Timeline

Sanctions considered and enacted below (indefinite GENSEX topic ban). (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Indef. Details on Square's talk page. Lourdes 04:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Unblocked per lack of actual disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per unblock. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 8 September 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]

Main discussion

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [1]. 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]

The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – ².O.^Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These comments [3] [4] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – ².O.^Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [5] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.

The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)

Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.

Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.

If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page.

While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious.

Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias.

Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision.

For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas.

Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not.

At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria.

Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns

• Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[6][7] is a serious thing. I hear this user has received a final warning about something from Black Kite. Will look for the diff.

I also feel this is an illustrative example of what happens when threads are closed too quickly and participants are not given enough time to air things out. This led to Clovermoss creating a T:CENT RFC, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC (WP:UPNOT), about this issue, when the core issue is probably one user's behavior, not necessarily a problem with policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem, I think much more is required here. While I'm not sure the original posting needed to be closed as quickly as it was (actually, I wasn't going to say anything, because I am a big believer in respect for administrative discretion, but Lourdes kind of had a little streak last week of being quick on the draw with the closes here at AN), you'll need to be much more clear about what you think the ongoing disruption here is if re-opening the issue is to accomplish anything.

The original thread was opened by Clovermoss not to bring SCB's conduct under scrutiny but rather to confirm that she (CM) had done the right thing in unilaterally editing another contributor's user space. While there was some variability in the feedback she received, the consensus seemed to be that she probably should not have done it, but it was going to be regarded as a kind of case of 'harmless error' in this instance.

CM then took the issue to VPP. She says this is because she wanted the policy to accurately tell other users in the future what they should and should not do in these instances going forward, but I'll be honest that I think it's pretty clear that this is slightly disingenuous and that she was fishing to see if she could find enough community support to challenge the notion that comments antagonistic to a blief in trans gender identity cannot be treated as per se "extremely offensive" such that any other user can feel free to edit them off the project. But while I think it is very clear that this is the outcome she is actually seeking, the inquiry was still in good faith.

However, it clear from the feedback in that discussion that the community does not have an interest in declaring all non-trans rights supportive expressions of opinion as per se "offensive". This outcome (which I personally have mixed feelings about) is consistent with what I tried to tell her I had perceived in other recent community discussions touching upon the same subject. At this time, there is no consensus to support (and indeed, some substantial animosity towards) a standard which would turn any unpopular opinion on gender identity into a WP:PA by default, on this project.

Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon.

So, in light of all of that, what do you see being accomplish by reopening this thread here at ANI? Do you have any extra diffs to provide showing ongoing disruption by this SBC, who, it must be noted, actually did not object to and accepted the editing of their user space even though they could have objected to it? The one diff you provided other than adding the infobox also falls into the same grey area and is quite stale besides. I think you need to do more to substantiate the need to review this user's conduct or else this thread should be closed again, since CM's inquiry is now being discussed much more thoroughly in the more appropriate forum to which they next took it.

At a minimum, can you link to the "final warning" this user supposedly got from Black Kite and explain the context? Was it related to the same issue, or concerning something else entirely? Saying "you heard something" about a final warning is not the usual level of diligence we expect in this space for implications of violations of behavioural policies, which is the kind of important pro forma issue I'd expect an admin to be on top of in these circumstances before bringing another editor here for review of their supposedly poor conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that might be worthwhile to bring up is the other userboxes, at least one of which is quite likely just as divisive. The big "ANTI: This user opposes religion as a whole." I'm not really used to being in a position to defend the interests of organized religion, I'm an atheist who will happily tell you, if asked, that religious beliefs aren't really any different from beliefs in other magical practices or cultural superstitions. I'm of an age where I read Hitchens and Dawkins. But having the statement that this user opposes a concept personal and integral to large swathes of both the population writ large and editors here on the project seems... not the most collegial to have front and center and outside of a context where it matters for some discussion rather divisive. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar outlook to you (that is, a lifelong atheistic outlook, but not particularly fond of the modern strain of militant, uncontextualized animosity towards all religiosity), but I don't think that I can regard that infobox as particularly hostile to any individuals. It's a statement about their views on a social institution, not the people who subscribe to it. Let me reiterate what I had to say on the subject in the earlier discussion: I would quite happily see all infoboxes which make statements about the user's personal views and values along social, political, religious, and ideological dimensions found to be too incompatible with WP:WWIN. Afterall, although they have long been tolerated, there are broad reasons to support the position that they violate any one or all of the following sections of that policy: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. So if we did away with these kinds of userboxes en masse, my main sentiment would be "Well, it's about time."

But unless and until we come to such a consensus as a community, I can't see making a case for disruption out of that particular infobox: we just should not be picking which such infoboxes likely to give offense to someone are causing offense for "justifiable" reasons, while leaving hundreds upon hundreds of others which also are likely to give offense to other users that are sensitive along other criteria. That way lays chaos, justified accusations of bias, and general community anarchy. We need a more general and equitable approach to such issues. Either cull the personal ideology bumper sticker culture of infoboxes collectively, or allow them generally. We can't afford to get in a habit of enforcing our own personal views through selective censorship of particular perspectives. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the RfC about the reopening of the ANI thread since I'm a bit wary about how you accessed the current consensus. It's entirely possible I'm wrong and that's how multiple people would access the situation.

As for my actions being a "harmless error", I really do think that if advice in a guideline page can be considered erroneous, that advice should be changed to reflect that. I appreciate that you say my intentions there were made in good faith, even if you consider it to also be disingenuous. Maybe I am fishing... I guess I just expected more from the enwiki community. I really didn't think my perspective was at all that odds with community norms since I see people blocked all the time for saying that "transwomen are men" or other commentary along those lines. The only reason I even am aware this editor exists is because he edited Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. [8] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been actively editing here for years, but keep up on the goings on, and I just had to sign in and address this: Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon. Contrary to what you say here, editors are regularly, rightly blocked for transphobic statements such as a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man. Hell, fairly recently an admin was emergency desysopped and quickly CBANned by the community for doing so. Both here, and at the RFC, I'm seeing a lot a bizarre equivocating that transphobia is akin to a "political stance." While it's true that transphobia is mainly championed by specific political entities, so is racism and anti-Semitism (usually by the same entities), and those bigotries are not afforded some "well, it's a political view" consideration when espoused by an editor. More specific to this thread, What is a Woman? is a virulently un-factual, transphobic propaganda film. Having a userbox saying you enjoyed it is on par with saying you enjoyed the Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf. It's equally unscientific, hateful nonsense that any editor who happens to fall into the category that that hate is directed towards should not have to be forced to share space with. Capeo (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Capeo: this is old but since this thread is still somewhat active I felt it okay to reply. I hate to dig at old wound, but I think we need to be clear about the history. About the desysop and cban, I'm assuming you're referring to [9]/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Site ban for Athaenara.

If so, I have to disagree with your characterisation of that case. It involved the editor interjecting their belief while opposing an RfA. This is not an "abstract belief" but instead is a targeted WP:PA since the editor was specifically saying the victim of their attack is not a woman. Note SCB's interjections in this case are on area of concern although even they acknowledged that what was done was wrong. (As an aside, per the consensus it wasn't quite a cban but instead one of those weird cases where it's not a cban but also not a case where an admin can unilaterally unblock.)

Express an abstract belief would be e.g. an editor adding a user box without mentioning anyone and not in the midst of some conflict with others. I'm sure some people have been blocked or banned solely for the abstract belief but I think it's actually a lot less common than you suggest. I don't think this is a bad thing, I've said before I'm very uncomfortable with site banning someone solely for being a Nazi as well so this isn't me tolerating transphobia as simply a political belief or more minor than other forms of bigotry.

However I think it's entirely reasonable to have a very low tolerance for misbehaviour from such editors, especially misbehaviour related to their horrific beliefs. Even more so if the editor comes anywhere close to targeting some specific editor. Likewise for anything which touches on harming living persons.

Also I disagree with SnowRise that expressing that belief on en.wikipedia is fine. IMO even if it's simply an abstract belief, it's still generally too disruptive and harmful to the community, although I wouldn't necessarily lean to a site ban or even topic ban straight away depending on what was said (an only warning with very low tolerance for anything further, sure). OTOH, I'm uncomfortable taking action over expressing that belief off-site even when the editor has linked that offsite identity here, unless they didn't simply link to their off-site identity but are linking to their off-site comments. But again I'm fine with taking action if there's any indication that this believe is affecting their actions here, even if that comes from off-site comments.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. Here's the diff I mentioned and what is essentially a third transphobia diff. Sorry for the delay in finding it. Thoughts? Is there a pattern of behavior here that needs more addressing than just the user removing the offending userbox from their user page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It's noteworthy that this diff is also quite stale. On the other hand, unlike the ones that were previously raised above, this is a case of the editor's views clearly having a direct impact upon their mainspace contributions, which does raise the question of whether a GENSEX TBAN is in order. However, I am also sensitive to the points raised by Lourdes below: this is not a case of a user who has fought tooth and nail to reject any criticism of their behaviour in this area, but one with a user who seems to have accepted the verdict of the community and demonstrated a willingness to adapt. Do I think it would be a loss to the project to have them restrained from making edits that touch upon GENSEX topics? No, probably not. But the standard for a CBAN is supposed to be higher: specifically that it is necessary to restrain ongoing disruption. I don't know that we can currently make a case for that in this instance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're not even accepting that they're formally WP:AWARE of GENSEX as a contentious topic. That alone is cause for concern given their history in the area. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this was closed too early. I would like to see Nil Einne's questions from above answered. It is surprising that SCB has not yet been topic banned from GENSEX. To me, their comments here thus far appear to be aimed at avoiding sanctions rather than showing an actual understanding of the problems with their actions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, as discussed directly with you, perfectly okay to re-open this discussion, given your points. My apologies in advance for the early closure (no mal-intentions, just an attempt to reduce the open load on ANI). Will take care on this going forward. Warmly, Lourdes 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Novem Linguae's third diff (linked directly here), I say an indefinite ban is in order for SCB. We got rid of Athaenara for her blatant transphobia, and we can keep doing that for other users until there are no more overt transphobes on the platform. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We might consider that this is an editor who seems to have apologised for their 5-month old mistakes, deleted the offending portions and blanked their user page itself to delete any offending material, participated at this ANI discussion, accepted that their edits were "bad form", accepted that the deletion of the userbox was okay. The question Novem asks is important: Whether a continuing pattern is evident to the community here? While it is not evident to me (the editor's most recent block is from me; so I am saying this with no love lost for them), I might be missing the elephant in the room... Thanks, Lourdes 07:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, an editor who, in an edit summary, says nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway in reference to a trans woman, should not be allowed to edit. Honestly, I don't get how older editors get a free pass. We've indeffed new editors for way less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  bad form and The sentence I added is regretted are a step in the right direction, but not what I would characterize as a full apology. The fact that this has happened 3 times is not encouraging either. I think an indefinite block is probably too much, but I think doing nothing is probably too little. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think an indef proposal would have a snowball's chance in these circumstances, to be honest. I think the question here is whether we are at a TBAN threshold yet. That is a close question, given we have a user who made at least a couple of clearly questionable choices, but who is not actively engaged in such edits and has made acknowledgments of a need for a change. Even so... Let's just say if the behaviour in question were just a tad more recent, or there had been one more incident, or they had pushed back against efforts at community restraint, I'd probably have already supported (if not proposed) a TBAN. But it's quite the definition of an edge case, really.

  Mind you, I find their personal attitudes towards trans self-identification to be cretinous, not to put too fine a point on it. But looking at their recent conduct and not engaging with the beliefs which I find ignorant directly, I am forced to admit that it is hard to make a case for ongoing disruption. It's not an easy distinction to make, but an important one, I feel. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. TBAN would be kind of pointless seeing as I barely edit the topic area, but pounds of flesh and all that, so go for it. Unless there's a specific question somebody has, I'll leave you folks to the hunt. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some specific questions:

Did you forget that you were alerted of WP:CT/GENSEX in 2021? Are you claiming to be unaware that GENSEX is an area that has special rules which require your best behavior?

If you were aware, are the edits to your user page an example of your best behavior? If they're not, what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot I was given a DS alert in 2021. And yes, I'm unaware of the rules around DS alerts, because the templates are wholly uninformative, as is the random link you provided above that tells me much about nothing. – ².O.^Boxing 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: You're right that the rules on alert can be confusing and were even more so in the past. But let's put aside the rules, for clarity, are you saying you not only forgot you'd been given the alert, but you forgot that "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" is a discretionary sanctions area, or now a contentious topic one? In any case, you are aware now that it is a contentious topic and so does require you to be on your best behaviour in those areas going forward. Is there anything about the contentious topic designation that still confuses you? I'm hoping you understand what's expected so can can count on you to avoid the stuff editors have raised concerns about going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, I'm now aware, so what I did or did not know back when isn't important. From reading Wikipedia:Contentious topics, I'm assuming there isn't actually a seperate special set of rules, but that the standard policies are applied in a zero tolerance fashion? Or is there an actual page that lists this special set of rules? – ².O.^Boxing 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. If you're not being intentionally obtuse, and still truly don't understand contentious topics, you should refrain from editing in any contentious topic area going forward. We've exhausted trying to explain it to you. I've never seen an editor with a tenure like yours struggle this much to understand the basics of CT. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. I haven't said otherwise.

Let me clarify the sequence of events: you gave me my very first CT alert; I read the notice and made my way over to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, for the very first time; I expressed my new-found (because it was my first time reading it) understanding of the basics of CT, along with a request for clarification (note the use of ?s); you replied with a very odd interpretation of things, but still confirmed that my initial assumption--based on my very first read of CT--was indeed correct.

Your comment is baffling and so ridiculously far off the mark, that coupled with your mischaracterisation of events in your initial comment, I think you should take a step back and let others deal with this. And I am, of course, assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse. Regardless, you've gave me enough cause to let me know that engaging with you is not a good idea, so I shan't be responding to your future comments. Cheers.

I believe I've addressed the relevant points so shan't be paying attention to this thread. Pings will be required if there's any further issues I need to address. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway. (Link)

I'm rather unclear on why the editor wasn't topic banned back in April after this edit summary was made. I feel like far too much rope was given when the editor was being quite clear on their inappropriate actions being purposeful. Silverseren^C 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the more problematic of the edits. But note that the disruption can, in that instance, be tied to more than just people taking offense at SCB's beliefs: the edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring.

Still, even if it had been caught and brought to ANI or AE at the time, I'm not sure I share your confidence that it would have led to a TBAN. Mind you, I don't think anyone would have lost sleep over the matter if that had been the result--I certainly wouldn't. But typically the community doesn't TBAN an editor for one instance of ideologically-driven editing, even if it is coupled with a pair of user space edits suggesting bias in the same area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just the one instance though, there's several linked above. And while the current instance being discussed at the very top of this thread wouldn't be a reason for TBAN in and of itself, it combined with these multiple past instances shows a pattern that seems like more than enough to enact such a ban. Silverseren^C 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure I'm not missing relevant diffs here. Are you saying that there are additional mainspace edits in the same vein? Aside from the KSI article edit, I see the edit introducing the userbox (which per the discussion above and the RfC, is not a PA or per se disruptive, even if you and I and any number of other editors agree it casts his views as ill-informed and regressive), and a user talk comment, which I don't know how to classify, if I am honest, except to say that it too may fall under the umbrella of retrograde comments that we may just have to accept when working on a project that is built upon open discourse and pluralistic involvement of people with differing social beliefs.

And honestly, this is not a rhetorical inquiry: per my previous comments, I'm pretty on the fence here, and even a single additional problematic edit could make the difference to me, so by all means, let me know if I've missed one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their continued doubling down below makes me wonder why they're still welcome edit in that area, if at all. Star Mississippi 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm impressed by this kind of comment on Talk:Transgender genocide either. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And so it continues. The edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring...a single revert doesn't constitute an edit war. But sure, pick up where Formal left off. And what do you suppose has been missed about that diff, Clovermoss? Removing nonsense that has nothing to do with improving an article is a very common application of policy.

This is looking more and more like a desperate scramble to find something, anything, that can be used to enact people's desired punishment. I'll reiterate...Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. Unless the behaviour has continued, then... – ².O.^Boxing 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that a full apology has not been given here. Instead, it is being re-framed as a witch hunt. As if it's a problem for editors to be offended at transphobia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you expect an apology for behaviour that was dealt with by way of a final warning...in April. Behaviour that hasn't been repeated. – ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent diff from the article talk page was about a week ago. You truly don't see why I would take issue with you removing that comment and having a userbox that stated you enjoyed watching What is a Woman? You haven't even apologized, you just describe their concern as nonsense. Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like that I try to reach out and explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and also just show compassion and say stuff like you deserve to exist on their talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) that had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. That is what I described as nonsense, as I've more than likely done multiple times when removing other WP:NOTFORUM posts in unrelated areas. There was clearly an existing NOTFORUM issue as a prior discussion in the same thread was already shut down per NOTFORUM. Removal was appropriate and your interpretation of my use of the word nonsense is incorrect. – ².O.^Boxing 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked for the diff for this, but if I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) is accurate, can I please ask you to not remove the comments of others on talk pages? If a comment is particularly egregious, it will be removed by someone not involved or easily rebutted or refuted. A comment that doesn't name a particular editor – indeed, appears to go out of its way to not name any particular editor – isn't grounds for someone to feel offended enough to redact it even if they think it means them and are concerned if it is accurate. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"But sure, pick up where Formal left off." Huh, I guess you missed the part where I've been literally the only person involved in this thread who hasn't readily endorsed a TBAN for you, and has in fact spent paragraphs above hilighting that your expression of your beliefs does not in itself constitute sanctionable behaviour under our current community guidelines? Not out of any love for your backwards beliefs or your need to broadcast them here--let me assure you I find them as tedious and meritless as anyone here--but out of a desire for our policies to be applied equitably and out of a concern for the longterm implications for the project if we attempt to ideologically purge certain topic areas of contributors based solely on their beliefs as expressed in user and talk space, and not their editorial conduct in articles themselves.

All of that said, the most recent action brought to my attention is by far the most concerning to me, as is your laissez-faire response to others sharing their concerns about. Per WP:TPG, you are absolutely not allowed to remove another user's comments from a talk page, except under certain extremely narrow circumstances elaborated upon in that policy, none of which even remotely apply in these circumstances. Not only is raising concerns about editorial conduct not a WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but even if it were, the right thing to do in those circumstances would be to hat the comments, not delete them.

It's true that if the user whose comments you deleted had behavioural concerns, the talk page was not the place to have them (they should have brought here, AE, or to an admin directly), but that does not grant you the authority to remove them on your own onus. The fact that you say you have been making a habit of deleting comments in similar circumstances raises serious questions about your understanding of how discourse is meant to proceed here--concerns that go well beyond this one topic area, but which are exacerbated by the picture of your POV pushing in this area that is starting to come into focus here.

Because likewise, your latest IDHT response on the issue of deleting the content in the KSI article raises concerns for me: four years in here, no one should have to tell you that you do not have the right to unilaterally remove sourced content from an article merely because you happen to believe the underlying controversy that the content describes is ridiculous and should never have happened. That is high grade POV/RGW/CENSOR behaviour and if you don't get why it is not acceptable, I'm starting to get WP:CIR concerns here, regardless of whether you should be topic banned for your expressions of your trans identity skepticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)

Did you not mischaracterise a single revert as an edit war? I believe you did. The google definition of controversy is, prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. My take on events is that KSI used a slur and an incorrect pronoun; fans pointed this out; KSI issued an immediate apology. I saw no fallout to suggest there was any prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. The edit summary was unacceptable, for which a final warning was issued. The removal of sourced content is normal editing practice.

PAGs absolutely permit removal of other people's comments for the reason of having absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. Per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (TPG) It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article). The same sentiment is echoed at WP:NOTFORUM, Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, and Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. – ².O.^Boxing 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which remotely applies to this situation, as has been already pointed out above. I don't know how you think making us repeat ourselves is going to improve your position here, but here we go. First off, you've very tactically cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:TPG, leaving out all the language which proscribes what you did. But just dealing with the language you are trying to utilize for support of your actions here: this was not gibberish; it was not a test edit; it was not harmful or prohibited material; it was not comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself. It was an accusation of editorial malfeasance, impacting the content of the article. Now you may very well strongly disagree with that user's assessment in that instance, and you may think the specific accusations were either misconceptions or bald-faced lies. But those are not circumstances in which policy allows you redact another community member's contributions in a talk space.

Every bit of feedback you have gotten on here on this issue is consistent: your interpretation of how policy allows you to remove comments you find objectionable, and your rationale that these comments constitute NOTAFORUM violations, is flatly wrong. And the fact that you are telling us you have made a habit of deleting other talk page violations on this justification, combined with your ongoing WP:IDHT here, is indication of a real problem that is looking increasingly intractable.

Likewise on the KSI edit: the fact that you, in your own idiosyncratic view of the social value of such things, thought that the controversy was a tempest in a teapot, is not a valid editorial justification for removing content. Yes, the removal of sourced content is a matter of routine activity on this project. When you can justify it with policy and make a good faith effort to present those arguments and seek consensus on contentious issues. Not when it just happens to not look like a big enough deal to you for Wikipedia to bother mentioning.

I have spent a lot of time debating with others above about whether a TBAN was appropriate here (as the only skeptic), and where all of their arguments failed to completely win me over, you've done it for them yourself, by refusing to take any feedback on this issue onboard, and instead framing yourself as the victim of mob mentality. You may think that a TBAN is a fair price to pay in order to refuse to concede any of these points and voice your feeling that you are being mistreated here, but frankly, at this point you are raising broader issues about your ability to contribute non-disruptively in general. And if the person who just spent the last week acting as the closest thing you have to an advocate here is telling you this now, what do you think the dispositions of the other community members above look like at this moment? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seeing the new edits raised below, it's pretty damn ballsy that you would try to (inaccurately) cite NOTAFORUM as a reason you are allowed to delete another user's commentary critical of conduct, knowing that when you wanted post a completely inappropriate screed about your views on a trans topic, your stated justification was literally "Fuck NOTAFORUM". Yeah, I'm well off the fence now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per TALKOFFTOPIC, harmful includes personal attacks. Aspersions are personal attacks, making it subject to removal. The (however vague) PAs was not the driving factor, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; if a comment has nothing to do with the sole purpose of a talk page and also contains PAs, it may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Every bit of feedback on removing talk page comments has come from you and one other, and neither have provided contradictory policy that says the removal per NOTFORUM was inappropriate. The only relevant issue with the KSI edit is the already-dealt-with edit summary. Replaced with 'disagree this quickly resolved incident is worth mentioning with the others', where's the issue? Your disagreement of my rationale is irrelevant, and the edit summary was dealt with. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. These particular discussions are pointless and I'll refrain from engaging further. – ².O.^Boxing 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an RfA guys..... Lourdes 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes can you clarify what you mean by this please? Thanks! Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star... We are moving to sanction an editor based on somewhat old diffs and despite multiple apologies. I see that happen in some failed RfAs, so made the comment. Should the community project some standard pattern in our responses at ANI to apologising editors? I'm not a judge of that. A CBAN is the community's right to deliberate and implement; I would just suggest to my friends that the deliberation may take into account the editor's commitments made here, and decide likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

despite multiple apologies. Thank you for mentioning this. Do you happen to have a quote or a link to one of the apologies? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any high quality apologies. An apology that doesn't double down, takes full responsibility, shows they take this issue seriously, shows they take civility seriously, and shows self-reflection would go a long way with me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lourdes. I see it slightly differently, the editor is pointing out that they said the right thing when called out-I don't see that as an apology. Old diffs would be different if they were pre a prior sanction and therefore handled. That doesn't appear to be the case here. They just repeatedly toe the line to see what they can get away with. IMO as one editor, it's time for that to be addressed just as it would be if they were up for RFA. Star Mississippi 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of all relevant diffs presented thus far, for those getting in the weeds and/or who need a refresher:

Dec 1, 2021 — SCB receives a CTOP alert for GENSEX.

July 20, 2022 — At Talk:Transgender genocide, SCB posts a section titled lol, with the content ...at this article and the world. Sad times. Fuck NOTFORUM.

Oct 11, 2022 — On the talk page for a user who made a transphobic comment during an RfA, SCB responds to someone voicing their dismay with Behave. Biology isn't hateful. The end.

Oct 11, 2022 — SCB is blocked for 2 weeks due to this post, with the block summary Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: inflammatory conduct (diff); a long term problem

Oct 11, 2022 — In response to the block notice, SCB posts I share a similar belief (but disagree with the comment made in the RFA), which is firmly rooted in biology. To see a comment suggesting somebody is a hateful person for holding said belief is utterly ridiculous, and ironically rather hateful. and I categorically disagree with the personal attack; that was hateful. But the idea fuelling it--biology vs gender identity, the belief I share--is not hateful.

Mar 6, 2023 — On their userpage, SCB replaces a userbox that states This user thinks that RuPaul's Drag Race is a hideous TV series. with one that states This user enjoys watching What Is a Woman? (as discussed, What Is a Woman? is an anti-trans film)

Mar 9, 2023 — Next to the previous userbox, SCB adds one that reads "The thing about fantasy - there are certain things you just don't do in fantasy." – J. K. Rowling (Rowling is, of course, well known for her anti-trans advocacy)

Apr 7, 2023 — At KSI, SCB removes the entire "Use of transgender slur" section, with the edit summary Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway.

Apr 8, 2023 — Again on their userpage, SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously.

Apr 9, 2023 — SCB is warned on their talk page over the above edit summary on KSI, and is told Any repeat of transphobic nonsense like that and you may be joining them in being blocked. Don't do it, please. SCB sees and acknowledges this warning by reverting it an hour and a half later.

Aug 18, 2023 — At Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator), SCB removes a post from an editor expressing concern about what they perceive as ideologically driven editing, with the edit summary This nonsense doesn't belong any where near an article talk page

Aug 19, 2023 — The What Is a Woman? userbox is removed from SCB's page. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple more diffs that nobody has posted or mentioned yet.

Dec 1, 2021 — On an RfC over how to mention Rowling's anti-trans views, SCB posts We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans). (There's nothing wrong with voting for the option SCB voted for; I include this only for the dismissive attitude towards transphobia.)

Jan 5, 2022 — On the actual page for J.K. Rowling, SCB removes a paragraph from the section regarding her anti-trans views. (The paragraph was restored and, in edited form, remains on the page that section was eventually spun off into.)

Jan 24, 2022 — On the page for Julian Assange, SCB adds the deadname of Chelsea Manning, citing MOS:DEADNAME despite it saying no such thing.

Nov 5, 2022 — SCB removes the phrase "identifies as being" on the page for Kali Reis, with the edit summary Less of that. We're not talking about some made up fantasy gender. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wow. I wish more effort had been put in to compiling these diffs earlier in the discussion, but I thank the IP for doing so now. This is clearly more than enough conduct (over a prolonged period and despite warnings) to illustrate their profound POV in this issue and demonstrate their inability to contribute therein without disruption. That is to say, more than enough to justify the TBAN I have previously had mixed feelings about, especially when all this behaviour is combined with the user's responses to others above.

I still want to emphasize that not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community. For example, the third Oct 11, 2022 diff contains opinions which I feel are small-minded and ignorant, but which I think do not constitute PAs or disruption under our current policies. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is obvious, and much broader than the limited subset of diffs previously presented here demonstrated. I think it's time for an !vote on the proposed sanction SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, past behaviour was highly inappropriate. But sanctions are preventative, not punitive. I'm not seeing behaviour--since my final warning in April--that demonstrates the warning was insufficient and additional preventative measures are required. The calls for sanctions are therefore being reasonably viewed as punitive. I'm not interested in QAs or correcting people's mischaracterisations, so will refrain from engaging in such pointless back-and-forths. – ².O.^Boxing 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve already made a ton of edits to GENSEX that are far, far beyond the pale. It doesn’t matter if you’re remorseful about it— nobody’s ever going to trust you to edit in this area ever again. A known cheater isn’t going to suddenly get let back into a casino by saying “sorry, I haven’t cheated in months and swear not to do it again”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN proposal

Proposal: Squared.Circle.Boxing is formally warned not to remove the talk page contributions of other editors

Unblock?

In regards to the indef, I think it may have been a bit premature based on this comment. It doesn't seem like Square.Circle.Boxing intends to violate his topic ban, he's just frustrated with how this ANI went. Lourdes suggested another admin take a look at an unblock request but SCB hasn't made one and I think if I tried the template it might not work the way it should? Basically, creating a new subsection here seems like a decent idea. Any uninvolved admin want to take a look? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the block needs any further attention. SCB knows what to put in an unblock request, there is guidance at WP:GAB is they're not sure how to use the template. Until they make a request, no action is needed. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he can likely use the template for himself. I just figured it might be worth mentioning here since Lourdes updated the close to reflect he's been indeffed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bad block. Unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The block seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding. Since unblock is done, think we can move on unless a topic ban violation occurs. starship.paint (RUN) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a bad block at all, as "I'm going to ignore my topic ban" definitely was the most obvious interpretation of what SCB wrote there. That being said, Lourdes asked for confirmation he'd adhere to the topic ban, he agreed and clarified, so that's that. Loki (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in a couple of venues, I felt that the obvious interpretation was not that they'd ignore the topic ban, but that they felt it wouldn't actually impact where they planned to edit, so they had better things to do than get pestered by people who thought acknowledging-by-deleting wasn't sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would have been better for Lourdes to directly ask making it clear they needed clarification of a block would be forthcoming, rather than just relying on the refusal to answer the IP; only blocking if SCB persistently refused to affirm they would abide by the topic. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed I would have just treated it like an editor blowing off steam or having the last word stuff which we get a lot. (You didn't block me, I retired etc.) However I don't see anything wrong with seeking clarification as SCB does need to take the topic ban seriously. It's clear that this does have to affect SCB's editing since it's not plausible that they were really going to abandon their occasional poking of the matter, they never did before despite repeated warnings and despite that also managed to forget that the area was discretionary sanctions, now contentious topics. Noting that SCB didn't say it's not going to affect my editing much or will hardly affect my editing but instead "Won't affect my editing; won't prevent anything" implying it won't affect their editing at all rather than it simply won't have much of an effect. And this is putting aside that it's wide enough that it's quite likely editing areas affected by the topic ban will arise incidentally anyway which SCB needs to pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Sarek's judgement significantly and appreciate and understand the comments above about Square's talk page comments being about his general editing rather than about going back to edit in the TBAN area. Hopefully, Square's issue won't be back here, taking more time of all of us. Thank you, Lourdes 03:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Komoro72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [11] [12] [13]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [14]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [15]

Extremely hostile for some reason, making random attacks/rants:

• "Hello dear PanIranist history Please explain the topic and stop threatening users"
• Why you clear kurds from shamaran? Kurds own the myth why persians trying to stealing from kurdish myths? That was not a reply to me, but another user who warned them.
• Hello dear paniranist user please provide sources that this Kurdish dynasty name itself as iranians or Persians! blocking users with racial supremacist intentions are not acceptable on wiki

When I asked them why they were attacking me and whilst logged out a that, this was their reply, another attack:

do not ask personal questions about the way I use my personal devices as you are not Iranian itelat and wiki isn’t Iran!

I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [16]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Another user promoting Kurdish-everything and being uncivil towards you? You seem to find a lot of these... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my username is not doing me any favours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that the User:DeFacto be urgently investigated and banned from at least topics related to politics within the United Kingdom if not globally banned on this site.

The current Issue:
The user in question in the last month or so alone has been involved in a number of disputes relating to political news stories regarding or related to the Conservative Party. While initially these could be overlooked as individual isolated incidents, mostly taking place on talk pages, there is a commonality to these incidents that features a clear pattern of "Wikilawyering" with the aim of POV pushing not by the addition of new content but the repeated blocking of new content and disruption of discussions to include it, in particular through using the BLP policy as a blank cheque justification, and the painting of users who wish to include material as engaging in NPOV violations such editorialisation, cherry-picking of sources without evidence of this.

Examples:
- A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.[17][18]

- A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source) [19][20][21]
- On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[22] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.[23]

- A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323). [24]

- A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article [25], Synth despite it being in the source[26], and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation[27]
-On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion"[28], suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[29], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative[30].
-On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede[31] but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"[32]

Relevant Background Context:
The user DeFacto has prior background of this sort of behaviour, having received multiple bans for their conduct over the years (at times seemingly attempting to systematically avoid these given the 41 confirmed sockpuppets to be them).
Their longest ban was between 2012-2016 when they were globally banned from the English Wikipedia for their conduct on multiple articles[33]. On the discussion at the time for enacting this one user left this description of their behaviour, which I believe is apt:
A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while.

Summary:
Quite simply at this point looking at their recent behaviour it seems clear to me that whatever changes they claimed to have made to remove the ban and associated restrictions to it has since disappeared and are instead back to their old habits and therefore deserving of intervention at this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apache287 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was involved in the discussion at Huw Edwards where I wasn't so much concerned with POV issues but was completely bemused by their idea that because the story concerned one newspaper, other newspapers couldn't be used as sources because they were "rivals". I'm still bemused by it, to be honest. I'm also slightly confused by edits like this, when the rest of article clearly cites that this thing happened in detail. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was involved too, and agree with Black Kite's comment. And I've come across DeFacto at various UK-related articles in recent years. I wasn't aware of their background - they certainly haven't kept to their original claim in the unban request to edit motor vehicle articles. Their main interest seems to be modern UK politics articles. I've found them to be slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times. There's an obvious conservative/right wing POV. But I haven't really seen anything sanctionable. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeCausa, the problems I had 11+ years ago are well behind me and I have no restrictions on my activity. As for my 'main interest' at this moment, I'd characterise it as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You'll see in my editing history that I've tried to improve one or more of those in articles about politicians from the Tory, Labour, and SNP parties; articles about civil servants, various convicted criminals, people accused of crimes, articles about police investigations, articles about car designers, and many others. I also dabble in a myriad of other automotive, engineering, geographical, and measurement articles, and any article I come across a clear non-NPOV bias in (whether it's political, or something else). I'm disappointed you think there's any political bias in any of these - I have no political affiliation, or political agenda in my editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't referring to a specific party political bias - just a general left/right/centre bias. It's not a big deal - it's apparent for many editors. But I'm confused by your reference to editing "measurement articles". Isn't a condition of your indef unblock that you are TBAN'd from those? DeCausa (talk)

  @DeFacto: could you clarify the position on your editing of measurement articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeCausa, any restrictions I had have been lifted years ago. I currently have no restriction on the editing of measurement articles. The log of current restrictions is here - and I'm not in it. Can we let historical troubles rest now please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I'm bringing it up here is that it's not simply "they have a bias" but what frankly comes across as being in a very short period of time (5 weeks or so) the using of Wikipedia policies as a blunt instrument to pursue that bias. What was notable with the cases I've exampled is that they state as though they're acting out of concerns over neutrality but never present this other "narrative" (for lack of a better word) that is reliably sourced that they suggest is being suppressed by myself or others by cherry-picking.

  Even if I assumed honourable intentions in the two instances I've had direct or adjacent involvement with (Huw Edwards and Nadine Dorries) it seems to be their insistence that NPOV means that if there's only one notable, reliably-sourced "narrative" and no contrasting one then we don't note anything when that's not the policy. Apache287 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite,

  1. Re the Edwards talkpage COI discussion. We had a bizarre situation there where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.
  2. Re your slight confusion. The article did not support the assertion that there was "mounting public pressure", let alone that it led to the resignation. Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR. Apache restored it. I reverted and warned that as it was a BLP issue so needed consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCT. Apache disregarded that warning and reverted again. As I assumed the BLP situation was serious, I reverted back, exactly as WP:BLPREMOVE commands: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); ..., and repeating the warning. What was wrong with doing that?

  -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You wouldn't call the demands of the councils of two of the largest towns in her constituency to resign, plus multiple members of her own party "mounting public pressure"? I would. I mean, the sentence is not massively important, because the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that such pressure existed, but it just seems a bit odd to remove it. It's clearly not a BLP issue, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances. I'd call it's use here gross exaggeration. And it was the juxtapositioning to imply it was the reason for the resignation too that seemed to be SYNTH to me. But I can't speak for the editor who first reverted it as OR. And I was worried about my responsibility wrt WP:BLPREMOVE, and the restoring in defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances.

  My literal first addition into the lead came at a time when this was already in the main body of the article:

  "Numerous prominent political figures, including Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and several senior Tory MPs, have all stepped forward in August 2023, calling for her resignation following her earlier commitment to step down. Their criticism stems from Dorries' limited presence in parliamentary sessions, her voting record, and the absence of constituency surgeries in the town since 2020."

  So clearly there was national pressure from all three major UK-wide parties including the Prime Minister himself. Can't exactly get more "national" than that. Apache287 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a few political figures and MPs calling for her resignation, and not "mounting public pressure". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those "few figures" happen to be the heads of three out of four of the UK's largest political parties, and, as @Apache287 already noted, the Prime Minister himself who is also a fellow party member of Dorries. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cortador, yes, three politicians. So 'mounting political criticism', perhaps, noting that two of the three are opposition party leaders, specifically tasked to criticise anything and everything related to the Tories and undoubtedly with their own agendas too? But that was certainly not "mounting public pressure".

  And how does that excuse the repeated defying of WP:BLPRESTORE, which says, If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, rather than taking it to the talkpage where an attempt to achieve consensus could have spared us all this drama. It looks like battle field, rather than collegiate, behaviour to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't genuinely be throwing stones at me when you've just tried to argue that a week of reverting by yourself for several claimed policy infractions (which a number of editors here have now questioned as a rationale) is all because I used "public pressure" rather than "political criticism" and you could've just... changed that at the time.

  Even the most "benefit of the doubt" interpretation of that would still be that it's your behaviour that's causing the problem, if only due to stubbornness/laziness rather than POV-pushing. Apache287 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, yes, your position gradually moved from this original addition to the latest incarnation. But BLP doesn't say that infringements can be tolerated if they're not as bad as they originally were. If BLP content is disputed, it should not be restored, it should be taken to talk, and the onus to do that is on the editor who wants it added. Upholding BLP is very clear about this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your refusal to accept that policy requirement, and battle field mentality, and dirty tactics, used in trying to force your will on the article were mendacious and extremely disruptive, and you still don't seem to get it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't an infringement against policy, you just keep declaring it so and wikilawyering as literally everyone else tells you it's fine.

  You also keep deliberately misrepresenting someone else as "supporting the view it was OR" when they removed it due to changes that had been made by a third party. Apache287 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, the stuff you added to the BLP was contentious, so it was removed. WP:BLPRESTORE says If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. You did not attempt to achieve a consensus, you simply forced your content into the article - that was a contravention of the BLP policy. Had you taken your argument to the talkpage, rather than treating the policy with contempt, you might have convinced us that you were right, who knows, but you were wrong not to try that first, before re-adding content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Contentious means something that is controversial, which if that was the case you could actually back up with RS.

  It doesn't mean "@DeFacto doesn't like it and because they alone don't like it then there's no consensus and it's contentious."

  This is precisely why I brought up your prior bans, because even a decade ago people could note that you love to claim "lack of consensus" as a reason to single-handedly stonewall other users. Apache287 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR.

  Actually no they didn't. What they removed was a line that by then had seen the cited source changed by an intermediate edit: [34]

  So my initial edit with the source I used to justify it was never deemed OR by anyone but yourself. Apache287 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, they made this edit, changing "After mounting public pressure, she formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". and then, after someone else made two unrelated edits, you made this edit, changing "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "Following mounting public pressure she formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". That is a revert, back to what had been removed for avalid, good-faith, reason. And it is the result of that edit of yours that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just continue to ignore the fact that, as I said and showed with the diff above, by then an intermediate editor had replaced the source I'd used to justify the wording with a completely different source. Look at citation 3 following the line in question on first the diff I made, and then the diff immediately prior to them removing the sentence for OR.

  As can clearly be seen, the source used as a citation for that sentence had been changed by someone else, not me. Apache287 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem.

  Because someone had removed the source, so it was unintentionally left unsourced so I replaced it with the source re-applied.

  Massive difference to what you're misrepresenting it as.

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP.

  Except it is an incontrovertible fact that there was mounting pressure. The leaders of the three main UK-wide parties put public pressure on her calling for her to resign, a number of MPs in her own party publicly called on her to resign, notable public bodies in her constituency publicly called on her to resign.

  You alone, a week later, are alone in claiming that isn't public pressure.

  Good grief, I really think this alone happily shows to everyone just why I believe this can't be genuine good-faith opposition at this point, because you're still to this day essentially arguing that unless you agree with what Reliable Sources say then it can't be added. Apache287 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Needless to say, I refute all of these bad faith, and malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations. They are mostly misrepresentations and false representations of my actions. Then there's the use of muckraking in an attempt to discredit me. I could go through each of the allegations one-by-one if anyone is interested. Or if there's any one of them that anyone else takes seriously, I can address that one if you like. But whatever, I'm not sure that Apache287 is here to improve Wikipedia, but more to push their POV, and clearly by force if opposed. They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this. I see a very good case here for WP:BOOMERANG. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this."

  Actually if you look at the time stamps on that discussion I didn't hijack anything. By the time I made my comment there had already been discussion regarding your decision to suggest cherrypicking on the part of @Cortador and I, as I believe I am allowed to do so, make a statement why I believed it was your conduct that was out of line based on my interactions with you, where I provided a number of diffs to support my belief that you showed a pattern of behaviour amounting to Civil POV pushing and that therefore I believed at the time (and still do) that your reporting of them was motivated by that POV pushing and as said towards the end of that submission I was in half a mind to submit my own complaint about your behaviour which then continued.

  You on the other hand put multiple (and frankly unsubstantiated) warnings on my talk page, such as claiming I was making unsourced additions to the Nadine Dorries article and that I was making "personal attacks" for using this forum to report my genuine concerns about your behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the whole OR/SYNTH conversation above. We're talking about this diff, yes? Apache added the content sourced to this which says: Tory MP Nadine Dorries has resigned her Commons seat more than two months after promising to step down ... It follows mounting pressure on the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and PM Rishi Sunak after Dorries pledged to step down some 78 days ago. So how is this OR/SYNTH? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader, for my take on this, please see my response to Black Kite above, made at 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, you're arguing that reliable sources do not support the idea that there was mounting pressure for Dorries to resign? Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen, no, that's not what was being disputed. What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted Apache287's addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

  My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

  I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen Just want to say what DeFacto is claiming here about a second editor deeming my edits to be OR is in fact completely false. As I've already demonstrated with multiple diffs is that an intermediate editor replaced the RS justifying my edit with a different one, so was technically changed to OR by someone else before being removed at a later point for that reason. Apache287 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, that's something we could have thrashed out, and included them in, on the talkpage, if you'd have followed the requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE, rather than just totally rejecting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No it clearly wasn't, because even from the getgo you would just come up with another reason to completely reject even when, as many others have pointed out here, your supposed "it's BLP vio" complaint doesn't hold any water. Now you're at the point of rather badly trying to argue "my problem is that it was political criticism, not public pressure" which would've required all of two words being edited rather than the effort to endlessly revert and throw up walls of authoratative-sounding text on talk pages.

  So maybe instead of hiding behind whatever ALL CAPITAL WORDS POLICY SHORTCUT you like to use maybe actually look at the fact people keep telling you that you're using it wrong. Apache287 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, you talking drivel now. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally in the opening paragraph.

  "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity"

  You, alone, are still the only person who has claimed it wasn't supported by the sources I provided to support it. Apache287 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was involved at Suella Braverman (though I have largely stepped back while on holiday), and my memory of DeFacto is positive. The big issue there was extreme POV problems from an editor who has now been permanently blocked for edit warring, civility, and sock puppetry, and DeFacto was part of the solution, not part of the problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, looking through that as someone who wasn't involved the editor who was blocked by the end (Aimilios92) was definitely intent on POV-pushing and incapable of showing any level of good faith given the interactions they had (and how every other editor called out their behaviour as inappropriate).

  However, specifically in the section I exampled but also on the wider talk page, it was their interaction with another editor (Iskandar323) that was of relevancy here, in particular:

  - Their use of RS disclaimers for HuffPost (the caution warning on politics only applies to US politics) and The Guardian (despite referencing that "some" users accused it of bias it's still marked as a consensus-agreed RS) and stating that they should "perhaps find some undisputedly reliable sources that name more than one critic, and use those" which reads, in conjunction with the other examples used as part of this submission, as a further example of their habit of establishing arguably unachievable levels of evidential burden, given every source will be disputed by one group or another.

  - The use of "BLP" as a blunt instrument where they'll remove entire RS-backed sections. Even when quite reasonably asked why they don't just remove specific words/phrases or the excess sources they claim is a sign of "overciting" they object to if that's the claimed issue it's dismissed with "I could do a lot of things if I had more hours in a day, though I'm not sure that any of them would be the things you suggest", which is a rather odd justification given the purpose of the site. Apache287 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, and like you, Aimilios92 trawled through my Wiki history and dug out some nuggets that they also used against me, thinking it might, somehow, discredit me. And that was part of the reason they were blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As a minor detail on a wide-ranging ban a user used a prior block as an argument during a content dispute.

  I've supplied a number of diffs to show what I believe is a serious pattern of behaviour on the appropriate forum to discuss whether that pattern merits sanction, and as part of that used prior history (namely a four year block for tendentious editing) as relevant background.

  Those are blindingly different contexts and if you think that's going to work as some form of "watch yourself" comeback then you need to think harder on your rebuttals, which so far seem to be little more than listing policy as though that's an explanation of your questionable application of them. Apache287 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287. Your diffs are accompanied with false commentaries though, including misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth that were not said. Anyone looking at them will see that. If they can't, as I said in my first statement, I can happily provide more details. The 'background' is mud slinging. The BLP policy applies to us all, and your constant defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE needed attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And again, you can't help but claim everything is "false" about your actions and yet you take no notice of the fact several people in talk pages and this submission have all made the same comments in that you are blatantly not following the policy you're claiming to be enforcing.

  Frankly this continued "you're lying about me, it's all lies" defensiveness just goes to show why I thought it appropriate to bring it here, because you don't seem capable of listening to anyone but your own pre-built assumptions. Apache287 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apache287, okay, I said I would elaborate if challenged, so have started a new section below to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be careful with pointing fingers at users that got banned for the same behaviour that your are displaying. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking action against BLP violations is a duty, not a behaviour issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not relevant as that's not what that person was banned for. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested rebuttal details

This sub-section is in response to Apache287's comments made above at at 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Apache287, I'll go one-by-one though each of your 'examples', giving my reasons for rejecting them as baseless:

• Your example 1

A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Here's what I asked in the talkpage discussion:

After the other editor added a selection of six sources, and a commentary on them, I posted this question, asking them how they had arrived at that selection, an important consideration when evaluating the weight of what they were saying. I never suggested that they were cherry-picked. The other editor then introduced the term 'cherry-picked' in their response. Which I answered, again without any such suggestion.

Follow the thread and you'll see I never suggested cherry-picking, I tried to get a question about their selection answered, but with no joy, and they then capped my requests as off-topic! This gave rise to me posting this ANI request.

• Your example 2

A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source).

On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[81] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion. In that article we had a bizarre situation where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.

• Your example 3

A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323).

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Your accusation that I performed "selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said.

• Your example 4

A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article, Synth despite it being in the source, and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation.

On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion", suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[88], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative.

On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing".

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted your addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project".

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1:

Your initial response was: "@Cortador, I haven't read them yet, but I just wondered how you came across them. Did you search specifically for those views, or what?"

That is literally raising the possibility of them having cherry-picked them when you hadn't even read the sources. The fact you hadn't used the explicit phrase "cherry-picked" doesn't hide the obvious inference you were making.

Point 2:

Your claim "I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion" is straight up false. Your diff shows you tagged the main article on 20:00 UTC on 19 July, and then continued editing other pages as shown by your contribution log. The discussion on your COI tags, which can be entirely summed up as many other users expressing complete surprise and disbelief at what you were claiming, was started by a different user the next day.

Also throughout your entire justification is "may be biased", "might have a conflict of interest". You, alone, deciding there is a problem with their coverage is not evidence there actually is a problem with their coverage. And it's notable how you never presented any other RS to show that their coverage was out of step with wider coverage.

Point 3:

"I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said."

No consensus on reliability for international coverage is not the same as "not considered to be generally reliable for politics", quite simply because the latter is a statement that is suggesting there is consensus that it isn't reliable.

Point 4:

As I have stated and evidenced (numerous times at this point), no other editor deemed my changes to be OR. They deemed that subsequent alterations that removed the source to leave it as OR and then (quite understandably) removed it because as a result of that source removal the statement was unsupported. Your continued attempts to claim it was deemed OR by this third party are at this point frankly a lie.

hat we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

But that's the point, I don't regard you as acting in good faith. Your opposition to the changes I made have, over the past week, been whittled down from it being "editorialisation" to "well they used the phrase "public pressure" when I thought it should be "political criticism" and I've still yet to see you explain why you... didn't just make that change.

Every other editor, when examining my actual additions (and not when they've been further changed and had sources removed by someone else) have all expressed the same viewpoint which is why are you continuing to claim they're policy violations when they're clearly not.[35][36]

Your entire claimed reasoning behind the repeated reverting is textbook Wikilawyering, in fact I'd almost say you seem almost proud of that description given you're talking about your actions in terms such as "taking action against BLP violations is a duty", as though this was some kind of legal drama.

Despite the fact you keep calling my reasons for this report as "baseless" the fact is it's clearly anything but. So far the only real debate has been whether what you've done is enough to be formally sanctioned, not that your behaviour hasn't been a problem in general. It's not surprising to me that one of the first replies to this was someone describing you as "slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times." Apache287 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apache287, none of yours points hold water...

Point 1: mine was a straightforward question, yours was a disingenuous and inflammatory interpretation of it.

Point 2: 'false'? No, I added the tags at 2023-07-19T20:59:21, a discussion started at 2023-07-20T07:35:04 - it worked as I anticipated.

Point 3: the first sentence of the entry I cited, and as you quoted it, says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics". Which is exactly what I said. If it was considered to be generally reliable it would have a green background and a green tick in a circle.

Point 4: they reverted the content you added as OR, and as we never got to discuss it, you do not know what their rationale for that was.

It seems you are blind to the facts of the situation, and are grasping at straws. I suggest you stop digging. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: No, disingenuous is even raising the possibility someone "searched specifically" for sources that you haven't read.

Point 2: "it worked as I anticipated." No, if your intention was to start a talk page discussion then you'd have started the talk page discussion.

Point 3: Again "no consensus" is not the same as "not considered reliable", no consensus means it's reliability hasn't actually been properly ascertained so can't be immediately written off one way or the other.

Point 4: Seriously, stop lying. You know you're lying and everyone else can see it. They clearly as per the diffs presented removed an ALTERED statement someone had removed the source from. Apache287 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG can the three of you stop sniping at each other? (Don't respond to this, just stop.) --JBL (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an admin would step in and start proposing sanctions, they'd stop. I'd propose banning all 3 of them from the page and giving DeFacto a topic ban from British politics. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this being the most appropriate resolution. UnironicEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DontKnowWhyIBother and UnironicEditor:, given the evidence shown above, can y'all please elaborate on why not only should sanctions should be levied against DeFacto, but also a WP:TBAN from British Politics? — Knightoftheswords 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^ EEng 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to reach back a full decade to an unrelated topic that's already been resolved, you're really just demonstrating how weak your argument is. — Knightoftheswords 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is evidence that the issue has not in fact been resolved. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. You're scrabbling around in ancient history to try and revive a dead duck. There's no evidence of socking after 2015 per their SPI record. The previous socking was known when their indef was lifted in 2016. Dead duck. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread isn't about sockpuppeting specifically. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you say I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. then? DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the unban came with the expectation of better future behaviour, which evidently has not been fulfilled. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The socks are ancient history; nearly a decade old at this point. At its core, this thread is regarding a content dispute, with no direct accusations of incivility. This should be archived. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like no one but the 2 or 3 (?) protagonists are following this thread anymore. Someone needs to put it out of its misery. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user told me on the talk page of the article Muhammad that [1]

Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue.

Is this binding? Can a non-admin make a unilateral statement like this prohibiting another user from editing an article? To the best of my knowledge, the ones disputing my edits are the aforementioned editor; then @Jopharocen who doesn't seem to understand the function of citations and based his arguments on original research [2]. In one of his comments he particularly said [3]:

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit

@Chxeese who reverted all my edits on some articles, just because according to him I'm Islamophobic [4][5]
@Iskandar323 whose one of his objections is about me using this source ^[1]. I believe I have refuted his accusations against the author [6], but he went to another section and started making the same allegations [7]. I have been trying to invite him and @DeCausa to start an RfC to resolve the matter [8]. My most recent invitation has not been answered by him [9].
And @Admiral90, when I asked him if the works that cite the source in question say or at least suggest that the source is fringe [10], he answered it with [11]

I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research.

Kaalakaa (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is free to ask you to refrain from editing while disputes over your edits are resolved on the talk page. Being from an admin or not is mostly irrelevant. The only thing unique to admins is that if they are not involved they could say they will block you if you continue and directly follow up on that threat. However a non-admin or an involved admin could easily warn you that you may be blocked and report you somewhere appropriate if you continue. And if an uninvolved admin agrees your behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant blocking then they may block you. You do not need to and should not expect to be warned by an uninvolved admin to stop before you can be blocked. That said, this will only apply to further disruptive edits, so if do happen to make an edit which no one disputes, this is fine. (But consider if you have kept making changes which are disputed perhaps your assessment of what will be disputed is questionable.) In certain circumstances an uninvolved admin can unilaterally topic ban meaning you need to stop editing point blank and even an uncontroversial and undisputed edit is not okay, but that needs to be a lot more formal than than this. Note that WP:EW is definitely something which can earn a block, so if you keep making changes which are disputed and reverted you shouldn't be surprised if you're blocked for it. While it takes two to edit war, no editor should want a situation where both sides a blocked so editors should try and avoid it. And perhaps more importantly if it's a WP:1AM situation, the one editor shouldn't be surprised if they're blocked whereas the many editors who revert them are not. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalaaka, I can answer your questions: no and yes (although in view of the answer to the first question "prohibiting" isn't the right word). Btw, are you complaining about the other editors mentioned in your first post? If so, you haven't notified them of this thread with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and you would need to. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say something similar. I went to User talk:Jopharocen to warn them against canvassing but was surprised to find there was no notification and a check of the edit history shows it wasn't deleted. I will disagree DeCausa on one point though, the fact you directly brought up their actions here means you have to notify them regardless of whether you intended your comment to be a complaint. They are entitled to know you are talking about them here. Normally when it's just one or two editors I'll just notify them for you with a stern reminder to do so yourself in the future but I can't be bothered with you mentioning so many different editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you have to notify them

I just did that. Thanks for letting me know. I'm new to this. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeCausa is correct in their suggestion that Kaalakaa would do well to pause their editing on Muhammad amid the numerous active discussions on their recent editing, which have raised significant concerns over their approach to sourcing. The scale of Kaalakaa's recent edits to this GA-class page are such that they now account for roughly 45% of all content on the page, and this as a page with 5,000 historic editors. Given that the page has remained largely the same size, that means that roughly 45% of the page has been replaced in recent months. To be clear, this was not a page littered with tags in need of correction; this was a GA-class article (about a major global religious figure) ... though what the page qualifies as now remains to be assessed and determined. And yet, despite the extraordinary nature of these changes, the queries that have naturally arisen among other editors about the edits and sourcing have been met with what appears to be both a lack of understanding and reluctance to address core elements of policy, e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is a collegiate environment, so editors are expected to be able to answer questions regarding their edits with respect to policy, not least when the edits in question have had a significant impact on an existing high-quality article in an obviously contentious topic space. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the WP:WEIGHT issue that you (and @DeCausa) have raised in our discussion is mostly that of the following book^[1] in which you accused the author of various allegations [1] based on the following Bloomsbury link you provided, which in fact does not correspond to your claims as I explained here [2]. You gave "undue" and "dubious" tags to all the material sourced from the book [3]. When I was in the process of adding other sources to support the material [4], @DeCausa came to tell me to stop editing until there was a consensus that I could edit again [5].

At the top of the article's talk page it is clearly written:

Muhammad has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do.

I saw many problems with this article when I first came there such as WP:SYNTH [6]; WP:OR [7] [8]; Source misrepresentation [9] [10], etc. Not to mention that most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. That was why I decided to improve the article with other and more recent sources, according to WP:AGEMATTERS, and include a number of important details about the subject that in the previous version seemed to have been deliberately left out in order to protect his image, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Other editors who took issue with my edits such as @Jopharocen, who particularly said [11]:

"I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit..."

generally base their arguments on their understanding of primary sources, which is not allowed for Wikipedia articles. As much as I'd like to refute their arguments it would only turn the talk page into a primary source debate forum, which is against WP:NOTFORUM. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't make any allegation against the author (describing the author's claims as Fringe is perfectly acceptable). Some of the hundreds of edits that you made to a GA article, that is probably no longer so because of the justified tags that ensued, are disputed, so now is the perfect time for you to take a break from editing and start addressing the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to make a clarification here. @Iskandar323, claimed that based on this link, the author of this book^[1] "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1], and started to put "undue" and "dubious" tags to every material sourced from the book [2]. However, when I informed him that the content of the link says otherwise [3]

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

He dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [4]. After I told him that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [5], he said "the link is worthless" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [6]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [7].

The book in question^[1] is a publication from the University Press of Florida. Our WP:RS says that

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
...
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

The book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida,^[2] so it is very reliable. WP:RSUW states that:

The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion

But apparently we couldn't agree, so I invited him to start an RfC on the matter a few times. My latest invitation hasn't been responded to by him yet [37]. I was also in the process of finding and adding other reliable sources that support the material sourced from it [8], but @DeCausa came and told me to cease from editing the article until there is a consensus that I can continue [9]. Kaalakaa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaalakaa Until this moment you're only claiming that my discussions were based on my understanding of primary sources to avoid the discussion, and I've refuted that unfounded accusation many times and even asked you multiple times to point where exactly I put my own understanding of the sources when I even showed sources that explain parts you - either intentionally or ignorantly - didn't include for the sake of defamation.

The assassination of Ka'b is a clear example, as despite proving a source for you, you helplessly insisted to deny that his tribe had a pact with Muhammad which he violated it and sided with the enemy which was the main reason for his assassination, a punishment for treason not a murder for a personal matter as you claimed by using your own interpretation of primary sources. It wasn't a personal matter when it involves a threat to the entire community when Ka'b - using your own words in the article, aroused them to retaliate, that is, the Meccan enemies. So I'm not only providing a reference to refute your interpretation, but even used your own words which contradict your interpretation, yet you claim that I'm the one using personal interpretation.

You have ignored to discuss that for sure and simply replied by:

we don't give a damn about your theories

Which is of course a subjective attitude which I don't think the gentlemen here would approve.

You will happily accept the Satanic verses despite never being narrated with a sound chain of transmission simply because its recorded in the earliest surviving biography, and because some Western scholars also quoted it providing various interpretations. But you will struggle to deny Muhammad's miracles throughout the article, despite them being recorded as well in the very same earliest surviving biography as well as in almost all canonical books of hadith because they don't suit you and are making you losing your defamation campaign.

And before you come up with the argument that miracles are myths from a secular perspective, don't forget that Satan is also a myth from a secular perspective. Therefore the Satanic verses cannot take place from a secular perspective.

Also, I'm not opening a new discussion here, but merely pointing out topics that were already discussed in Muhammad:Talk page and clarifying that you didn't respond and either aggressively rebuked me or ignored to respond, so that your accusations be clear that they are unfounded. Jopharocen (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like neither of you are capable of editing neutrally on the article. Your classification of someone trying to elevate the perspectives of actual historians over your own religious dogma as "defamation" tells me that you need to be banned from the article as well, as you are quite obviously incapable of putting aside your religious sensibilities to collaborate. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of being an Islamaphobe without any evidence. I have brought up my case [[Talk:Muhammad#Recent_editing]]. The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists. Chxeese (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists.

Once again, that's absolutely incorrect. Efraim Karsh, whom you regard as being pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Yale University Press, is only cited for brief information about Muhammad's attack on the caravan at Nakhla, and this material is supported by numerous other sources, including W. M. Watt. As for David Bukay, another expert you consider pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Routledge, he's cited solely for one statement, which is a direct quote from Muhammad ordering his followers to kill Ka'b ibn Ashraf, and that's supported by Sahih al-Bukhari. Arun Shourie, who according to you is a Hindu nationalist, merely served as a supplementary source for two already existing reliable sources, and he has already been replaced with another reliable source. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like both disputing parties should refrain from inserting their personal commentary in regards to the creditability of a source especially if it's misrepresentation which skips building consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaalakaa

This user is making Wikipedia a troll site adding this blunder 1 2 and several other false, dubious information while disregarding due weight. Note this blunder has stand removed now by another person 1. See the editor's edits on the article Muhammad. See also the talk page on article Muhammad where the editor's addition is opposed on several grounds by several editors. Moreover the quality of the article has downgraded to a troll site to an extent. The editor has disregard for truth as evidenced by addition of this blunder. The editor disregard the fact that self contradiction or other blunder or false information contained even in the reliable or so-called reliable sources has to be avoided. Moreover the disputed content in any source whether reliable or the other cannot be taken because of which independent sources are relied on. I wonder whether the editor forgot the password of their earlier account [38] for escaping from the possible ban of this account. So it would be great if the editor is compelled to reveal their earlier account and verify it: anyway chances are that it could be found by a sockpuppetry investigation. This would be helpful to know whether the similar fasion of disruptive edit has been done by that account also. I consider this user's edits unhelpful and useless while also severing less for educative purpose. Hence unencyclopedic. I see discussion with this editor on the talk page is useless since this person has disregard for truth. I believe a debate on blunder is blunder. Gaming of the system or misusing Wikipedia is to be suspected if the editor gets favourable response about the editor's additions or anything conducive for it. I see no option left to solve the problems except a ban on this editor. A ban on this editor is necessary to avoid general sanctions on the topic which is especially true because of misuse by one or few editors.

Because of all of these things I say the edits the editor makes are in the nature of bad faith edits. Also see the recent edits by this editor. With this editor's edits the quality, usefulness, trustworthiness, educative purpose and neutrality of the article has degraded. Having disregard for truth while also making bad faith edits, the editor deserves indefinite block which is especially true since the editor behaves as if not a new commer as evidenced by the editor's citations of Wikipedia, while also admitting to had an account earlier whose password the editor says to have forgot. [39]. An outright block is needed since the user is likely to justify their edits.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DeCausa where the editor is apparently trying to find all the possibilities to add such bad faith edits. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the old account is on the new account's user page.

Old account: Kaalaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account: Kaalakaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way over here.2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this discussion a subthread of the other one which is basically on the same issue started by the editor who was named in this thread. We deal with all editors involved in a dispute so there's no reason to have separate threads on the same issue. And frankly neither discussion should have a headline with either editor's name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of DeCausa's edits to the page on Muhammad had edit summaries, whereas only 31% of Kaalakaa's edits had an edit summary. That makes it a lot easier for other editors to edit collaboratively with DeCausa than with Kaalakaa - especially given the very large numbers Kaalakaa made over a period of 3 months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained above that when I first came to the article I saw many problems within it (which I explained in my edit summaries) such as WP:SYNTH [1]; WP:OR [2] [3]; Source misrepresentation [4] [5], etc. Moreover most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. So I decided to revamp some of the content and also add other and more recent sources, as per WP:AGEMATTERS. For about a month no one disputed my edits, until @Jopharocen came along and based on his understanding of primary sources, said that my edits were wrong, accused me of defamation [6] [7], and stated [3]:

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit

Kaalakaa (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaalakaa At everytime you tag me, I be hoping that you'll address a concern, then I find that you're repeating yourself over and over. I have provided sources to what I said, therefore its not an interpretation of primary sources, I even showed secondary sources and showed with clear evidence that you have used your own personal interpretation many times with no response from you.

By the way, I started to cite sources for my earlier criticism of your editions in the Wiki manner to be clear to all editors but @DeCausa removed and reverted them as they were, which I understand the reason for doing this. But no problem, I'll gladly make new topics on the talk page and cite new sources in the Wiki manner whenever I'll have time, to stop hearing the unfounded accusation regarding using my own interpretation to avoid discussing my points.

No need to keep showing the same statement at everytime to tag me as well, when you said "We don't give a damn to your theories" and started to be subjective rather than objective. Jopharocen (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopharocen, I'm not the only one who says that what you're doing constitutes original research based on primary sources; other editors think so too [1] [2]. The only secondary source you've provided is a book by Martin Lings, an Islamic scholar, which, frankly, I'm uncertain is reliable or unbiased. (If we can use that source, then we should be able to use Zondervan books as well for the Muhammad article, but we don't.) Furthermore, the source you've provided doesn't directly refute the content in the article; instead, it's your interpretation that connects two distinct events to arrive at that conclusion. Please note that at the end of each statement on Wikipedia (which can be as short as one sentence or even a single paragraph), there is typically a [number] which, when clicked, reveals the source for that statement. All my edits are based on cited sources. If you think they're not, provide evidence. Accusing without proof or making false accusations can be considered a personal attack, and you could get banned from Wikipedia for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KaalakaaYes I'll gladly use more sources in the Wiki manner you mention but they were reverted as replies were already made, that's why I offered to make new topics.

As for Martin Lings' book, it's recognized widely by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as it's solely based on earliest sources.So your opinion of it doesn't really matter when it comes to a neutral research.

Others accused me of using my interpretation and I asked for evidence with no response. Other editors accused you of the article being no longer neutral and provided evidences of that.

I'm still asking, where is my interpretation? I already showed where you added your interpretation but you didn't do the same. Jopharocen (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopharocen:

I already showed where you added your interpretation

Where is that? Do you mean in this comment of yours where you said:

But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.

Have you checked and read the source cited?

• Sells, Michael. Ascension, Encyclopedia of the Quran, vol.1, p.176.

Which explicitly states:

Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).

p.177

However, the identity of “the furthest place of prayer” has been disputed, leading to several traditions about the ascension.

FYI, even before my first edit on the article, this source was already there, but it was misrepresented. So, I removed the misrepresentation and wrote what it actually says. As simple as that. So, your claim that it is my own personal interpretation of the Quran is clearly a false accusation which constitutes a personal attack.

Regarding your practice of interpreting primary sources in attempts to falsify statements in the article that are based on reliable secondary sources, there are many examples of this. One of them is this:

Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67.

Kaalakaa (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is showing very inappropriate behaviour. They are doing constant BLUDGEONing and are attacking other editors who disagree with them, as shown here regarding a Template for Discussion request. They are also indirectly attacking other users via their talk page, and putting inappropriate content in said talk page as well. They are not showing the best behaviour. They have previously been blocked, and reported, numerous times in the past. They appear to be a repeat offender of Wikipedia policies, and I suggest an indefinite block due to their actions / behaviour. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Evelyn Harthbrooke, don’t forget to leave a msg on Iterresise’s talk page using the template and instructions at the top of this page. It’s required.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Sorry! Done. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely bludgeoning at that TfD as Evelyn reported.

This response to previous talk page warnings is not collegial:Special:MobileDiff/1098453210

–A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous ANI discussion (also July 2022). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which was removed nor did it target anyone. Iterresise (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iterresise was blocked once in July 2022 for 24 hours for edit warring, and there have been no warnings about editing conduct since then on their talk page. However, their behavior in the TfD does appear to be uncivil and bludgeoning. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They made 22 edits between August 2022 and August 2023, so the absence of warnings during that period indicates little. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They spent hours preparing this TfD in their sandbox. They may have been surprised and dismayed by the opposition at the TfD after all that work. I’m not advocating for deletion, just pointing to a possible factor in their behaviour today. (I !voted delete). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not site ban....a block ok....much easier to follow this account then to find the sock they will make. Moxy- 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astounding. User:Moxy says "Chalk this up to new editor (585 edits)" and this isn't a personal attack yet I am accused of a personal attack by WP:BULLYING and WP:TAGTEAMing? He was warned here. I'm shocked Evelyn Harthbrooke didn't get the message. It's rather diseingeionous. And her behavior wasn't WP:CIVIL. This is shocking. And by the way: "astounding" is her word. I'm not sure what bludgeoning even means. Was I not patient? Did I carefully explain the situation? The discussion revealed some new aspects to the issue. How did I bludgeoning anything? "this TFD request is honestly astoundingly ridiculous": that's bludgeoning. "reported, numerous times in the past": completely false. Iterresise (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack to suggest that inexperience may play a role in a TfD nomination meeting with unanimous disagreement. For bludgeoning, see WP: BLUDGEON. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright: I get it. My intent wasn't to bludgeon: The fact was that I had removed the templates which was met with resistance and in previous discussions of the series of templates, some of the solutions weren't presented. It's as simple as that. Iterresise (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You voted delete? You voted keep actually. Iterresise (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I !voted keep. Typo --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like [40] I find to be a waste of my time: "too many templates in the TfD bundle" I already commented on this. "deleting so many would disrupt so many articles": not a valid reason for keeping templates if others get deleted so you need to present a unique reason for keeping the templates: otherwise I find your comment to be disingenuous. Iterresise (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iterresise, you said you had already commented on "too many templates in the TfD bundle" so you're objecting here^{(see above)} to my !vote where I made that comment. The TfD is not a discussion just with you; it's a community discussion. We share our opinions (!votes) on what should be done. We're expected to give a reasoning for our !vote but it's not required to be unique. The comment I made that you objected to was not a response to you, it was my legitimate !vote in the community discussion that you started.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was "And how would you propose to bundle the templates?". That's what I meant when I said "I already commented on this.". Iterresise (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the votes addressed any of the new issues I presented. The behavior of the participants is disingenuous. Ironic. Iterresise (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Iterresise. I am listing down a few of your contributions over the past few days:

1. "I am a virgin"
2. "do you think hypocrites and liars are selfish and hateful people?"
3. "how ridiculous" (edit summary)
4. "hypocrites and liars"
5. "hypocrite" (edit summary)
6. "You are being ridiculous"
7. "Another ridiculous keep vote."
8. "Please stop lying."
9. "How annoying and childish"
10. "Stop being ridiculous"

This is quite tendentious. Might I advise you to introspect and stop such aggressive attacks on other editors? You may have a reason to get disappointed on your TfD issue, but that has no leeway to address fellow editors as liars, childish, ridiculous... If you don't acknowledge this issue, it will not lead to anywhere good. Thank you, Lourdes 08:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes They're just going to enter defensive mode. They've done that with the entire TfD discusion and they're even doing it here. As you saw they even attacked me by removing the notice I posted and calling me a hypocrite. This is overall just very disappointing behaviour from them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Harthbrooke: I reverted myself with a blank edit summary. Iterresise (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iterresise Reverting doesn't mean anything. You still made the comments in the edit summary and still called me a hypocrite. That is still really disrespectful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went to your link and it didn't take me to this section. I thought it was bogus. Iterresise (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it will almost certainly lead to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE if your edits continue in this slant and if it cannot be proven that your edits/contributions are a net positive to Wikipedia. As Lourdes suggested, you need to step back and ask yourself if this is how you want your time and tenure (however long that may be) at Wikipedia to be reflected. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A holiday is in order Iterresise - Revision as of 00:41, September 5, 2023 Moxy- 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth observing that they self-reverted 2 minutes after leaving those comments. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They still called other editors liars, but the self reversion does say something. Whether it's "oh this is wrong" or "oh this might get me blocked" I don't know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're following this, @Iterresise, just walk away for a few days for your own sake. Let go for now - go have some fun. This is really just a huge website -- it's not worth all this aggravation for any of us.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a miscommunication. The selfreverts were because that was wrong. I would recommend closing this thread. Iterresise (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it wrong? Genuinely wanting to know your stance on this. After that, we can consider closing this thread - with a warning at minimum, of course. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong to make those edits in the first place. It is considerably better simply to not act out in the first place than to think twice about having done so while you're under ANI scrutiny. Ravenswing 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:WaltCip + User:Ravenswing: I replied to the posts on the TfD. Then, I saw the ANI discussion so I went to undo myself and explain the situation. Does that make sense? Iterresise (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense. However, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of introspection on your part as to why the behavior is wrong and why it's not good form here to call your fellow editors liars, but I leave it up to an admin to determine whether this is actionable. It seems to me that in order to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia, there needs to be a clear understanding as to why civility is important. However, I will at least concur with A. B. in concurring that it's truly in your best interests to voluntarily self-disengage from Wikipedia for some time if you find that you are becoming frustrated. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes civility is important however I did not feel I was treated with civility. The first block was the result of my lack of reply on the talk page discussion where I made revertsreverts I made before my reply on the talk page discussion. I didn't do this this time around. I was frustrated. Consider that I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for. Iterresise (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion proposal failed. It's unfortunate that you spent so much time on it, but consensus is clear. The bludgeoning and personal attacks on a proposal that was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK [41] are bad enough, but your comment I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for. shows that you still don't get it. That the result was not the one you wanted does not make it invalid. You have been told by several editors to drop this. It's good advice. Meters (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The valid answer was that data for the national templates are populated by censuses. Is that clear? Iterresise (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. The sheer irony of "Liar! You should WP:AGF" is headshaking. I give zero props to a self-revert here when calling other editors "liars" seems SOP with Iterresise. Ravenswing 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[42]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[43]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[44] and User:Butlerblog[45] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[46], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.

This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [47] [48] and at AN/I: [49].

He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [50]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [51]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.

He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users are responsible for every edit made. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.

ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [52][53][54][55][56]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[57], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[58]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [59] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.

You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.

To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.

However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.

You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is: You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.

What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.

I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.

Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.

Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate |date= parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.

Having said that, the aforementioned comment: I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way....

Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.

If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never agitated against MoS being applicable either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies.

  Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.

  If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, I'll take this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please, undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare... is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal : Site ban

Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing

Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify this: ...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal - These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [60]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. Silverseren^C 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  re At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.

As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This has been an ongoing issue for far too long already, and this proposal is the most basic measure to start mitigating it. --Sable232 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Given the potential for widespread damage to the wiki, the standard for automated or semi-automated editing ought to be higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic ban on drive-by recapitalisation and repiping, details apply

There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.

Dicklyon is topic banned from:

• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.

These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.

These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.

This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.

Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value, I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against you your approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [61]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:

  • Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [62] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year and that he has made unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. [63]
  • Dicklyon was blocked for sockpuppetry in May 2015; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive. His socks' edits were MOS related (mainly capitalization).
  • An editor from a previous ANI thread said Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. That was from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves which, again, is capitalization-related (May 2020).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon was in March 2022 (mass edits related to capitalization).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon and pointless edits once again was in April 2022 (decapitalization edits, semi-automated edits).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization was three months ago in May 2023.

  This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit. That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines.
  There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think that an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding too many caveats which make it unworkable as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above: All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2crzppul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be adding errors, be they careless or deliberate, to virtually every article they edit. For some useful background see the discussion on their talk page at User talk:2crzppul#Marcel Demonceau from July this year, where they were told Wikipedia isn't a source. In particular pay attention to their reply of "Read the sources, I'm not a Kindle" to the straightforward request "Which source, precisely".

On to some of their article edits.

List of convicted war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article, an IP editor removed the entry for Alfred Taylor (British Army officer), on the grounds he was acquitted (according to his article anyway, and therefore rather obviously not convicted). This was restored without explanation by 2crzppul.

Hanno Konopath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) creates this article with sources including Wikidata, a blogspot blog, or sources that don't even source the sentences they are next to.

List of Nazi Party organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article adds the claim that the "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Union der Hand und Kopfarbeiter) were "established by or closely associated with the Nazi Party", supposedly in 1840 before being dissolved in 1945. In reality, the Union of Manual and Intellectual Workers (same German name) were close to the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and existed from 1921 to 1925.

List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) At this article adds (right at the bottom) an "Other" sub-section to the "Government" section with an entry for "Nahid Kulenović, newspaper editor". According to the linked article he was born in 1929, and while related to an official in the Independent State of Croatia", was highly unlikely to be anyone of significance during WWII, since he didn't turn 16 until the war had ended in Europe.

Those glaring errors are just from their last few days of editing, I wish I had the time to dig further but I'm hoping people will be able to see there is a problem in need of a solution. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm 2crzppul, please note that the Union of Manual and Mental Workers, is not the same organizations as the one you are comparing it to. Also, Nahid Kulenović was also present on the article prior to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Can you actually provide any evidence for the existence of this organisation from 1940 to 1945? I can find absolutely no evidence of the existence of an organisation with the exact same name at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe it appropriate, you may remove the entry. 2crzppul (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further behaviour I meant to add. See this version of Draft:Contested (which was created in mainspace). It is unclear exactly what it's supposed to be, since all the wikilinks pipe to completely random pages. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made by my brother on my account. He no longer has access to my account. I apologize for his actions. 2crzppul (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you've admitted that your account is a compromised account now correct? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. My brother no longer has access to my account 2crzppul (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LITTLEBROTHER -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page is literally a joke. And it was my older brother. Thank you. Go fuck yourself. 2crzppul (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was trying to be nice, but I'm blocking now. That comment was uncalled for, and to be honest even outside the admitted compromise of your account, there are other valid concerns with your editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the high risk of subtle hoaxes such as the description of an imaginary 1940-1945 "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Special:Diff/1174182920 during this ANI discussion, Special:Diff/1173990153/1174182920), I have now moved all pages created by 2crzppul and not substantially edited by others in the meantime to the draft namespace. For example, the above-mentioned Hanno Konopath is now at Draft:Hanno Konopath. Additionally, I have reverted most of their contributions to pages that have not been edited by others since. 2crzppul has been editing for 6 months and a lot of misinformation may remain hidden. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate ToBeFree’s caution. This article, Ashot Mkrtychev looks legit, which is out of the pattern. Maybe the other brother wrote it?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hanno Konopath is not a hoax either. It is however a very poorly sourced article on a person who is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly into Hanno Konopath yesterday, and concur with Random person no 362478479's assessment. Narky Blert (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conor Mccreedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rietvlei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Conor Mccreedy is semi-protected to prevent repeated disruptive promotional edits. New editor Rietvlei gamed the system by making a series of null edits and subsequently added 10k of content to the article. According to WP:PGAME, the remedy for such action is an administrator warning so I am bringing it here for that reason.

Given that the article has been subject to repeated promotional edits which suggested ownership by "interested parties", I would also suggest there is a good chance of undisclosed paid edits here too. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a June 27 comment in the protection log of Conor Mccreedy, User:Daniel Case wrote "Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; restarting with indef because this has been so persistent." Other entries in the log state that the article has been troubled by sockpuppetry. Notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty69t/Archive. User:McGeddon wrote in another SPI in 2014 that "The entire Conor Mccreedy article looks like it may have been written by COI socks since 2011." If the problem continues the simplest admin action would surely be indefinite EC protection. This protection would curtail the socking while still allowing good-faith edit requests on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, if anyone is so disposed (which I am not because I don't have time to look into this enough), that may let a deletion discussion take place without too much disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put Conor Mccreedy under indefinite WP:ECP, per my above rationale. This doesn't rule out a nomination for AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User CriticKende continuously employs original research to edit articles, see History of Transylvania: 1, 2, 3. Previously on the article Vlachs: 1 which was admitted here and on Keszthely Culture article for example here which was admitted on the talk page here and on another dicussion seen here. I have opened a discussion on his talk page at User talk:CriticKende#Recent edits on History of Transylvania after which he briefly stopped editing and resumed today with this. His OR edits are sometimes masked under citations of sources but those sources do not, specifically or at all, say what the editor added, circumventing 3rd opinion mediation as seen here.

Edit: sorry, I missed the most recent example: 1, after the discussion on the user's talk page.Aristeus01 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am insistent, is there someone who can provide some assistance ? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

021120x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user was blocked for edit warring. But they have also made pa's in edit summaries [[64]] (not as well misrepresenting sources, this is in fact highly edited, in that it leaves out some context that alters what it says). Is bludgeoning the discussion (and telling about half a dozen experienced edds they are all wrong), launching somewhat dishonest RFC's [[65]] (not one had in fact objected to this), continues to misrepresent the source by cheery picking [[66]] [[67]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Your first two diffs are from 2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake god knows that happened there. [[68]] [[69]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be stating the obvious, but: The two broken diff links both lack their two final digits, compared to the correct ones. Likely broken while copying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Obvious? Not to normal people. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]