User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is clearly engaging in original research. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be editing disruptively User:Maphumor. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some WP:SYN going on with the sources. User:XYZ 250706, can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like 'this page is not your personal, everyone can edit' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:XYZ 250706 thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 You can see in revision history of Next Indian general election in West Bengal, Next Indian general election in Kerala where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Punjab etc and sometimes contest in edit war. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Shaan Sengupta can give some more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for resolving disputes for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, Lourdes 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lourdes@Ramos1990 See Revision as of 15:59, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 19:48, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 21:16, 16 August 2023 Revision as of 08:38, 19 August 2023 etc XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am giving more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Revision as of 21:21, 19 August 2023 XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links. Yes I see there is some edit warring going on and I see you gave User:Maphumor a warning on their talk page [9]. I think that since they did not follow WP:BRD after these reverts by not starting discussions on talk pages, and instead kept on editing (for example [10], [11], [12]) sometimes edit warring for days; they should be blocked or sanctioned to prevent such constant behavior. It looks WP:DISRUPTIVE. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XYZ 250706 @Ramos1990 @Lourdes It looks like @Maphumor also has a habit of not explaining his edits by giving an edit summary. As I said above User has engaged in original research and revision links above show that. Not editing with WP:NPOV. Cases of Wikipedia:Edit warring. All these things go against Wikipedia's guidelines Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta There are still more links that I can give. But it will take long time for me. User:Maphumor sometimes do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see that XYZ 250706 has on multiple times sent threats of blocking on User:Maphumor(talk), because of a content dispute. I am not seeing any collaborate attempts to engage them in a discussion about the content. Or explaining to them rules such as the need to start a discussion following WP: BRD, or WP:3RR. Further, when this user has replied to their block threats, no attempt was made to discuss with them. Rather they were basically told to 'stop'. I am seeing a violation of WP:BITE, and WP: CIVIL. This new user, I beleive, will feel they have been railroaded. They are likely engaging in this 'disrputive behavior' because they don't know the conventions here. I propose, the users engaging in content dispute, make a honest effort to include this person in discussions, instead of threatening them. If I misunderstood, please send me evidence of more sincere attempts to engage in discussion. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jagmanst@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta Not only me, many editors have warned him by giving a hint of block. That was not only content dispute, he was adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is literally what content dispute entails, when one editor claims another is "adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring".

  You claim the content as per someones edits is wrong, well discuss it with them in a civil manner. They might disagree with your characterisation. Threatening a 4 month old user with blocks on your first comment to them is not collaborative.

  I note there are other editors too who are trying to shut them up with threats of blocking, instead of actually engaging in a discussion as WP:CIVIL requires. I am not impressed. Jagmanst (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was explained in edit summary why his information was wrong and sufficient explanation was added. In his initial days of editing, he was warned for adding other election table in another election also. Then his words like this page is not your personal, everyone can edit do not also maintain civility as well. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He was warned in edit summary also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "this page is not your personal, everyone can edit". That is not uncivil. They are actually refering to WP:OWN. I agree with them. You don't own the page. They are not obligated to defer to you. You both need to discuss, and if you cannot come with a consenus, seek dispute resolution. Jagmanst (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I know I do not own the page. I never claimed it also. But the act of adding other election table in another election is indeed a vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt he edits in Wikipedia reading the policies. Even after I informed him about this discussion, he did not join this discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides I am not supporting the word threats here. I used words like please stop, may be blocked. Threats and warning have difference in meaning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through Template:Deforestation in Nigeria, used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of a project on Meta The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)

• Draft:Deforestation and small ruminant farming (was in mainspace, I moved it to draft)
• Reforestation and urbanization in Nigeria
• Impact of deforestation on plant species diversity in Nigeria
• Deforestation in Nigeria (the main article)
• Deforestation and food security in Nigeria
• Animal grazing and deforestation in Nigeria
• Effects of deforestation on the paper industry in Nigeria
• Tourism and deforestation in Nigeria
• Fuel wood utilization in Nigeria
• Gender and timber trade in Nigeria
• Spatial pattern of deforestation in Nigeria

Nearly all of these have been tagged with multiple issues, mainly that the pages are very essay-like.

Editors alrady active include User:Ezema James, User:Francisike, User:Tochai, User:Lilianneche, User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (university lecturer, so perhaps somehow involved?), User:Emmyglo, User:Ifyeke, User:Festgo12, User:SusuGeo, ... The project lead, identified at Meta, is User:Ngozi osadebe, but I see little evidence of the enwiki efforts being lead in any way, or the participants being instructed in how to improve and avoid the many issues. Most of these editors have recent warnings or even a block.

Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[13], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[14], on enwiki[15]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. Fram (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A grant request[16], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled Deforestation in Nigeria... Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into Deforestation in Nigeria some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) casualdejekyll 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olugold created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [17] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. Olugold (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Olugold for bringing the discussions here to my attention. I will do the needful by informing and guiding the participants in the project to clean up their articles.

However, I do not like the language of User: Fram, for claiming that our grant request was based on falsehood. Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria".

I was unaware of the existence of this article untill we embarked on this project. It is important that we mind how we refer to people. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created a large project about "Deforestation in Nigeria" on enwiki, and asked for a ca. $20K grant for it, but you were "unaware of the existence" of the article Deforestation in Nigeria??? Fram (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngozi osadebe - Please let him/her use the list building tools I menntioned in the grant application to retrieve the article on "Deforestation in Nigeria". I agree that putting the search term deforestation in Nigeria into Petscan yields no results, however that's not really what Petscan is for (it's for building lists of articles based on categories, rather than a general-purpose search tool). However, you say that you also used Wikidata as part of your search. You do not specify how you used Wikidata, but a simple search for the phrase will take you to Q5251686, which would point you straight to the enwiki article Fram mentions. firefly ( t · c ) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngozi osadebe @Olugold you mention the list building tools in your grant proposal - but did this include just doing a keyword search on English Wikipedia itself? Surely that would be the first thing to try? Your grant proposal also indicates Content Gender gap which pertains to the actual content (rather than the participants/editors) - what work is/will being done that falls into this category within the general scope of "deforestation in Nigeria"? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just flagging that after reviewing the grant proposal and linked spreadsheet, it seems that prizes are on offer for the "best editors" involved. The prize amounts (equivalent to around 25 USD) are small in raw terms, but not in terms of purchasing power in Nigeria, where the average monthly salary is somewhere around 160 USD. I take an extremely dim view of editathons that offer monetary prizes, particularly when they cause disruption that volunteer editors have to clean up! firefly ( t · c ) 14:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for drawig my attention to this. I have instructed the authors of the concerned articles to improve on them. The theme for our project is "Deforestation in Nigeria", as such there are likely to be topics that are related. Moreover, the editors though postgraduate students are new to Wikipedia editing. So it is likely that their edits will not be excellent. We have six month to work on the project. Many of the articles will improve before the expiry of the project life. Ngozi osadebe (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had 6 months, there are only 2 months left in the project. It looks, from the discussion below, as if the new articles (not the main one) will be moved to draft soon. And in general, projects like this or WikiEdu should stop making it a requirement for such new editors that they have to create articles, instead of helping them edit existing ones (or if you have like here 60+ new editors, let them work together on a few new articles, don't have each of them create something). Fram (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

++ 'Articles created' and 'words added' do seem metrics that regularly cause more harm than good. Not only in projects w/ newcomers... increasing the # of articles is often inferior to refactoring and improving the set of all articles in a category. [I'm still fond of metrics which rely on existing peer review processes; WikiCup gets this right.]

When running an editathon for the first time, have newcomers start by exploring existing articles and categories; editing a draft and getting feedack from an experienced editor. (Have a review team lined up, and fast response on PR (peer review) requests, else it can be demotivating and defeat the purpose!) Then updating existing articles, adding new sections, and only after that starting drafts where no equivalent exists. Titles for new drafts are good to brainstorm as a group on the project page -- another chance to avoid duplicated effort. Finally, editathons should honor peer review of drafts just as much as new writing, and make time for it on the schedule. I believe all of this is in a wiki guidebook somewhere but may need more attention. – SJ + 13:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest that if there is any bridge of the wikipedia policy by any editor, such one should be called to order. If it was not intentional, the person will make the expected corrections or delete it. However, if the person insisted and some experts have looked into it and have arrived at what should be done, that should be done immediately. For those that were making mistakes in editing, sometimes, the editor will not know. Sometimes where the corruption of words come from is not known to the editor. Once the person's attention is called, such corrections will be made. We are here to help improve open knowledge and not to destroy it. For me, if there is anywhere I made any mistake, I will like to know the place so I can correct it. Thank you all for your patience and cooperation.Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngozi Stella Udechukwu I have move your post as it appears to relate to the Deforestation in Nigeria articles. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this is becoming a WP:CIR issue. I and others have had serious concerns about edits by this editor in the past (see User_talk:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu#March 2023, and see from today things like this (adding a picture from Uganda and claiming they are "varieties of Nigerian meals", and adding another picture from Ghana, for the topic Edo traditional food which is about a region in Nigeria) or this WP:POV edit. Basically, all their edits need thorough checking, and many need being reverted. It would be good if someone else can try to explain the issues, steering them in the right direction. Fram (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the observation. Today, we were in a training and I was practicing. When I clicked on African food many of their images pumped up. I selected that one thinking it related to us. Sorry about that. I will correct it. Thank you. Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or is an addition like this one (from March this year, and still largely unchanged present in the not important article) best reverted wholesale? From the start ("There has been a promise to end child labour internationally in 2020; unfortunately, we are in 2023 and we are looking forward to that of 2030.") over things like "Some do not go to public schools because the children are not being taking care of. Many of our public schools are without fence. " and "Right attitude to life will give children a beautiful light that life has well for them and when they work hard without allowing distractions, they will become great addition to humanity" to "Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors", I don't see how this can easily be salvaged. Fram (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be rolled back to the version from Jan 2023. The additions by this editor are extremely unencyclopedic and contain seriously unacceptable material in wikivoice. There are also numerous issues with referencing, both in the sources used and the formatting (e.g. a citation to a local church website home page to support the quiverful "arrows" paragraph above; citations to just "researchgate.net", "unicef.org", and numerous other website home pages with no other bibliographic info to identify what the specific article/page being referenced is). JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this; we should restore to the Jan 2023 version. There's nothing but incredibly unencyclopedic and poorly written POV pushing in those additions. I do remember giving this editor a warning in March 2023 for POV pushing before while doing RCP back when I was still named Shadow of the Starlit Sky. I think that a WP:CIR block for Ngozi Stella Udechukwu may as well be in order as well. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns expressed by Fram and others, but a block at this stage would seem punitive, and that's not the goal of blocks. I think the focus should be on how to prevent this mess getting worse, then fix the content, and finally discuss what should be done to prevent this kind of botched outreach events that are relatively common today. MarioGom (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the added text at Child protection and after commenting here, will start the talk page section I promised in my edit summary. I pinged Ngozi Stella Udechukwu in the edit summary; doing so again here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I greatly appreciate you all for your attention to this matter. While there does exist a specific page on 'Deforestation in Nigeria', it's essential to recognize that the broad subject holds potential for various nuanced topics beyond this scope. Consolidating all sub-topics under 'Deforestation in Nigeria' could potentially lead to a voluminous article with several stand-alone topics.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the grant approval process underwent rigorous scrutiny. The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. It's important to note that the rewards for the project's duration of six months encompass valuable resources such as data or internet connectivity subsidies.

I kindly request that if any article has not yet achieved an ideal state for inclusion in the Wikipedia mainspace, contributors can be notified on the talk page with possible suggestions for improvement or better still, moved to draftspace for further improvements. This collaborative approach helps identify areas for enhancement and ensures that the collective effort is not unfairly dismissed as unproductive. Olugold (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the proposed project gained approval underscores its significance and value. Approval demonstrates that the WMF grants team judged the project worthy of funding, but doesn’t compel any specific project to treat it as significant. firefly ( t · c ) 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last paragraph, I don't see why the edits made by your editathon should be treated any differently to the thousands of other content edits made every day -- it is not our responsibility to faciliate the deforestation project, not least when there was no notification/consultation with enwiki despite there being an opportunity for such on the grant form (Q10). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just draftify all of these articles and have them go through the normal AFC process? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Jonesey95's suggestion of mass draftification. That's the best way to find out whether they can be improved to a standard that justifies either reinstatement as independent articles or merger. We have no control over the WMF's processes, but a responsibility to protect the encyclopedia from poorly thought out and executed content, regardless of the good intentions of the editors involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree draftifying this stuff is the best path forward. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying is good. Going through the regular process can still help these postgards learn how to write a not-essay and to understand how things work on Wikipedia – in the worst case, they can be shown in what ways each article falls short. A mass delete / merge won't help them new editors. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem User:FNartey (WMF), you may want to check out the enwp community's comments on project metrics and quality control. --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some users, mostly @R Prazeres and @M.Bitton, have been WP:STONEWALLING the Aghlabids page for quite a few months by trying to hide as much as possible in the infobox the fact that Sardinia (as well as most of Southern Italy) is not generally recognized as having been part of the Aghlabid-controlled territories. This goes from blocking every edit on the image's caption (even writing that adding "possible" to it it's OR) and editing it after a consensus was reached and then claiming that that was the consensus and, most importantly, using a map that's an intentional misrepresentation of the source it was allegedly taken from. I will paste here a comment I've already made on the talk page where I explained why:

The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts.

This is page 24, that contains both the original map and the text, and this is page 12. On that same talk page, the two users (one of which, @M.Bitton, has been already blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and nationalist POV-related edit warring) deny that, even thought it's an objective fact, and @R Prazeres is using the argument that the OR map it's allegedly partially supported by other ones (near-identical ones), which is WP:SYNTH. The situation clearly needs an outside intervention. I've already brought this issue to the appropriate noticeboard some time ago, but it was ignored (you can see the last revision before the topic was deleted here), and then I dropped it for a while because work and some personal issues didn't leave me a lot of time for Wikipedia, but since the discussion was reopened by another editor I think it's time to bring it here. L2212 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments presented by Prazeres and M.Bitton on Talk:Aghlabids appear to be justifiable inference from cited sources, policy-wise; there may be room for rebuttal with other arguments and sources, but they don't appear to be prima facie egregious OR. A more appropriate response to this dispute would have been to open an RfC and make the case for your preferred map, rather than lobby for a behavioral sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Raided and conquered areas, while in the original map are showed differently, in the one used in the article are all painted the same. That conveys a completely different message. Especially combined with the refusal to explain it better in the description, like in this comment (why refuse to add that single word, and keeping the explanation only inside the less-visible note, otherwise?), it seems to me like a POV-pushing problem as well. Infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and should allow the readers to "identify key facts at a glance", but in this case it tells something else, and there is no intention by the editors to try and fix it. L2212 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course another content dispute. When this issue came up at the article in April 2022, reliable sources and NPOV were discussed in detail on the talk page and multiple editors with different views came to a consensus. Some other editors (including L2212) have since tried to unilaterally change the article in favour of one POV, circumventing consensus-building by edit-warring (see article history in September 2022 and August 2023) and by attempting to replace or delete the map image directly at Wiki Commons (see the file page's history). Contrary to what L2212 implies, M.Bitton and I are not, in fact, the only ones to have reverted these attempts. But the repeated assumptions of bad faith (which this report exemplifies), the constant disruptive editing, and other WP:TENDENTIOUS responses have made any further attempts at productive discussion incredibly frustrating and circular. R Prazeres (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was reached for a version of the article that was immediately changed after it and ignoring it (by M.Bitton), so accusing me of breaking it when that had already happened makes no sense. And the productive discussion was made impossible by the double standards used while taking into consideration the different sources, the refusal of recognizing a clear error in how the map was adapted even after the original was shown, and especially the lack of civility in the discussion, starting with M.Bitton's tone and "ultimatums" (that way of debating alone deserves a discussion here) and your condescending tone (against both me and other editors). Also I've already wrote that you were not the only editors involved in my first paragraph here, so I don't know what are you accusing me of with your "Contrary to what L2212 implies". I mentioned you because you are the one whose behaviour needs to be addressed here. L2212 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie and you know it all too well (the talk page is there is prove it). As for the rest: coming from a disruptive SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, it can only be taken as a compliment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the talk page is there, and it proves that you changed the article right after Floydpig and Dk1919 had agreed on a revision. Also, coming from you, the accusation of having a nationalist agenda is pure projection. L2212 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely.". These were the two attacks they had made [18] [19]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

1. At Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [20] [21], despite it having no relevance (MOS:ETHNICITY) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
2. Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [22]
3. This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

WP:NOTHERE if you ask me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to acting like an angry mastadon) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see this fruitless discussion. A classic WP:ADVOCACY issue: they wrote We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong. I wrote back Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: I have given them a ctopic notification. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tekosh, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up WP:PILLARS, WP:NOT and most importantly, WP:V and WP:RS. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at the Teahouse is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, Lourdes 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another WP:NPA towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [23]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [24]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. Lourdes 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.

I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.

But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes forgot to tag you. :) Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tekosh, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under WP:Content policies. Thank you, Lourdes 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have read the Wikipedia:CONTENTS. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. Tekosh (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tekosh, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at this link? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. Lourdes 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read many including: Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Things make more sense now. I will be active within those guidelines. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tekosh, thank you for taking the effort to read these policies (and guidelines) up. Just for your benefit, please also read up the policies (and guidelines) given under CONDUCT too. And finally, do remember, CONSENSUS takes precedence when we discuss issues on the talk pages of articles. If multiple reliable sources have supported some contention, and if there is consensus on the talk page to include that, it doesn't matter if you believe that the contention is wrong (or right). Go by reliable sources, not your personal beliefs and knowledge. I will close this discussion here and archive this in a few hours, with the hope that your name doesn't re-emerge here on this noticeboard for any other issue. Happy editing. Lourdes 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: I'm sorry but really? That was why I commented earlier. None of what I wrote above has been addressed. I am not surprised that Tekosh ignored it, but you as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks my friend. I obviously understand logic and all you gave me was logic. I agree about the reliable sources and am on the same page as you now. I will read the policies as well. Now I’m curious about many things that didn’t have a good grasp on about Wikipedia. @Lourdes Tekosh (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoryofIran. The intent is to correct unproductive editing, which emanated from the editor's misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of our policies. As they have confirmed their growing understanding of our editorial policies, I expect them to have better sense in their discussions going forward. You may of course continue with your topic ban proposal below to prevent this relatively new editor from engaging in this area. Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from all Kurdish-related articles

• Propose topic-ban from all Kurdish related articles: While there barely goes a week where I don't get attacked, such things should never be treated so casually. I am not someones punching bag. Let's see what Tekosh has said in their short amount of time here:

• "Dude, whoever you are I don't care but I know for sure you're a racist person. Her name was Zhina. Will you please respect the kid who died for this huge uprising? Her government name was Mahsa because they didn't allow her Kurdish name. Her own mom calls her Zhina. Have some decency! You're no different than the Barbaric Mullahs! I will publish all your racist comments about Kurdistan and Kurdish people all over social media."

• "Can we block someone for being racist? That HistoryofIran user is a genuine racist person."

• "Persians have been trying an intense appropriation against Kurds. We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong."

• "I am here on Wikipedia to stop Persian's appropriation against Kurds."

And after they used the excuse of being "new" and trying to do good at the Teahouse, they randomly attacked me again, in a 10 year old talk page section: "That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.".

A person doesn't change from this in the blink of an eye. Tekosh is clearly apologizing and saying that they "understand" to avoid the consequences. As Edward-Woodrow perfectly put it, Tekosh seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. If truly Tekosh means what they're saying, then I'm sure they can demonstrate it in other topics where their personal feelings aren't so strong and disruptive to this site. Let's not forget that they already received their last warning in October 2022: As you may have expected, since you have continued to use your talk page for another personal attack while you are blocked, your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. I shall also increase the block length to a week. If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. That is not how Wikipedia works." --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohnEC Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking for advice and recommendations here regarding an emerging incident.

• User made additions to Jesus on June 18 [25] to add a fringe theory by Scholem Asch that "the resurrection was a mock event" and requires the Gospels to be reinterpreted. This theory has no traction or even mention amongst reliable sources or experts in the field. These edits were quickly reverted by other editors.
• User correctly took the topic to Talk on June 19 [26] to discuss. This is when the problems started.
• During the discussion, multiple editors pointed out problems with the edits: that Asch is not an expert, that the theory is WP:FRINGE, and that it was unclear what changes the editor actually wanted to make short of simply repeating the theory in whole cloth. (I believe) final state of the discussion: [27]
• During this time, in at least one case the editor attempted to redact other editors' comments, and was warned against doing so. [28]
• Editor also started the same topic, with same opening text, a second time while primary topic was still open. [29]
• Discussion continued until roughly July 10. Editor attempted to undo an archive bot to keep the topic open [30], but with no active editing of the topic, archiving was ultimately allowed. At this time, other editors' responses were unanimous that the content did not belong in Jesus per WP policy and guidelines.
• Editor posted exactly the same opening statements on August 20 [31], reopening the discussion. Again, editors' responses have been unanimous against inclusion, and for the same reasons. Again, editor attempted to redact other editors' statements [32], [33]. Yesterday, editor made an accusation that recent edits in the topic were due to "unprofessionalism, rudeness and racism" on their personal Talk page [34].

This is a new editor, and edits on other pages have generally been constructive. I believe they genuinely are here to build and improve WP. However, their behavior on Jesus and Talk:Jesus, and more recently on their personal talk page, are concerning. It appears that the editor simply does not want to take no for an answer, posting content that they like despite a unanimous voice of multiple editors opposing them based on WP policy; further, the accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to, also go beyond the pale. (Accusations of "rudeness" may be fair: however, I at least am growing tired of repeating the same WP policy on at least three occasions and being ignored - sometimes redacted.) As an involved editor who has tried to guide this new editor, I am seeking advice on a constructive way forward. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I should comment that the "racism" accusation is especially perplexing, as neither I nor any other editor are even aware of the editor's race or background, and I wasn't aware Asch was Jewish until another editor pointed it out. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE applies. But, the user has a serious problem with sources. A past example.[35] Also an attitude problem with editor interaction. This isn’t all that unusual on religious articles where people believe what they believe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both, especially WP:BITE. Definitely looking to guide, not silence, here. I don't believe further direct interaction by me would be helpful; constructive guidance by uninvolved editors might be. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through their edits there's very little idea about proper sourcing etc. While there's BITE, there's also quite a stubborn unwillingness to listen (not just at Talk:Jesus but elsewhere). Btw, their top 2 articles edited are (the late) E. C. John and the latter's father-in-law Hans Ehrenberg. Given the username, they may or may not need COI guidance too. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. A user with name JohnEC Jr editing E. C. John and a relative of the same does make one wonder. I was suspicious of the same but have no objective evidence. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the potential COI, I have not found any particularly concerning edits on E. C. John or Hans Ehrenberg by this editor, other than potentially unsourced / irrelevant material which is minor. Others are welcome to look. E. C. John: [36], [37]; Hans Ehrenberg: [38]

• This is a poorly-formulated report wrt evidence. Same with the replies. Not a single diff. No link to the user being complained about. Instead, obvious links like WP:BITE or Jesus are repeated. Both OP and respondents (several of whom are veteran editors), in future, please try to make it easier for reviewers so we could just click directly. Anyway, I'll add userlinks to the top. Thanks. El_C 15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I will go back and add relevant specific diffs when I have time - probably later today. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NP Jtrevor99. Here's what I recommend you do. You mention above about accusations of unprofessionalism and racism, and redacting other editors' comments that they don't like after being warned not to (emphasis added) — add a diff about the racism accusation, and if the comment is lengthy, also excerpt the pertinent sentence. Additionally, add a diff or diffs to any redaction of others' comments on the article talk page (their own user talk page does not count, they are allowed). El_C 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I believe the relevant diffs are now added. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely page-blocked JohnEC Jr from Jesus and Talk: Jesus. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of his attacks on Cullen, I've blocked him outright and removed talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm saddened that that was necessary but in light of the latest edits, it is the best course of action. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may warrant ongoing monitoring. The user created an obvious sock, JohnEC Fa, then immediately resumed prior behavior. (The sock is already indef banned.) Were they to demonstrate an abrupt change in behavior they would be welcome back. But so far, they have not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly amazed by the comments being made in the discussions, which are essentially anglophobia, and anti- UK sentiment. The discussion is chock full of personal attacks from multiple editors, the discussion is at points nothing to do with the nominated ITN candidate and the whole discussion is incredibly toxic.

This needs to be looked at as this is a poisonous discussion and there is a lot of bad behaviour on display and a lot of what amounts to anti-English sentiment.

• Sentencing nomination for Lucy Letby
• Conviction nomination for Lucy Letby

A selection of comments are like this which are very hostile to the UK and by extension UK editors and contributors:

1. "But some large group of people will come along to tell you that your country ain't worth shit, and news from your country needs to be squashed and kept off the main page, which is largely what caused it to be pulled. --Jayron32 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)"
2. "Post-posting oppose — As if U.S.-centrism wasn't enough, there is now a faction of U.K.-based ITN editors willing to support an average criminal case on the basis it's on their front page. I suppose it's acceptable for any moderately covered court case anywhere in the world to be posted on ITN? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)"
3. "This was the same complaint I had when Queen Elizabeth II died. Felt like all of Wikipedia suddenly became UKpedia. Alas. -- RockstoneSend"
4. "Only because this was in the UK was it even considered for a blurb. Keep pulled. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)"

There is a genuine loss of good faith assumptions here and the whole discussion is not collaborative in nature, amounts to simply voting by a large number and is very combative to the point of it being simply a battleground. None of which benefit the encyclopaedia and none of which help get new editors involved and dissolutions existing editors. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The really sad part is that these two discussions are barely even outliers. I've about given up. —Cryptic 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I do want to note that - taken in context - Jayron32's comment isn't hostile to UK editors; it's hostile to editors that are hostile to UK editors.) —Cryptic 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is, by quite a long and obvious way, consistently the worst quality feature on the main page and ITN discussions are a sinkhole of appalling behaviour. It's inexplicable why it continues - but it does and it's untouchable. Just one of many Wikipedia mysteries. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good opportunity to point out that Today's Featured List runs twice-weekly in a dusty corner of the main page, when the list of FLs-never-on-TFL is substantially longer than the list of FAs-never-on-TFA and if given a permanent big four slot would have plenty of material for years. Vaticidalprophet 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this comment and thinking "I should ping Vat into this discussion" and then saw the siggy... berk jp×g 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to wonder if we're at the point where arbitration is necessary. Everybody seems to be in agreement that ITN/C is uncivil and toxic, but in all the times I have seen it brought up, nothing ever gets done. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble picturing what an Arbcom decision that fixes it would look like. Honestly, just putting it out of its misery is the only answer. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, as a longtime watcher from the sidelines there. Not sure what (if there are) any solutions are, though. Connormah (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It would probably help to summarily ban some of the worst actors from the area or perhaps from Wikipedia as a whole, and to authorize sanctions over the page in general (instead of just part of one side, like we already have with WP:AP2 - I haven't been able to decide whether it's good or bad no admin's been willing to enforce it on ITNC). Though I'll admit I've also been mulling starting a proposal to just remove ITN from the main page. —Cryptic 23:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say I support the tone, phrasing, or even the majority of the sentiment in these comments, this commentary comes on the heals of a premature posting of this story in a short period of time regarding an event of questionable sustained impact for which many of the initial support votes simply cited high coverage, which is something that is always a tenuous main reason for supporting given such a concept is debatable in it's criteria, and I think it's fair to argue that this story is more of a passing one to the non-Brit population. And this story comes on the heels of several contentions death blurb nominations, such as the Michael Parkinson one. There is a growing discontent with inconsistent blurb procedure and bias in particular at ITN (which I think is very much present and certainly not limited to UK-related stories, but Western ones broadly speaking), and more and more dubious nominations and questionable postings recently have really put people off. And I hate to say it, but Fakescientist is fairly close to the truth here, even if not right on the money. If such a murderer had been active in a non-Western country, we probably wouldn't bat an eye, mostly because Western media in general doesn't give a **** about what happens outside of the West under most circumstances. For example the Mahach Kala gas station explosion would probably have been posted had it happened in, say, the US, the UK, etc. Personally, I think Jayron not assuming good faith is the real violation here. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having long observed (and remained extremely reticent to participate in) ITN discussions, it seems there are factions of American and British users who are convinced that the other represents a critical mass of regular users who routinely shoot down nominations involving news from the other country. This in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many such editors then get extremely prickly when an item involving the other country is posted, or are more inclined to support nominations from their country in response. Add in the inherent tension of ITN discussions—major, real-world tragedies being callously reduced to their "notability"—and it's a recipe for the brutal and toxic environment that's festered on that board. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These...don't really seem particularly egregious? Is it not normal for ITN discussions to evaluate the global relevance of a topic? We get far worse characterizations of groups of editors at AfD every day. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, global relevance should not be a major feature of discussion, as WP:ITNATA says that "arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful." But it's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry into actual discussion much. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ITN already ... Banedon (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. 1) You really ought to ping the users whose comments you quoted (I will do it for you, in a moment). 2) I really don't think my comment was hostile to the UK or its citizens, and if it is being interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstone35 informed me of this discussion. For context, I am one of the more conservative users on ITN. My record reflects contrarianism; going against the grain is the strongest vote a user can have. Supporting a nomination that which only falters in article quality is an unnecessary vote and detracts from work I could be doing elsewhere on this site. The sentiment here that ITN is Anglophobic and anti-U.K. is an egregious exaggeration of ITN and this particular situation. Before detailing why I wrote that comment, I should take the time to inform users on ITN's environment and why consensus opposed the Lucy Letby nomination. ITN is a partisan forum because it relies on personal points of view and biases to generate discussion. ITN reflects both its users and the news. The definitions of both have changed; the 2010 Stockholm bombings were posted but would likely not be today, as was the authenticity of Sunset at Montmajour, the posthumous royal pardon of Alan Turing, AT&T's acquisition of DirecTV, the conviction of Abu Hamza, and the encyclical Laudato si'. At one point, Pokémon Go was temporarily added to the ongoing section. In recent years, ITN has shifted to a global focus, driven by Wikipedia's global reach, and it is conversely facing pushback from younger and newer users who believe ITN needs to reflect their perspective.

The Lucy Letby nomination was opened and attracted plenty of attention from British editors who believed that it was notable on the basis that they had heard of Letby. The discussion was closed very prematurely before being pulled because it was U.K.-internal news. The nomination wasn't pulled because of Anglophobia—I'm American, as are plenty of people here, and I have no issue with British editors—but because it was only relevant in the United Kingdom. Editors often cite the second rule of ITNCDONT but neglect to see its purpose. A train derailment in Pakistan is exceptional for what it is. A woman murdering seven infants is a horrible story but only exceptional because the United Kingdom rarely has such stories. I wrote the comment in the way that I did not because I felt that it was vengeful, but because I felt the need to state what I was observing. A focus on stories from one particular country is much to be avoided regardless of which country it is. The U.S. happens to have this issue to a much larger degree because it is a larger country, but ITN has molded to reject any mass shooting with less than a dozen deaths.

ITN is valuable because it provides readers with an accessible ticker to which they can click on individual stories, and it provides a running obituary where editors seek to improve articles on people that would otherwise go untouched after reflecting the past tense. Dismantling the system presupposes that toxicity is rooted within ITN itself when it is the juxtaposition of ideas that is breeding conflict. The increasing use of hidden archive templates is not a promising sign for ITN's longevity, but this period of disagreement will subside. Editors need to be vigilant and respectful; fortunately, Wikipedia has systems for the former and punitive processes when the latter is not represented. In a worst case scenario, I would not be opposed to the enforcement of contentious nominations à la contentious topics. Ultimately, editors who are meek and understanding will be met with respect on ITN. Such respect wanes when editors choose to be obstinate. This is not a flaw of ITN in particular, it is a flaw in humans. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve had our disagreements before, but I can’t succinctly and clearly sum up the situation any better than you have spectacularly done so. Brilliant comment.

This arb case is a gross misrepresentation of the system, and in attempting to accuse users of supposed Anglophobia it almost seems almost to bolster the concern of pro-English bias. The Kip (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of anglophobia despite being British! Just horrible environment. Secretlondon (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I’d like to second Rockstone’s comment regarding not pinging those who have been mentioned on ANI, as it’s typically normal procedure to do so. Secondly, I’d like to take the time to point out the fact that my comment (and some of the others) were meant to take aim against U.K.-based items frequently being posted, not the UK/its people/editors on Wikipedia from the U.K. Thirdly, the item in question was regarding a nurse who had killed seven babies. Horrifying? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely, and I’m not trying to downplay its affect on the families or the general UK populace - but if seven people would die in a tragic event like this in someplace like China, or India, or Australia, or Canada, or any African nation, or even the U.S., then I feel as though consensus probably would not develop to post those items to ITN, unlike how it happened here. Regardless, I can confirm that my comment had no intention of wishing harm or bringing anti-U.K. sentiment to ITN, and if it did end up being interpreted to mean that, then I apologize, as I personally have nothing against the U.K. or its people. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe there is no intended maliciousness, bigotry, or anglophobia in your comments FS. I suspect everyone here can readily take you at your word as to that. But here's the problem: ITN has become habitually (and I mean in pretty much every single one of it's day-to-day determinations) disconnected from any of the normal policies which govern how much weight to show to a given topic. Large numbers of the regulars there routinely oppose entries along "X country gets enough attention in the world already." rationales. Even though ITN's own inclusion criteria clearly advise against this kind of argument, it is absolutely omnipresent: the last four times I've been RfC'd or otherwise passed through ITN in the last few years, the majority of the proposals had comments that were constructed exclusively around this sentiment. In if it's not objection based on geography, it's some other personal, idiosyncratic objection as to why the subject isn't "really" important, when you think about it.

  Now, that's all problem enough in itself, from a content perspective, but the real issue is that because the space has become so completely unmoored from any objective, source-based test, it is an absolute hotbed of subjective sentimentality, and all the usual value-based flame wars that define so much of the open forum of the internet. You see, the precise reason we have an WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT-based test as the only kind of metric of "importance" on this project is to short-circuit those kinds of arguments based on personal perspective, by tethering our determinations of inclusion to an analysis that takes the personal perspectives of our editors out of the equation.

  ITN lacks that objectivity, and so instead there is a constant cultural tug-of-war there based on the values and biases of the individual contributors as to what is "significant" (that is to say "important" enough to mention. As a consequences, it has become without question and without even a remotely close competitor, the single most consistently toxic, disruptive, and unmanageable space on the entire project. And for the record, I am including ANI and AE for comparison. I'm sure there are many there who, like you, have no particular hate in your hearts for the residents of other countries, but many of those same editors nevertheless are clearly on a self-appointed mission to fight systemic bias, one ITN candidate !vote at a time, and that only further inflames the issues there, actually elevating the overall levels of bias, and the pitched battles that result, in the space as a whole.

  And I know for a fact that these issues have been raised there many times, and the regulars have failed to heed community concerns or make even the most marginal efforts at reforming the space. So bluntly, the cost-benefit ratio for the project has been in the red for many, many years, and I agree with others above, it's time to cut this diseased appendage of the main page off. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think everyone can acknowledge that many votes are nonsensical in their rationales, which harms the process, but calling it a diseased appendage is absolutely absurd. The real solution is to just empower admins to be more decisive on not counting unproductive votes, which is already policy but I'd certainly support it being followed even more strongly. And it's quite clear, I'd say, that the "significance" issue is a broader one throughout Wikipedia, where no one gives a you-know-what about WP:DELAY and posts an article on anything they THINK might be notable. WP:ITN/R attempted to codify certain events considered as automatically notable, but itself faces issues, none bigger then WP:CCC. And I absolutely understand your concerns regarding the tug of war between nations at ITN, but I would say a lot of this is derived from media bias itself, which explains why not just US or UK news, but both dominate ITN at any given time. I think it's policy that should be revisited here rather then taking a TNT approach. We can't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which is what every proposal regarding changes to ITN seems to be. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone make a VPP proposal already. I'm ready to !vote to close ITN once and for all. I have held out hope for years that the space and its processes could be reformed to work consistently with this project's policies and values, but it's never happened, and the talk pages associated with it have been a chronic source of disruption and toxicity, as well as a recurrent drag on community attention and resources that far exceeds the value our readers extract from the feature. Not withstanding the "for all" above, perhaps we can relaunch it in the future with tighter constraints and a more objective basis for decisions made in the space, avoiding the kind of culture war nonsense that currently defines its daily arguments, but I don't think it's possible while it remains live and functioning as it is. Please, please someone competent construct the proposal, and notify me when it goes up. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep we should get rid of it, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd say keep the "recent deaths" but for the rest, if people want to edit WikiNews then they should go and do so; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WikiNews needs more contributors.

  Just to correct @Fakescientist8000's comment, the Letby saga isn't a case of a nurse killing 7 babies. She was convicted of 7 murders, with 5 more counts potentially going to retrial and might have been responsible for many other deaths that weren't part of the court case. It was Britain's longest ever murder trial and probably the UK's biggest instance of serial killing in the 21st century. But none of that takes away from the point that this story seems to be of limited interest outside the UK. WaggersTALK 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) The toxicity of those debates is in the eye of the beholder; they're not that bad.

  (2) If the real problem is that US readers don't want to read UK news stories, can't we have regional variants of ITN that display depending on your geographical locale?

  (3) Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway? Don't they belong on newspapers? Encyclopaedias are supposed to provide information on a very wide range of subjects of lasting interest, while ITN is about providing information on a very small number of things that are interesting in this precise moment. Diametrically opposite aims. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele The purpose of ITN has always been to encourage the improvement or articles or the creation of new ones. Regionalizing it would be difficult and imperfect. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an encyclopaedia trying to provide news headlines anyway: There is some background at Wikipedia:In the news. —Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If paper encyclopedias had the text information of over 100 Britannicas like Wikipedia does and also as much image information as Wikipedia and were as up-to-date as Wikipedia (they'd have to be magic like Harry Potter newspapers) then they'd definitely have an article on things by the time they reach ITN. Encyclopedias have simply moved on. Britannicas also had yearbooks for each year and every few years or so articles were rewritten before they became too out-of-date, Wikipedia is simply a more advanced version of that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have come to think ITN should be more like Recent Deaths, with much less room to object on notability or newsworthy grounds. I don't know the specifics on how that would work so I've never offered a proposal, but there is too much voting on, in essence super-notability. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And some cite "systemic bias" to discount what is actually in the news so that it is not posted on "In the news". —Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking largely aligns with 331dot. Focusing our efforts almost entirely on improving articles and not worrying about some "extra notability" hurdle to clear to make ITN would improve the working environment immensely. --Jayron32 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I recall RD was trialed before being fully implemented. We could trial whatever changes are made(like removing supernotability discussion somehow). 331dot (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's pretty much just Current Events. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and? --Jayron32 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes and what? Current events already exists, therefore there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think therein lies a problem. The current events portal is an easter egg currently. Multiple attempts at fixing that have failed. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Make VPP proposal to mark ITN historical and start the discussion about what to replace it with. It cannot be saved. We recently tried banning problematic editors; they were quickly replaced. Levivich (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that saving it is impossible, but even if what you suggest is done, Recent Deaths could just be expanded to fill that space. No need to come up with something else. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't with what kind of text is on the webpage. The problem is the people. Anyway, this is a discussion for the pump. Levivich (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with Lev on this one: if salvaging anything like ITN on the main page is going to be feasible in the longterm, I think it's going to need to happen by TNTing and rebuilding from the ground up. The issues have been as apparent from inside the rotting building as from without, and yet I have observed nothing there except deeply entrenched commitment from most of the regulars to their self-presumed right to judge the abstract "importance" of events from a personal and idiosyncratic basis, with all the inevitable clashes of perspective, values, bias, and personality that entails. Not one in ten of the regulars even abides by ITN's own proscriptions on arguments, and those are the rules they ostensibly all agreed to among themselves, once upon a time! Fixing from within the space is obviously a non-starter, and I expect that even a reformatory process at VPP would become an absolute quagmire of conflicting outlooks (and probably no shortage of surly offense that we are trying to take away the right to decide for the main page's half million daily viewers what, in all the world's happenings, is important enough to know about.

  No, much more sound for the community excise the problem altogether and then have a second, even deeper conversation about whether to replace it with something similar, and make the stakeholders buy into the process of building (and thus internalizing) new, more objective, and less disruptive rules for moderating the processes. Doing this piecemeal will only lead to cloudier revised standards that many will just avoid comporting with, to the maximum extent possible, in order to try to preserve their old standards, expectations, and methodologies, with all the entitlements as arbiters of the important that they currently enjoy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever we replace it with will likely inherit the same problems that have plagued ITN for years at this point, assuming it would still be something relating to current events. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Others have said points I would make (this far from what has more uncivil behavior in the past; that the issue of these noms stems from the rapid posting based primarily on UK editors' !votes,leading to the national aspect issues). But this case epidemic of the broader issue that we broadly are violating NOTNEWS. There are a contingent of editors that create news ates on any event no matter how insignificant it is. And I think some of those also want to push ITN to be more on line with headline news, rather than the original purpose of feature high quality articles that happen to be in the news. This has created a rift of how ITN should be handled, which has been discussed at length on its talk page but without agreement on any solution because of this divisive rift. And that I don't know if we can fix without addressing the broader NOTNEWS issue, pointing editors to Wikinews if they want to focus on current events and keeping our focus on encyclopedic topics, some which will be news studies with clear enduring coverage. Masem (t) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is largely fixed by focusing on currency rather than newsiness. If we are only concerned with the recency of an event, and on the quality of the Wikipedia coverage of the event, we don't have to worry about if the event is "newsworthy", merely that it's something that's happened recently (so is broadly "in the news" in the most general sense) and that we have a really good article about. --Jayron32 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Would there be some way to turn over this small section of the main page to Wikinews? (See also: Wikipedia:Wikinews, m:WikiNews, and n:Main_Page.) I mean, we have a whole project dedicated to this, with policies and guidelines and everything. And I say this noting that I kinda appreciate that I can read ITN occaisionally. But it sounds like we're attempting to re-create the wheel in this section? - jc37 15:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I kind of like the idea, but there's a tricky cycle involved where Wikinews is...quieter than might be viable (I recall in late January 2021 seeing that it hadn't been updated since the 4th -- "well, good thing nothing in the news has happened since January 4, then"). While big-four attention might help this, it also might result in the preservation of the "extremely slow news ticker" element. Obviously Wikinews would also have to consent. (I still think TFL is a viable big four candidate.) Vaticidalprophet 15:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that sounds like an opportunity than a problem. Instead of having a "big 4" in a 2x2 grid, put them in a left-side column, and put the Sister projects along the right hand side (NOT hidden), to help inspire/nudge people to go there to read and edit those prohects as well. We don't do third-party ads, to be sure, but we really seem to do a poor job of advertising our sister projects. And having them buried "below the fold" as it were, on the main page, really seems less-than-helpful. - jc37 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, turning it over to Wikinews(which isn't terribly active anyway) misses the point of what ITN is for(please see WP:ITN. It isn't to be a newspaper, but to motivate the improvement or addition of articles and highlight them. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the goal, wouldn't a link to Category:Current events do that? Template:Current adds articles to a dated subcat. - jc37 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That only tracks recentness, but not quality. Because we are highlighting articles, those articles should represent some of WP's best work. ITN does link to Portal:Current Events for those seeking other topics in the headlines. Masem (t) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's consistently failing to do that. There was a comment on ITNC recently that stood out to me, opposing a western (I think US [yes, the Hawaii wildfires]) news story for being an example of systemic bias. Not because we were considering posting it, but because if it had happened in Mali, then editors wouldn't have gotten it to the quality that ITNC could post it. All the other Main Page sections update at least once a day; lately ITN blurbs have been averaging closer to once a week, and not for lack of sufficiently-improved articles. Of the four bullet points at Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose, we're objectively failing at least the first, second, and fourth. —Cryptic 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree with your assessment- although Wikipedia is not responsible for bias in the news media; which is why I think removing the ability to object on notability grounds might help. I think RD functions well and ITN would be helped to be more like it. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The ability to object on notability is the best way to combat media bias. Otherwise you are probably determining eligibility by frequency of coverage, which is the main symptom of such bias. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's an idea to piss everyone off! Toss out DYK and OTD, expand ITN to give enough room for both the UK- and America-centric news articles as well as a "rest of the world we don't care about unless it's a major disaster" section. Ban all politicians from RD that weren't long-term leaders of countries. Ban any subjects whose activities (during life or upon death) weren't reported on in at least 10 national newspapers of record. Today we have entries on the Shiba Inu Cheems meme dog (most notable topic by far), a captive orca, an Italian opera singer, and a trio of unspectacular American politicians whose names 99.5% of Americans wouldn't recognize and 99.9% wouldn't care about, including an Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, a NY senator, and a judge for the middle district of Alabama. (Didn't we recently have a protracted debate over whether Barbara Walters was notable enough around the globe for RD? And yet these people are??) JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we didn't. We had a discussion about whether she was notable enough for an ITN entry, which is completely different. Every person with a Wikipedia article is notable enough for RD if their article is up to scratch. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah my bad, then. Is there not a limit to how many RD entries can be posted at a time, or their geographical breadth, if the only criteria an article has to pass are "not a stub" and "sufficient quality"? JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Joelle, I think you misunderstand RD. RD does not assess notability, merely article quality. Thus no matter if the person is JFK or (Special:RandomPage), they are considered eligible for posting as long as their article is up to the minimum quality standard (WP:ITNQUALITY; largely the same as DYK's). The discussion about Walters was if she was notable enough for a death-blurb, which is completely different from RD. Geographic distribution is such a big deal for RD as we can't control who dies and where they are from, only their article quality; additionally as there are only six RD slots (the goldilocks zone, not too few and not too many), RD has a full cycle every day or two if things are running smooth. Curbon7 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's an alternate idea to piss everyone off: Abolish ITN, expand DYK and OTD, and have two featured pictures. Divide the now-expanded DYK into three sections: Culture & History, Science & Technology', and Art & Politics. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment II, on the state of ITN - I've seen the writing on the wall for months, and I knew it was going to occur; we were finna exhaust the community's patience and get dismantled. Here's my two cents. I, and many others across this mini-project and the broad project believe firmly in the purpose of ITN. If I didn't, I would have left months ago, and if the community hadn't, it would have been dissolved years ago. I personally made it my mission to attempt to reform the processes of this mini-project, and despite several times of complete and utter disillusionment and anger, I've remained and attempted to persist. I am apart of the problem; I can be crass, disruptive, rude, and intolerant on ITN/C; a contagion certainly supported by the rest of the mini-project. My spat with Jayron in the earlier of the listed noms are indicative of this.

ITN hasn't faced any serious crisis to force reform of the system; compare it to the culture wars in the west, in which critical issues like transgenderism, the role of men and women, work-life balance, dating, etc. are currently unanswered since we're wealthy enough that we can feign outrage over them and self-flagellate over our inherent moral superiority over the opposition, while not actually solving the issues at hand. WT:ITN has always been amusing to me, since most discussions will feature massive, götterdämmerung conflicts over key issues relating to the very purpose of ITN, where dozens massive walls of text will be erected and discussions often escalate into toxicity, only for the discussion to fizzle out after a week at most when everyone gets exhausted and just unknowingly passively accept the status quo and move on to another controversy. Just like how the questions of the culture war will be answered when the coming global crisis occurs, this crisis, where ITN is at serious risk of being deleted altogether, will (hopefully) force serious answers.

The thing is that ITN often has discussions and guidelines that should prevent the current state of ITN, but these are completely ignored. For example, last year, there was a successful push on WT:ITN to hat all disruptive comments on WP:ITN/C. Despite garnering consensus, it has rarely been seriously enforced.

The issue, I think, is that many on ITN simply are too-conflict adverse in the stuff where conflict is actually desperately needed. I think the story of Fuzheado (talk · contribs) is a prime example of this. One of the primal examples of ITN's weak-willedness is how !votes on ITN are more or less counted as votes (this is actually a better descriptor than the reality, in which, to keep the illusion of a !vote-based system, if there isn't an overwhelming majority in favor of posting a story, it often won't get posted; meaning that often times, noms have to get a 1/3 minority of opposers to get shut down). Since consensus on Wikipedia is already vague enough, on ITN, many admins when judging consensus simply just choose this system since judging in favor of the posting position will lead to accusations of WP:SUPERVOTING. Fuzheado tried to unlock this system, but people labeled him as a supervoter and eventually took it to ANI, where they threatened to desyop him, and even went as far as targeting other users in the discussion, claiming that Fuzheado had organized members of the WMF to defend him. Shit like this is why many on prefer to not deal with all the drama and be rather passive on ITN.

What we need to do is put our foot down. We've agreed on multiple solutions to combat systemic issues, but they never get enforced because people are two timid and want to avoid drama, ironically leading to even more drama in the long-term. ITN's various guidelines are getting ignored because we let them be ignored. As a mini-project, to save ourselves from destruction, we ought to learn to say "no" and take serious action to defend the fundamental principles of Wikipedia:In the news.

TL;DR: WP:JUSTDOIT. — Knightoftheswords 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Unrelated, but just FYI — transgenderism is a bit of an outdated term, predominately used these days by anti-trans activists.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E1DE:C726:5AED:4447 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with Fuzheado was not the supervoting (though this did happen) but the fact that (a) on at least five occasions he posted articles which were not up to scratch, with citations missing, (b) posted articles without sufficient time for consensus to form, (c) on at least one occasion posted an article with BLP violations in it, and (d) wheel-warred to post an entry which he had already voted in favour of. And there were other issues as well, over a long period. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened an idea lab discussion with some ideas I have to remove notability discussions from the ITN process, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Changes to ITN. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly wider, and thus equally unfocussed, I find myself agreeing with those who think the ITN section has outlived its usefulness. On the plus side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles. On the negative side, it encourages new editors to edit our encyclopaedia to add random stray facts and opinions to our articles.

I wonder if we could have some sort of crosswiki conference with Wikinews, where we could take their headlines in return for exporting more editors to them? Of course, they are much smaller and might crumple under the weight of the extra new editors, and, with something like 90% of their active editors being in North America, the headlines would be very US dominated.

But an exchange of our new users who think an encyclopaedia is for news for their problems with attracting editors at all could prove profitable for both of our sites if negotiated well.

ITN would have to die for it to work, but, well, I'm okay with that. YMMV. — Trey Maturin™ 20:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've come to the conclusion that ITN needs to be put out to pasture. It has long outlived its usefulness. I wouldn't shed a tear to see it go. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would disagree with any proposal to abolish that doesn't keep RD (Recent Deaths) alive. RD is working fine, discussions remain cordial and productive, and serves as a great venue to encourage content creation and improvement. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd oppose any proposal to abolish ITN full stop. Outlived its usefulness? Really? When something big happens one of the first places I look for an overview is Wikipedia (and I know I'm not the only one who does that), and most of the time the relevant articles are linked from ITN - very useful. Anyone saying ITN has "outlived its usefulness" needs to specify usefulness for whom, because they're definitely not thinking from the persepective of a reader. As for ITN/C, it's definitely not perfect but it's the only main page process which isn't hidden behind layer upon layer of instruction creep and bureaucracy, and I think that's a good thing. And I don't believe for a second that DYK and FAC are completely non-toxic and drama-free either. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree whoheartedly with your comment. Khuft (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ITNC is the place where a. raw vote count and b. entirely subjective opinion count for the most on Wikipedia. That it lacks any type of concrete criteria on which to assess whether or not something should be posted is both its fatal flaw and its most prized feature to a number of editors there. And as such any proposal to rectify its flaws is shot down because people want their own views to be able to carry sway, unlike most other places on Wikipedia (ANI excepted). I dont think it need to be abolished, it definitely needs a way to make it so peoples own opinions on the noteworthiness of something is given the weight it deserves (~0). It needs objective standards. But the subjective voters wont allow that. Shrug. nableezy - 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's honestly rather stunning, the peculiar matter under which ITN operates. As I've mentioned in WP:HOWITN, the documented guidelines, suggestions, etiquette are all ultimately meaningless since ITN/C subordinates itself to an overall infallible principle of "a consensus of editors is all that is required to post something". Necessarily, the inverse is also true in that "a consensus of editors is all that is required to deny posting something", and any group of like-minded editors can come along and essentially say "I've decided we are not posting this ITN/R item today" and that is the end of it.

  What do we do? I think the idea of shutting it down is certainly a tempting one. The reason the standard of significance became so discriminatory is because some editors realized that running every news event on ITN/C is not a good idea because that would run contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, but it feels as if things have been taken too far in the direction now of being stagnant at best, and then violently toxic worst due to accusations of systemic bias, regionalism, parochialism, etc.. Unless we somehow replace that deeply divisive significance standard with a more objective decision-making process that can't be weaponized, abolition is really the only option. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I'm honest, I don't see how this is fundamentally different to other discussions that happen on Wikipedia. I got involved somehow in the Charles III discussion last year on how to name the page and whether it should be moved, and the vitriol and subjectivity during that discussion seemed to me to be ten times worse than what we typically see at ITN. Khuft (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That was one discussion, though. With ITN/C, it's a nearly regular occurrence, with the added morbidity of having it occasionally focus around a recently deceased figure whom someone deems transformative enough to merit a blurb instead of a recent deaths entry. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN has its problems, but the suggestion that we ought to mark it as historical is... well, you know... Kurtis ^(talk) 05:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Fixthetyp0 appears to be having issues with a blocked user named Australianblackbelt.

The user states that the articles Mrs. Globe, Svetlana Kruk and Alisa Krylova were created by Australianblackbelt for the purposes of self-promotion. I created Svetlana Kruk, so it seems I am now involved in this.

His first attempt at a triple AfD was done here in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(2nd_nomination)

The user's second attempt at a triple AfD is now ongoing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._Globe_(3rd_nomination)

Can someone take a look at this? I have no idea what's going on with those two, but it doesn't seem like it's accomplishing anything of value and I don't really want to be involved with this.

Thanks, KatoKungLee (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went and wrote up an oppose on the AFD and I can second that this is a situation requiring sanctions, because Fixthetyp0 for some reason has beef with the aforementioned blocked user and is letting it spill out onto uninvolved pages. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Fixthetyp0 is a rather new account with very few edit counts. I do not quite understand why they are having a row with another editor. Is it possible that Fixthetyp0 is run by someone undisclosed? TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Australianblackbelt was blocked back in January, before Fixthetyp0 was registered. ABB was a prolific self-promoter for themselves and their friends (and is now globally locked due to doing it on other Wikis as well) however and had many dozens of articles deleted as a result. It's not a bad idea to go back through their other creations and see what else is non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case it is quite evident that these articles are NOT self-promotion. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No not self-promotion, but possibly still promotional. They seemed to have many contacts in the beauty contest world and would actively promote non-notable entities in that world through one of them, especially anything even remotely related to the non-notable attention seeker Maurice Novoa (who may or may not have actually been Australianblackbelt) who seemed to have his fingers in every beauty contest and attempted connection to every contestant. So I couldn't rule out a connection. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, As the person in the center of this incident, I just want to say that I was in NO WAY accusing KatoKungLee of anything. I wasn't even paying attention to who created the 2 articles of the Mrs. Globe winners. I was just accusing Australianblackbelt of creating the Mrs. Globe page for promotional purposes only, and was also suggesting the other 2 articles for deletion based on them being nothing more than winners of a non-notable pageant. I am not accusing KatoKungLee of being Australianblackbelt. However, like Canterbury Tail said, I was not saying that Australianblackbelt was making the Mrs. Globe page to be SELF-promotional, but for general promotional purposes. That person could be a friend or employee of pageants for marketing purposes, and I believe created many inappropriate and non-notable pages for promotional purposes (not SELF-promotional). That account was clearly blocked for that reason. I would like to leave KatoKungLee out of this and I am sorry that I was not more clear with my nomination and that it led to an assumption that I was making sockpuppet allegations. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that I have no idea who Australianblackbelt is and have no personal issue with them. I'm not sure why I'm being accused of having a personal row here. To me this is purely a professional issue, as Canterbury Tail pointed out: this user was blocked for making several non-notable promotional articles, and I believe I'm rightly calling out yet another promotional article to be looked at. It is a big shame that the point of AfD is being lost in people making assumptions about personal rows and personal attacks when I couldn't care less about who Australianblackbelt is and only care about the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes (whether self-promotional or other-promotional) for non-notable subjects. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Teenyplayspop: If you want admins to take any action on this, you're almost certainly going to have to provide them with some diffs showing the behavior you're reporting. If you don't know how to do that, see WP:DIFFS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the follow up Teenyplayspop (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to leave a notice on the editor's talk page—as per the big red box at the top of this page—which you didn't, so I've gone ahead and done so. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been made aware of a discussion about my edits. Please allow me to defend myself:

First, one can edit whatever subject they want to my understanding on Wikipedia, provided that the page is not locked or restricted. Working in one area does not disqualify a person, or otherwise there would be no subject matter experts or people working on what interests them.

Second, the edits that I made on other pages regarding "alt-right" figures - Tina Peters, Gregg Phillips, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - are largely critical of them, their claims, their history, etc. so to accuse me of partisanship and activism is unfair and unfounded. Furthermore, all of the sources presented come from reputable sources and are properly cited.

Third, the very page which you are using as evidence against me regarding Andy Ngo has a hyperlink in it which takes one to a separate civil case against 2 of the 5 initially sued/charged, and it describes them as "left wing activists":https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-loses-civil-lawsuit-against-portland-activists.html

That article links to the following article: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/right-wing-writer-andy-ngos-lawsuit-against-portland-activists-begins.html

Which links one to the following in which Ngo sued Rose City Antifa and named the 5 defendants, 3 of whom were in the original article, and 2 who were dismissed in the civil suit. The defendants have not denied affiliation, nor has Rose City Antifa, nor have they contested anything he claimed or showed up: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/conservative-writer-sues-portland-antifa-group-for-900k-claims-campaign-of-intimidation-and-terror.html

Given that it was in the original lawsuit and no parties have denied or stepped forward to contest these claims, and all media has referred to these defendants as left wing activists, it is understandable to see why one would consider them Antifa. However, even if we remove the name Antifa from the article, it is unfair to accuse me of hyper partisanship and try to remove my editing ability or punish me over one word.

Partisanship certainly cuts both ways on this website and none of us are perfect, but it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page or speak with me vs. assume bad motives and try to get me in trouble at the outset. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically added this citation to support your edit in which you accused people of being antifa on Andy Ngo. The article is a WP:BLP and the word antifa is not found once in that citation that you used. Your edit was disruptive at a minimum. You need to be aware of that instead of making excuses and throwing around accusations towards others. Have you even bothered to read WP:BLP or perhaps WP:OR? TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the original lawsuit was against those 5 and Rose City Antifa, which none have denied.

I have read that article, however, I will review it again. This is the first time I've had any issues, and it seems like there's some personal animus with Ngo and/or bias towards Antifa that I uncovered in this reply.

As this is supposed to be constructive for all involved, I would suggest that you not infer malicious motives behind my work or edits (or others for that matter) without at least consulting with them vs making accusations in revert edits or posts about them without their knowledge. Ironically this inference and original research is what you accuse me of doing. This can be found in the original accusation, and using inflammatory and charged language in your loaded question - "Have you even bothered to read"? It would be a lot less off-putting to people who are less experienced and made an error. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, refer to this disruptive editing in which they edited Andy Ngo, which is a WP:BLP to indtroduce heavily biased political language not found in the source which they were citing, ie the word antifa. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Diannaa, perhaps you can provide some context on what happened at Tina Peters (politician). The revision history does not paint a pretty picture. Also can you provide your interpretation on this? TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There's really nothing further to add; no context or backstory; I simply removed a paragraph of copyright material copied from elsewhere online. (2) Prior to their username change, the user was apparently formerly editing under their real name, and removed it from the archive for privacy reasons. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that, she is correct and the copyright issue was addressed.

If you read the revisions re: Tina Peters you will find that they are all from reputable sources and well documented, and none are particularly flattering they are just the record laid out in chronological order. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to this which demonstrates WP:ADVOCACY. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not advocacy considering that it was quotes cited and sourced by the Washington Post and The Hill. If anything the prior edit was pushing an agenda and these sources quoted the organizer directly. The direct sourcing of the website was also sourced in their pages.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/572268-sept-18-rally-organizer-asks-attendees-not-to-wear-pro-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/09/18/justice-j6-rally-capitol-riot-dc/

@TarnishedPath it seems you have some sort of animus with me because I referenced one word "Antifa" and the names of three people made public in the article in a post, and since then you have gone through my history to discredit my work. Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed? I have not seen anything showing that the sources are not valid, incorrectly cited/sourced, etc. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevolutionaryAct: "Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed?" Is a violation of WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS without providing any evidence, and is therefore also a violation of WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I suggest that you strike it immediately before you are blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested, however, this criteria should be applied to @Teenyplayspop who wrote "Clearly a partisan writing this." in the initial reversion on my Ngo edit, as that would be a casting aspersion/personal attack, which was not only unfounded without evidence, but immediately followed by an inquisition into me: "Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources" especially considering that my edits were not dubious sources nor were they supporting any of these figures. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to withdraw a statement in a posted comment is not to delete it, it is to strike it out. I have fixed this for you.

Teenyplayspop did write "Clearly a partisan writing this", but they provided evidence to support their contention in this thread, so they were not casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Evidence was provided by TarnishedPath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevolutionaryAct, I have provided evidence of WP:ADVOCACY by you per above. Now that was a while ago and if it was a one off maybe we could think nothing of it, however it colours every edit that you've made since. Particularly your accusations that I'm antifa and your adding material into a WP:BLP calling people antifa when that term was not used in the source which you were citing. Rather than going on the attack you need to own it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have explained why the 5 in question are likely Antifa. Aside from the fact that they (1) never denied it, (2) Rose City Antifa never denied it, (3) all 5 are confirmed to be left wing activists according to The Oregonian (we can all agree that they aren't Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, right?), and (4) this has been cited in other news articles.

What would you like me to do at this point?

All edits in question have been reverted or corrected. I have committed to rereading the rules and already done so, and will again. I believe that my edits have shown to be factual and simultaneously show non-favorable information of "alt-right" figures. So if there's anything else to discuss then please advise.

I believe that had this been addressed on my talk page or at least just an edit of the Andy Ngo page, then this would have blown over but again it seems that I am being singled out for mention of Antifa on Andy Ngo, and on no other pages which are critical of right wing figures have I had any pushback, which leads me to believe that there is partisanship and bias at play. But regardless of that, what would you like me to do at this point to bring this issue to a resolution so we can move forward? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not explained why you engaged in WP:OR to introduce the term antifa when you made this edit even though the term itself was not found in the source that you cited. Even if other sources previously referred to an allegation made by Ngo, who incidentally calls everyone antifa just as you accused me of being antifa, you have not explained why you felt it was appropriate for you to use wikivoice to call people antifa. I'm thinking of suggesting a topic ban for all US politics related topics, because you obviously WP:DONTGETIT. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you feel that you need to do, it seems that there is nothing I can do or say that will be enough and you already had set out to convict me from the outset.

I wasn't even given the courtesy of being notified as this was done behind my back so it was a secret inquisition until 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 looped me in.

I have edited and deleted references upon request, agreed to comply, provided links and sources, and when asked why I included the reference I explained.

And also for the record I did not call you Antifa, I asked a question as to any undisclosed connections given that there is so much being made out of this one word in a post, and as such questions about my partisanship were raised accordingly it is a fair question to ask. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be disingenuous, you appear to be much too intelligent to get away with that. It was, I think, obvious to everyone that read it that asking if they had "undisclosed connections" to antifa was tantamount to implying that they were antifa. And your claim of a "secret inquisition" because Teenyplayspop failed to notify you -- something that happens with great frequency on this page -- and then two hours passed between the posting of the report and your notification of it, with no topical commentary during that time is totally ridiculous and simply makes you look silly.

If it weren't for the fact that your editing history indicates that making the kind of POV edits you do is your entire purpose here, I would suggest you avoid the topic of American politics and edit in other subjects, but your clear partisanship inclines me to agree with TarnishedPath that an American politics topic ban would be in order. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave on a two-week vacation, so I don't have the time to put together a coherent proposal, but if anyone does have the time and energy to do so, please consider this to be a Support vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "POV edits you do is your entire purpose here"? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and what do you mean by "clear partisanship"? Have you not read the edits on Tina Peters, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, Gregg Phillips, etc.? It seems the sole basis of this claim is the one mention of Antifa in Andy Ngo's edit, and there was no evidence of partisanship considering I showed the sources cited. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just quit making justifications already? The source you cited was this. Tell me exactly where in that source the word "antifa" appears? TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained the original citation / suit and the defendants, if you want I can put these 4 citations mentioned above in the original edit that all 5 were sued (3 mentioned in the article and this was removed even though they are mentioned by name), 2 dropped in civil, no denial from these 5 or Antifa when he sued them as they no showed, etc. and that would be more thorough and accurate all around.

To say that there is zero connection considering that they were in the lawsuit, 3 / 5 lost, are "left wing activists" and moreover trying to ban me instead of even a warning about this is extreme. and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Also, I've been accused of partisanship and such, and when I explain you're being extremely passive aggressive in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression

PS Current issue about Antifa aside, where are my supporting of conspiracy theories on my other pages about "alt-right" figures? There have not been any piece of evidence provided, considering I directly quoted The Hill & Washington Post and provided the links. Please retract these accusations and stop Wikipedia:CASTING ASPERSIONS RevolutionaryAct (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still WP:DONTGETIT. Those other citations which mentioned 'antifa' were pre-existing to the section and they said that Ngo accused people of being 'antifa', which he accuses everyone of being. The bit you wrote was a stand alone paragraph/sentence with its own citation and not once in the source was the word 'antifa' used. Even if you are claiming to rely on previous citations, you didn't use the word in a way to acknowledge that it was an accusation, you straight up said they were 'antifa'. The fact that another editor had to clean up your edit speaks for itself. Then in this conversation you for all intents and purposes accused me of being 'antifa'. If you can't see a problem with what you're doing then I really need to ask if you are competent enough to be here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, and all that had to be done is remove the word from the edit and perhaps make a comment on my talk page. However given the extreme bias from the person who reported me, this appears to be in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression and now there is talk of banning me.

I have been here since 2007 and not had any issues, and the fact that you're taking the word of what appears to be a sockpuppet account formed 07/31/2023 who has only a few edits over mine is extremely suspect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and PS multiple news sources with left, right, and center biases all have since confirmed that the event was organized by Rose City Antifa, and furthermore that members of the mob (organized by said group) attacked Ngo, of which 3 of 5 he successfully sued:

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-journalist-gets-300000-after-antifa-assault-protest-1821760

https://news.yahoo.com/conservative-journalist-andy-ngo-wins-191317437.html

https://themessenger.com/news/journalist-andy-ngo-awarded-300000-in-lawsuit-against-antifa-protesters-for-milkshake-attackhttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/antifa-thugs-who-assaulted-reporter-andy-ngo-ordered-to-pay-300000/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/22/andy-ngo-wins-300000-judgment-against-antifa-membe/

It is upon you and the original accuser(s) to show that all of these news sources are incorrect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's two obviously garbage sources and two content farms so well done. Maybe in your 15+ years here you should have become familiar with WP:BLP? Your edit was obviously terrible, these sources do not support it and also do not retroactively make it non-terrible, and at some point you should be like "Yeah sorry my edit was bad, I apologize" or similar. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

note that User:Teenyplayspop may be a sockpuppet or working in coordination with other accounts, as all are very recent edits and account formed only 07/31/2023, a possible sockpuppet account evading ban due to citing advanced rules and weaponizing edits which is not normal.

Support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Teenyplayspop • Username: Teenyplayspop • Registered: 23:34, 31 July 2023 (24 days ago) • Total edit count: 198 • Number of attached accounts: 5

Initially this user deleted my one edit on Andy Ngo as "biased" and accused me of being "partisan" due to a mention of Antifa (for which he is famous for documenting) and opened an investigation into me, however, Teenyplayspop's talk history shows an extreme bias and failure to remain neutral in talk towards the subject, let alone conservatives, right wing, etc.

Here are the various comments on Ngo's talk page from Teenyplayspop showing animus towards the subject and anybody with a different view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

The guy literally calls anyone with dyed hair and a mugshot "antifa" for simply being at a protest. If we are being fair hes a lazy journalist that is always a grifter Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ngo is a journalist? I thought he was known only for his role in misinformation campaigns. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was just being generous. Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservative and (american)right wing are the same exact thing. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

right wing is a notable term used by political scientists to describe someone who is pro-capitalist. That's all it is. I consider myself left wing and don't see that as a pejorative. My family considers themselves "the right" and they don't see that as a pejorative. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

aligning himself with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer most notably. His Twitter functions as a doxxing list where he calls everyone antifa and a pedophile. He's a grifter more than anything Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have so much of it from Andrew Duncomb and Alan Swinney's personal social media videos when they were doing 'flag waves' in the northwest during 2020/2021. But apparently thats not a real source apparently according to wiki. You can pretend he's not what we say he is and we can just roll our eyes i guess Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As for the collusion evidence it is noteworthy that two days after on the same board another user appeared User:TarnishedPath making the following comments, and TarnishedPath is one of the users on this thread who became involved.

That went a lot smoother than I imagined. Thankyou everyone involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no I didn't accuse you of bad faith. As far as I'm aware bad faith is not required to violate edit warring restrictions. All that is required is not sufficiently making ones self aware of the conditions of editing. In any case I already striked the comment that got your back up as a show of good faith, please refer to my comment above. As I suggested on WP:AN3 I could very well tag your talk with warnings re: WP:AGF also if I was so inclined. There's really no need for this continue. I suggest you undo your last edit on my talk and we drop this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, User:Teenyplayspop began going through my history and deleting posts with the sole comments as "hogwash" instead of countersources, additional information/context, or even a talk, which is a form of WP:Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia&action=history

Failure to remain neutral and weaponizing against another user is cause for concern in light of this user's own admitted bias and talk history, and appears to be a WP:Personal Attack.

If one scrolls to the bottom I have provided links and sources for all points regarding my initial claim, which have since been confirmed in no less than 6 reliable sources. None of the others have, they have essentially nothing aside from they don't like me, my style, my supposed political leanings, and really, the use of one word. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:SPI something else you have not learned about in your 15+ years editing here? --JBL (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migsmigss indeffed by ToBeFree, and their user page deleted on request by GirthSummit after multiple failed unblock requests. Ravenswing 12:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved from WP:ANEW

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following section, originally titled "User:KyleJoan reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )", was created at the edit warring noticeboard. The usual form asking for "page, user being reported, previous revision reverted to, diff of the user's reverts" et cetera was not filled out, so this is not just topically but also syntactically rather suitable for ANI than ANEW. I have removed the broken form, fixed the lack of indentation in Migsmigss's comments and changed the heading slightly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reverting edits and owning articles, even asking me why I've started editing on articles he's supposed to be editing for a long time. I didn't know Wikipedia and those articles have been owned by this editor, and that I need to provide explanation when and where I edit?

Please see: [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], [[44]]. Migsmigss (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave pertinent details out, Migsmigss? Some of the thorough explanations for my reverts.[45][46] The four requests to review what a minor edit is,[47][48][49][50] the last of which was where our interaction began. The fact that you had never edited one of the articles I referenced in relation to possible hounding until after you interacted with me–you had made one prior edit on the other.[51][52] Your intention to continue to hound me by beginning to edit another article I frequent, Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), after filing this report.[53] The entitlement in asking for an explanation when you are reverted when you never bothered to summarize the initial edit (and numerous others).[54] KyleJoan^talk 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, when an editor edits articles another one had edited first, it's already hounding? You are accusing me of hounding, based on who edited which articles first? I didn't leave important details out. Not in this discussion, not in the edits I made. But you've reverted most if not all of them, even the improvements in punctuations and grammar. Why? I suspect article ownership. Do you own those articles? Aren't other editors allowed to make edits? Migsmigss (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see [55]. "Capitalization" changes were not helpful? When it's diction and sentence flow, aiding semantics, were improved, and simply not capitalization?

This is not only edit warring on the part of KyleJoan, but also ownership of articles. Plus the accusation that I'm "Hounding" them. Wow. Just wow.Migsmigss (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block you received in 2019 was partly due to hounding, was it not? KyleJoan^talk 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A resolved issue that's irrelevant to this discussion. Accusing me of hounding, though, and reverting all edits not done by you ([56]|1], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]) simply because you want to keep your edits without valid reason, is article ownership and edit warring.Migsmigss (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't intially summarize, I don't summarize in return. When you look at my history, I'm pretty elaborate in my summaries. Here's the summary for my last edit. Your last edit included a WP:BLP violation (i.e., an unsourced middle name). It was also incorrectly marked as minor. Again. KyleJoan^talk 09:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't explain your accusation of me hounding you, and your insistence that I explain my edits to you, simply because you've already preposterously accused me of hounding you:

"How long have you been interested in contributing to Paul Mescal and Taron Egerton? Is it merely a wild coincidence that you began editing the two, both of which are in my 50 most recent contributions, after our interaction on Staz Nair."

Can't I edit said articles? Why would I need to explain how long I've been editing these articles (when said information is available to you in my edit summaries), and explain these especially for you? Are edits more valid when the editor has been editing said articles for a long time, or is it just a way for some editors to insist on their edits, and revert all other edits not made by them? Which you've done.

The edits I made were mostly minor, punctuation marks and grammar. But you reverted all of them simply because you want to own these articles.Migsmigss (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migsmigss, at very least when editing featured articles such as the one about Paul Mescal, you'll generally have to expect reverts because you are changing something that has passed a strict community review to something that is likely just a personal preference. This is described by the "Featured articles" section of the policy against article ownership. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, ToBeFree, but I think you meant to link Christian Bale, which is one of the two articles Migs had never edited prior to our dispute. My guess is they found it on my contributions page and decided to edit it. Migs has not denied hounding despite having ample opportunity to do so. KyleJoan^talk 10:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was sure I had seen the FA star at the top right of Paul Mescal. Sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I find laughable (and hypocritical) is when editors like KyleJoan insist only on their edits (article ownership) by reverting all other edits, when those edits are simply minor, such as the addition of the right and necessary punctuations, and improvements on cohesion and flow. Editors like KyleJoan, who revert all edits not made by them, are simply gatekeeping and doing article ownership. No doubt about that, in my opinion. Actions like this won't inspire more editors, new editors who want to contribute, and in turn won't inspire more edits and growth in Wikipedia. It is in my opinion, that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership and edit warring, and accusing other editors of hounding and other ridiculous accusations then requiring these newer editors to explain things for them to support their unreasonable accusations, simply are bullying these newer editors to submission—these actions are more detrimental to the site, than they are helpful. Editors like KyleJoan who look down on newer editors, and then gatekeep and own articles insisting only on their edits as the right and one-true edit, are, in my opinion, a harm to this site in the long run.Migsmigss (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migsmigss, by which path have you reached the article about Christian Bale today? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google search "Christian Bale wiki"—Why, does the path determine whether an edit or a series of edits is valid or not? I have long since wanted to make edits in Christian Bale, among other articles I wanted. Also, is any other way to the Christian Bale article wrong or inadmissible?

Again, it is in my opinion that actions done by KyleJoan—article ownership[verbatim copy of text already present above removed ~ToBeFree] Migsmigss (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter for determining whether there might have been harassment involved.

You have already stated your opinion; please avoid repetition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hounding accusation and the condescending nature by which the accusation was delivered by KyleJoan, should also be reviewed for harassment.

I repeated myself only because I didn't think my part was heard, or if heard, taken into due and equal consideration. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migsmigss, I have looked closer at this now, and there are less than four minutes between [63] and [64]. Your contribution list around that time looks like this: [65] You did a Google search in between them? Why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?Migsmigss (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because all you had to do was clicking "Christian Bale" in KyleJoan's list of 50 latest contributions. I'll probably block but I'll wait for Bishonen's opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to weigh in here because I blocked Migsmigss for two weeks in February 2019 for some appalling behavior including hounding, which I described here. It was pretty bad, but was more than four years ago, so I don't think it's highly relevant at this time. However, reading through the discussion above, it's obvious to me that Migsmigss is again behaving appallingly, in both their vengeful actions towards KyleJoan, and their evasive and insulting posts on this very page (and here, too). I recommend a block of at least two months, and would not object to an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll end this with an indefinite block. Adding commas before "and" ([66] [67]) directly after reporting KyleJoan looks like an easy way to make any edit with the sole purpose of hounding rather than the "long since wanted to make edits" explanation above. I assume that Migsmigss was looking for plausible deniability in their harassment, but has failed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IP has been exclusively either deleting sourced information and/or adding unsourced material, clearly promoting a particular national/ethnic POV; e.g. [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. They've provided zero explanation in edit summaries, have not responded to multiple warnings on their user talk page, and have continued these edits since the last warning. R Prazeres (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to block User:Nguyễn Năng Quang. He has reposted the copyrighted images of Vietnames banknotes over and over again in his article 100 Vietnamese đồng. I listed them at for deletion at Commons[79], where they were deleted[80], only for the uploader to readd them to Commons and to enwiki articles. And when he isn't doing this again and again, he does this or this. Fram (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that that seems to be two accounts. Likely the same person, but two accounts as one is User:Nguyễn Năng Thủy. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the highlighted copyvio issues and this image (that they uploaed to this project), I will ping Diannaa. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else the images are incorrectly attributed as they claim the bank notes are their own work. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The four images that are local uploads are all tagged as fair use. I have nominated the ones at the Commons for deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder why they moved the local upload (that they initially tagged as fair use) to Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one was actually uploaded to the Commons first, at 13:16, August 24, 2023 and locally at 14:13, August 24, 2023. Then they blanked the page, presumably because it is a duplicate of File:100 dong.jpg. I gotta take my mom shopping now and will be gone for several hours — Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Clarifying. They didn't upload it locally, they just created a local page for it, hence the confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that User:Nguyễn Năng Quang, who this is about, was not notified of this discussion. Only User:Nguyễn Năng Thủy was. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's my mistake, I went to their page from a page history, and didn't notice the different names. Thanks for noting this, I have now notified the correct editor. (I presume there is some connection between them, as Thủy only edits pages created by Quang it seems). Fram (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yousefsw07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was previously blocked on 19 August for 72 hours for making unsourced (or unsupported by the included source) POV edits; see archived report here. Since the block expired, they've already returned to this behaviour, including repeating reverted edits at the same articles as before:

• This edit repeats this previously reverted edit.
• The "source" in this edit doesn't verify what they added. And it's very similar to this this earlier logged-out edit, reverted for the same reason.
• Here they deleted a reference and changed information about ethnicity without explanation or other sources.
• Even this edit, which might look constructive, still inserts unsourced claims, similar to what they've done elsewhwere.

R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This sounds harsh, but in my opinion an indefinite block is in order. They have been warned. They have been blocked. They have continued. Unsourced content is in a way worse than outright vandalism; readers can tell when a page is vandalized; they can't when the plague of Wikipedia has slipped in. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: working on reverting these. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also these comments on my talk page, which strongly suggest what I've suspected for some time: that multiple editors pushing a similar POV across articles (all related to Libyan history/conflicts) are communicating off-Wiki and encouraging this behaviour. Note the references to unidentified "many people" and to "a friend of mine" which can only refer to one of several previously blocked accounts. I'm thinking of making a separate report on this issue with some of the evidence I've compiled, but for now I think Yousefsw07's edits can be considered on their own. The comments I've just linked certainly suggest that they don't understand what they're doing wrong. R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second update: In response to more information, I've tried to provide an additional, fuller explanation to Yousefsw07 and another editor on my talk page to try to persuade them to follow Wikipedia guidelines instead of what they've been doing so far ([81]). I've invited Yousefsw07 in particular to explain here whether they intend on changing their behaviour ([82]). Let's see what happens. R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 User blocked: user indeffed by Cullen328. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• HRM King Muad'Dib Jamel El'Osiris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's userpage contains what seems to be some bizarre bio about how God called them to be the "African diaspora king." Appears to be a user that is WP:NOTHERE. funplussmart (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The user page has been deleted. I just tagged two of the files they uploaded as lacking sources; Image tagging bot got the other two. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and tagged their sandbox as a copyvio. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked HRM King Muad'Dib Jamel El'Osiris as not here to build this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is an IP editor (with dynamic IPs) who, over the last couple months, has been vandalising various pages with names of people, and some of the edits have been privacy-infringing enough that they've had to be surpressed. When the most common pages were protected they stopped, but immediately started again after the protection expired. They have also occasionally been rude to editors (such as the edit summary of this diff). I honestly don't know what more admins can do other than continue to block when their new IPs show up, but I thought I'd put this here since it's consistent and has been going on for a while now, just in case something can be done.

IPs:

• 31.217.32.102
• 31.217.33.69
• 31.217.62.158
• 46.188.240.81
• 46.188.241.3
• 31.217.2.111 (most recent)

Common pages:

• Pandorina kutija
• Godine nestvarne
• Jače manijače
• Various South Park pages, notably South Park (season 5)

I've put the ANI template on the latest IP's talk page, but let me know if I need to add it to the previous ones too. Thanks for all your hard work on this page. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @JBW: who put a partial block on the 31.217 range. Perhaps the same can be done for the 46.288 range as well. --Jayron32 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth and Jayron32: I did also put a partial block on 46.188.241.0/24, but that doesn't cover 46.188.240.81. I'm not sure why I didn't include that: maybe I just didn't notice it, or maybe it was because there has been no recent editing from there recently. I was very unsure how much blocking to do, and eventually settled on a fairly minimum amount. None of the articles in question has been edited by the 46.188.240.0/24 range since the last block, in July, and I am normally reluctant to block a much used IP range where there has been none of the disruptive editing recently; however, for a partial block on just a few pages, the risk of collateral damage is negligible, so now that you have prompted me to rethink, I shall go back and extend the block from 46.188.241.0/24 to 46.188.240.0/23, and also add the article Godine nestvarne, which I missed before. The South Park articles are more difficult to deal with, because there's a large number of pages which potentially could be involved, and since it isn't possible to put a partial block on more than 10 pages, it's quite likely that whatever pages are included in a partial block, the editor may just move to other ones. However, looking at the editing history, I see edits from the relevant IP ranges only on 6 South Park related pages, so that together with the other three articles listed above, they can be fitted into a partial block, so I will do that. Suntooooth, if you see any editing from this person on any other pages, please feel welcome to contact me, and I will consider whether further action should be taken. JBW (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thanks very much for your help :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered some vandalism on "X year in Malaysia" article series, with anonymous editor(s) add random entries in the Birth section in the last 2 years or so, but I believe it had gone on for a longer time. Many of these pages should be page protected as they are not frequently looked into, or that IP address range(s) should be blocked long term. I have would go to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, but given the long-term vandalism across multiple pages, I leave it to any interested admin(s) to decide either way.

List of some of the affected pages:

• 1993 in Malaysia
• 2004 in Malaysia
• 2005 in Malaysia
• 2006 in Malaysia
• 2007 in Malaysia
• 2008 in Malaysia
• 2010 in Malaysia

(actually, too many to list. One will have to go through the pages at least from 1980, I think, to now).

Current IP addresses:

• 27.125.240.0/24

Some of the prior ranges I have seen:

• 27.125.249.0/24
• 27.125.242.0/24
• 2405:3800:805:f661:989f:cfc3:169e:0/112

Also, not sure which IP talk page to leave the notice on. The last few edits made within minutes of each other were from different IP addresses. Either they were from different devices with different mobile SIM cards, or somehow managed to cycle through the different IP addresses assigned to that cell tower. – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, every time you turn off and on data, you are assigned a new address. 192.231.122.85 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, we can semiprotect pretty broadly to stop this. Laid down some protections... Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 192. Learning something new everyday. Thanks, Courcelles! – robertsky (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-responsive User:Laensom in continually[91] bulk adding NASA/Hubble images to a series of astronomy related articles without any MOS:PERTINENCE/significance or relevance to the topic's context, basically using Wikipedia articles as an image host for "pretty" pictures. Most images have no relationship to article text and have copy paste verbiage from a related website that is un-encyclopedic[92] or simply unintelligible[93]. Images are added indiscriminately causing image squeezes[94] or pushing pertinent information down the article[95]. Pointing out problems and guidelines[96][97][98] has no effect since the editor is non-responsive. Note: Same MO as non-responsive editor User:Pandreve who cropped up previously doing exactly the same thing[99]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too many reverts in a very short period to be allowed to continue unchecked. This new editor needs to be compelled to communicate and address the problems with their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They also seem to be copying text from elsewhere, for example here the caption was copied from a website that says its content is protected by copyright. I've removed it, but does it need a revdel? Brunton (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P-blocked from articles until they start communicating. If they do, any admin should unblock. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, request RD1 on the copyvio edits. 2600:100F:B1B1:3616:E556:9B81:40EC:3ECD (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright protected but under an acceptable license. Per https://esahubble.org/copyright/ ESA/Hubble images, videos and web texts are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. CC-BY is compatible with our CC-BY-SA. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

92.40.198.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please revoke the TPA of this anonymous users to prevent further personal attacks. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the range's block to remove TPA. Courtesy ping to JBW. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Reopened)..OP's queries answered significantly; Squared.Circle.Boxing advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. Lourdes 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [100]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.

So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]