, a bit. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thats why I wondered if it was them? Then again, there are that many of them around at the moment, I've given up guessing. Knitsey (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like HR. Usually Hamish uses sleeper accounts and adds Template:userpage and Template:talk header and gibberish. But I know that Hamish's behavior has changed recently, a bit. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- This might be User:My self made theory, who also uses mobile web to edit and has done similar stuff. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked and tagged with Likely master.-- Ponyo 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk page blanker
OP BLOCKED (edit conflict × 1) OP blocked as possible sock (DE). (non-admin closure) Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/Iaof2017 Sage of Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Sage of Knowledge you have seen WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME on your screen when you restored those comments, read that page. "
Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.
" Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Persistent edit warring in contentious topic
UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent POV edits, removes critical content, adds misleading info to the article.
removes producer association with RT Documentary. Removes Historian Ian Garner noted that Trofimova's claim that she did not have official permission to film the soldiers "hardly stands up to scrutiny in a country where independent journalism simply does not exist" and that Trofimova absolved the soldiers of moral responsibility for war crimes such as rape, looting, and murder by presenting them as "blind kittens", and "helpless to intervene". Garner termed this an "alarming reiteration of the 'just following orders' narratives" that surrounded the Holocaust.
again partial revert after being reverted.
adds unsourced "five-minute standing ovation", "she "hadn't watched the "Russians at War" yet" when she was making these comments" .
Removes sourced content from Garner, again.
Adds unsourced The Ukrainian government sent a protest letter to the 81st Venice International Film Festival in August 2024, before the film's trailer (September 4) or the film itself (September 5) had been released.
Removes sourced The film sparked backlash from some regional experts, Canadian politicians and the Ukrainian-Canadian community, who characterized it as "Russian propaganda."
Adds Within the film industry, Trofimova's film was recognized as an original, professionally done and gutsy anti-war documentary. with the first source Ukrainians assail Russian war film at Venice fest saying This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia," Darya Bassel, a producer who watched the film at the festival, said in a Facebook post. "However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda," she said .
again removes Garner.
Removes DW noted that the film is controversial. The producers say the film is anti-war. Critics criticize it for sympathizing the invading soldiers and for not informing the viewer on the Russian war crimes. On the other side, "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." and replaces it with Germany's DW News: "Trofimova's film is considered one of the few documentary video evidence from the Russian side of the front." referenced to Канал TVO не покажет спорный фильм "Русские на войне" – DW – 11.09.2024 which says The filmmakers say they perceive it as an anti-war statement. Critics believe that this is an attempt to "humanize" Russian soldiers and express sympathy for them. According to opponents, the film does not show the massive destruction in Ukraine and the war crimes of the Russian army.
Adds As the press noted, none of the participants of this protest saw the film with 7 references, with only one saying the people who managed to get this film cancelled almost certainly haven’t seen it and others do not support it.
adds Without permission from the Ministry of Defense as a fact, while it was challenged by Garner and others. Basically, returns their previous reverted version while keeping 2 amendments (Garner and controversial mention).
another tendentious edit, adds "Anti-war content" and "Footage rarity" sections which fills with whatever they like. Puts most critical assessments from "Critical response" into "Controversy and political pressure" and "Protests" sections, converts "Critical response" into "Reception" which mostly fills with praise.
returns their reverted version
again, and again.
In talk, do not attends the arguments raised, do not agrees to adhere to WP:CONS - Talk:Russians at War#WP:OWN , makes accusations of vandalism and personal appeals.
I'm tired of being the only one to oppose the editor and am asking others to step in. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it's just the two of you, then WP:3O is the way to go. ANI only deals with behavioral violations, not editing disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notably, User:Manyareasexpert consistently reverts the updated version of Russians at War that has 88 sources to the very outdated and not well-structured old version with 47 sources. I observe back and forth reversion war between this editor (who has extensive history editing in pages related to Ukraine, in violation of WP:RUSUKR) and the editor User:UrbanVillager who consistently posts the updated version. I ask other, neutral senior editors to limit the ability of User:Manyareasexpert to edit this page due their violation of WP:RUSUKR that is evident from the history of their edits. Complexity1 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Reporting harassment by sockpuppet account
A sockpuppet is constantly putting unsourced content on the wikipage Uddhav Thackeray, After removing his unsourced edits, he is harassing me on my talk page. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 )
Regards Io5678 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know this user is a sockpuppet? Ivanvector (/Edits) 21:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- His edits are politically motivated as he has harassed me in talk page.They can be had in the history of my talk page. Io5678 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Io5678, the "history of your talk page"? There are only 7 edits to your user talk page you've only been an editor for 4 days now. That's not a long history. Have you used other accounts before this one? It's highly unusual for a 4 day old account to bring a complaint to ANI. Liz 04:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- His edits are politically motivated as he has harassed me in talk page.They can be had in the history of my talk page. Io5678 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- He puts the same unsourced stuff again.and his IP address are similar Io5678 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think what Ivanvector was getting at is that IPs can change without any intent or even knowledge of the person making the edits. That is not sockpuppetry unless they are evading a block. This looks like an extremely minor content dispute that does not require admin intervention at this time. Just Step Sideways 22:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- He harassed me in the talk page with racial comments,he seems to be a politicaly motivated troll. Io5678 (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- He has created three accounts in a span of four to five days. Also,each of his account has only one edit. Io5678 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you could provide the names of those accounts that would be helpful. Just Step Sideways 01:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean the material that admin Bbb23 restored? It appears to be sourced. The IPs message on your talk page may not be the politest but it doesn't rise to harassment. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This editor also went to three different editors' user talk pages asking for those edits to be revision deleted which seems like an odd thing for a 4 day old account to know about. They have also been edit-warring and justifying by saying the other editors were sockpuppets (with no evidence). Liz 06:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This editor also went to three different editors' user talk pages asking for those edits to be revision deleted which seems like an odd thing for a 4 day old account to know about. They have also been edit-warring and justifying by saying the other editors were sockpuppets (with no evidence). Liz 06:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think what Ivanvector was getting at is that IPs can change without any intent or even knowledge of the person making the edits. That is not sockpuppetry unless they are evading a block. This looks like an extremely minor content dispute that does not require admin intervention at this time. Just Step Sideways 22:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the sockpuppet account against which Io5678 is complaining is not sockpuppet account, but since I don't have wikipedia account, & I do directly edit page, my IP address (which fluctuates as per net service provider) is displayed. I haven't added anything new but only restored information with proper references which other two admins Bbb23, Yoshi24517 also agreed & restored, which Io5678 removed withouth proper justification. In his talk page I only mentioned him as andhbhakt which means blind follower of political party or ideology & I live in province where uddhav thackeray was governing, so I know about his popularity. & by crying harassment he has vindicated me. Anyways, the article is properly fixed at this moment & I thank Bbb23, Yoshi24517, CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq for putting proper inputs as well as restraining Io5678 from making unconstructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.118.11 (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually asked for their evidence of sockpuppetry because "my political opponent must be a sockpuppet" is a thing that sockpuppets say, pretty reliably, especially with Indian politics. And, well, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mlnx. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Megasteel33 violating WP:NPA
WARNED and BLP CTOP alert. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Special:Diff/1256033647. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you consider a personal attack might not be to others. LilianaUwU 23:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Calling someone a misogynist becaude they disagree with them is a personal attack. I might be out of date with the status of the investigation into Brands behaviour, but there hasn't been a conviction. Yet. Knitsey (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Calling another editor a misogynist is a personal attack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've warned them and given a BLP CTOP alert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, SFR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
What to do with apparent unsourced material
An another user, going by the username "Kwamikagami" removes (my) additions of the "citations needed" template; Also continuously reverts the removal of uncited material, which I removed on the basis that the removed material was completely unsourced, as per Misplaced Pages:Content removal. The article of topic is the Origin of Hangul article, where this whole part of a section is completely unsourced. (this is the article's part where the user is arguing for being sourced)
Text about the origin of hangul |
---|
|
This section of the article has had the "More citations needed section" template up since June 2019, alongside it being plastered with the template way before I first got there, and by the looks of it the user reverting my removals & and my previous "citations needed" edits has been asserting for this "theory" of the section since 2008, while reverting any previous attempts of the removal of non-sourced material by other users. I have tried talking to this user with no results; The user claims that the article is cited and that I have no grounds for content removal/flagging. I believe that this would be unsourced and also very speculative material - and would like to either remove the material on the basis that it is unsourced, or at least put citations needed tags on dubious claims, but as I am new to Misplaced Pages, I would very much like to request for an admin to shed some light on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daldidandal (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't know what you did, but a lot of glitches were preventing me from replying on your post. I'll look into it, and also make sure to sign your comments. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! Not admin, but experienced-ish user here: if you remove the material, and the user reverts it, the best thing to do next is to start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Origin of Hangul) about the content, and inform them that unsourced material shouldn't be introduced back without a citation. Ideally, you could try to get a third opinion to build consensus on what to do with the material, who might be able to find sources or agree with its removal. Since the discussion has instead been spread between both of your talk pages, it makes it a bit harder to follow for third parties, although this isn't a very big deal.In terms of behavior, you have both been slowly edit-warring on the article to some extent, and edit-warring isn't constructive even if you are in the right. Kwamikagami's removal of {{citation needed}} tags and re-addition of unsourced content is more concerning, although the simultaneous change you made in the translation of Sejong's quote should be explained. Also, calling the other user "vandal" in an edit summary isn't necessary (on Misplaced Pages, vandalism has a very specific definition, of edits unambiguously intended to disrupt the encyclopedia, rather than simply non-constructive edits). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- As an aside, the ideal template to use for unsourced sections is {{unsourced|section}} (or {{more citations needed|section}} if the amount of citations is insufficient), just below the section header, rather than adding {{citation needed}} in the section header. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think {{unreferenced section}} is preferred to {{unreferenced|section}}, since it categorizes differently. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, never realized they were different! Since I'm pretty sure I've often seen people use {{unreferenced|section}}, I wonder if it could be worth making the template categorize articles appropriately when given that first parameter? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding Chaotic Enby's comment of starting a discussion on the article talk page. Also, why the sudden jump to ANI?--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, never realized they were different! Since I'm pretty sure I've often seen people use {{unreferenced|section}}, I wonder if it could be worth making the template categorize articles appropriately when given that first parameter? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think {{unreferenced section}} is preferred to {{unreferenced|section}}, since it categorizes differently. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- As an aside, the ideal template to use for unsourced sections is {{unsourced|section}} (or {{more citations needed|section}} if the amount of citations is insufficient), just below the section header, rather than adding {{citation needed}} in the section header. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Kwamikagami but I see that they've had an account for 20 years now. I'd like to hear their response to this complaint before making a judgment. But, I agree, you can't go wrong starting a discussion on the article talk page. Liz 03:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I reverted was that Daldidandal repeatedly falsified the quotation. Putting the cn tags in the section headers also defaced the article, so I reverted everything -- it's their job to fix such things, but Daldidandal responded by blanking content instead. That seemed petulant. Anyway, Daldidandal's claim that the blanked material was unsourced is false: the sources are all in the reference section, it's just a matter of going through and citing them for individual statements. I no longer have print copies accessible to cite page numbers, and anyway for the next few weeks I've got other things going on. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not directly related to this issue, but Daldidandal is being similarly disruptive at Hangul by repeatedly reinstating their version despite multiple reversions by other users (see the history here). Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Racism and hate speach
BLOCKED 3 MONTHS for racist comments. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:8800:218F:2D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Over the last year 2600:8800:218F:2D00:0:0:0:0/64 has been making unnoticed minor not forum talk page posts, but in the last month they have stepped up to racism (against Argentinians, against Koreans), saying the subject of the article "suffered from autistic retardation", praising the Rivers of Blood speech, and white supremacy. I've left notice at their last IP address . I can't see that they've been warned before, so I brought this here rather than AIV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was some not bad mixed in so I went with a 3 month anonblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
New editor (Zachapertio) may need an admin warning or a block to cool down
Zachapertio (talk · contribs) is an account that has been created in August (now at 300+ edits) and their second and third edits were already problematic (edit warring). They came to my attention just now, as few days ago they violated talk page guidelines reverting, with no rationale a perfectly fine response (or a set of three, to be exact) to a warning that my student received few days ago on their talk page.
I assumed it is an innocent mistake by a new user, so I reverted them with an edit summary and left them a friendly but firm warning message to be careful on their talk.
In response, they reverted my warning removing it from their talk page with no edit summary, reverted my revert removing my students responses again, and left me a "final warning for vandalism message".
I don't have time to review their edits in more detail, but I see in September they got a warning from @Robert McClenon, which they promptly deleted as well.
I think that editor is WP:NOTHERE, and is playing as an admin or moderator with way too little experience and wrong attitude (see their numerous edits at userspace talk, with many warnings and such). I am not sure if a warning to refrain from such actions until they get much more experience will be enough, a shorter or longer admin or community block for them to cool down (for few weeks of years...) might be warranted. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 01:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing else they are doing seems particularly weird, but I agree that the user talk reverts make no sense. They are free to remove whatever they want from their own talk page, but not someone else's. And issuing a vandalism warning to you is clearly just plain wrong. Just Step Sideways 01:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at some of their non-template messages, it doesn't seem like their English skills are very strong. That doesn't have any influence those strange user talk page edits but I thought I'd mention it. Liz 03:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I know that consensus can change, but I know there was a consensus years ago that cool-down blocks backfired too often to be useful. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty sure cool-down blocks have never been a thing the community supports. Just Step Sideways 05:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I know that consensus can change, but I know there was a consensus years ago that cool-down blocks backfired too often to be useful. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at some of their non-template messages, it doesn't seem like their English skills are very strong. That doesn't have any influence those strange user talk page edits but I thought I'd mention it. Liz 03:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if i got blocked? Zach (talk to me) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since you can post here, User:Zachapertio, you are not blocked. But you should read over the comemnts here and provide an explanation for any questions about your editing that have arisen. Liz 08:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Legal Threat
Special:diff/1256092285 Came across disruptive edit during recent changes patrol, decided to look into user's contribs and found this. Don't know how serious this could be, reported it just in case. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, on the one hand, this is a legal threat but on the other, the comment that this editor's descendants will one day sue Wikimedia is vague and far off in the distant future. Liz 06:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely agree, based on other contribs I'd even suspect user is just looking for attention. If it's not a big deal I'm absolutely fine with leaving things as is. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will keep my quivering in fear to a dull roar, especially since I'll be in the grave by then myself. Ravenswing 07:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Havaa Fitzgerald
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HAVAA FITZGERALD (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked at the end of September for vandalism of CNN related pages and abusing WP:LOUT. 2A00:A040:192:6D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is now posting the same nonsense, including adding 'Havaa Fitzgerald' to CNN articles and templates . I would have just informed the blocking admin as this appears, but they appear to have just gone on a wikibreak. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind they have been blocked for a week, after an RFPP request. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024 Amsterdam attacks / Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam
We have two articles about the same current Palstine/Israel event, November 2024 Amsterdam attacks and Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam. We have at least one IP editing the second page, despite being warned about the "Introduction to contentious topics" rules on their talk page. Page protection or admins keeping an eye on the pages may help. Fram (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've ECP Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam and restored the redirect. Isabelle Belato 11:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this IP needs a temporary block (they haven't stopped). Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gave them a time out. Thanks for the heads up. Isabelle Belato 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Talk page access revoked after further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gave them a time out. Thanks for the heads up. Isabelle Belato 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this IP needs a temporary block (they haven't stopped). Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Continuous personal attacks
A user @GeebaKhap: keeps attacking me personally with the words like: you accuse others (when I said one thing in general tone without referring anyone), makes no sense, another blatant lie, when I trying to reach a consensus over the dispute on Talk:Head_of_state#NPOV. They also added their own words in my RfC statement to portray the things which I didn't said, which disrupts the consensus process. I tried to ignore first but it feels out of limit now. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- You slapped an edit-warring template on my talkpage after a single revert of your undiscussed change.
- You tagged me on the article talk page and accused me of "edit war over adding images of personal favourites", after I had already ceased reverting and opened a discussion on the talkpage.
- Literally hours later, you stated you "didn't accuse anyone of 'playing favourites".
- I will let other Wikipedians be the judge of whether statement number 3 is truthful given statements number 1 and 2. If it is a personal attack to point out untrue statements, I will refrain from doing so. I have not personally attacked you, I think your conduct is disingenuous, particularly where you keep insisting your preferred version – which you instituted in September – is a long-term establish consensus. WP:RFCNEUTRAL requires the RfC question to be "neutral and brief". I think we should both back off and let the RfC play out to settle the content dispute. GeebaKhap (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editing the comments of other users is not allowed as per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also note that JoshuaJ28 has a history at ANI regarding this topic. I reiterate that I am happy to refrain from any further contact with this user as I don't think it will be productive. Thanks. `GeebaKhap (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here also you're continuing personal attacks on me. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Civility
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect
. It's not a place to fight. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here also you're continuing personal attacks on me. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Civility
- JoshuaJ28 has now suggested that I was also personally attacking them, and is accusing GeebaKhap of socking. I don't remember the AN/I report GeebaKhap linked above, but apparently there I noted this poor vandalism warning template. GeebaKhap should not be editing the RfC as they did, and there may be a language issue at play, but there is a pattern of poor interactions by JoshuaJ28 here. CMD (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't seek revenge in this issue. We don't even know each other personally. We all came here to contribute wikipedia in collaborative manner. I already told you to stop that discussion there, but you're taking that here, to hurt me more. I can't take it anymore. Feeling emotional and just want to die. Please leave me alone. It's exhaustive and depressing. I'm done with Misplaced Pages. Retiring permanently. Peace. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bringing an accusation here opens you up to scrutiny yourself. So if you truly aren't in a place to deal with that, I hope you do well in your Wiki-retirement. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't seek revenge in this issue. We don't even know each other personally. We all came here to contribute wikipedia in collaborative manner. I already told you to stop that discussion there, but you're taking that here, to hurt me more. I can't take it anymore. Feeling emotional and just want to die. Please leave me alone. It's exhaustive and depressing. I'm done with Misplaced Pages. Retiring permanently. Peace. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm also involved, so I'll chime in with that I don't think any of this rises to ANI at the moment. I'm starting to be concerned by Joshua's behavior, but I can also understand the IP suspicion to an extent, and the RFC this is related to (setting WP:RFCNEUTRAL aside) is progressing and the current emerging consensus will solve the problem. Tessaract2 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour
User:Oddsourceuser was created on November 6 2024 and they have been edit-warring repeatedly with clumsy POV edits for the past couple of days (contribs). They have received several warnings (talk) but it doesn't seem like they are willing to interact with another editor. They have been using the IP 141.98.142.45 to edit-war and restore their reverted edits, where they also received warnings (IP talk). See article Ladochori, created by Oddsourceceuser and editied by the IP (history); more edit warring in articles Agia, Preveza, Parga, Dhermi, Sotiris Ninis, Palase etc. I think you get the point. Piccco (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This user was investigated at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renald.Bejtja with a finding of "possible", though no action was taken. The IP address is a proxy and I've blocked the IP address on that basis. I've not personally looked at the technical data. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Yamla Thank you for your quick intervention. Is there going to be any action for the main account? Together with the IP, they've made almost 90 edits in just a few days, mostly disruptive, and there's no indication that this behaviour is going to stop after several reverts and notices. Piccco (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, the edit-warring by Oddsourceuser is continuing across multiple articles , with edit summaries that do not inspire confidence. Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need to wait for them to have an opportunity to respond, which means it most likely won't be me taking further action. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Yamla they published there response here Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need to wait for them to have an opportunity to respond, which means it most likely won't be me taking further action. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, the edit-warring by Oddsourceuser is continuing across multiple articles , with edit summaries that do not inspire confidence. Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Yamla Thank you for your quick intervention. Is there going to be any action for the main account? Together with the IP, they've made almost 90 edits in just a few days, mostly disruptive, and there's no indication that this behaviour is going to stop after several reverts and notices. Piccco (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Legal threat after request for proper sourcing
BLOCKED for legal threat — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been trying to encourage Johnstormzand to properly source a number of claims made on the Norm Augustinus article. It became apparent that they have a conflict of interest in editing this article, that they have minimized. However, I didn't think the situation was irredeemable. The article contained a number of claims that were exaggerated and/or not supported by sources. So I tagged and corrected as much as I could. I also noted that sources have questioned the accuracy of some of what Augustinus has claimed in the past, so second-hand assurances from someone who claims to represent him are not a reliable source.
Johnstormzand's response was to demand that the article be deleted and that he has passed on things to his attorney. They seem to be very much personally involved with the subject and take as an insult any suggestion that what they've added to the article needs to be verifiable. They also don't understand that asking that something should be cited, is not the same as saying it isn't believed. --Escape Orbit 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them for the legal threat. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 16:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing of Current Events by Ivanvector
IP blocked. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User User:Ivanvector is making disruptive editing initially claiming a source was needed but then refusing to admit a source was added and is continuously undoing the edits that were made with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.54.128 (talk • contribs)
- Anyone's free to review my work at Portal:Current events/2024 November 8 regarding sourcing for the blurb about the Amsterdam football attacks. I reviewed the CNN source provided and did not see anything that supported the IP's assertion that the attacks against the Israeli football club were premeditated, so I removed that section. The IP also added a France24 video source which I could not review (firewalled) but it appeared to be a speech by the Israeli prime minister, which I did not expect to be a reliably neutral source for this, but if anyone wants to review that and tell me I'm wrong, feel free. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- A source by France 24 was added and ignored by Ivanvector 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see this was mentioned, the bias is clearly stuck with Ivanvector and I suspect antisemitism being a reason behind why, being on one side of the issue does not imply lying or cheating on the issue. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just said I could not view the video. Do you have a link to a transcript? Also, please withdraw that personal attack. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute that could be dealt with on the relevant talk page. This is not urgent, chronic, or intractable. Per Ivan, if that personal attack isn't immediately revoked we have a different action to discuss. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am rarely urgent, but both chronic and intractible fit well. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is mot the point though it is corrected and no personal attack was made. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- You not being able to view it is not a reason to remove the content altogether, you could gather information from the text not the video. I will remove it if you deny you are antisemitic only then it is suggested you could see that as a personal attack. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for personal attacks; claiming that you'll remove the comment if they agree it is not true does not negate the original statement. Happy for any other admin to discuss this further with the IP but I'm not having them hold an accusation of anti-semitism at ransom. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) For context, here is the video the IP posted. It does have a caption, which I see reads "Netanyahu condemned on Friday what he described as a premeditated attack". So I suppose we could provide that opinion in Netanyahu's voice. I don't think it provides much context in a brief summary of the events, though. The IP has been blocked, anyway. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've also started Portal Talk:Current events/2024 November 8#Amsterdam violence II for further discussion. I don't think any more admin attention is required here. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute that could be dealt with on the relevant talk page. This is not urgent, chronic, or intractable. Per Ivan, if that personal attack isn't immediately revoked we have a different action to discuss. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I just said I could not view the video. Do you have a link to a transcript? Also, please withdraw that personal attack. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see this was mentioned, the bias is clearly stuck with Ivanvector and I suspect antisemitism being a reason behind why, being on one side of the issue does not imply lying or cheating on the issue. 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh one more thing, actually. Earlier today before I got involved I declined a request to protect the page at RFPP, and a different IP has objected to that action. I would appreciate if another admin would review that. Cheers. Ivanvector (/Edits) 19:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Whitewashing in the article ABBYY
Content dispute, discussion continuing at Talk:ABBYY. Liz 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IT company makes it to some East European media this autumn because of controversial firing of many employees, allegedly on the basis of their citizenship. These allegations made their way to Misplaced Pages article with references to the publications in Russian and Ukrainian. However, the freshly registered User:Jmjfat persistently (including edit warring) removes this critical passage from the article arguing that we don't care about what the media write as long as there is no court case etc. I would ask any admin to review the situation. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, and does not belong on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I checked all sources that are proposed as references to the problematic section and they always stem from the same original anonymous claim by a disgruntled employee. I did try to find other connex information on this, but in vain.In particular, the claim of dismissal of an employee based on citizenship would violate Act CXXV of 2003 of Hungary ON EQUAL TREATMENT AND PROMOTION OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. I expected to find a trace in hungarian sources of a violation of this law by Abbyy but I did not find anything.
- Therefore I believe that as long as no credible sources can be provided, the supposed information should not appear on the page. Jmjfat (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Андрей Романенко and Jmjfat: Please read the reply in this thread from HandThatFeeds. All of this should have been part of the discussion that's taking place (and getting contributions from other editors, including at least one administrator) at Talk:ABBYY and this never should have been brought here. City of Silver 21:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Dynamic IP making a hash of the recent events page
=IP editor has been blocked. Liz 23:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I mean they're definitely not adhering to WP:1RR nor to the requirement for extended confirmed editing on I/P conflict related topics. I don't know that there's really any point to opening an arbcom enforcement case for a dynamic IP range but if we could get a short-term block just so that we don't have to have an endless stream of logged in and extended confirmed editors going and making one revert that would be grand. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This IP account was blocked as a result of Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Editing of Current Events by Ivanvector (see above) for block evasion. If there is more block evasion, contact an admin or make a request to protect this page. Liz 23:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
User:GreatLeader1945
GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is repeatedly reverting edits claiming to be reverting vandalism when the edits are not vandalism. Here they claim to "rvv" to restore their own edit that was reverted for being unsourced (as well as factually false), same here, here, here and here. I have previously warned them against making personal attacks in their edit summaries by claiming constructive edits are vandalism, they have since continued doing so. nableezy - 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. They have a wall of warnings on their talk page and a previous block for edit warring. That's enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Darn it, @Ad Orientem, I was just about to block EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because tone is unclear, let me specify that my comment was mock/fake outrage EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I got it don't worry. Good to know we are of the same mind on the matter at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because tone is unclear, let me specify that my comment was mock/fake outrage EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- That userpage is beyond disruptive, and the username screams "right-wing troll". They should be indeffed. LilianaUwU 06:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- See also their WP:NOTFORUM antics on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, would also recommend indef to save inevitable future administrator time. TylerBurden (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I considered topic banning them from Arab/Israel related pages but decided a block was just easier. I have subsequently posted a note warning them to tread carefully going forward as this is likely to be their last block with an expiration date. I see that they have since blanked their talk page. While that is within their right, it is not encouraging. I definitely consider them to be on very thin ice. If there is any further issue just drop me a line. Assuming it's not trivial or a misunderstanding, an indefinite block is likely the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- See also their WP:NOTFORUM antics on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, would also recommend indef to save inevitable future administrator time. TylerBurden (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Matthewjaredgarza2010 doing complex actions incorrectly, ignoring advice
editor has been fully indef blocked by Just Step Sideways. UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here 2 weeks and has been creating lots of busywork for others with incorrect CSDs, redirects, and noticeboard reports. A few examples (many more in edit history):
- Reporting user for vandalism after user warned Matthewjaredgarza2010 Special:Permalink/1256210298#Invalid/incomplete WP:AIV submission
- Reporting CSDs incorrectly: Special:Diff/1256185376 Special:Diff/1256161563 Special:Diff/1256091078
- Odd page creations: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/RTINGS.com
- Incorrect, now deleted disambig pages include: HEB Park (disambiguation) UTRGV Football Stadium (disambiguation) Vackar Stadium (disambiguation)
See talk page for all the efforts (including mine) to counsel user. See Special:Permalink/1256206310#November 2024 for one of my efforts and user's dismissive reply.
More details on request, but a quick perusal of the user talk page gives a good picture. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would also like to add Matthewjaredgarza2010's false accusation against another editor by alleging vandalism. The editor that Matthewjaredgarza2010 accused, LefterDalaka, at the time had never been warned & had been reverted twice in 223 edits. Presumably Matthewjaredgarza2010's action was in a response to an advisory note that LefterDalaka had left on Matthewjaredgarza2010's talk page. Peaceray (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I closed that AFD as they didn't boither to state any sort of reason. Just Step Sideways 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- And upon examining this further I've p-blocked them from article space unless and until they make a satisfactory response here. Just Step Sideways 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways FYI They have replied, except it's on their Talk page. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked them to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to say that I just did not know I was vandalizing! Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was nominating articles for deletion, and speedy deletion, creating articles, etc. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Those are complex actions, and you did them incorrectly, repeatedly, and ignored all advice as to changing your actions. You are not competent to have any editing privileges here. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked them to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways I would like to say that I just did not know I was vandalizing! Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways FYI They have replied, except it's on their Talk page. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Two more afds that can be speedy closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Leyva Velázquez and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ladochori. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have closed those as well. Skynxnex (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- And upon examining this further I've p-blocked them from article space unless and until they make a satisfactory response here. Just Step Sideways 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I closed that AFD as they didn't boither to state any sort of reason. Just Step Sideways 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- In light of the thread Matthew started below, I'd argue for an indefinite block on the grounds of lack of competence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. This user fails the WP:CIR check. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Given the below continuation demonstrating WP:CIR failure, I'd say we can indef this one. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the edits just from today, see plenty of fuel for WP:CIR. Copyvio, putting deletion tags on user talk pages (without any need for any text deletion) and the whole Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bkonrad section. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and upped the block to a sitewide indef block. Just Step Sideways 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the edits just from today, see plenty of fuel for WP:CIR. Copyvio, putting deletion tags on user talk pages (without any need for any text deletion) and the whole Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bkonrad section. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Given the below continuation demonstrating WP:CIR failure, I'd say we can indef this one. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. This user fails the WP:CIR check. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Bkonrad
{{db-reason-notice}} I would like to report @Bkonrad for incorrectly removing UTB-TSC from University of Texas at Brownsville. I just don’t want people to get confused with Texas Southmost College. It got removed again by @UtherSRG, and it is an ambiguous term. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Jauerback/dude. 15:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. You are blocked from the article namespace for failing to competently edit, with the blocking admin noting you need to come to ANI to demonstrate this ability. You are currently doing the opposite. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did before I did this. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- NO you are not. For starters why the hell are you placing an empty deletion template to ANI? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did before I did this. Matthewjaredgarza2010 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Matthewjaredgarza2010 doing complex actions incorrectly, ignoring advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have moved this to be a subsection of the related discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Whitewashing and apparent legal threats from User:Billygoats1234
User:Billygoats1234 has been removing sourced information about wage theft claims from Timothy Hollingsworth and has now posted what appears to be a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit. They also removed the COI notice I posted on their talk page without response (I know editors are allowed to remove notices from their talk pages, but this does not inspire confidence). :Jay8g 20:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- They've also been adding promotional content in place of the critical material, adding to the likelihood of an undeclared COI:
"In 2021, he co-founded the company Chain with actor BJ Novak which re-creates classic chain dishes at pop up events and festivals."
AntiDionysius (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)- Their edits would seem to indicate a COI. As this seems limited to a single article I've fully protected the page while this discussion is ongoing. The edit sumarry dances up to a legal threat but doesn't quite make one, but I would advise Billygoats1234 that the word they are looking for is libel, not "liable". Just Step Sideways 21:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Homonyms come for us all eventually. Thank you. They've just appeared on my talk page suddenly with a desire to discuss the issue, so it can hopefully be hashed out. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not COI this is information that was originally published that someone deleted without any explanation. Billygoats1234 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Billygoats1234: If the information you're disputing remains in that article, can Misplaced Pages or any of its editors expect legal sanctions against them by Hollingsworth or anyone associated with him? City of Silver 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and email Misplaced Pages directly regarding this matter. Billygoats1234 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it is actionable libel, you should follow the procedure at WP:RFO to ask for removal. If instead you are wanting to talk to the back office, they almost certainly will not take any sort of action here. Just Step Sideways 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is also arguable that we are having the wrong discussion here. Rather than accusations of libel I think it could be reasonably argued that it's a bit WP:UNDUE for one of all of five paragraphs in the article to be about this topic. The actual source used to support this paragraph reads, in part "Hollingsworth operated the restaurant alongside former Wolfgang Puck catering CEO Carl Schuster; it opened with investment from the Broad, billionaire Eli Broad’s landmark art museum located next door." Seems entirely possible that the chef is not entirely to blame for what happened. Just Step Sideways 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The paragraph could be cut down quite a bit. I think the issue merits a mention of some kind, given both the source and the Wiki article give Hollingsworth credit for co-founding and co-managing the restaurant. But as you say, the existing bit may be UNDUE particularly given the length of the overall article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- And the paragraph should be updated as well; workers finally get paychecks, but some turn up short. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The phrase "Hollingsworth was accused of felony wage theft by fifteen former employees of Otium". That implies an investigation exists, but there's none. This has to be reworded as well. (CC) Tbhotch 02:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the word "felony" is not used in the source, it's OR. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- We may want to move this more detailed discussion of wording to the talk page, but it sounds like consensus on a reworked paragraph (that removes the OR, adds the updated news and is careful not to make an undue issue of the whole thing) shouldn't be too hard to achieve? AntiDionysius (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the word "felony" is not used in the source, it's OR. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The phrase "Hollingsworth was accused of felony wage theft by fifteen former employees of Otium". That implies an investigation exists, but there's none. This has to be reworded as well. (CC) Tbhotch 02:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- It’s troubling to me that you restored this information, to a BLP, without actually verifying the source. I confirmed that the word felony isn’t even used in the article. That’s not ok. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- And the paragraph should be updated as well; workers finally get paychecks, but some turn up short. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The paragraph could be cut down quite a bit. I think the issue merits a mention of some kind, given both the source and the Wiki article give Hollingsworth credit for co-founding and co-managing the restaurant. But as you say, the existing bit may be UNDUE particularly given the length of the overall article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is also arguable that we are having the wrong discussion here. Rather than accusations of libel I think it could be reasonably argued that it's a bit WP:UNDUE for one of all of five paragraphs in the article to be about this topic. The actual source used to support this paragraph reads, in part "Hollingsworth operated the restaurant alongside former Wolfgang Puck catering CEO Carl Schuster; it opened with investment from the Broad, billionaire Eli Broad’s landmark art museum located next door." Seems entirely possible that the chef is not entirely to blame for what happened. Just Step Sideways 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it is actionable libel, you should follow the procedure at WP:RFO to ask for removal. If instead you are wanting to talk to the back office, they almost certainly will not take any sort of action here. Just Step Sideways 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and email Misplaced Pages directly regarding this matter. Billygoats1234 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Billygoats1234: If the information you're disputing remains in that article, can Misplaced Pages or any of its editors expect legal sanctions against them by Hollingsworth or anyone associated with him? City of Silver 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Their edits would seem to indicate a COI. As this seems limited to a single article I've fully protected the page while this discussion is ongoing. The edit sumarry dances up to a legal threat but doesn't quite make one, but I would advise Billygoats1234 that the word they are looking for is libel, not "liable". Just Step Sideways 21:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Byoblu page deletion
Byoblu is a news organization established in Italy, owned by Media Pluralisti Europei SPA, broadcasting on national tv channel 262, sky 816 and satellite 462, plus national DAB radio, since 2021.
I am the founder and CEO. I write to let you know that somedbody deleted our Misplaced Pages page (Byoblu), claiming that it was promotional. It wasn't. Byoblu is well known by 25% of italian citizens, and seen on a regulary base by the 9,7% of them. We have an EuroMedia Research institute paper that shows it.
So Byoblu deserves to be a part of Misplaced Pages and shouldn't be deleted by anyone with false claims.
Thank you for your attention and for investigating the subject.
Claudio Messora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.116.184.184 (talk)
- It was speedy deleted as unambigious advertising. Speedy deletions are challenged at deletion review. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing in your edit says anything about whether the page was promotional, the reason why it was deleted. It is possible for articles about extremely important and well-known things to be deleted as promotional. As a non-admin I cannot see the deleted article, but it seems that there are two possible cources of action:
- Contact the deleting admin at User talk:Deb to see if you can have this restored, and if you can't come to an agreement go to deletion review.
- Create a new non-promotional article at Draft:Byoblu and submit it for copying to mainspace.
- Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at it I cannot see the process around its deletion. It was deleted as spam, but was a well referenced article and not unambiguous, and had lasted for over a year. link if you are an admin Secretlondon (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Secretlondon: This was likely related to the now globally locked (as LTA) account 1.600.000ByoBlu, which Deb blocked at the time, which has ByoBlu in the name and was spamming/advertising about said company, including linking the article.
- Curiously said account was blocked as LTA/HOY (the spammer with the long and themed names) on a different wiki. – 2804:F14:80F8:8501:6876:CA6F:FEE3:5F9B (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Hindu News
Ther are legal and physical threats over at RSn being made (apparently) by representatives of Hindu News ], but they have a fluctuating IP, so is there anything we can do to stop this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes please, multiple clear NLT violations. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- These are the IPs that have been used in the discussion: Special:Contributions/47.31.153.39 Special:Contributions/47.31.133.164 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/49.36.183.2 Special:Contributions/47.31.153.221. The last one is blocked but needs TPA pulled, too. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And this ] means it needs to be a perinant block, as this is a direct threat to target WMF staff. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And it needs to be applied to every involved IP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think perinant is a word, which is a shame because it should be. EEng 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Considering the diff provided by Slatersteven, I blocked the IPs that were clearly identified as employees of the company due to legal threats. I don't think TPA is needed right now, though. Isabelle Belato 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.
Somebody responsible should report this discussion to WIKIMEDIA EMERGENCY email ID also. 47.31.183.210 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, but it's not like anything they say at is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...
IAC says the present UDRP is grossly biased in favor of trademark holders. The domain name holders are subjected to RDNH akin to the Jews of Europe being eliminated in Auschwitz gas chambers. IAC demands a DENAZIFICATION of ICANN and the UDRP along with its NAZI collaborators like WIPO. It seems WIPO selects their panelists for their stupidity and for strict obedience to follow WIPO's self created gas chamber operation rules. It is no coincidence that WIPO is located in Switzerland where the bulk of the Nazi Gold was stored. IAC shall list out a few of WIPO's tricks to RDNH IAC's domain.
- ... make perfect sense to me. EEng 14:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
They make extensive use of legal threats directed at individual editors, the WMF, and the Wikimedia India chapter; they also engage in serious harassment, both on- and off-wiki
. Whack-a-mole is so tedious, lets smash a few pumpkins instead. 47.31.148.206 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly wasn't on my bingo card for today. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, but it's not like anything they say at is crazy or anything. Stuff like ...
- Noting that there also appears to be a threat of physical assault on WMF employees there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past. WMF Legal and WMF CEO is very well aware of considering the past LITIGATION between our organisations, DMCAs, Office Actions etc. Anyway, what we say here is previously publlshed by us on the ICANN website and can be verified from WMF and also from WP:/LTA. The LTA will show we have unlimited supply of IP addresses, so blocking is a waste of both our times. We suggest you get WMF to impose a GLOBAL BAN on us if they dare. Have a nice day.
- This may need escalation to a global ban, and maybe more as they are making direct theats, and an outright threat to sock. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's references to IAC suggest a relation to Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you want a civilised discussion, stop making threats. And stop wp:socking wait till you block expires and come back without the attitude. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hindustan Socialist Republican Association? So it very much will not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Coming off of your threat to have your stormtroopers assault WMF staff and Misplaced Pages users if WP doesn't do your bidding, I'd say that civilized discussion has up and left the building. Count me very much in favor of a range block wide enough to chop these IPs down. Ravenswing 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That is correct. I provided the tq to assist you. HINDUNEWS.STREAM is a property of the Hindustan Republican Army (check its Whois). IAC is an affiliate of HRA. The brand name IAC is owned by HRA. The Hindu Raksha Dal and Hindu Rashtra Dal are armed military wings of HRA to protect peaceful/defenceless Hindu religionists in India. Let's have a civilised conversation and ignore the trolls.47.31.162.201 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Soooo did anyone actually contated WMD about the threats of violence? --Trade (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- While WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here, I have redacted the frankly explosive claims made by Blaxstocatamazon above on the grounds that the accusations made, with no evidence presented, are wholly inapproriate regardless of what the subject is, and because the edit itself implicates multiple CTops. IP editor: Anything said specifically to attempt to intimidate other editors into compliance is generally grounds for a block (if not for it being a legal threat, then because you are attempting to force article content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Blaxstocatamazon: I'm not sure who you're replying to with this message but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This website's discussion boards aren't meant to be used to list a ton of controversial claims that, if they're not sourced, will never be added to any article. City of Silver 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Did anyone besides EEngs read through the link EEngs provided? The comments are pure insanity. It talks about assassination, for God's sake. For editing an encyclopedia? This goes beyond legal threats. I'm surprised that there was no response from ICANN as it was posted on their website. To me, it matters whether IAC is an actual organization or just the rantings of one crazy, zealous person. Liz 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted) Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
ThornlessCookieReal
"Hope you get hit by a bus!" is not an appropriate thing to say to other users. --Trade (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed it and blocked the account which added it. If anyone wants to do more, you can have my confirmation that it was a sock of the page's owner. Otherwise, I leave them on notice. -- zzuuzz 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: To confirm the narrative, Blablabla66 was a sock created by ThornlessCookieReal to tell another editor to get hit by a bus? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Thornless be blocked as well then? Feels a bit counterproductive otherwise Trade (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, you did not misread me. I do have a habit of warning users though. One was issued here. -- zzuuzz 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You never issued any warning to Thornless against socking or making personal attacks in the future tho Trade (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- If they didn't get the message I sent, and/or followed the link to this thread, then I'll be the first to block them (if no one else gets there first). -- zzuuzz 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You sent him an email? Trade (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Opinions will differ, but I suspect you underestimate the effect of an admin suddenly turning up at a page you might think you own, blocking a user, removing a threat, and casually uttering a single word (not to mention this thread). That's about all I have to say. I refer everyone back to my first comment here. -- zzuuzz 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, i'll leave this to rest unless others wish to continue the discussion Trade (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Opinions will differ, but I suspect you underestimate the effect of an admin suddenly turning up at a page you might think you own, blocking a user, removing a threat, and casually uttering a single word (not to mention this thread). That's about all I have to say. I refer everyone back to my first comment here. -- zzuuzz 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You sent him an email? Trade (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- If they didn't get the message I sent, and/or followed the link to this thread, then I'll be the first to block them (if no one else gets there first). -- zzuuzz 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You never issued any warning to Thornless against socking or making personal attacks in the future tho Trade (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like ThornlessCookieReal has blanked their user talk page so they definitely have seen the warnings. I guess we are extending some ROPE here. Liz 01:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz: To confirm the narrative, Blablabla66 was a sock created by ThornlessCookieReal to tell another editor to get hit by a bus? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Revoke talk page access for FreeRobuxOnMyProfile
Editor blocked and TPA removed. Liz 01:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FreeRobuxOnMyProfile (talk · contribs · count) was blocked for spam. They later made this edit to make it look like their unblock request was accepted. The editor is clearly acting in bad faith. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Persistent disruption by Osasnova
Osasnova has been blocked as a sockpuppet account. Liz 01:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Osasnova (talk · contribs · count) has been engaged in persistent disruption primarily at Ada and Abere. They have been edit warring and accusing editors who revert their edits of vandalism. They are unwilling to listen to other editors and have disruptively moved their own version of the article to mainspace. Based on behavior, I believe this may be a sock account and have opened an SPI on this account and one other. But at this point the disruption has risen to a level that more immediate action is needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- What are you even talking about 🤦🤦🤦🤦 they hijacked our page and I decided to create another one Osasnova (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- They have also added copyvio to the main article twice, and also to their "version" (which has now been moved into a userspace location and is tagged for U2...). Two of the copyvios were added after they were issued a warning for copyvio. They also came off of an editwarring block less than three hours ago, and have been warned for the same conduct since. Giraffer (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sock blocked by Fathoms Below. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be some copyvios in the article's history that I've been attempting to clean up. Could another admin please check to make sure that I revedeled everything appropriately? Fathoms Below (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sock blocked by Fathoms Below. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry
User:Pek agreed to a voluntary six month ban from creating new articles in August 2023 as a result of this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs. When the ban expired, they returned to the practice of creating extremely short, poorly sourced, and questionably notable articles. This has continued despite continued warnings from multiple editors (April 2024, May 2024).
Looking through the pages they have created since the ban expired in February, and excluding redirects (although there seem to be some issues with implausible redirects as well), they have created:
25 articles, nine of which have been deleted/redirected/tagged for notability or sourcing problems |
---|
|
The surviving articles are generally very short, and even the ones that have not yet been tagged for issues tend to suffer from notability and sourcing problems. The articles regularly cite low-quality sources, including blogs by authors with unclear expertise (for example ), WP:MEDIUM, etc. Pek also continues to edit articles on medical topics (Pain reprocessing therapy, Breast implant illness), and the issues around WP:MEDRS discussed in the last ANI conversation have not been resolved.
I think it's time to consider an indefinite article creation ban, given the amount of work Pek is creating for other editors who must come in and clean up behind them. (I will do that cleanup — again — but wanted to leave the articles largely intact for this discussion.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll quote myself from last year: "Beyond Jayron32's sound advice -- and the advice you've had from a number of other editors -- if, as you say, you don't have the expertise to gauge the difference between a good source and a bad one, and you don't have the expertise to expand articles with meaningful content, then the answer appears that you are not yet ready to edit Misplaced Pages at all." I see nothing here which would lead me to revise that view. Ravenswing 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fully concur with all of you. The overwhelming backlog of existing articles on important subjects that desperately need citations to reliable sources is already too severe. For example, no one had added a decent source to support a general summary of what is elite theory since that article's creation in 2006. And that's a fundamental concept pounded into undergraduates in freshman political science courses in college. The only source added in 2015 to support the lead paragraphs was an obvious WP:SPS, a blog by an undergraduate. I just fixed that. The last thing we need is an editor apparently going out of their way to make the backlog even worse, even after they were told to cut it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I support an indefinite article creation ban. In response to being urged at their page to stop creating poorly-sourced stubs, Pek says things like
"I'm creating stubs in the hope, that someone who actually knows about the subject would add more content to the article in future"
and"I just don't get it. Why is Misplaced Pages so strict about sources?"
and"Also, isn't it better to have some sources, even if they aren't perfect, than having no sources at all?"
No, it's actually better not to have an article on a subject at all, if the alternative is to have one with promotional or otherwise unreliable sources. Pek has been many times urged to edit existing articles instead, but doesn't want to, giving the reason that"when I create new article, it gets more attraction that way"
. I'm sorry to distress Pek ("This is the only hobby I have"
🙁) but it's seriously time to stop indulging that hobby since it eats up the time, energy and patience of competent editors (which is Misplaced Pages's greatest resource). Bishonen | tålk 23:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC).- I note that we now have the ability to block a user specifically from "Creating new pages and uploading new files" and I think at a minimum that is appropriate here. They got a second chance and blew it. Just Step Sideways 01:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)